Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - The leading Democratic presidential candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have launched fierce attacks in recent days on a White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office.
Among the top critics is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). She has used the past two Democratic presidential debates to blast President Bush for his effort, as she put it Monday in South Carolina, "to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy."
Her concerns have been echoed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and other Democratic lawmakers who are focusing their fire on the administration's plans for a long-term commitment to Iraq, after gaining little traction for their efforts to force a faster withdrawal of U.S. combat troops there.
"How do you make an commitment to a country where there is no way of measuring whether that country is likely to have a functioning government?" Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, asked in an interview yesterday.
Biden recently wrote a letter to Bush expressing concern that the agreement could "mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely." Biden and other lawmakers held out the possibility that they will try to block the administration's plans to reach a bilateral accord with Iraq, or at least seek to compel the White House to submit any such agreement for congressional approval.
Administration officials said the next president will have full authority to withdraw troops if that is desired. They said Democrats are reading too much into the plan, which they describe as an effort to give the next commander in chief the tools to deal with the situation in Iraq.
Efforts to secure an agreement began with little fanfare late last year. The White House announced then that it was opening negotiations with the Iraqis on a new bilateral agreement that would cover how the two countries will relate politically, economically, culturally and militarily in the years ahead.
The agreement would include "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter foreign aggression, according to a declaration of principles that Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed in November. Officials said they hope to conclude the pact by mid-year, in time to replace the expiring United Nations mandate that authorizes the operations of coalition troops in Iraq.
As described by administration officials, the accord would amount to a standard "status of forces agreement" with a friendly country. It would cover such issues as the power U.S. forces would have to arrest and detain Iraqis, or the rules covering engagement with the enemy.
Historically, such agreements have not been submitted to Congress for approval, though administration officials concede that if they were to agree to certain security "guarantees" for the Iraqis, they would have to bring the matter before the Senate. Lawmakers are insisting that the proposed agreement is already broad enough to require congressional review.
"While the exact structure of the forthcoming agreement is yet to be negotiated, the U.S. has concluded similar agreements with more than 120 countries around the world, including many countries in the region," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. He also addressed a key concern raised by Clinton and other Democrats: "The Iraqi government has indicated that they do not want permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and we are not seeking them."
The accord has stirred liberal activists, with the advocacy group MoveOn.org recently garnering more than 250,000 signatures on a petition demanding congressional involvement in any agreement.
Democrats' suspicions have been further fanned in recent weeks by comments from Bush and from senior Iraqi officials suggesting that a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq could endure for years. During his recent trip to the Middle East, Bush spoke of how "long-term success will require active U.S. engagement that outlasts my presidency."
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq is set to decrease from 160,000 to 130,000 by summer.
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) convened a hearing yesterday to explore the proposed agreement. He dismissed the contention that the proposal is routine, saying that administration officials declined to explain themselves before his Foreign Affairs subcommittee.
"We don't trust this administration," he said, suggesting that at first glance, the scope of the proposed agreement goes well beyond that of a standard status-of-forces agreement.
Despite such sentiments, Bush and his advisers express the private conviction that any presidential successor will find it hard to disengage from Iraq, no matter what is said on the campaign trail. One senior official, not authorized to speak publicly, said Clinton or any another would-be president will eventually welcome the agreement that the Bush administration intends to negotiate with the Iraqis.
"Is the next president going to say, 'I don't want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq'? Maybe," this official said. "But I think they are going to want to, and we will give them the proper authorities."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
20 Comments so far
Show Alltwoblueday January 25th, 2008 7:35 am
"I think the notion of a "functioning government" in an Arab Islamic country is a joke, just not a funny one."
1) Your comment has a slightly racist tinge.
"Okay, I'll back off of that, totalitarian governments..."
2) That is exactly what we have: a totalitarian government headed by bush with the pretense of an opposition party called the Bend-over-crats.
"...in those benighted places–sometimes."
Excuse me, "benighted", benighted as in ripping up the Magna Carta (habeus corpus) torturing prisoners- water boarding (Guantanamo), bombing nations back into the stone age ((Iraqis now using animal-drawn wagons, and a "leader"(dictator) who ignores the will of the people (the majority of Americans want the war to end now).
twoblueday is that what you mean by benighted places?
When Hitler began ruling by emergency decree under Art. 48 of the Weimar Constitution, the Reichstag simply went home and stayed. This worthless Democratic Congress stays on and draws its pay.
They (Bush Adminstration) said Democrats are reading too much into the plan, which they describe as an effort to give the next commander in chief the tools to deal with the situation in Iraq.
If this is not tying the next adminstration down, what is ?
Who is David Abramowitz? Use the link - oops, doesn't work. It's Michael Abramowtiz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR200801...
Biden is a facilitator for the Bush regime. Complaining along the way but always knuckleing under in the end. He poses as opposition but that's as far as it goes.
While arguing about the implimentation war policies ignores the bigger picture of the legallity of the whole affair. Thus giving an implied approval of the whole demented affair.
He's not fooling me. Is he fooling you?
I think the notion of a "functioning government" in an Arab Islamic country is a joke, just not a funny one. Okay, I'll back off of that, totalitarian governments do "work" in those benighted places--sometimes.
"...trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq..."
Of course he is, he wants Iraq's oil for his rich friends in the oil industry. If this is not obvious to everyone by now, then they are not paying attention.
Someone has to pay for that, I donnot mean the war is right, but it could be going any other way.
DNA Records
http://www.vcao.net/dna-records/
"Administration officials said the next president will have full authority to withdraw troops if that is desired."
Yeah, right! Like we don't know that Republicans want our economy to run on perpetual war agreements; and if Democrats should decide to withdraw from an agreement executed by a Republican president, the Repubs would have enough ammunition to destroy the Democratic party for breaking a United States agreement with the Iraqi government.
I can't wait to see if the Democrats fall for this bait. If they do, they will have proven themselves a bunch of morons.
They said Democrats are reading too much into the plan, which they describe as an effort to give the next commander in chief the tools to deal with the situation in Iraq."
"Democrats' suspicions have been further fanned...."
So Bush can steal two elections, speak at least 935 verified lies about Iraq having WMD, illegally spy on Americans, deny prisoners Habeus Corpus, leak out the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame, prosecute an illegal invasion/war/occupation, illegally torture prisoner which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, break laws with signing statements, award no-bid contracts to corrupt cronies like Haliburton and Blackwater, endure scandal after scandal, take a shit on the US Constitution and wipe his ignorant ass with it?
And the best the cowardly, corrupt, and thoroughly unprincipled Democrats can do is offer a little whimper about having their hands tied. What weasels!
What should happen is that Bush's presidency be declared illegitimate and all laws passed during his term are now null and void. Next Bush/Cheny get impeached. Bush is then taken to a criminal court in The Hague and prosecuted for being a war criminal. After that he can be sent to Guantanamo!
Nice job Democrats!
The enemy is the system that gives rise to oligarchy.
Right on EZEFLYER!
jlocke123, our so-called representatives in Congress, including senators, the mainstream media, and the White House press/reporters wouldn't ask the Bush administration a meaningful question if their life depended on it. They're too cowardly and wouldn't want to upset the fascist rulers if they dared to ask a question that might put someone on the spot. Heaven forbid they might have to be held accountable!
Anyone know Edwards's position on this issue?
"fierce attacks"
"Biden ... asked"
"Biden recently wrote a letter..."
"Delahunt convened a hearing"
Ooh, now they're scared.
The only way to keep Dubya and Company from poisoning the well is to impeach them.
Isn't an agreement between two governments a 'treaty'?
The founding fathers expressly left the power to approve any agreement between the US Government and a foreign country with the US Senate. All treaties have to be ratified by the US Senate.
Remember, the founding fathers of this nation hated and were truly afraid of exactly the sort of Presidency that Bush and Cheney want. They deliberately put the decision making power into the Congress. The structure of this government was supposed to be one where the Congress set policy and made any key decisions .... especially about foreign relations and stuff like declaring war and agreeing to treaties. They knew exactly the damage that could be done by either, and expressly made certain that the Constitution gave these powers to the Congress.
The Executive Branch's role is to 'execute' the decisions made in the Congress. That's it. In fact, Congress used to take the time and care to write laws that were much more explicit than today. Today they write vague laws that require interpretation and decisions by the executive branch agencies. That's only in the last 70 years or so. They used to write very explicit laws that left very little room for interpretation.
And of course, as describe above, the Congress has largely ceded its war making powers. There was a reform attempt after Vietnam in the War Powers act, but now this Congress has re-ceded the powers in that act back to the Executive.
Lets see, we invaded a country for the express purpose of 'regime change', we occupied the country, we set up our own government in the CPA, we wrote the constitution, we set up our own puppet government ... and all this didn't require a formal declaration of war?
Let's see, this is the same Congress which long ago gave up its constitutionally-mandated duty to declare war, so I seriously doubt they'll actually fight to retain their constitutionally-mandated duty to approve significant treaties either. Wake me when it's over.
Democrats:
1…"to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy."
Clinton
2"How do you make an commitment to a country where there is no way of measuring whether that country is likely to have a functioning government?"
Biden
3"We don't trust this administration,"
Delahunt
My questions:
1 Would that be the failed policy you continue to vote in favour of?
2 If a functioning government is what you want then why did you vote to destroy the functioning government that existed in Iraq before you invaded?
3 For people who don't trust "this administration", you sure don't ask a lot of questions like: where are the Iraqi nuclear weapons, what are the Iraqi links with 9/11, where is the Iraqi democracy, where did all the money go?
OMG! ya think George Bush might do something to "try to bind the US gov't and his successor to his failed policy"? before his term ends.... IMPEACH NOW!!!