Sorry Dems - You Pissed It Away - YOU JUST LOST IRAQ!!!

Bush May Sign a Long Term Pact with Iraq That Would Make It Extremely Difficult
for the Next President to Withdraw American Troops

Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq.
Bush's efforts to negotiate a long-term U.S-Iraq pact may remove troops as an '08 election issue for Obama, Clinton.

Jan 12, 2008 | Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET Jan 12, 2008

Camp Arifjan in the desert kingdom of Kuwait, America's depot to the Iraq war, feels about as far away as you can get from South Carolina, Super Tuesday and the election-year squabbles back home. And George W. Bush, who is currently midway through his six-nation tour of the Mideast, is doing a good job of distancing himself from the politics of 2008. But as Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a "Hoo-ah" and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race--and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process." The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House--in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

more at:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

:-(

<eom>

and it doesn't seem like bush had any trouble breaching treaties and pacts when he stole power. :shrug:

But, given their record since 2006, what makes you think our "leaders" wouldn't just carp a bit, then roll over and ratify what ever the Unitary President sends them?

Lets not forget how often they have caved in such cowardly fashion to Bush's every whim.

Let's ask ourselves if we are really naive enough to think anything will be different if one of these two is elected president. It won't.

a 2/3's majority plus one.
Hopefully 67 Senators would not be for this Treaty.

This is such bs.

Of course, it's coming from Newsweek,...the RW corporate HO.

It boggles the mind, though, that ANY publication would suggest such absurd crap!!!!

I remember Bush pulling out of Kyoto and a half dozen other treaties. Fuck him. Anything he does can be undone.

Bush pull(ed) out of Kyoto and a half dozen other treaties...Anything he does can be undone.

If I had any doubts that he wouldn't dare try to say in office, they're gone now.

:headbang:
rocknation

Scare tactics like this are NOT productive - I'm hiding this stupid thread.

...presented by an accomodating publication.

jettisoning this asshole's bad work...

We deserve to be in Iraq for the next 60 years.

... will be free to whatever he/she pleases, unilaterally and without authorization from anyone - being above the law and able to act without any constraint.

THAT precedent has been set by Bush himself.

An excuse to not end the war, and being able to blame it on Bush to boot.

It's perfect for them, because neither of them want to bring the troops home.

they want to keep getting big $$$ for their election campaigns. Ambition and greed trump statesmanship every time.

And while I will hold my nose and vote in November, I won't do so a second time if we're still fighting this insane war four years from now.

:grr:

Treaties have to be approved by the Congress.

You know, the way "torture" became "environmental manipulation"?

:eyes:
rocknation

nt

As long as Congress keeps funding the LARGEST MILITARY BUDGET IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD ... whomever is "Commander in Chief" will use that massive power in ways that are NOT checked and balanced. Period.

That's why the Founders made the Constitution include a LIMIT of two years for any military funding.

It's too bad that the COWARDS and CRIMINALS in Congress keep throwing taxpayer money into the Military-Industrial-Complex WAR MACHINE ... for any President to use any way he wants.

And I certainly agree with everything you say in your post.

But it's neither here nor there with respect to the OP.

Oh, right, because some writer at Newsweek said so.

But Bush may have the upper hand now. The president touted the surge's success on Saturday, and he reiterated that "long-term success will require active U.S. engagement that outlasts my presidency." The "enduring relationship" he is building with Iraq, Bush added, "will have diplomatic, economic and security components--similar to relationships we have with Kuwait and other nations in this region and around the world." Some of those relationships have now lasted decades. And as in Japan, Germany, Korea and Kuwait, they include a substantial troop presence. Far away in the Persian Gulf, Bush is creating facts on the ground that the next president may not be able to ignore.

Such a pact would have to go through the Senate, which means Iraq would be back on the front pages again, which helps us a great deal.

and start doing something to prevent Bush from making them look like chumps again.

The candidates, that is. It would help to decide who we want to vote for.

Any such agreement must be ratified by the US Senate before it becomes binding on the US. Hopefully, Harry Reid can prevent that.

Bush can sign anything he wants to; his signature places no obligation on the United States.

that *² signs us up for.

Moqtada al Sadr & his gang will end up running the place, and I doubt that they will feel compelled to uphold any "paper promises"..

Just for the rhyming effect, I'm guessing. Both Hillary and Obama seem to want the war to end, but both did very little outside their campaigning to bring it to a halt.

Oh well, can't say most of the rest of Congress was any different...:eyes:

I just think its a riot that Bush thinks he can make decisions for us years ahead

:rofl: he is a full of himself

The real question is, will we??

would have done.

A SOFA would assure the destruction of our economy, by keeping us embroiled in a very costly civil war. Mission fukin accomplished.

I'll believe it, but not until then.

But thanks, Bush, for lighting a fire under some of our own Dems both in Congress and running for president who are so reluctant to pull out of Iraq. It will make it more difficult for them to justify staying.

maybe we can get out on a tec.

What? You have a signed piece of paper by Bush? Hahaha... we fell for that once, too. Sorry. His word isn't any good. Take it up with the Hague.

I guess this is how. Bastard.

They might pay lip service to pulling them out but they have no intention of doing so.

Anyone want to guess who?

It seems unconstitutional to force a future president to act a certain way without it even being ratified by the Senate.

Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements.

The middle east is an unending blackmail. We bribe both sides, and bankrupt the working class here to pay for the endless military industrial complex. We arm all sides. We buy peace and we buy war. Oddly, it's never succeeded in doing anything except making the privatized military stronger than our own political process. What a racket.