Bush and Maliki about to sign a deal to lock us in Iraq for 3 more years!!

[DCBob]

Iraq: Negotiators agree on security pact draft

BAGHDAD – U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed on a draft of a security pact that would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years, after their U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31, a senior aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday. The aide said the draft agreement could be put to a Cabinet vote in an emergency meeting Sunday or Monday. Transport Minister Amir Abdul-Jabbar said he had been notified by the Cabinet secretariat that a Cabinet meeting was scheduled for Sunday to vote on the agreement. If adopted by the Cabinet, it would then require parliamentary approval.

In Washington, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe described the final document on the security pact as beneficial to the allied nations. "We think this is a good document that serves both Iraqis and Americans well. We remain hopeful that the Iraqi government will conclude this process soon," Johndroe said Saturday. The al-Maliki aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the agreement stood "a good chance" of being passed by a two-thirds majority in the 37-member Cabinet. "I can say now that the two sides have agreed on a final draft," the aide said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
=========

This has to be put off until the Obama administration takes over. They should sign an agreement to extend for 2-3 months then the Obama folks can renegotiate a longer term deal. This has to be stopped!

[warrior1]

1. Pres. Obama

Can change what this dork has done. Don't worry.

[DCBob]

3. Are you sure this deal can be undone? Please explain.

thanks.

[H2O Man]

6. Good question.

Bush's signing is based on the theories of executive authority that Cheney & Addington have based much of their administration's actions on. Their theory has been contested four times in the federal courts (all reaching the US Supreme Court), and they are 0 for 4 so far. President Obama will be able to "undo" the agreement, because it is not legal: Bush lacks the authority to do this.

[merh]

22. Bush cannot enter into treaties with other nations without

2/3 of the senate approving it.

A little thing called the constitution stands in his way, doesn't it.

[rasputin1952]

18. It is unconstitutional...see post #17 below...

:patriot:

[frogcycle]

2. How is it

that the Iraqi Parliament has to approve, but bush can sign on his own recognizance and the US is bound to honor it after he is no longer in office? This makes NO FUCKING SENSE in a supposed government "By the People."

[DCBob]

5. I suspect/hope congress is going to get involved in this.

They cannot let this deal get signed as it stands now.

[rocktivity]

10. How is it has the Iraqi Parliment got to review and approve this deal

AND THE U.S. CONGRESS DID NOT??? More important, what is Congress going to do about it?

If Bush can continue to run the US and Iraq three years after he's gone, maybe he can impeached after he leaves, too.

:mad:
rocknation

[WindRiverMan]

4. Obama has to get all Darth Vadar on them and state...........

"I AM ALTERING THE DEAL. PRAY I DO NOT ALTER IT ANY FURTHER."



It's my tag line as well. I just love that line.

[frogcycle]

7. yeah, its good

but i like mine better

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. LOL! Love that line too

Darth Vader ROCKED in that movie and JEJ's delivery of that line (all of them actually) was perfect!!!

[unhappycamper]

8. IMO the financial meltdown will get us out earlier.

$12 billion a month is a lot of bucks to keep the occupations going. Our imperial footprint will decrease when we can no longer afford to pay for salaries, guns, bombs, airplanes etc.etc.

And I also suspect the 2009 $1 trillion dollar 'defense' budget will see a hit. How many $10.5 billion dollar destroyers or $355 million dollar F-22 Raptors or $2.5 billion dollar submarines or $11.5 billion dollar aircraft carriers can we afford?

[DCBob]

9. You may be right. That may be one good result of this financial mess.

Regardless Bush should not be allowed to sign this deal now.

[Catshrink]

11. Bush's next destination

The Hague

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Question: Does this agreement mean that the US HAS to stay in Iraq for 2-3 more years?

Or simply that this agreement would ALLOW it if the US deemed it necessary? If it merely allows but does not mandate it then I don't see that this agreement would prevent President Obama from setting an earlier withdrawal date and, anyway, I believe that he stated that he would probably leave a (much) smaller contingent of troops in Iraq to help with legitimate anti-Al-Queda and "mop up" operations for awhile. This agreement sounds more like it is "permission" to stay rather than a "mandate" to stay. :shrug:

I agree, however, that any agreement needs to go through Congress before approved but, even if approved, it would seem irrelevant anyway since Obama will be the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF (with all of the authority that Bush/Cheney have seemed fit to invest in that role) and will be the one taking the reins of our military in January and NOT McCain (who thinks we need to stay over at least 97 more years than Bush).

[DCBob]

14. I hope it means just "allow" us to stay but not "forced" to stay.

Maybe "lock" may be a bit overstated -- hope so anyway. But I still don't like it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. I hope it's not some kind of "lock" either

However, remember that Maliki publicly stated that he supported Obama's plan (at least before he had to "walk it back" a bit- once Bush got ahold of him) and it sounds like the Iraqi parliament is a bit skeptical of the deal. Also, frankly, I really don't know how, financially, we can maintain our present commitment in Iraq in terms of money, so I have my doubts about Obama allowing us to be "tied down" there for 2-3 more years. I could be wrong of course- as everything "negotiated" by Bush has ended up being a "bad deal" for most of us here in this country and in the world.

[frogcycle]

16. it is "allow"

There is no way in hell it could be "forced to stay"

only a NATO-like treaty with mutual protection against attack from outside would come close to "forcing," and even than some signatories to such deals drag their feet.

However, it would probably be "reneging on a commitment" but one made by a predecessor. Obama would be in the position of having to make the case that it was not legal in the first place to avoid looking like he was welshing on the deal, and of course even then the right would howl.

Much better, IMO, if this thing does not get done.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Obama could make the case

That neither he nor Congress were involved in the negotiation of such an agreement (if they weren't) and/or he could (rightfully) argue that we cannot financially afford to maintain our commitment there for 3 more years (which we really can't IMHO). The right-wing may howl but they're going to howl anyway NO MATTER WHAT Obama does (and Obama surely knows it).

The public (by a large majority) doesn't want an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq or otherwise McCain would've likely won. While Obama's election might not have been solely (or even mostly) over Iraq and his pledge to withdraw forces within at least 16 months, there's little reason to believe that there would be a massive public outcry here (or in Iraq) if we don't end up staying for the next 3 years, which, frankly, would probably HELP the Iraqis and their new government (not to mention US) more than it would hurt them IMHO.

I agree that it would be better if Bush wasn't trying to wrap up some kind of agreement like this now with Obama coming in to replace him in approximately 2 months but when has anything Bush has done made good political (let alone practical) sense? That being said, however, I still don't think Obama is going to necessarily have his hands "tied" by this arrangement nor should he appear to be "welshing" on the deal unless he has been involved in negotiating it and/or has publicly made some kind of commitment to support it and the deal doesn't appear to even mandate our continued presence there anyway.

[rasputin1952]

17. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, paragraph 2:

"He shall have Power, by and with Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...".

That's pretty cut and dried, bush can't make a Treaty w/o 2/3 consent of the Senate. Essentially what he's trying to do is unConstitutional...not that this sack of crap ever gave a damn about the Document that is the Supreme Law of the land.

[abumbyanyothername]

20. Do you see the difference?

between:

<<a draft of a security pact that would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years>>

and:

<<a draft of a security pact that would require American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years>>

???

[Occam Bandage]

21. "Allow" is not "lock." nt