Skip to main content

View Diary: 50 permanent bases in Iraq/Bush set to declare victory (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush cannot bind future action. (8+ / 0-)

    He may want empire, but he will not have it.  neither Americans nor Iraquis want it.

    This is why we must defeat McCain.  Congress must act to condemn this and defund if necessary.  The Approriations Clause still matters.

    "There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08

    by TomP on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:43:43 AM PDT

    •  Not quite true.. (3+ / 0-)

      If the agreement has reciprical pledges to Iraq along the lines of "You grant us bases, airspace, immunity, blah, halliburton, blah, Bechtel, blah.." and pledges American support or payment in return for X number of years, it will be diplomatically and politically difficult for a future administration to extricate themselves from that agreement without appearing to abandon the fledgling Iraqi government.

      Thinking men can not be ruled. --Ayn Rand

      by Wisper on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:57:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So next year President Obama declares (8+ / 0-)

        the SOFU invalid because Congress did not approve it and orders withdrawal. Is Iraq going to sue us for breach of contract? Or is  Secretary of Defense Hagel going to sue for an injunction to stop withdrawal?

        " Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." Sen Rob't. Byrd 10/11/02.

        by LEP on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:05:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right now (6+ / 0-)

          He declares all Bush policy regarding Iraq not congressionally approved will be subject to review.

          Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

          by mojavefog on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:13:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama would certainly have that right (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LanceBoyle, ColoTim

          But it will be spun and publicized both in the US and in Iraq that we are "reneging" on promises we made to the Iraqi government.

          The President of the US can do whatever he wants in this instance.  I'm not saying the agreement ties his hands... it just makes the situation a lot stickier.

          We don't want to set the precedent that agreements made with the US are only valid until a new president comes in (which could potentially happen every 4 years) at which time they are free to tell you to go fuck yourself.

          That doesn't position our diplomatic corps very well.

          I'm just sayin'....

          Thinking men can not be ruled. --Ayn Rand

          by Wisper on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:23:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Like our diplomatic corps is (0+ / 0-)

            positioned well now?

            We clearly have already seen the precedent set that a rogue president can do whatever he wants without any oversight or recourse whatsoever- this is writ large all over Iraq. We need to set the precedent that a non-rogue successor can at least attempt to clean up the mess...

          •  We also don't want to set the precedent... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jbeaudill

            ...that any and all agreements made with the US are eternally binding regardless of how insane they are.

            If Bush were to flat-out sign all American assets over to Iraq, for example. Wouldn't that be subject to review by his successor?

            Now, how is this planned treaty of his not merely a lesser version of that? He's basically signing a large chunk of money over, as well as a massive number of US troops. Money and troops that the next president will clearly need elsewhere.

            I'm sorry, but Bush cannot just unilaterally sign an agreement to make the war permanent, and then nobody can touch it from then on.

            With Bush being so universally reviled the world over, how would un-doing such a ridiculous treaty create any sort of significant diplomatic backlash? Near as I can tell, un-doing virtually ANY of Bush's foreign policy is going to position our diplomatic corps a lot better than it is now.

            •  I'm thinking that the anchor against change is (0+ / 0-)

              somewhere in all those Global Trade rules -- where we get sued by all the companies who expected to make money -- because they don't make that money if we don't keep the agreement.

              Probably the BEST way is to declare loud and long in the world press that we VOTE no confidence in Bush and refuse in advance to give any weight to his insane plans.  That lets the Iraqi govt. and people go public in continuing their seeming strategy of delay, delay, delay --- trying to outlast bushbot regime.

              Isn't there some UN date coming up in Sept. where their thin umbrella over our presence in Iraq ENDS without a new vote?  Can't remember.

              Of course --- Rs would spin it as giving terrorists encouragement  -- so as to blame the violence which is coming anyway -- on Ds  -- to steal election.

              Obama should absolutely NOT risk doing anything in Iraq with McCain.  It smells like set up.  

              No flying to campaign stops in Mrs. McCain's plane or with McCain lobbyists.  McCain has violated too many clean campaign rules -- don't want our guy to be guilty by association with flip/flop john.

              De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

              by Neon Mama on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:55:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  "Difficult" is a matter of politics. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman

        It can be done.

        "There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08

        by TomP on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:23:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It won't be politically difficult... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, wishingwell

        to get out of it.

        In fact there would be a big political windfall for doing so. The America First/Foremost/Only crowd are largely Republicans. Pretty easy for President Obama to generate some goodwill with them by saying: "Iraq has to take care of itself, America has given enough". Bunch of them believe it already - these are Ron Paul's supporters.

    •  This is being presented (17+ / 0-)

      as a treaty that the Big Dick is personally trying to force down the Iraqi government's throat.

      America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

      Per the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, part 2:
      (Regarding Presidential powers:)

      Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

      Bush and the Dick may hunger after this eternal oligarchy, but it is within Congress' power to deny it. Will they deny it? With this Congress, based on past performance, I wouldn't bet much on it. The point is, "Yes, they can".

      Searching for corrupt, lobbyist loving John McCain?

      by Lisa Lockwood on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:58:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, trivium

        Obama can do a "virtual" signing statement right now stating all bets are off and all agreements not getting Senate approval will be reviewed post haste under a new Presidency.

        Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

        by mojavefog on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:16:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, we know how Lieberman will vote... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, Jbeaudill, Picot verde, TomP

        we don't have a majority when it comes to Iraq.

      •  Bush is calling it an "agreement" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, ColoTim, Neon Mama, adrianrf

        so as to avoid having to present it to Congress as a treaty for ratification. All the effort Bush and Cheney have invested over the last seven years in constructing "robust executive authority' (presidential autocracy with the legally binding authority of "signing statements") has been for this moment.

        But if he's forced to present it to Congress it's highly likely they'll ratify it anyhow. Bush and Cheney know this. Congress is terrified of having to take any active responsibility for what we do in Iraq.

        There are still ways to stop its enactment, but they require massive public outcry, appeal to the UN and international opinion, and an announcement by Obama that he does not consider SOFA a legitimate agreement consensually negotiated between equally sovereign parties and therefore devoid of any binding power upon the US or Iraq.

      •  The scary part is... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman

        Based on past experience...

        Paging Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton.  She still is the Jr. Senator from NY.  We still can not like her Senatorial experience, right?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site