20pc of Iraqis displaced or refugeesBy Robert Evans in Geneva
March 19, 2008 01:10am
Article from: ReutersFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
NEARLY one in five of Iraq's population before the US-led invasion five years ago are living as internally displaced people or refugees in other countries, a global relief agency says.

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) today said the 2.7 million displaced were putting huge pressure on Iraq's shaky infrastructure and outside funding was lacking.

The situation of the 2.4 million refugees, who are mainly in Syria and Jordan, was also deteriorating, said the IOM, an independent body that cooperates with the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies.

"There is very little light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq's humanitarian crisis," IOM spokeswoman Jemini Pandya said.

"Conditions for the displaced, and refugees, have been getting steadily worse."

Before the 2003 intervention which overthrew Saddam Hussein, the population of Iraq was some 27 million.

A report from the UN refugee agency UNHCR today said in 2007 twice as many Iraqis - some 45,200 - applied for asylum in industrialised countries as in 2006.

The IOM said refugees and internally displaced - commonly known as IDPs - returning to Iraq or their home areas accounted for only about 1 per cent of the total.

Many returnees could not go back to their homes because they were occupied by other people - normally from another Muslim religious group - or had been destroyed.

Although there had been a large number of IDPs in Iraq under Saddam, the 2003 invasion displaced tens of thousands more, IOM said.

The number soared in 2006 as a result of sectarian violence, at one point reaching 60,000 a month.

Some of Iraq's regional governates, unable to take the pressure on their resources of large numbers of new arrivals, had closed their borders to IDPs while nearby countries were limiting refugees using visa restrictions.

"Many IDPs live in sub-standard or over-crowded shelter as they are largely without income to afford escalating rent prices," IOM said.

More than 75 per cent had no access to government food rations and nearly 20 per cent lacked supplies of clean water.

Some 33 per cent could not get the medicine they needed while only 20 per cent had had any help from humanitarian agencies.

White House: Confusion Over Long-Term Agreement With Iraq Resulted From A Sloppy Arabic Translation»
In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship” that committed America to defending Iraq:

Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats. […]

Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.

At the time, the White House said that the unprecedented arrangement would not need “input” from Congress.

After facing intense criticism from lawmakers, the White House backed off, recently stating that arrangement is “not going to have a security guarantee.” Officials are now trying to come up with excuses to explain away their initial bumbling as well. Their latest? The long-term agreement was incorrectly translated from Arabic to English. Politico reports:

But the senior administration official, who briefed two Politico reporters on the condition that he not be identified by name, said that the “security assurances” phrase “was something we struggled with, it really was.” He said the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and that a better translation might have been, “We’ll consult.”

This excuse seems unlikely. First, White House officials have never before mentioned it. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said that the administration “certainly did not speak to this unfortunate translation from Arabic” when it briefed senators on the planned agreement recently. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) also said that he hadn’t heard the argument.

Second, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Bergner recently stated that Bush does have “constitutional authority” to “continue combat operations” in Iraq without Congress’s authorization. As evidence, he cited the 2002 authorization of force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution passed after 9/11. Clearly, Bergner never thought there was an Arabic mistranslation.

Both Webb and Delahunt also have their doubts about the administration’s newest excuse:

Delahunt said he suspected that the administration, having been “outed, if you will” by congressional oversight, has decided that it’s the “safe course” to argue that the words aren’t what they appear to be. Webb’s spokeswoman, Jessica Smith, wondered why the White House didn’t “retranslate” the offending language before releasing the Declaration of Principles.

This distrust is understandable; in January, Bush attached a signing statement to a defense authorization bill saying that he would disregard a provision that “bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq.”

The truth is that White House officials tried to undermine Congress on Iraq and were forced to muster a weak excuse when they were caught.

Black pastors around the nation are attacking Obama "The lap Daddy" for his lies and abuse of women!
YouTube - Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"

FoxNews trains it's Bushbots well.

The Big Three doesn't, you can't train idiots.

__________________
How soon do we get our rebates, free health care, lower taxes, better schools, and cheap energy?