Comments on: On Iraq, Our President-for-Life

By: domajot

domajot — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:45:35 +0000

I brought up the subject of treaties, because it sounded like one to me. The subject is irrelevant now, because Bush has declared that this ‘commitment’ is not a treaty.
I’d like to write a book about how politicizing language is warping our reality, BTW.

I think Congress could challenge him on this, anyway, but will they?
This, and the oursourcing of torture, should be the kind of issues raised with the candidates.
After health care, I can’t think of anything more important We need to know where the candidates stand.

I’m beginning to wonder if, when they talk about residual forces, this isn’t the kind of thing they have in mind.

Bush will do his thing for as long as he is in office.
Congress doesn’t have enough of a majoity to move him.. We should at least be clear about where the condidates, Congressional as well as Presidential, stnad, if there is to be any hope for change in 2009.

This ‘commitment’ has such far reaching impkications, it should be blazing in news headlines every day. Instead, attention is drawn to things like Hillary’s hair cut. If the MSM don’t get it, at least he glogosphere should, but there, too, the story dies almost as soon as it comes up.

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:14:22 +0000

I did a little research and Bush can enter into “treaties” with other countries- basically agreements/contracts. But true treaties entered into by the US do require the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate. And Congress does have the power of the purse. So if Bush wanted to enter into a treaty, which required money, he would need congressional approval. But then again we’re talking about Bush and if he entered into a treaty- an agreement, not a true treaty- with Iraq which required funds, I imagine he would argue that the funds should fall under the DoD. Though I would imagine that Congress would just not fund that particular program.

I don’t think we can “unratify” a treaty, but Congress can pass laws which would effectively “unratify” any obligation Bush took upon himself to commit the country to. No need to wait for the next POTUS, as long as there were enough Republicans on board to override a veto…. The Republican candidates may not want to go along with Bush, but the Bush administration, for the most part, has been keeping the congressional Republicans in line…. So yeah, if Bush did something else wacky and there wasn’t the congressional Republican support to override it, we would need a Democratic POTUS to override it. Given the positions of the Repub. candidates I doubt any one of them would override (pass new legislation into law) any treaty Bush entered into.

Again I’m no expert so if anyone has corrections, please feel free to jump in. I think I’ve discovered just enough to be dangerous… and probably not completely helpful. Also I’m sorry if my terminology isn’t tight and precise.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:52:24 +0000

Ummmm…I was criticizing what Bush did and pointing out that I just don’t see any way that an agreement that he signed with no congressional backing can be binding and if the Republicans want to whine about his successor not sticking with it I would have no sympathy at all.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:38:22 +0000

SBSF – Bush can do this as sort of an executive order, but then could be overturned by the next POTUS. By making it a treaty, it becomes basically law, and Congress ratifies and then CAN UNRATIFY,I believe.

By: University Update - White House - On Iraq, Our President-for-Life

University Update - White House - On Iraq, Our President-for-Life — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:46:26 +0000

[...] Mine On Iraq, Our President-for-Life » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:59:28 +0000

I may be totally off the mark here- I haven’t seen this particular aspect brought up… but could these latest words out of Bush’s mouth be part of his blustering in an attempt to get Congress to send him that $50 billion war spending bill with no strings attached?

Bush has learned that he can control Congress by use of threats- no matter how wild they are. Perhaps this is another game for him to get his way.

I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read in the media the past few days about this issue (and to echo what Jim Satterfield said), without Congressional approval Bush can not make the kind of commitment he is speaking of. But as domajot said, it’s all about language. Just like Bush claims torture isn’t torture because he calls it something else. Which leads me to believe it’s just blustering. Nothing Bush does (and what Congress caves in on) makes much sense these days.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:22:31 +0000

I’m thinking that the Democrats don’t have the spine or cajones to demand an actual treaty. If said treaty were put in front of the Congress they would kiss W’s ass and ratify the treaty. Would POTUS Hillary risk being called an appeaser and negate the agreement, me thinks not.

By: Davebo

Davebo — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:16:15 +0000

Don’t like it? Tough.

Pretty much the standard response from the 26%’er’s to the rest of the country.

Now, if you’d just leave your VISA account number, we’ve got this two trillion dollar mandate you decided on we need to settle up.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:42:53 +0000

It it’s not a treaty it’s not a valid commitment on the part of the government of the United States once Bush is out of office. Don’t like it? Tough.

By: domajot

domajot — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:16:24 +0000

When it came out that such an agreement was in the works some months ago, I thought Congress would step in with its ratification of treaties role.

The way politics is done now, any obstacle can be overcome by a simple process of renaming. It’s not a treaty, we are told. How convenient a collection of words can be when it’s time to mislead and obsuscate.