Over 900 documented lies and bush can keep us in Iraq with a treaty that binds?

posted by Bill Arnett @ 12:13 PM Permalink

From this mornings NYT comes word that the worst, most dishonest, and biggest lie-telling president in U.S. history is seeking agreements with Iraq that purportedly would tie the hands of the next president and force America to stay in Iraq:

With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.

This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.

At the same time, the administration faces opposition from Democrats at home, who warn that the agreements that the White House seeks would bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush’s policies and a long-term military presence.[…]

Democrats in Congress, as well as the party’s two leading presidential contenders, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have accused the White House of sponsoring negotiations that will set into law a long-term security relationship with Iraq.

But administration officials said that the American proposal specifically did not set future troop levels in Iraq or ask for permanent American bases there. Nor, they said, did it offer a security guarantee defining Washington’s specific responsibilities should Iraq come under attack.

Including such long-term commitments in the agreement would turn the accord into a bilateral treaty, one that would require Senate approval.[…]

“Where have we ever had an agreement to defend a foreign country from external attack and internal attack that was not a treaty?” he [Representative Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts] said Wednesday at a hearing of a foreign affairs subcommittee held to review the matter. “This could very well implicate our military forces in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of a treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could.”

Just what basic flaw in thinking is it that prompts the Democratic party to believe that anything bushco does, while responsible for telling or encouraging over 900 lies to take us to war in Iraq, cannot be quickly undone?

I've got an idea for them, CANCEL THE AGREEMENT the very minute they enter office. bush himself has no right to bind future presidents to anything based upon his multitude of lies, and it is he himself that unilaterally withdrew America from treaties in the recent past in order to be able to threaten the world and spread U.S. hegemony.

So the new president and congress should swiftly advise the Iraqis that any agreement they make with liar bush will be null and void the very instant he leaves office. After all, bush set the standard of unilateral withdrawal from agreements and treaties, so how can he be heard to complain and why should any of us give a $hit whether he likes it or not?

Everyone needs to talk to their senators, congressmen, and the presidential candidates to insist that, as we have the biggest liar and worst president ever leaving office, everything he has done should and needs be undone swiftly.

Liars making binding agreements, indeed. Especially treaties detrimental to all of the parties, including Americans.

Labels: bush as chimp, bush war doctrine, Bushco, Congress, diplomacy, disinformation, elections, propaganda