In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 4003 of 8923
- next ›
Bush Working to Insure Permanent Presence in Iraq
We've been in Korea for fifty years. And under an agreement that President Bush is hammering out with the Iraqis, we'll be in Iraq for the same period, or more. According to Newsweek:
...Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process."
[snip]
Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq... will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.
This means the withdrawal plans the Democrats are currently running on are likely meaningless. We're going to be in Iraq more or less permanently.
Well if newsweek says so . . .
"Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president."
*****
Lucky for us the next president will have the accompanying signing statement that precludes any swearing to agreement or any law existing on the books.
Thanks all that is good in the world for presidential signing statements.
Bush has not respected anything from any previous president. He violates every tenant every rule and every law.
Why should the next president be any different? We know darn well the next president can do the same and NEVER be impeached so . . . .
["Lucky for us the next president will have the accompanying signing statement that precludes any swearing to agreement or any law existing on the books."]
Yeah, and what are the chances that any "electable" Democrat (OR Republican) will undo that signing statement?
Give BACK an unConstitutional power, once siezed?
An American Politician from among the powerful elites in either wing of Mobius Party?
Not Bloody Likely!!
Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, probably, but Hillary, Rudy, or any of the others?
No F'ing Way!
["Bush has not respected anything from any previous president."]
Actually, Bush HAS "respected" every bad precedent and unConstitutional assumption of power ever foisted on the American people by ANY and ALL Presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, such as deploying US forces into war zones without a Declaration of War from Congress as the Constitution stipulates, for example. (A tradition Harry S. Truman began in 1950)
Why is Bush still in office?