Iraqi groups continued voicing their opposition to the nomination of the new regime. Dr.Mizhir al-Dulaimi, head of the League for Defense of Iraqi People's Rights, dismissed the new nomination of Mr.al-Yawir, saying it will never change the reality of regime leadership. He was quoted by the Saudi daily al-Riyadh as saying, "There is no real sovereignty handover. What happened is really ridiculous." Dr.Mizhir explained there is no solution to the situation in Iraq except for full sovereignty and a total pull out of foreign forces from Iraq. "The resistance will have the final and decisive say in Iraq in the next phase." He added, "the new nominations underline the fact that no real change has taken place and that the mission of the UN envoy to choose efficient and honest Iraqis, other than from the Interim Governing Council, has failed."
The three main associations of Iraqi tribes and clans expressed their reservations regarding the nominations for the new regime. Ghalib al-Rikabi [from Nasiriya, in the southeast of Iraq], secretary general of the Iraq Tribes Council was quoted by Islammemo.cc as saying that appointing al-Yawir as President after leaking rumors that they supported Dr. Pachachi was a ploy to rally Iraqi popular support around al-Yawir as being opposed to the American occupation. "This farce came as an extension to the farce of the Interim Governing Council, after a year of failures," said al-Rikabi. Nasrallah abdul-Kareem, spokesman of the National Council of Iraqi Tribes [from Mosul in northern Iraq] said the way nominations were made was unhealthy and an extension to the term of Governing Council, which lacks legitimacy and acceptability in Iraq. "The new regime is a product of US-led occupation and will implement its will," he said, adding that he has no reservations against Mr. al-Yawir personally.
Sami al-Dulaimy, spokesman of the National Alliance of Trbes and Clans of Iraq welcomed the appointment of al-Yawir in the almost ceremonial post of President, but said that, if the new regime is to succeed, it should not allow itself to be controlled by occupation forces.
The al-Quds alArabi daily of London, in an editorial article, said the nomination party of the new regime is reminiscent of that of its predecessor, the Governing Council, except for a slight change demonstrated by the absence of an effective role for Pentagon favorite,Ahmad Chalabi and some of his colleagues. "The new regime is a miniature of governing council, with no surprises, and it's difficult to see any different future than that of the council" the paper said, explaining that the nominations were made on the basis of sectarian and ethnic divisions and with a a very secondary role for the UN. "The Premier-designate, Allawi is a collaborator with the United States and its secret service, while President-designate al-Yawir is close to US State Department, though he gets credit for being a little more independent financially and politically than others and enjoys tribal support," said al-Quds al-Arabi.
The paper insisted that the new regime will continue to be an American one that's occupying an Iraq lacking in sovereignty until a real free elections are held and foreign occupation forces are totally withdrawn. "The future of Iraq under the new regime will likely be worse than that of Afghanistan: its regime will be like that of Karzai,i.e., controlling no more than its headquarters, while the vast majority of the country is controlled by chaos and violence" said the paper, which concluded: "We got used to seeing a US administration good at destruction, changing regimes, and dismembering countries but bad at construction and laying down strategies for peace and stability."
al-Arabiya TV reported a large American offensive against the Western town of Rawa. As if inaugurating the nomination of the newly installed regime, American occupation forces forced a siege on this upper Euphrates at 4 A.M. and sent its tanks and armored vehicles into the town while its helicopters were shelling it. This is the second time American occupation forces attack this town. The first was carried out last year on the pretext of searching for resistance fighters, leaving the town in a shambles, with many houses destroyed and many people harshly and humiliatingly captured.
al-Jazeera TV said Resistance groups shelled an American military base in the airport of the northern oil city of Kirkuk, causing huge explosions. Iraqpatrol.com said the resistance rockets hit an amunition dump. Yesterday evening, another attack was launched on an American position, injuring two soldiers. Islammemo.cc reported an attack on a mixed patrol in the historic city of Babel, injuring three Philipine soldiers. It also reported an attack on an American convoy in Baghdad on the airport road. A military trailer was destroyed. In Mahmoodiya, south of Baghdad, another convoy was attacked. Two Hummer vehicles were hit. The first was totally destroyed, with its crew, whereas the driver of the second was killed and two other soldiers injured.
Why did American occupation forces bomb a wedding party in the Makr elDeeb village in the western desert, along the Jordanian and Syrian borders a few weeks ago? The London-based Quds Press agency [qud.catalyst.com] quoted Abu Sabah, the uncle of the bridegroom, who was killed together with his bride and 39 Iraqis, as saying the real reason lay in the role played by some members of this village in facilitating the escape of American soldiers from Iraq. "We have helped many officers and other soldiers to run away abroad, the last of which were 13 soldiers a few days before the attack" he said adding that the American occupation forces were infuriated and showed their anger when they took many off for interrogation.