Webb: Bush Administration on verge of "constitutional coup d'etat"

Alright, THIS is the Jim Webb I know and love! Now, sir, can you please say something as strong as this about your fellow Naval Academy grad, John McCain? :)

Webb Calls for Congressional Approval of Any Future U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement
Says Congress Needs to Restore Constitutional Balance When Negotiating Future Long-Term Relationships with Nations

Washington, DC- Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation calling for the United States to seek an extension of the United Nations Security Council mandate of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and providing that any new security agreement negotiated between the United States and the Government of Iraq would not remain in effect unless approved by Congress within 180 days of entry. These provisions underscore the importance of constitutional oversight in reaching long-term security negotiations with Iraq.

Noting that the legal authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq will expire December 31, 2008, and that Congress will be adjourned at that time, Webb warned that the Bush administration was on the verge of "a constitutional coup d'etat, a further expansion of the powers of the presidency," by agreeing to a long-term relationship without the consent of Congress.

Lowell :: Webb: Bush Administration on verge of "constitutional coup d'etat"
"We are now faced with the reality that the United Nations mandate will expire at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground in that country," said Webb. "Many of my colleagues and I started warning last November that the intention of this administration was to proceed purely with an executive agreement, to drag this out until the Congress was going to go out of session, then to present the executive agreement essentially as a fait accompli."
Webb stressed the necessity of constitutional balance and oversight when negotiating long-term relationships with nations. Instead, the Bush administration has claimed repeatedly that it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set the future course of the United States' relationship with Iraq without the agreement or even the ratification of the Congress.

"The largest question, really, is what entity of the federal government has the authority to enter the United States into a long-term relationship with another government?" asked Webb on the Senate floor. "I would submit that the conditions under which we will continue to operate in Iraq-militarily, diplomatically, economically, and even culturally-are not the sole business of any administration.

"This administration's approach seeks to affirm in many minds that the President-any President-no longer needs the approval of Congress to enter into long-term relations with another country. In effect, that is committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our economic well-being, our diplomatic posture around the world, without the direct involvement of the United States Congress."

Webb concluded: "This is not what the Constitution intended. It's not in the best interest of the country. And this amendment which I introduce today is designed to prevent this sort of an imbalance from occurring at the same time that it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our presence in Iraq at the end of this year."

Senator Webb's amendment was filed today as #5499 to the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

To read a copy of Senator Webb's floor speech, visit: http://webb.senate.gov/newsroo...

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15906

http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=0442715f-d8e5-4cff-bbae-2222e2bb4d30

BIDEN/HAGEL/CASEY/VOINOVICH/WEBB Introduce Bill on Iraq Security Agreements

August 1, 2008

Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) and Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Bob Casey (D-PA), George Voinovich (R-OH) and Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation which prohibits the Bush Administration from entering into a binding security agreement without the approval of Congress.

“With less than six months left in his term, the President is on a course to commit the United States to guarantee Iraq’s security far into the future,” said Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This legislation makes clear that the President cannot do that without Congressional approval. Rather than engaging in these negotiations – which by the Administration’s admission will ‘set the broad parameters’ of the U.S.-Iraq relationship – the President should secure a short-term agreement, through the UN, or with Iraq, to provide the necessary legal protection for U.S. forces after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.”

“A strategic framework for a continued U.S.-Iraqi relationship that includes future U.S. security commitments and arrangements will be sustainable only with strong and broad political support in both the United States and Iraq. Only direct involvement by and partnership with the Congress will ensure a consensus of support in the United States,” said Senator Chuck Hagel.

“Unfortunately, the Administration continues to handle long-term security negotiations in the same manner that has characterized its entire approach to Iraq since 2003, without Congressional input,” said Senator Casey. “Now we have no choice but to require Congress to approve any U.S.-Iraq strategic agreement that includes provisions committing the United States to the defense of Iraq against aggression.”

“It is imperative that Congress exercise its proper authority on the vital issue of our future relationship with Iraq, and on the question of whether the United States should maintain a long-term presence in that country,” said Senator Webb. “This bipartisan legislation would ensure that any agreement with Iraq would not be implemented without the explicit consent of Congress and protects the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate in this important national security matter.”

The Administration is negotiating two agreements with Iraq – a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) – pursuant to the “Declaration of Principles” signed by President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki last November. The Declaration called for the conclusion of the agreements by yesterday, July 31, 2008, which would cover a broad range of topics, including political, economic and security issues. In the security sphere, the Declaration proposed to commit the United States to “supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats” and to provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.”

The Administration has asserted that neither the SFA nor the SOFA will contain a binding security commitment. One of the agreements, however, will likely contain a lesser security promise – described as a security arrangement – that involves a pledge to consult on appropriate steps if Iraq is threatened or attacked. With over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi security forces, the government and people of Iraq are likely to perceive such a promise as a security guarantee.

“The notion that Iraq’s leaders plan to submit the agreement to their Parliament – but our President does not – makes no sense,” Senator Biden added. “The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval first.”

(based on no facts whatsoever) is that instead of having it as a stand=alone bill, they decided to make it part of the defense authorization bill. Faster, and hopefully with better chances of actually passing (and not being vetoed).

On edit: I went to Webb's page to have a closer look. It is just a sense of congress amendment.

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=302942& (this works, link in the OP is incomplete)

I don't see any last minute moves to get anything but laughs.

Can't we just chain this guy to his bed until January??

IMO.

n/t

You say potato, I say potahto. The is their "mission accomplished", to kill the Constitution counting on a cowering Congress to help them along. I love Webb but, jeebus! this may come a day late and a dollar short.

But at least they're talking about this. It beats the silence from Democratic leadership on the stolen elections.

Make no doubt or mistake about it. By the Phony Clinton Impeachment I think, due to the new kinderf and gentler methods of Gleichschaltung, etc., the salient aspects of the coup were already completed and in place, primarily a gigantic double-standard set in stone across the judicial and media speheres by Bushie Operatives and the Cowards that Toady to Them, though there are MANy aspects to the Bushies' multi-faceted assault on the Constitution.

The bizarre DC notion of trying to stop lawbreakers by passing more laws is downright delusional.

It's nearly run out the clock on the only ACTION available -- impeachment in real time, as simple objection, and a precursor to any form of other accountability ever. And the constant masturbatory displays of impotence continue to damage the Dem Party brand among the public/electorate (the "optics" of weakness are loud and clear).

Failure to impeach APPROVES the coup d'etat.

Still, Webb may be reachable if we all just keep talking impeachment. Don't listen to the pathetic excuses of the impeachophobes and don't be hesitant to point out how useless and idiotic their non-actions really are.

Maybe he can even help get http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">the cowering Obama to wake up.

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

---

It's been decided. There's nothing more we can do. I really believe this, and certainly don't say it with any pleasure since I had the word "Impeach" emblazoned on the back of my pickup for over a year.




They'll have to be prosecuted somewhere other than the Senate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3931792

And likely wouldn't under almost any circumstances. Resignations are more likely.

But even a "failed" House vote would be a line in the sand. Something to base future actions upon. Without even that much, the actions of the regime are "approved."

It really is impeachment or bust. Anything else is mainly pipe dreaming and cannot undo the damage of Failure to Impeach.

--

At the Moment Of Truth... Webb voted "YES" on Bush's FISA powergrab.

Thanks, buddy.

It's nice to see him have a change of heart. :sarcasm: