Iraqi Constitution Requires Parliament to Approve Long-Term U.S. Presence

Iraqi Constitution Requires Parliament to Approve Long-Term U.S. Presence
By Spencer Ackerman - Nov 27, 2007 - http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004783.php

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. It's unclear whether that's true, and I'll tell you more as soon as I know it. But even if it is, the Iraqi constitution stipulates that Iraq's parliament has to ratify any such agreement. And the Iraqi parliament is a lot more hostile to the idea of hosting U.S. troops indefinitely than the U.S. Senate is.

Take a look at Article 58, Section 4 of the Iraqi constitution (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9719734/page/2/). 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."

And it's hard to see the votes for a two-thirds parliamentary majority. ..............

War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification
Spencer Ackerman - Nov 26, 2007 - http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004776.php


Could Congress stop a Bush administration-brokered deal to garrison U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely? Not according to General Douglas Lute, the so-called "war czar." Here's Lute at today's gaggle:

Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?

GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it's not -- it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.

............

Seemed a but odd that we're establishing the right of government provided medical care in Iraq, while lambasting it in this country.

approval (of some sort) for a deal that would tie us and commit us, in money, troops and resources, to another country for decades--that's not exactly a signing-statement executive decision. It's a BIG FUCKING DEAL. If the Dems don't even demand a vote to ratify or deny this "treaty", then I'll go change my registration to "unaffiliated"--I'd be THAT disgusted.