http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=18357565

This is alarming. The administration is developing something they call a "Declaration of Principles" with the government of Iraq. They won't call it what it clearly is: a treaty! The problem is that "treaties" need to be approved by Congress. This pact, like a treaty, will commit the U.S. to protecting Iraq from both external and internal disturbances for the foreseeable future. It will tie the hands of the next President. The Administration would like to characterize this as a "status of forces" agreement rather than a "treaty". They are parsing their words carefully because a "status of forces agreement" does not have to be approved by Congress and also has never been used to allow the U.S. to interfere in the internal affairs of a country or become embroiled in a civil war. Those wily White House lawyers are hard at work.

It will have no legal force without the approval of Congress.

Trust me on this one.

The President, can not make treaties with foreign nations, without the approval of the Congress of the United States.

That, would be a violation of the Oath of Office, and an impeachable offense.

I'm not lawyer, but here's how it seems. If it's a treaty it needs Congressional approval. If it's not, then the next President doesn't have to abide by it. If the President can make an agreement the next one can cancel it.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

If the democrat congress turns down any reasonable pact, then they will be held responsible for iraq taken over by IFs or iran.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Well, there are a number of "mechanisms" that might come into play.

One is, a presidential "finding", another is, an "executive order".

So, for instance, "findings", often become United States national policy.

They're kinda "under the table", but they're still policy.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, some of those 'terrorist nation" designations, started out that way.

But yeah, you're right, the next President could in theory issue a contrary finding or whatever, but Presidents are pretty careful that way, even Bushie hasn't rescinded or reversed too many of those (that we know of). "Most" of those, are done for a pretty good reason.

But you know, this thing, this is just more Bush idiocy.

Two things -

One is, he knows he could never get the darn thing approved by the Congress, so he's gonna go around the Congress, and I mean, if he really does that in a case like this, I guarantee you're gonna start hearing some serious impeachment noises. This'll never fly, trust me.

And the secondly, what kind of a friggin' moron would commit the United States of America, to police yet another middle Eastern nation? Duh.....

(where's that (*)(*)(*)(*) "moron" icon - we really need one of those! )

So, yeah - watch now, it'll take about two weeks, before someone gets the brillian idea of asking Hillary about this. Maybe even less than that - usually it takes about a week for the story to make Faux Noise, and another week for them to start making political hay out of it, but you know.... I don't know how serious this thing is yet, but I mean, if it's for real, the Dems are gonna be screaming "bloody murder"!

There's no way they're gonna let Bushie get away with this!

All we can do is wait and see!

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

US policy in the mideast should proceed according to what is reasonable and in the best interests of the US - not upon some new appeasement theology. The LAST thing needed now is a repeat of the Jimmy Carter superappeasement era after the vietnam war, when the US scuttled back into its cave, and left the playing field wide open to america's enemies - with predictable results.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

If you read the whole article that I linked, it notes that the Iraqi cabinet are the ones negotiating this "pact". They are the individuals most interested in having U.S. forces remain long term watching their backs, protecting them and keeping them in power.

I wouldn't say Carter presided over an appeasement era. I would characterize it as a "mind your own business" era. I remember, fondly, when Bush also claimed he had no interest in "nation building".

Which is true. There is precedent:

America was not bound to the Kyoto treaty for that very reason, even though Gore signed it.

I personally dont have a problem with a treaty with Iraq. I dont see what the big deal is.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Which is the sdame thing.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?