Sonny: Well we do.
Cher: And that's all you got to say? You're just going to let them tell us what to do now?
Sonny: That's not it! We've got a contract, don't you understand? It's either that or we're in a lot of trouble. You know nothing -- nothing -- about business!
Cher: I don't care anything about business. I just care what you said and you said we wouldn't have to do it. I told you not to get involved with those people.
Sonny: Now I get I told you so, right? Okay, I did it and we goofed. Okay, I'm sorry. What else?
-- Good Times (1967) starring Sonny & Cher also included in the intro of "Just A Name" on the film's soundtrack.
When do you want your I told you so?
Figure it out and let us know.
But don't say "we" goofed because "we" didn't goof.
The White House has been attempting to push through their treaty with the puppet government in Baghdad for the bulk of this year after initiating talks on the subject in November of 2007. The United Nations Security Council's mandate governing the occupation of Iraq expires December 31st. The choices were renew the mandate or put together a treaty. The White House opted for the latter and swore it would be concluded and passed last July and it wasn't. Now a vote's expected in the Iraqi Parliament on Monday after it's already been approved by Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet. If approved by the Parliament, it would next go to the presidency council made up of Jalal Talabani and Iraq's two vice-presidents -- any of the three could veto it.
And over here?
In the United States, there's no process required at all. Or that's what the White House maintains. In spite of the Constitution.
But no problem, right? Congress has been calling out the White House's attempt to circumvent the Supreme Law Of The Land for over a year and Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congresses plus the president-elect is a Democrat! Problems solved!
Not so fast. Last week, Michael Abramowitz' "Bush Reversal on Iraq Deadline Gives Obama Breathing Room" (Washington Post) explained:
The agreement signed yesterday by U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari needs approval by the Iraqi parliament. And the Obama transition team is signaling that it wants Congress to review the pact, though not necessarily approve it.
"President-elect Obama believes it is critical that a status-of-forces agreement that ensures sufficient protections for our men and women in uniform is reached before the end of the year. We look forward to reviewing the final text of the agreement," said Brooke Anderson, a policy adviser and spokeswoman on national security.
Is anyone still trying to count up all the Barack caves because Boy Blunder is buckling again.
During the Democratic Party primary, when Hillary Clinton repeatedly called out the White House's attempt to break the Constitution, Barack attempted to ride her bandwagon. He became one of thirteen co-sponsors to her S. 2426 on this issue. Clinton's bill was one of many in the House and Senate. Objection to the White House pushing through a treaty without Congressional approval resulted in bi-partisan objection which was most vocal during the April 10th Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing chaired by Joe Biden. Biden who is now the vice president-elect.
Barack and Biden offered the following in "Plan for Ending the War in Iraq:"
The Status-of-Forces-Agreement
Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval--yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
That's what they campaigned on throughout the general election. But the Cult Members who thought they saw caving after Barack secured/stole the Democratic presidential nomination haven't seen nothing yet.
If they cave on this issue, Barack-Biden's name is going to be mud long before the inauguration. Biden told the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long, regarding the so-called Status Of Forces Agreement, "I respectfully suggest that you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on." That was April 10th.
At that hearing, Senator Robert Menendez offered the following opinion, "Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe that such an agreement needs to come before Congress." Menendez argued for a renewal of the UN mandate. That also is the opinion of US House Rep Bill Delahunt who chaired a hearing on the issue last week during which he declared, "What we do now could very well be referred to at some future date much to our chagrin if we don't stand up and take some sort of action. My option is extend the UN mandate because that solves all of these issues. It protects our troops. It provides the authority to conduct offensive military operations."
Delahunt was chairing Wednesday's Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing which sought testimony from five witnesses: Oona A. Hathaway, Raed Jarrar, Michael Matheson, Issam Michael Saliba and Thomas Donnelly.
At the outset, Delahnut reminded that "no one should forget that this agreement has just been provided to Congress -- and that there has been no time to conduct the analysis required by such a significant document -- one that purports to end a conflict that has had such momentous and tragic consequences for both the Iraqi and the American people. And remember there has been no meaningful consultation with Congress during the negotiation of this agreement. And the American people, for all intents and purposes, have been kept completely left out. Even now the National Security Council has requested that we do not show this document to our witnesses or release it to the public -- a public that for over five years has paid so dearly with blood and treasure. Now I find that incredible. Meantime, the Iraqi government has posted this document on its media website so that anybody who can read Arabic can take part in the public discourse. But this is typical of the Bush administration and its unhealthy and undemocratic obsession with secrecy."
Only one organization seemed to be paying attention last week, the American Freedom Campaign which issued the following action alert:
Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed!
We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled.
The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes.
Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties.
If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops.
Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress.
Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here]
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you.
Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign
Action Fund
At last week's hearing, UC Berkeley's School of Law professor Oona Hathaway outlined three areas of concern:
1) "The agreement in my view threatens to undermine the Constitutional powers of President-elect Obama as commander-in-chief and it does so in two ways.
a) So first this agreement gives operational control to a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee which is made up of Iraqis and Americans and is jointly led by both sides according to the agreement."
b) "The proposed agreement also undermines the Constitutional powers of President-elect Obama as commander in chief by binding him to observe specific timetables that are outlined in the agreement for the withdrawal of US troops."
2) "The conclusion of this agreement without any Congressional involvement is unprecedented and, in my view, unconstitutional."
3) "If the administration proceeds as planned the war will likely become illegal under United States law when the UN mandate expires on December 31st."
Those are three very complex issues and their complexity requires Congressional oversight, input and approval for any treaty the White House might want to push through. The legal issues are immediate and longterm. Of the latter, the notion that the White House can push through a treaty with no Congressional approval would have long lasting and life altering consequences if allowed to stand unchallenged. That is not a power vested in the office of the presidency. Allowing the White House to get away with this power grab destroys the framework for our federal government and the checks and balances the framework is supposed to allow.
Long after the Iraq War ends, we would live with and under the stain of that illegal activity which would create and encourage further power grabs and disregard for the Constitution.
The Iraq War ends?
The treaty is being pimped like crazy by the MSM and it's a case of you're being sold a bill of goods the same way they tried during the lead up to the illegal war. In part to clamp down on objection, they keep insisting that the treaty means all US troops are out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
A bold face lie.
First, the contract only has to run for 2009. Either the US or Iraq can cancel the contract at any point but they must provide one-year's notice. So the contract that the press swears means an end to the illegal war in 2011 will not even necessarily run to 2011.
But that's the lie that they sell the treaty to the public with the same way WMD was the lie they used to sell the illegal war.
Why Barack's caved is a question only he can answer but it is true that accepting Bully Boy's treaty and hoping the Iraqis pick up the two options for extensions would mean the illegal war would run longer than what he promised on the campaign trail. Maybe he plans to announce, "I wanted to keep that promise but I'm not the one who pushed this treaty. It was made before I was president!"
If he tries that garbage, everyone needs to remember he was not publicly objecting when it could have made a difference. Nor was he maintaining the position he'd campaigned on in both the primary and general elections.
The easiest solution is for a renewal of the UN mandate to be requested for a limited time (six months). Those late to the party can refer to Delahunt and US House Rep Rosa DeLauro's July 8th's "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post).
A lot of harm will be done if the White House is allowed to push through that treaty without Congressional approval and Democrats will be left looking especially foolish. Senator Jim Webb publicly stood up to insist that the Constitution be followed back in April, telling Satterfield of the treaty, "I would argue it's a document that needs Senate consent." Webb was far from the only
Democrat standing up. Along with Webb, Clinton, Delahunt, DeLauro and Biden, others in the Congress included Ike Skelton, Susan Davis, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Water, Russ Feingold and many more.
If Barack decides to cave on the Constitution and members of his own party do not call him out, then they're telling the American people that all their words were meaningless and they were just offering sniping in an effort to defeat and disarm the previous president.
The Constitution only needs to be stood up for when Republicans are in power? That's a dangerous reading. "Situational Ethics We Can Believe In" will do more to elect Republicans in the mid-term than anything else. If the Constitution matters (we believe it does), it matters regardless of who is in power. If it's to be respected, it's to be respected regardless of party affiliation.
From Wednesday's hearing:
Rep Lynn Woolsey: What is the legal standing? Will an agreement/treaty be -- have standing if it does not come before the House of Representatives of the Congress in general?
Oona Hathaway: Well this is a complicated question as you might imagine. In my view it would be unconstitutional because it would extend beyond the president's power to conclude an agreement under his own independent powers and for all the reasons we've discussed it clearly goes beyond those limits. The question is: How would you challenge it? How would you demonstrate that? One possibility, obviously, is a resolution in Congress, another is a challenge in the courts -- that's unlikely to succeed. So the likely result would be that we would be operating under an unconstitutional agreement and what worries me is not only that -- although that is quite worrisome in and of itself -- but the precedent that that sets. So we then set a precedent that the president can enter into an agreement to commit US troops without having to get the assent of Congress. And, moreover, that the limits that we all thought applied to Sole Executive Agreements, the limits that had been observed by presidents for a generation on agreements that are entered into by presidents on their own no longer apply. All bets are off. So could President Obama enter Kyoto on his own? Could he enter the Law of the Sea Treaty on his own? If we don't know what the limits are, it creates real questions about where those -- where the Constitutional limits are? If they're not going to be observed then that creates problems not just in this instance but in every future case as well.
Rep Lynn Woolsey: So how do you think we can untangle this mess?
Oona Hathaway: My view is I think that this legislation is very positive. I think that, if in fact something like that were to pass demanding that Congress approve the agreement, I think that could have a significant effect. As I said, that would address all the questions that I've raised about the procedural issues. Congress could work out the substantive concerns if it had any about the agreement. But if this agreement were approved by Congress -- and there's nothing that would stop the president, I should say, from simply submitting this agreement as it is for approval as what's called an ex post congressional-executive agreement. That is a legal procedure that is available to the president and then this Congress would be able to pass that through majority votes in both houses and then it would become a legal agreement with the seal of approval of Congress and would be federal law and address all the concerns that I've raised. So that, to my mind, is a very real and, I think, would be an extremely positive development though, sadly I'm afraid, not entirely realistic. Another possibility is, of course, a renewal of the UN mandate because that does address both the international and domestic law issues that I've raised. In effect, that kicks the ball down the road because then we still have the issue of 'then what do we do?' That mandate would only be in effect for a short period of time -- the period of time talked about is six months. You'd have to enter an agreement then. My hope would be that given the stated position of the president-elect and vice president-elect on this issue that they would not only negotiate a good agreement but would submit that to Congress for approval.
-------
For more on this topic see C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot," "Same press that sold the illegal war sells the treaty," "The hearing on the US-Iraq treaty," "The Imperial Presidency With Cavity Fighting Fluoride Protection!" and "The treaty and the press"; Kat's "As C.I. said, it's a treaty"; Trina's
"The hearing on the US-Iraq treaty"; Rebecca's "stop the white house push for the treaty"; and
Jenny Paul's "US-Iraq security pact may be in violation, Congress is told" (Boston Globe).
