An article on TPM provides us this eyebrow wrinkling irony:
Iraqi Constitution Requires Parliament to Approve Long-Term U.S. Presence
Well, it's sure a darn good thing they have better separation of powers than is currently available in our constitution! Even if Maliki wants to sign on for permanent colony status, he's going to need some advice and consent from the other branch of Iraqi government, the parliament. Maybe we could take something from this idea to use here?
Yesterday, General Douglas Lute, a top Iraq adviser to President Bush, said that the administration didn't require Senate ratification for its forthcoming long-term security guarantee to the Iraqis.
Gen. Lute, our war czar, says we don't need no stinkin' congress putting their nose in our occupation! We're just gonna create documents called 'principles' not treaties and those senate busybodies can just butt out!
But miraculously, we are saved by the sketchy Iraqi constitution, hastily tossed into place as the new Iraqi form of government. Who would have forseen this hilarious turn of events - Iraqi laws working better than our own?
the Iraqi constitution stipulates that Iraq's parliament has to ratify any such agreement... Article 58, Section 4 of the Iraqi constitution. It stipulates that the Iraqi parliament shall ratify "international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority." Whether or not President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki can finagle the deal so that it's not a treaty -- as Lute suggested yesterday -- it most certainly is an "agreement."
At any rate, it's obvious that all of the US is in favor of permanent bases in Iraq. Why bother with the tedium of actually bringing it up for a vote?
the Iraqi parliament is a lot more hostile to the idea of hosting U.S. troops indefinitely than the U.S. Senate is.
Really? The US Senate is NOT hostile to the idea of US troops in Iraq forever? I wonder - did the intrepid reporter of this article take an online poll of senators to get this result? Zogby would be proud.