Friday, August 22, 2008

Your Congress Not Allowed In Peace Process

The occupupuied W?hite House is busily trying to get a long enough time in Iraq to relieve the war criminals in power from having to deal with any more diplomatic thingies. The only way it has come up with to manage this is to deal out your future without Congressional oversight. Those negotiations with their chosen government in Iraq have been conducted totally out of sight, but we are now learning about what has gone on from Iraqi officials. It's much too secret to let Congress know about - or have a say in.

"Negotiators agreed several weeks ago to reduce the presence of all U.S. forces in Iraqi cities, among the most dangerous places soldiers operate, by the end of next year. That process would entail consolidating U.S. troops now deployed in small neighborhood posts into larger bases outside city centers, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials involved in the talks.

"'They have both agreed to 2011,' Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, Iraq's chief negotiator, said in a telephone interview."

And the only way that would change, apparently, is if the Iraqis want it to. "If the Iraqi government at that time decides it is necessary to keep the American forces longer, they can do so," Hamoud told The Post.

Charles Levinson writes in USA Today that Bush literally bought some time. "Iraq initially wanted all combat troops out by the end of 2009, but agreed to push the date to 2011 after the U.S. agreed to protect Iraqi funds in U.S. banks from being seized by creditors," Levinson writes, citing a Maliki aid.

And while the Iraqi parliament still has a chance to give the agreement a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, the U.S. Congress has no such option. Here's White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe at yesterday's press briefing: "[T]he agreement as it's working its way through the consultative process right now with the Iraqis is not one that would require congressional -- specific congressional approval because this is the type of agreement, in many cases, that we have with many countries around the world. So it's not a treaty, so it would not require Senate ratification or anything like that."

Those many countries around the world that Congress is paying to wage war on, perhaps?

The secrecy the maladministration has surrounded itself with is indication enough that we are being ill-served. That the people's representatives are not even informed that we've been sold downstream is just another proof that the public is not even a tiny factor being considered in the White House usurpation of our rights and our future. Iraqi funds may be under officil WH guard, but our own funds are being confiscated to provide those protections. (Emphasis added.)

There has never been such complete lack of service to the public interest from high powers in this country, and never has damage been so great to our country and our future. The constitution designated powers of war should be held by the congress, ande that was demonstrably the right body to vest those powers in. The warmongers in power are digging ever deeper that black hole they've dragged the country into.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Nora said...

How exactly is this not a treaty?

It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of agreement that the Founders wanted to have Congress vote on. Especially considering that Congress is responsible for paying for all this.

Didn't we have a war once with a catchy phrase about taxation without representation? I'd suggest that this is analogous: taking our money without allowing us, through our representatives, the option of saying whether we want our money spent this way or not.

By the way, there are stronger arguments against keeping this to the executive branch, arguments that rely on morality and justice, but I figured the money angle would be the one that would be most likely to resonate with the American public.

3:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home