No Congress approval for Iraq troop deal: official

[maddezmom]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior State Department official Thursday ruled out fresh demands from top Democrats for any deal with Iraq on future US troop operations to be submitted to Congress for approval.


David Satterfield, US coordinator for Iraq, testified to a Senate committee after top Democrats, including White House hopeful Hillary Clinton, expressed fears the proposed deal would tie the hands of the next president.

Iraq and the United States are set to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to legitimize US operations in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when the United Nations resolution governing their presence expires.

"In keeping with past practice, our intent is to conclude the SOFA as an executive agreement, rather than a treaty subject to Senate approval," Satterfield said in prepared testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations panel.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080410/pl_afp/usiraqpoliticsmilitary_080410142406;_

---

you can watch the hearing live here:
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/


Draft U.S. Iraq SOFA open-ended


Published: April 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM
WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) -- A draft version of the status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq suggests the U.S. troop commitment there is open-ended.

A draft copy of the agreement obtained by The Guardian dated March 7 and marked "secret" authorizes U.S. military forces to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security." The document does not mention a time frame or expiration of the agreement.

Some critics say the draft agreement does little to impose limits on troop numbers, weapons used or U.S. legal authority over Iraqi citizens, but U.S. officials are quick to point out the agreement is no different than similar agreements with the 80 other countries where U.S. forces are based.

U.S. Democratic leaders said the document goes way beyond other status of forces agreements and reads more like a treaty, which would require congressional approval. Speaking before lawmakers Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said the agreement will not go before Congress, however.

more:http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2008/04/09/draft_us_iraq_sofa_open-ended/6603/

[babylonsister]

1. Bunch of b.s., if you ask me. I hope Congress can halt this. nt

[bemildred]

2. Why is it a bad idea to "tie the hands" of the next President?

As Ms Pelosi once said, the President is not a King, he is an employee.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. So you want Bush to sign an agreement to keep us in Iraq forever and then force the

next president to abide by it?

[Baby Snooks]

9. No he is the Emperor

And she is the Empress. Sitting there listening to the Emperor fiddle away. While Rome burns.

No offense but who really gave Bush this power? Congress. Including the Democrats. Their only excuse so far seems to be they didn't bother to read anything before approving the right of the president to declare war on Iraq. Too busy. Or just too lazy. Or just too complicit.

The Democrats were given control of the Congress with a mandate of the people which the Democrats ignored. We didn't care whether impeachment was successful. We merely wanted impeachment filed as a statement to the world that we did not support this president or his administration and certainly did not support this war.

I truly hope, again, that the Empress is removed along with the Emperor in November. If she's not, well, I'm all for a boycott of San Francisco!

[bemildred]

11. We agree. Though Congress did not so much give it's power away as abandon it.

Governing became too much trouble for them.

[acmavm]

3. No strings on the money would be putting it clearer. They want

the funding with absolutely no strings or conditions.

[midnight]

4. HIllary sounded very informed , concerned, and thoughtful

during the Foreign affairs hearings. "David Satterfield, US coordinator for Iraq, testified to a Senate committee after top Democrats, including White House hopeful Hillary Clinton, expressed fears the proposed deal would tie the hands of the next president." Senator Feingold also was a great communicator on this subject. He was able to tie together the 2004 Bin Laden videos that told us and the world that the way he was going to take down America was via bankrupting us, and our banking crisis.

Don't let them "legitimize US operations in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when the United Nations resolution governing their presence expires."SOFA

[EnemyOfTheocracy]

7. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.

hilary voted for the war now grinds hard againt the frame to backpeddle as fast as she can and address "concern".
I laugh at her out of my ass.
where was her thoughtful inquiry before IWR vote?
oh that's right! there was none.

[Inuca]

10. Except that she is not in the foreign affairs committee n/t

[Mike Daniels]

6. Fine. Why can't the next president say "Sorry, but this is no longer valid"

Treaties and agreements have been broken by the Bush administration left and right.

Is there anything in the Constitution that would keep the next president (presuming it's a Dem) from voiding this agreement once they take office?

[skooooo]

8. This is no way to run a government...

We need our leaders to respect the constitution. Anything short is a loss for us.

[humbled_opinion]

12. The only Dem that will void it is...

Hillary...

Obama will continue this ill conceived engagement at his own peril. He has practically said as much with his light questioning of Petraus and asking what in the Gnerals mind would constitute enough troops to maintain the status quo... If Obama is the nominee then I see a Nixon scenario developing... he is campaigning that he will end the war and remove the troops like nixon did, but the influence in D.C. and the power of the office will have advisors biting his ear telling him that tweaking the plan, doing it different and he... HE... HE can come out the winner.... HE can take a losing scenario and bring it to victory. Everybody loves a victory right.. this influence is a powerful intoxicant and unless We have a President that has absolute dedication to ending this fiasco regardless of the situation on the ground, regardless of the polls, regardless of the politics then you can pretty well be assured it will continue...

[papau]

14. true - Obama is "GOP love of rich and corporate -lite" - which is why media supports him

[old guy]

13. You're right.

What the repubs are banking on is that it will be political suicide and the Dems are to timid to risk it. I don't believe it, but thats just me.