As I was surfing the news this morning, I came across this article whose title just says it all:
Bush officials: Congress irrelevant on Iraq
The article is from the Army Times, not exactly one of your radical news outlets.
The sad thing is that the title grabs me because it's pretty much true, despite the fact that so many people worked so hard to make it otherwise.
The article describes testimony in a joint hearing entitled, "Declaration and Principles: Future U.S. Commitments to Iraq," before the House Foreign Affairs international organizations, human rights and oversight subcommittee and Middle East and South Asia subcommittee. David Satterfield, senior adviser and coordinator for Iraq at the State Department, and Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Mary Beth Long testified.
You can watch the video here: link
The Army Times article sums up the administration's position:
The Bush administration says the 2002 congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq gives it the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq and negotiate far-reaching agreements with the current Iraqi government without consulting Congress.
The Bush administration also feels it does not need to seek the authorization of Congress to ratify two pending agreements with Iraq: a "Strategic Framework" that would govern "normalized" relations with the U.S., and a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern the "authorities and protections" of U.S. troops in Iraq past Dec. 31, the expiration of a U.N. resolution that the administration says authorizes their presence.
The big issue to me is the Status of Forces agreement that Bush is negotiating with Iraq in order to extend the American presence there and give the US (among other things) the power to continue combat operations, to exempt civilian contractors from any sort of accountability Iraqi law and gives the US the right to detain Iraqi prisoners. The document would also commit the US to defend the government of Iraq from internal and external threats - essentially the sort of language that would normally be included in a treaty. There is also concern that such an agreement would bind the government (after Bush's Reign of Error) to its terms either explicitly in the document or through the creation of expectations.
Anticipating difficulties in getting authorization from Congress, Bush has decided to make them irrelevant (testimony quoted in Army Times article):
"You don’t intend to submit this particular Status of Forces Agreement with its authority to fight to the Congress for its approval?" asked Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass.
"The secretary of defense has already testified, and I believe Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice has reiterated, that it is our intent and our obligation to coordinate with the members," Long replied.
"Coordination is a lovely word, and I know consultation and notification are also words that are being used and will be used," Delahunt said. "But I used the word, authorization,’ " Delahunt said. "It’s the position of this administration that they do not need to come before Congress to receive authorization?
"That’s correct," Long said.
"That’s correct," Satterfield echoed.
In 2006 a new majority was elected to Congress to end the madness in Iraq. Our "representatives" have failed miserably.
If, as the Army Times article says, "Congress is irrelevant," it is due to the incompetence and cowardice of many of the folks that we elected.
This is just depressing as hell.