Locked in: Bush tries to tie the U.S. to Iraq after he's gone

[Bravo Zulu]

Locked in: Bush tries to tie the U.S. to Iraq after he's gone
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Bush administration is attempting to determine the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq long after it leaves office by "negotiating" an accord with the occupation government of Iraq.

What it is doing looks innocuous enough on the surface. The United States may have some forces in Iraq in the future, although questions like whether or not, how many and doing what should be decided by the president who succeeds George W. Bush next year. The United States has forces in many countries around the world, some carrying out training, supply and other very routine functions. Their status in a given country is normally determined by what is called a status-of-forces agreement, or SOFA, arrived at with the government of the country concerned.

But what the administration is up to in Iraq at the moment is very different from that. First, the potential agreement itself is different. It would include, for example, the activities of the ubiquitous contractors, such as the security firm accused of killing Iraqis with impunity, Blackwater. It would include, for example, a U.S. guarantee of the internal as well as external security of the Iraqi government. That's a stunning thought in itself.

Second, there is the very real question of whether the government with which the United States is in principle negotiating, that of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, is a real government. It arrived in power with 130,000 U.S. forces in the country and remains in power only with the support of the 160,000 Americans there now. The al-Maliki government is a U.S. occupation government. Its future, once American forces leave, is not something one would want to bet the house on.

The most important point, however, apart from the fact that the Bush administration is trying to nail in place an unsatisfactory status quo for long after it is gone, is the fact that it claims to be negotiating an agreement, not a treaty. If it is accepted that the al-Maliki regime is a government, then an agreement of the nature of this one is not a simple SOFA -- it is a treaty.

Treaties between the United States and other nations require Senate ratification. Mr. Bush and his associates know quite well that obtaining Senate approval would require, at the least, public hearings on the accord, which is to say, open, critical discussion of it. That is something they definitely do not want, nor is it likely that the Senate would approve an agreement that they would want, particularly in the year of an election in which the Iraq war is one of the key issues.

So, Americans are confronted once more with a fast move by the Bush administration in pursuit of continuing its war in one form or another, as long as possible. Fortunately, Congress seems to be on to this maneuver. It must stay on top of it and not let the administration in its dying days staple the United States to Iraq until the end of time.



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08026/852364-192.stm

[Hailtothechimp]

1. This is an impeachable offense

If bush thinks he can subvert the Constitution (which mandates the Senate's approval of treaties) then Nancy Pelosi needs to step up to the plate and begin impeachment immediately.

What a waste of time she has turned out to be.

[pat_k]

3. . . . but impeaching bushncheney for torture is so much simpler

The case writes itself.

The processes by which people are committed to state custody and the way a state treats the people in its custody-- whether it be an abandoned child, a criminal suspect or convict, captured combatant in armed conflict, or a mental patient -- constitute the most basic of the criteria on which a state is judged to be just or unjust; humane or inhumane; moral or immoral. Guiding laws and principles, no matter how admirable, are meaningless if they are not practiced and enforced.

"Drowning torture" ("waterboarding" to the propagandists) is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden under U.S. Federal Law. It is as clearly forbidden as "The Rack" and "Thumbscrews." Bush and Cheney refuse to acknowledge that subjecting any person drowning torture is immoral, inhumane, and prohibited in ALL circumstances. They refuse to acknowledge that arbitrarily seizing and indefinitely committing any person to U.S. custody is prohibited in all circumstances.

Bush and Cheney have destroyed our identity and moral foundation by ordering and sanctioning torture; by seizing and indefinitely imprisoning those they arbitrarily label a threat; by refusing to declare "drowning torture" ("waterboarding" to the propagandists) to be absolutely and unequivocally forbidden under U.S. Federal Law .

Bush and Cheney are violating our laws, but it is not their lawbreaking that turned the USA into a war criminal nation. The refusal of Congress to enforce our treasured principles and laws is doing that.

And Edwards is in a unique position, and with enough pushing might even find the brains and the courage, to lead the way.

Too many have been silenced by the relentless efforts by the DC establishment to banish impeachment from the realm of possibility. (Why call for something "everybody knows" is impossible?) Too many have become resigned to the mistaken belief that there is no recourse but to tolerate the intolerable, and watch as the DC establishment allows Bush and Cheney the pretense of an honorable exit on January 20th, 2009.

John Edwards has an opportunity to remind the silenced that they DO the power -- and the moral obligation -- to do what they can to make impeachment a reality. He has a big megaphone. Even those who have written him off as a contender view him as a potential "kingmaker." He has earned the respect of Americans across the nation. He has the power and the platform necessary to reach the silenced and put impeachment front and center. And that could potentially transform the public's anger and resignation into a surge of hope and action that could not only make impeachment a reality; it could carry him into the White House.

[ixion]

2. much like the so-called "North American Union" that * signed, selling our Constitution up the river

and where was Congress for that? Oh yeah, they were busy retooling the cafeteria menus. :eyes:

[pat_k]

4. "It's like Deja vu all over again."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4206513&mesg_id=4214338

[Karenina]

5. The ptb for whom *drooling dauphin does his puppet routine

ain't goin' nowhere until folks notice the curtain pulled back on their great and powerful OZ. Dann, geht's los.