No Need For Lawmakers’ Approval of Iraq Pact, Administration Reasserts
The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States,” permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs.
The statement came in response to lawmakers’ demands that the administration submit to Congress for approval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents — a status-of-forces agreement and a separate “strategic framework” — that they expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), whose questions at a House hearing Tuesday elicited the administration statement, described it as an “open-ended, never-ending authority for the administration to be at war in Iraq forever with no limitations.” The conditions of 2002 no longer exist, he said.
“I don’t think anybody argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat,” he said. “Is it the government of Iraq that’s a threat?”
The proposed agreement has become a contentious issue in the presidential campaign. Democratic candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have charged that the administration is trying to lock in a U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office.
According to yesterday’s statement, the administration’s interpretation of the 2002 resolution is that “Congress expressly authorized the use of force to ‘defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.’ ”
In a letter to Ackerman, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner said that authority exists with or without a U.N. mandate. In addition to the resolutions, he wrote, “Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the Iraq war.” Democrats have failed in several attempts to curtail funding for the Iraq war.
The Iraqi government said late last year that it will not agree to renewal of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops there beyond 2008, and the administration announced that it was opening negotiations with Baghdad on a new bilateral agreement to replace it. A declaration of principles signed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush in December said the agreement would include “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq to deter foreign aggression.
Democrats, and some Republicans, maintained that any such agreement — particularly if it includes a defense commitment — would require Senate ratification. The administration has claimed executive authority, but has pledged that the agreement will contain no troop commitments and no promise to defend Iraq, and will not constrain the next president.
But Democratic lawmakers have demanded details of the proposed agreements and also assurances that Congress will have veto power. The administration declined until Tuesday to provide a senior official to discuss the drafting of the agreements or negotiations with Iraq.
During a tense joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs oversight and Middle East subcommittees, David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s chief Iraq adviser, did not answer to lawmakers’ satisfaction questions about Congress’s role in the agreements. Ackerman gave him 24 hours to respond.
Bergner’s letter, said Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), “creates the basis for a constitutional confrontation.”
© 2008 The Washington Post
Unbelievable! And we can’t impeach and the congress and the democrats do nothing. Where are the presidential candidates? We have a lame duck administration and apparently a permanently lame duck Congress. It is indeed a time for change at all levels of Congress, and time to send some if not all of our elected federal officials packing along with the White House wrecking crew.
It looks like the Iraqi lawmakers don’t have much of a say in the matter, either.
We want that oil!
Wasn’t this matter allready settled with the first King George? No taxation without representation?
Let’s see how Feinstein and her peers deal with this one.
NOT!
It’s no secret that there’s a serious viral attack on America’s body politic. It was not controlled or checked –and still has not been checked — so it has spread. Sadly, the body is distracted and numbed so this internal invasion can take place. If not checked soon, the body will adapt and all sensory will be shut down as the virus will be accepted as a normalized way of life. Memory of our constitutional practices are quickly evaporating as I write this.
Napoleon declared himself emperor of France. I see a similarity of a short little so called man with a twisted ego effectively declaring himself emperor once again. This lying little weasel must go now. He has caused so much damage it will take generations to repair it.
The military bases the US is building in Iraq are being constructed to 100 year engineering standards. McCain was not being hypothetical when he mentioned a 100 year occupation. He was merely turning rumor into fact.
The uninterrupted revenue stream that Iraq will continue to provide is military industrial media complex nirvana. Time for US taxpayers to grab their ankles.
“passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks”
Congress was in shock, temporary mental illness- VOID
See? We don’t need an election.
If Congress really wanted to assert itself, it could cut off the money. Just say hey, if you bypass us on this, you’ve got no money to spend on your massive embassy. Or something like that.
Of course, that’s only if Congress wasn’t just playing at being a check and balance. With this disgusting bunch in Congress, they are probably happy to hear this as it does what they really want and doesn’t put them on the spot.
We could have an entirely new House of Reps and 1/3 of the Senate as new Senators after Nov. You get that by enough people refusing to vote either Dem or Rethug. Vote Green, Vote Libertarian, vote Independent … just kick the bums out.
The line about the Dems attempting to cut off funding and failing is complete BS. The Dem leadership has never tried to cut off funding and has always fought and manipulated the process to make sure the funding continues. Reid and Pelosi promised this just after the last election and they’ve delivered on that promise.
This is what you get when the Dems continually fail to assert the authority the constitution gives the Congress. If you had one of the writers of the Constitution in front of you and asked them about this, they’d be very puzzled. They’d tell you they gave Congress control of the money precisely to make sure Congress had something like this under control. And that they also gave Congress the power of impeachment to deal with an out of control executive.
The writers of the Constitution would be very perplexed as to why Congress would fail to assert the authority they gave to Congress.
Treaties like this origionate in the Senate as I recall our Constitution. Perhaps I missed the Weimar Republicians’ Enabling Act.
Hee & Haw. Together again.
This is where we have come, thanks to an arrogant Executive and a cowardly Legislature.
The political wrangling over agreements to keep our troops in Iraq signals not only the continued intransigence of the Bush Administration, but also the tacit compliance of the Democratic party in our ongoing military occupation.
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 their Congress - whether or not a Democrat is elected president this fall - 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.
That 2002 resolution sure had a great many hidden meanings. I wonder whether there is something else hidden in there about suspending the Bill of Rights or maybe even suspending the entire constitution?
If McCain is behind in the polls in October, maybe they will find that the resolution also authorizes suspending elections in the case of an emergency, and what bigger emergency could there be than the end of Republican executive rule? Oh wait, they already have the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, so that is taken care of.
Apparently Bush thinks he has been granted the right to do as he pleases, irregardless of the Constitution and the Congress. His sneaky, republikan lawyers wheedle everything around to his advantage. I see a McCain presidency following suit. It is time for change and fixing everything Bush and pals screwed up.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq were supposed to be “self financing”. I read that someplace, anyway.
Think of it as an investment. All those billions of barrels of oil to be pumped out by American companies and escorted to our refineries by the US military. The money will come back eventually as we will be selling “our” oil to ourselves and the rest of the world can go to hell. Well, maybe a barrel here and there for the British Kitty Cat.
I’m sure wonderful Exxon/Mobil and friends will sell the crude under market price to the homeland as we are enforcing their security tax free. Hmmm.
We can go on heating our McMansions containing 2 person families, and driving our SUVs and oversize trucks until our Iraqi oil runs out, or global warming kills us all. The 60 year old party will go on for another 25 years! Not to mention 4 passengers on a jumbo jet to Europe! We are so decadent.
We don’t need 100 year bases as the oil won’t last that long, but we have to be honest with the Iraqi people. All we want is the oil. They can all kill each other off or pitch tents in Syria so far as we care. They just need to stay out of our way.
Maybe Obama or Clinton will change this. Probably not. Its too tempting and we’ve already spent so much blood and money. We’ll keep finding reasons to stay, and eventually develop the oil infrastructure needed to keep America humming on all 8 cylinders.
Yes! Iraqi oil is our new domestic oil! Texas tea is almost gone. Alaska is fading as fast as we drill for more. The North Sea is a drop in the bucket. No more kissing Saudi butt. And the bases are close enough to Israel to ensure no one even thinks about going there.
Dubya and Cheney are my heroes!
This is the End of Democracy, the Burial of the U.S. Constitution, and the Redundancy of the Congress.
George W. Bush, the Mad CowBoy, has created the Imperial Presidency. .He and the NeoCon Gang have placed themselves above the Law and the Constitution.
Is there no hope ???????????
Why won’t the House of Representatives act and IMPEACH both President George W. Bush, and Vice President Richard Cheney??????
IMPEACH………..NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the election comes down to Clinton or McCain – I will vote for McCain. Though both he and Hillary are pieces of shit, at least McCain admits that he is a Republican.
This video explains with frightening clarity why Bush is right, he doesn’t need Congress’ approval. We’re so screwed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
But, but, but….we were told Mission Accomplished on May 1, 2003. Congress authorized the mission, now over, so any new initiative requires fresh authorization.
Listen you dick. You don’t spend MY money without congressional approval and oversight.
Jamadison4: It should be obvious that if the Dims wanted to win this election, all they had to do was impeach—- there is such a load of feces out there that would have come out in hearings that they would have the whole country and world about ridding the planet of the neocons and the dimwit “president”. Why didn’t they? It was an obvoius play—- a lead pipe cinch— shooting fish in a barrel. So Why didn’t they?????? You can bet your ass that the illegal phone taps were not limited to “terrorists”. First priority went to getting enough dirt on all of this shit laden group—- virtually all surely must have felonious skeletons in their closets—- Once you have proof—- you own them. Pelousy and Reid are not acting our of honor—-or parcticality for the interest of the country— they are all being blackmailed—- they are all dirty, and being held hostage—- not a difficult task if you monitor all communications to all of them—- you get the dirt and simply explain to them that if you go down—- so will they— all of them—– anybody have a better explanation for what is happening??????
oh.. how interesting! Could we take a roll call of the Democratic leadership, that somehow got Duped By A Dope? Who are the real Dopes??.
Excuse me ..Hillary are you out there?.. you should read the reports on what you vote on.. you might learn something..oh That’s right, you are experienced!! At this point I have purple haze up in my brain..and this whole political process is like cutting my vein..My head is splitting, and i don’t know why…excuse me while.. I spit in your eye! Go to hell democrats!
McCAIN WEARING A CORSET UNDER HIS SUIT AT BUSH ENDORSEMENT APPEARANCE. Look carefully at the photos/films of W Bush’s endorsement of McCain as they stood side by side in the sunshine before reporters outside the White House the other day—Notice that Bush (who likes to work out) has a fairly block-ish physical shape typical of later middle age; but McCAIN is showing full daylight underneath both arms as they hang at his sides, and more, his waist is tight and narrow while his ribs, chest and shoulders have the “cough-drop” shape of a young weight-lifter. NO WAY this is the same McCain I’ve been seeing for a long time with the average paunch and sunken chest of older sedentary men. OK, I’m crazy. But check it out. McCain was wearing a CORSET under his suit at the endorsement, I have no doubt at all. Hail, fearless leader!
Population 27 mill. 1.2 mill Dead Civilians.
At this rate, they’ll all be gone soon.
But not Exxon, the IDF, Blackwater or KB&R.
Viva La Palestine
Ah, ‘merican style of governance, don’t like the outcome, just disregard it or write another Executive Order (Odor) that the Supreme Court will uphold.
Donkey’s assertions that the Democrats were blackmailed is interesting because he is right in one respect. Because blackmailed, bribed, or somehow coerced does seem to be the case.
Not just with the impeachment but with ignoring the UN, invading Iraq, turning a blind eye to torture, and shonky corporate deals.
I am not anti-American at all. I consider all progressives regardless of their nationality to be my brothers but I must say that George Bush would not last a month in any other parliament in the world. Those in opposition would take this man’s gaffs and his inability to put together a coherent sentence and laugh him out of office. How did he ever become President? In his initial campaigning the world was laughing its heads off at some of his ‘Bushisms’ so why didn’t his Democratic rivals point out that this guy was being put forward as the face of the USA and that the presidency deserved a man of ability who could open his mouth without causing world-wide laughter.
Go back to then. How did the Dems not campaign on the abilities (or disabilities) of this oaf “who couldn’t be fooled twice?” I’m not talking about a dirty campaign but really, an ex-alcoholic with cocaine in his past, who ran every company he was involved with into the ground, whose only qualification for leadership is that he is the son of a President?
The World saw what this man was in his first Presidential campaign. Why didn’t the Republican pre-selectors and the Democrats? Answer that Donkey and I believe you may be closer to the truth.
And why the hell not? Put yourself in George Bush’s shoes. He has had the Democrats bent over a table for years. He uses them to wipe his feet on and then his ignorant ass. The Bend-over_crats are so utterly weak, cowardly and pathetic you could almost feel sorry for the bastards.
They have basically told King George that no matter what he does he will never get impeached per Nancy Pelosi. Bush just LAUGHS at them. He freely admits he has broken the law. He had Wilson’s wife outed, made 935+ lies about the Iraq War, spied on US citizens and tortured prisoners to name just a few. He has declared himself outside constitutional boundaries and Dims allowed it. With Dims as the “opposition party” he is basically above the law and he knows it. He holds them in contempt as he should. They are nothing.
A vote for a Bend-over_crat is a vote spoiled. You might as well flush it down a toilet. Piss it down a urinal. You are telling them that no matter what they do and how much they prostrate themselves before King George and the Republicans you will still vote for them. How sad. Have you no pride?
When enough people say enough is enough we can force change. Until then we will continued getting screwed. Watch how the Dims cave on granting the telecommunications companies total immunity for breaking the law. I predict they will fold and obey their King. They will kiss his ring and then his ass.
Send the bastards a message. They shouldn’t be allowed to capitulate, surrender, and support a Republican agenda and still get your vote. If you vote for a Bend-over_crat you should be taken out and flogged, then tarred and feathered, finally hung! Shame on you! Vote Greens! Vote for someone with principles, vote for Cynthia McKinney!
Sure she isn’t going to win. We need to build up the party first. If McSame wins so what! He will damage the country so badly that perhaps the citizenry will finally wake up and throw all the bums out! Time for a Boston Tea Party! Time for real change! Let’s Go!
Jack37 March 6th, 2008 9:55 pm
“McCAIN WEARING A CORSET UNDER HIS SUIT AT BUSH ENDORSEMENT APPEARANCE”
Sure, the corset is on in case the 2000 Democratic Party candidate for vice president, Joe Lieberman were to happen to pass by he could quickly plant a big, fat juicy kiss on him and still look manly like Bush. He doesn’t want to look flabby.
The military bases the US is building in Iraq are being constructed to 100 year engineering standards. McCain was not being hypothetical when he mentioned a 100 year occupation. He was merely turning rumor into fact.
The uninterrupted revenue stream that Iraq will continue to provide is military industrial media complex nirvana. Time for US taxpayers to grab their ankles.
INDEED…INDEED, andersdl. And thats exactly what it all comes down to. Who is, ultimately funding all of this waste, pillage and hellfire? WE ARE. Hello, you and me. SO what are WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!!??
I know what I’m not going to do: vote for a Democrat!
Exactly.
Welcome to Third World governance. In case you’re unfamiliar with some of its’ attributes, among them is the rapacious rule of ne’er do well mess ups who swindle their way into high office, then assume dictatorial powers. Clinton and Obama are right, there will be a massive clean up job to do after Bush leaves office…WE HOPE!
Clinton, Obama and the Democrats are the problem! We need a genuine opposition party not a hand in a glove. Notice how the Republicans can still call all the shots in spite of being the minority party and Bush being a lame duck.
I weep for my country. The lawlessness of this White House is way beyond apalling. These people need to go to prison. They really do,
Just leave this one alone. Congress (dems & repubs)are not scrappy enough to maintain they’re power of the purse. Energy should go into local green issues, good mass transit, less reliance on oil. The only way to fight this thing is to wean America’s addiction to their cars, to shopping mindlessly as a recreation, to spend any free time watching the idiot box, etc. There’s alot more that can be done locally, think innovation, not fear and anger.
They look like the ‘Bobbsy twins’ standing there together. How anyone in their right mind can imagine McCain is anything but McBush in drag is beyond me. Whether you like the candidate that’s running for the Democrat’s or not. All freedom loving people need to realize this virus (neo-con) needs to be gotten out of office. They need to go down in flames! American’s need to get it through their heads extending this parties time in office is going to destroy what’s left of this country!
tumbleweed March 7th, 2008 9:56 am
“Whether you like the candidate that’s running for the Democrat’s or not. All freedom loving people need to realize this virus (neo-con) needs to be gotten out of office.”
And just what have the Democratic majority done to stop any of what has been going on? NOTHING!!
Lobo Gris
Bush will go to any lengths to protect his self-defeating policies. I can’t wait until 2009!
sjc_1: Napoleon declared himself emperor of France. I see a similarity of a short little so called man with a twisted ego effectively declaring himself emperor once again. This lying little weasel must go now. He has caused so much damage it will take generations to repair it.
Um, not that it’s terribly relevant, but GWB is six feet tall. It’s his soul that is minuscule.
E J MURPHY
… the rumors of his “death” have been greatly exaggerated …
Hmmmm, I wonder if we will have International Brigades coming to help us when the inevitable happens, as they (and we) did to help Republican Spain against the fascists?
I hope the outcome will be better than it was then. Franco had the firepower, and the support of the German and Italian fascists to help him. The Republicans just had, for the most part, heart and small arms.
For you youngsters, that doesn’t mean as in Republican Party, that means those fighting to keep Spain a Republic. They lost.
Hasn’t this state of affairs existed since long before the Bush administration?—This determination to occupy and influence the domestic policies of nominally-soveriegn countries by the U.S.? Since Hawaii in the 1890’s the imperialist aggression has only increased. There’s always a pretext for it—a reason why it can’t be opposed. Political suicide is always the fate of any who try. The system of checks and balances has been dysfunctional for a long time. Maybe Clinton or Obama would work towards fixing it. They’d be the first to do so in a very long time. As far as a revolt against tyranny, I don’t America at large doing that unless we all get a lot skinnier.
libertas fugit — I’ve spent some time in Spain, and the “Valle de los Caídos” (Valley of tyhe Fallen) lasting immense monument of Franco’s forceful “exuberance” carved inside (and above) of a mountain cost many republican lives to make. See here.
The people I talked with hated the lasting tribute to Franco’s illegitimacy especially for all of the lives sacrificed for his pet project, regardless of it being a church.
Thank you for reminding us of the good “Republicans”. I believe that Ernest Hemingway fought against the Fascists, and was lucky to have survived. That’s the spirit our new generations need to consider.
Namaste
That “security agreement” is nothing but a blueprint for stealing Iraq’s oil and leaving Iraqis destitute. The Democrat wing of Likud should be impeached en masse if it doesn’t block it.
Now you are beginning to understand what a democracy is.
Folks, the Constitution states that we are a “republic”.
We are so big on spreading democracy and being called a democracy ….we forget we’re supposed to be a republic.
What’s the difference?
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.
The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent.
I should add to my statement….that it isn’t Dems or Republicans in power now….it the neocon fascist movement to control the world. Both parties have members….
Judging from the corruption and lack of actions against corruption…I think the majority party is the Demo-puplicans…or is it the Republicrats…. most belong to the same club now…you know…the one that screws it’s citizens over….no more We the People…just We the Corporation.
Sadly, it appears that we are slowly becoming a dictatorhip. Our Congress is not much different than the legislature of Sadam Hussein. Congress mainly serves the illusion of democratic government. It is all just for show folks
COMarc March 6th, 2008 1:57 pm wrote:
We could have an entirely new House of Reps and 1/3 of the Senate as new Senators after Nov. You get that by enough people refusing to vote either Dem or Rethug. Vote Green, Vote Libertarian, vote Independent … just kick the bums out.
It seems like the only solution considering the hold Corp. America has on the 2 parties. But you can be sure that the “captains of industry” will not give up control easily or fairly. We’ll have a huge fight on our hand and they’ll use every dirty trick and more to keep the sweet deal they have now.
It’s funny how a system that largely benefits a relatively few people can maintain control. I think a type of “lottery mentality” prevails in many peoples minds in so much that they’ll take it up the ass now with the hope that if they do “get rich,” they can have the same sweet deal they are left out of now. Forget that work hard crap, the American dream is now “get something for nothing”. Buy a house and sell in a couple of months for twice as much. Get a government contract and take it to the bank. The more money concentrated in the hands of the few is good for all of us because of … what? It has to come from somewhere.
Unchained March 7th, 2008 9:20 pm
Excellent post. Where does the will of the people really fit in? The electoral college can overturn our choice if it wants.
Our form of government implies that the will of the people will be reflected by their representatives, but clearly as in cases of war the express wishes of the people gets short shrift.
Unchained, what would you call the form of government we really have? Plutocracy? Oligarchy? Oliputocrcy?
namaste March 7th, 2008 2:37 pm
libertas fugit — I’ve spent some time in Spain, and the “Valle de los Caídos”
I had a number of friends who were in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Interestingly enough, they were pretty much unemployable in the United States when they came back. They were on the Attorney General’s list as “Premature anti-fascists.” In other words, they were against fascism before it became government policy to be against fascism.
Some of them were allowed to fight and die in the armed forces during WW-II, however.
Perhaps it is time to start reviving the clenched fist salute yet again.
God, there was a time in this country when, for the most part, we talked, we negotiated, we compromised. We only went to war in self defense, if we were attacked by a foreign power. How did we get to the point where the national philosophy is, we’ll talk to them only if we fail to kill them all?
Everyone seems to have forgotten the “D” word. Diplomacy.