For months, the Bush Administration has been trying to lock in the U.S. Military's occupation of Iraq regardless of who our next president is. Democratics in Congress as well as candidates Clinton and Obama have insisted that any agreement will require ratification by the Senate. BushCo disagrees.
The White House is trying to slide an open-ended treaty obligation to prop up the Maliki government under the guise of negotiating a routine "status of forces" agreement -- claiming that American occupation of Iraq is like stationing Army and Air Forces in Germany or Okinawa. Of course, that doesn't pass the "laugh-out-loud-disbelief" test.
Now, Bush's argument for the Administration's unilateral commitment of our military force to open-ended occupation is that it is justified under the original "Use of Force Resolution" of 2002, and that Congress has recorded its complaisance(and collusion) by not cutting off funding operations in Iraq despite several half-hearted gestures.
Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner came up with this new justification for executive authority -- without Congressional meddling -- by combining the original AUMF with the post-9/11 congressional resolution passed one week after 9/11, authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." And, to prove that the Administration still has the backing of the Legislative branch for its McCainesque War Without End, Bergner pointed out that, "Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the Iraq war."
To be clear: what is being negotiated is not a routine "status of forces" agreement. It obligates the United States to "defending [Iraq's] democratic system against internal and external threats."
Rep. Bill Delahunt said in January that what the administration was negotiating amounted to a treaty. "Where have we ever had an agreement to defend a foreign country from external attack and internal attack that was not a treaty?" he asked.
According to the Constitution, treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
So, now we get it that Reid, et. al., are not only are incapable of acting on the 2006 mandate to end the war as soon as possible, but his and Pelosi's moral failures and political ineptitude are now abetting the Bush/Cheney gutting of the Constitution.
Congress' unwillingness to "cut off the troops in the field" is now positive support for presidential hubris.
How can these precidents be rolled back? It will be very difficult for even the most "conscious" and progressive President to give up the powers this Congress has blithely forked over to the Executive.
I want to puke.