« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification
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.
Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?
GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.
Lute said the White House intends to conclude negotiations on an enduring security guarantee with the Maliki government in July. Permanent military bases and residual troop levels will be specified in the final accord, he said.
Comments (42)
conniptionfit wrote on November 26, 2007 1:09 PM:In what way does this cement our relationship and/or presence in Iraq and commit the next president to this course? Didn't Bush unilaterally withdraw us from Kyoto agreements, and from World Court agreements, without congressional input? Can't the next President do the same, absent a formalized treaty process and ratification?
Alguien wrote on November 26, 2007 1:12 PM:...and all this time our main worry were any possible recess appointments during Thanksgiving week!
brian wrote on November 26, 2007 1:14 PM:The Americans already have bases all the way around Iran.
The encirclement of Iran is a fact, but the 'news' industry cannot report on it until they are given the story by a White House spokesman or a Pentagon spokesman or a State Department spokesman.
From our bases and aircraft carriers all the way around Iran, we continue provoking that country by the day. We work with disgruntled political factions, border area tribesmen, mercenaries, our own rangers, spies, you name it ...
However, the 'news' industry cannot report on this because the administration has not handed them the story yet.
The American public, of course, could not give a rat's ass.
danger wrote on November 26, 2007 1:21 PM:Welp, we could just defund them. Can't do much without taxpayer money now, can we?
anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 1:24 PM:Congress can simply defund the specific bases, just like they shut down numerous bases within the US.
Of course, the Democrats won't do this, but they could.
kiweagle wrote on November 26, 2007 1:32 PM:Isn't this precisely what Bin Laden and his cohorts said would happen and have been using for recruitment purposes? Last I checked, this is the last thing the Iraqi people want if the polls are anything to go by.
Seriously, someone give me a best case scenario for Iraq that would come anywhere close to justifying the lives and treasure lost through this extraordinary act of stupidity.
Remember, we could have paid the annual salary of every person in Iraq and Afghanistan - including their entire govt budgets - for several years with what we've spent ALREADY.
danger wrote on November 26, 2007 1:33 PM:oh yeah, anonymous, that got me thinking: why the hell did Bush threaten to shut down all of those stateside bases? Interesting how he threatens that and not those in the thick of the war-zone. Guess there's no money in domestic defense!
Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 1:35 PM:Look to Germany, Japan and Korea for precedents. How were those SOFA agreements reached? Was Congress involved?
danger wrote on November 26, 2007 1:37 PM:kiweagle - best case scenario for whom, the USA or the world? If the assets and war profits of companies who got no-bid contracts, such as Halliburton, were seized and returned to the American people, in addition to the departure of those military bases in Iraq and the Middle East, this would be a start. Any sort of agreement I imagine would have to include tons of reparation dollars, and would likely bankrupt this country anyhow.
Come to think of it, there is no best case scenario here that doesn't involve the complete collapse of our country. It's not like history or the rest of the world will forget this.
Jane wrote on November 26, 2007 1:37 PM:Threaten domestic bases? Of course, that's where Congress's voters work. Just a thought.
AltHippo wrote on November 26, 2007 1:59 PM:Just as Bush withdrew unilaterally from the ABM treaty in 2001, so can President Obama, Clinton, or Edwards withdraw from any treaty that Bush creates with respect to Iraq. Using the justification that Cheney, Addington, et al are so fond of: the Unitary Executive theory.
Congressional Republicans, Fox News, and out-of-power Bushies will whine and complain, of course, but the Unitary Executive theory is blind to party. At least in theory. But that theory is clear on the point that no treaty can interfere with the role of the Commander-in-Chief wrt national defense.
Bert wrote on November 26, 2007 2:02 PM:I AM THE MILITARY!!!! I ANSWER TO NO ONE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
What? I'm fired? I have to give up the
LiberalTarian wrote on November 26, 2007 2:04 PM:limo? The defense budget is now four
dollars? They're taking my house?!??!?!
Whaaaaaat!!!!!!?!?!?!? They found the
money?!?!?!?? And the PICTURES?!?!?!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Here's a concept people might be losing touch of in the face of outrage: Reality Based Community.
Just because they say it doesn't make it so.
If we want out of Iraq, we are sure as hell getting out of Iraq.
Get ready for the recession folks, it's coming and it's coming down hard. We aren't going to be funding permanent bases there, because we are not going to be willing to spend the money on it.
Now, if GW Bush wants to spend his own personal fortune there, he is certainly welcome to.
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 2:05 PM:CUT OFF ALL FUNDING NOW!!!!!!!!! WTF is with these wimps in congress??
anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 2:11 PM:danger: Guess there's no money in domestic defense!
Exactly.
And it is far harder to hide corruption and to "lose" millions of dollars in military (and foreign aid) appropriations right here in the US with IGs and US Attorneys sticking their noses into everything and where "security" concerns (for the IGs or other investigators) are less easily played as trump cards to hamstring their investigations or even keep them away from the evidence and witnesses.
gregor wrote on November 26, 2007 2:39 PM:The next President will not be an opponent of the permanent bases.
Hillary has been mortally wounded. Edwards is an easy target should he miraculously get the nomination. And no matter how lofty and nifty it would be to have Obama in the White House, there will have to be an unprecedented and speedy transformation in the American psyche.
Iraq bases are permanent. Deal with it.
kiweagle wrote on November 26, 2007 2:41 PM:I think it's time we all resigned ourselves to the fact that Bush will do everything in his power to ensure that the war doesn't end on his watch - so as to strengthen his "legacy", such as it is.
Remind you of Nixon's reluctance to end the Vietnam War even after admitting in private that it was going nowhere fast?
So much for the optimism we all shared for the new millennium...
bobh wrote on November 26, 2007 3:00 PM:i guess bush was asleep when the navy told him we didnt NEED permanent bases....cuz we have these here carrier battle group thingys.....
hoppy wrote on November 26, 2007 3:10 PM:Permanent bases mean permanent work for Halliburton, Blackwater, etc., as well as a substantial number of other Repubs. I keep getting more evidence that the whole reason for the Iraq invasion was to expedite the transfer of tax money to the bank accounts of a select few Republicans. This fits that like a glove.
Speaking of elections: (weren't we?) The odds are overwhelming that the next and all future presidents will be Repubs. If the asinine initiative proposition here in California passes - the one that would give a large chunk of California's electoral votes to a Repub to be added to their permanent total from the southern states - no Democratic Party candidate can ever again become president.
Uncle_Meat wrote on November 26, 2007 3:12 PM:gregor wrote on November 26, 2007 2:39 PM:
"Iraq bases are permanent. Deal with it."
No. I will not.
Ron Paul '08
bobh wrote on November 26, 2007 3:20 PM:Uncle_Meat wrote on November 26, 2007 3:12 PM:
gregor wrote on November 26, 2007 2:39 PM:
"Iraq bases are permanent. Deal with it."
No. I will not.
Ron Paul '08
You wish. Paul is going to get his libertarian junk handed to him.
Cugel wrote on November 26, 2007 3:21 PM:This is all part of the White House fantasy that somehow, magically, if they don't ever look down like the the Coyote in the roadrunner cartoons, they can defy gravity forever.
Just repeat over and over again: "The Surge Is Working! I do believe in fairies, I do! I do! I do!"
Rudy Guliani: "We cannot allow Tinker-bell to die!"
We don't have to tolerate this B.S. for the next five years. We can demand that the troops come home and keep on demanding it until they do. There's only a limited amount of time that the President and Congress can defy 70% of the American people.
Persona non grata wrote on November 26, 2007 3:25 PM:Three seperate and co-equal branches of government...
Not!
bobh wrote on November 26, 2007 3:30 PM:"We don't have to tolerate this B.S. for the next five years. We can demand that the troops come home and keep on demanding it until they do. There's only a limited amount of time that the President and Congress can defy 70% of the American people."
Never underestimate a politicians willingness to ignore the majority until and unless they start to feel their own personal safety erode.
That is - until some peeps start to shoot intransigent politicos i think the politicos will do whatever they believe they can get away with.
PHB wrote on November 26, 2007 3:47 PM:Its a ridiculous claim. If the treaty is not agreed by the Senate its only an agreement with the Administration.
Under the principle of Unitary Executive finger an incumbent can extend their middle finger to Congress and/or their predecessors any time they feel like it.
Congress has put language in previous appropriations bills baring spending on permanent bases.
Maliki can complain all he likes if he is abandonded, he has no leverage.
jawbone wrote on November 26, 2007 3:58 PM:Time for questions about the "enduring bases" and this proposed BushCo agreement to be asked of each and every presidential candidate.
Now
With follow up.
And ask again if there's dancing.
Dennis wrote on November 26, 2007 4:10 PM:Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 2:05 PM:
CUT OFF ALL FUNDING NOW!!!!!!!!! WTF is with these wimps in congress??"
There are four times when elected government gives a damn about you and/or your opinions;
1)when they need you for a war,
2)if there is a national epidemic or disaster that might threaten the profits of corporations,
3)when you protest against what they are doing,
4)and April 15th of each year.
Political party makes no difference, because there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between them when either party is in office.
Unfortunately, the will of the American government and the will of the American people are not one and the same.
And THAT is the reason neither party is really protesting the illegal spying on Americans.
They can't trust you to be a member of the "herd".
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Uncle_Meat wrote on November 26, 2007 4:29 PM:To bobh, from Webster's:
lib·er·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: \ˌli-bər-ˈter-ē-ən, -ˈte-rē-\
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. b: capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
That's junk? Hell I thought that's what the majority of us were wishing for!!
Rick wrote on November 26, 2007 4:48 PM:War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification
This shows you that you need to work with Congress. Congress to right bill with no funds to be used in Military bases in Iraq.
osage wrote on November 26, 2007 5:49 PM:But congress can defund anything they want to. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that a Democratic congressional majority with a Democratic president is going to feel obliged to honor forced and oppressive Repubulican agreements that waste billions of taxpayer dollars? Republicans will have no power after Bush is gone. That's why so many of them are resigning before the end of their terms. The Bush administration is futility assuming that they aren't going to lose the 2008 elections by a landslide. Policy failure is the most consistently identifiable aspect of the Bush administration. Nothing they have done has benefitted the American people or the Republican party. When Democrats are running everything, the War Czar will probably be working for a private immigration security company. Who gives a damn about what he thinks or says?
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 6:13 PM:I am sure iraqis as well as the majority of americans are waiting for the day when the american imperial embassy in downtown baghdad is leveled and the iraqis are truly free. What a stick stabbed in the eye of iraqis. Disgusting.
TheraP wrote on November 26, 2007 6:33 PM:Keep an eye on who they send out to do the PR work now. Seems they think the military are the right people to send out for "enforcement." Women to soothe things. Sickening really. Nothing but PR and photo ops - and the dictatorship of course.
Dennis wrote on November 26, 2007 6:34 PM:osage wrote on November 26, 2007 5:49 PM: "But congress can defund anything they want to. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that a Democratic congressional majority with a Democratic president is going to feel obliged to honor forced and oppressive Repubulican agreements that waste billions of taxpayer dollars?"
I hate to break your bubble, but the Democrats are no more willing to pull out of Iraq than are the Republicans.
These political parties are not about people, they are about profits and corporations.
And the "terrorists are at the door" theme is more about controlling the American people than it is about terrorists from some other country.
These cameras appearing all over the country (in whatever form, drones or on light poles), and the wiretapping are about you and me.
Are there terrorists or would be terrorists who want to do more 9/11 type stuff - I have not doubt there probably are. But keep in mind that 9/11 was at a center of commerce.
Keep your eye on it; in time to come, anyone elected to Washington will be someone who will not challenge our corporate controlled government.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 10:04 PM:That assumes that there will actually be an election in 2008. I think terrorist attack and martial law are going to be here very soon. GW is going to put me in Room 101 for sure.
Winston Smith wrote on November 26, 2007 10:07 PM:That assumes there will even be an election in 2008. I am putting my money on a terrorist attack followed by martial law. GW is going to come knocking on your front door and off to Room 101 you go.
"I love George Bush!" 2+2=5
parrot wrote on November 27, 2007 2:36 AM:Smacks of treason against the Constitution, don't it? Where is Congress on the military and the president perpetually deciding where and how many troops that the Congress will just rubberstamp pay for?
Deep Peace wrote on November 27, 2007 2:40 AM:http://prouddemocrats.freeforums.org/portal.php?article=0
Announcement: US expands military training program for teens
Posted: AnOhioan @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:02 pm
Quote:
Dozens of teens dressed in uniforms provided by the US Marines stand at attention in the gym of a Chicago public high school as a drill sergeant goes through a list of the day's do's and don'ts.
Bring your books to class. Come for extra help if you need it. And wear your uniform with pride.
"Young men, you think you can get a haircut and say I'm done for two or three weeks. WRONG," Sgt. Major Thomas Smith Jr. intones.
"Young ladies. There's been no problem with your uniforms but there is a problem with your ties. Again, I will go through it again. Wear your ties when you come to my class."
One in 10 public high school students in Chicago wears a military uniform to school and takes classes -- including how to shoot a gun properly -- from retired veterans.
That number is expected to rise as junior military reserve programs expand across the country now that a congressional cap of 3,500 units has been lifted from the nearly century-old scheme
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Military_training_program_for_teens_11252007.html
albert holub wrote on November 27, 2007 8:01 AM:The people do care but we are helpless,but if we had recall like other countries had we can those sobs that are screwing up our country.
Gus wrote on November 27, 2007 12:23 PM:What makes Iraq so special?
ShorelineCT wrote on November 27, 2007 1:07 PM:Stop the occupation of Europe first by by defunding the permanent bases there!!
Hoppy got a good start on the facts "...Permanent bases mean permanent work for Halliburton, Blackwater, etc., as well as a substantial number of other Repubs..."
Permanent bases really means our military can stay and protect our oil under their sand. Bring in those MEGA-rigs and lets start drillin'!!
Nazi love child wrote on November 27, 2007 1:09 PM:Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 10:04 PM:
"That assumes that there will actually be an election in 2008. I think terrorist attack and martial law are going to be here very soon".
I would bet money on that happening! Reed and Pelosi think so too, they have already joined the other side. We are so screwed!
Legalize wrote on November 27, 2007 1:47 PM:Hmm, permanent bases in Iraq annouced the same day Trent Lott announced his resignation from the Senate. Bremmer pt. 2?