Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq: The Forever Treaty
With the clock ticking on our "commitments" in Iraq -- the international mandate expires in less than a year -- the Bush administration is left in an interesting position. It could create a plan for a troop withdrawal; instead, the plan being negotiated with the Iraqi government focuses on reasons to stay there, something The New York Times reports is seen by Democrats as a plan that would "bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush's policies and a long-term military presence."
And we're starting to learn about the byzantine tactic being employed to get this done. Senior administration officials will say they're not interested in permanent bases in Iraq. They use terms like "long-term" and "enduring" (U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said as much on Thursday). It's all a matter of slyly edited statements, woven to obscure their true meaning and aim: What's being crafted is a treaty. Iraqi leaders seem to know this, and describe what's being negotiated (formally named "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America") as a "long-term treaty."
The reason that distinction is important is this: A treaty requires Senate ratification.
Supporting Iraq "in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats" is the first principle of the declaration. But according to Michael Rubin (an expert on the domestic policies of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and more), who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, "Any langauge...which would commit U.S. forces to defend Iraq in the face of an external threat would transform the agreement into a treaty subject to Senate ratification."
Imagine what this will mean for the next administration: A pre-packaged deal, leaving our military stuck in Iraq for decades to come, to guard against "external threats" -- which external threats are they talking about? Could it be that the Bush administration is positioning itself for an attack on Iran? Or perhaps we're to offer our troops as support for an Israeli attack on Iran? It's not farfetched. The president has surely done his best yet to establish Iran as a real military threat, despite the lack of a shred of credible evidence.
Consider that he and his allies uttered no fewer than 935 false statements (when can we start calling them lies, by the way?). Falsehoods got us into Iraq; let's not allow them to keep us there.
© 2008 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
19 Comments so far
Show All"I wish someone would explain why a treaty that is made illegally would be binding on any future president. If Bush makes a treaty illegally with Iraq without congress' approval why would the US government have to honor it? Why can't a future president simply declare it null and void, just as Bush has done with other treaties during his reign? Pundits keep saying this would tie the hands of the next president, but I'd like to know just why that would be so. Anyone?"
If its a Republican president, he won't be declaring it null and void.
The Dems will eagerly ratify any treaty the administration comes up with, all the while claiming they don't have a sufficient majority to block it.
the ameican electorate deserves no less.
dixie January 26th, 2008 3:39 pm
"I wish someone would explain why a treaty that is made illegally would be binding on any future president."
Oh thank you. Only an idiot would buy that argument.
arkitekton January 26th, 2008 4:07 pm
The Bend-over-crats can't possibly be as stupid and cowardly as they seem. They are co-conspirators in this illegal war enterprise for huge profits. That's why they keep bending over. They've sold out and represent the same interests. They pretend to oppose but really they are in perfect agreement with the Republicans. Both are the parties of big business. Actually they have now merged into one party with two wings.
That's why the Bend-over-crat's 2000 vice presidential candidate (Joe Lieberman) has endorsed Republican John McCain and Obama admires Republican Reagan.
We really need to dump the Dems and go 3rd party. They aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. They are utterly worthless.
Aaaaaah the wisdom of Zoya ." We all may suffer terribly in the short term, but at least our children will have a chance."
If Cubans could have foreseen the pullout of the USSR in 1990(+or-)this is what they might have said . During the Special Period (early 1990s) they did suffer terribly with the loss of oil imports and sugar exports . The average Cuban adult lost 15 pounds of body weight and not going to weight-watchers but through real starvation . Learning to skimp on petro-products and grow real food instead of sugar, their children "may have a chance"
Sleepy Americans , wake up and listen to your Cuban brothers and sisters from across the strait.
John McCain in response to Romney -- ""I was there when he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal," he told voters in Sun City, a retirement community. "I think the apology is owed to the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform.""
Is this guy for real or are Republicans so completely out of touch with reality that a withdrawal of troops is seen as a bad thing. We are doomed as a people. War has been a way of life for us and will remain so as long as these pricks can squander our hard-earned money in bombing innocents civilians a million miles away and as long as we remain as passive bystanders.
The Democrats are as thoroughly committed to the empire as the Republicans - that includes, obviously, Clinton and Obama. So what are people who call themselves Democrats doing voting for either of these two? They'll NEVER NEVER get us out of there. Bush and Cheney told a minimum of 935 lies. Start counting Clinton's and Obama's.
There is only one permitted version of the truth , and that is the word of the owners of the almighty dollars, the words of the real power gods and their approved mouth pieces. The NYT publishes, and that is going to be the received truth for the congregations of the repentant poor sinners. There is no public argument or alternative with any official backing. The non-forgiven complainers will be marginalized , locked up, un-employed or otherwise disposed off. The US of I will struggle to serve mammon to the bitter end, especially if it takes the rest of the world with it.
'The New York Times reports is seen by Democrats as a plan that would "bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush's policies and a long-term military presence."'
Go right ahead, Amerrika, knock yourself out. The faster you plunge yourself deeper in debt, the sooner the world will be rid of a leader that can no longer lead. We all may suffer terribly in the short term, but at least our children will have a chance.
"I wish someone would explain why a treaty that is made illegally would be binding on any future president. If Bush makes a treaty illegally with Iraq without congress' approval why would the US government have to honor it? Why can't a future president simply declare it null and void, just as Bush has done with other treaties during his reign? Pundits keep saying this would tie the hands of the next president, but I'd like to know just why that would be so. Anyone?"
Cowardice?
Good comments. I'd like to remind readers that the whole authoritarian direction of our nation is also seen in senseless things like "sentencing guidelines" curtailing judges' capacity to make enlightened decisons/rulings. That HMO staff determine what medical procedures will be covered, and which the paying client must go without. The prez acts like the CEO of a private corporation, places profit above all other interests and defies laws with apparent immunity.
A decade or so ago if a president was PROVEN to have lied about so many things, charges of treason would sound across the land. There's a reason why media is understood as the 4th estate, a reason why corrupt persons of wealth invest in it to control content, and a reason why so many Americans are absolutely CLUELESS about what is REALLY going on because their consent HAS been manufactured, and alternatives (as in true morality and intelligence and vision, hello, Dennis) have been marginalized. There would be a revolution in the land, obesity/depression/fiscal difficulties and all, IF the population KNEW the truth, had any inkling what's really going on as in, "Who will tell the people?"
I wish someone would explain why a treaty that is made illegally would be binding on any future president. If Bush makes a treaty illegally with Iraq without congress' approval why would the US government have to honor it? Why can't a future president simply declare it null and void, just as Bush has done with other treaties during his reign? Pundits keep saying this would tie the hands of the next president, but I'd like to know just why that would be so. Anyone?
They won't be permanent bases. They will only be there until we pump the last economical drop of crude oil under Iraqi soil.
The only external forces to protect Iraq from are Russian, Chinese and other non-American or British oil companies looking for business there.
Maybe that's why the democrats are stalling everything from impeachment to funding withdrawal. They want their hands tied, and they were "misled". Now that Dubya has done the dirty deed, might as well keep the loot, and keep peace with their corporate patrons.
I'm sorry, but isn't this just another sign not merely of the intransigence of the Bush Administration, but of the tacit compliance of the Democratic party in our military occupation of Iraq?
Mr. Bush seemed to have no problem at all ignoring the Geneva Convention and other international rules of law, or in pulling the U.S. out of an ABM treaty that had been observed and supported by every administration before him. Rather than complaining that Bush will "bind the next president" with his continued rogue actions in Iraq, why don't Democrats simply state that their President and Congress will not recognize any such agreements signed by the Bush Administration. Period.
Any chance that their unwillingness to stand up for their own stated convictions here is somehow related to their unwillingness to stop funding the war they claim to oppose?
To quote the late Paul Wellstone, if you won't fight for the things you say you stand for, at some point you have to recognize you don't really stand for them.
5280 January 26th, 2008 1:36 pm .....PRECISELY...What's left? It's a freight train out of control with a psychotic, pathological moron as the engineer. When will the American people have had enough? Is there anyone out there who can tell me what it will take to bring this disastrous, genocidal, immoral and illegal administration to a screeching halt? Millions in DC in March. Be there, or never complain about this government again!
Its time for the States to disband this federal government. They have to be stopped.
The 25-30 year leases giving control over all new oil exploration, drilling, sale (and most of the profits) in Iraq to ExxonMobil, BP and perhaps others were prepared a year prior to our invasion of that poor country. Paul Bremer "helped" Iraq write a new constitution that allowed the privatization these leases would require. The leases are now part of the "oil law" benchmark Iraq has been reluctant to sign.
I would guess the Bush "agreement" with Iraq is written only to assure U.S. military/mercenary protection for the oil companies until their leases expire.
In June, a large group of NGOs studied the war's effects on
Iraq's citizenry. One of their recommendations for helping Iraq build a better future was for Iraq to (1) rewrite their constitution and (2) refuse to sign any oil agreements. (See their report at the U.N. site www.globalpolicy.org)
Some members of Congress understand this (Biden, Kucinich, Ellison for a few). Many are fighting permanent bases and any other long-term presence.
Bush/Cheney must NOT be allowed to turn our illegal occupation, the cause of much of the violence there, into anything resembling permanence.
Ratification by the Senate is not a dealbreaker. Congress has eagerly legalized what was illegal without even knowing exactly what it was they were legalizing. Gonzales even told them he deliberately refrained from asking for FISA changes when Congress asked him what changes needed to be made because he knew that Congress would deny the changes. So Bush just did it.
Pretending it isn't a treaty is useful. It allows Congress to be 'confused' whether they need to do anything. Just like it is 'confused' about whether waterboarding is torure. And if it is, then what to do with an AG that refuses to call waterboarding torture? So confusing. So they fret, worry and stall. Which is fine with Bush/Cheney.
Goering was right about it being easy for leaders to fear a nation into war. In this case, our supposed elected leaders are still running scared. People fixated on 9/11 are pleased, they're afraid so should everyone else. They make decisions based on fear and short-term, so should everyone else including Congress.
A fundamental democratic principle; of a nation of, by, and for the people, is that people decide. Iraqis have wanted Americans out of Iraq ever since we let the looting occur. Possibly even before we invaded. So of course we're establishing 'long-term' air fields to attack Iran on Iraq soil. Because it's better their country get hit, their kids get killed, then to inconvenience ourselves by finding another way to hit Iran. What Iraqi would not support such a thing? Only bad ones. We kill those. This is what we teach the world is "democracy".
The military bases are not permanent because our leaders call them enduring.
We don't torture because our leaders redefined the word torture.
We don't have many poor people because our leaders lowered the official poverty levels.
War is peace. Peace is war.