Bill to force Bush to get Congressional approval on Iraq security agreement

[Muttocracy]

I imagine this is more a signal to Iraq than to BushCo, who do whatever they want regardless, though I hope the purse strings would be called into play.

Biden/Hagel/Casey/Voinovich/Webb Introduce Bill on Iraq Security Agreements

Press Release

http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=0442715f-d8e5-4cff-bbae-2222e2bb4d30

August 1, 2008

Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) and Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Bob Casey (D-PA), George Voinovich (R-OH) and Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation which prohibits the Bush Administration from entering into a binding security agreement without the approval of Congress.

“With less than six months left in his term, the President is on a course to commit the United States to guarantee Iraq’s security far into the future,” said Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This legislation makes clear that the President cannot do that without Congressional approval. Rather than engaging in these negotiations – which by the Administration’s admission will ‘set the broad parameters’ of the U.S.-Iraq relationship – the President should secure a short-term agreement, through the UN, or with Iraq, to provide the necessary legal protection for U.S. forces after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.”

(snip ~quotes from Hagel, Casey, Webb)

The Administration is negotiating two agreements with Iraq – a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) – pursuant to the “Declaration of Principles” signed by President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki last November. The Declaration called for the conclusion of the agreements by yesterday, July 31, 2008, which would cover a broad range of topics, including political, economic and security issues. In the security sphere, the Declaration proposed to commit the United States to “supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats” and to provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and the integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.”

The Administration has asserted that neither the SFA nor the SOFA will contain a binding security commitment. One of the agreements, however, will likely contain a lesser security promise – described as a security arrangement – that involves a pledge to consult on appropriate steps if Iraq is threatened or attacked. With over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi security forces, the government and people of Iraq are likely to perceive such a promise as a security guarantee.

“The notion that Iraq’s leaders plan to submit the agreement to their Parliament – but our President does not – makes no sense,” Senator Biden added. “The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval first.”

Bill itself

http://biden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/IraqSofabill-OPEN.pdf

Some video to go along with this topic:

Ambassador Crocker looking like a kid in the principal's office when Biden got pissed off about the administration's dismissal of the role of Congress in plans for Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=116163&mesg_id=116163

Senator Clinton asked very good questions about this too (4 minutes into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC_fQXalZk4) - though I'm curious about her reference to her own legislation in the clip and what happened to it)

[jillan]

1. Good! I'm glad they are holding bsh's feet to the fire.

[Muttocracy]

2. He's so deep in oil that ought to set him aflame. nt

[jillan]

3. Good one!

Classic Biden:

“The notion that Iraq’s leaders plan to submit the agreement to their Parliament – but our President does not – makes no sense,”

[Muttocracy]

4. yeah, I swear Hillary got that line of reasoning from him, and Barack's

questions were Biden-influenced too ;)

[comradebillyboy]

5. If we can judge by the past

Bush will ignore congress and he will do as he pleases, and congress will just whine a little bit and do nothing else, or even worse, ratify Bush's actions after the fact. Pelosi and Reed are hardly profiles in courage.

[gateley]

7. Yeah, that's what JoeIsOneOfUs said in the OP -- that it's more a statement to

Iraq than to Bush.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. This legislation is unnecessary

The president, or the usurper posing as such (as the case may be), cannot enter into a security agreement like this one without congressional approval.

Furthermore, under the "unitary executive theory" the president may ignore such "laws" that don't fit his liking. So President Obama will just ignore it, any way and what can the Frat Boy say about it?

[Muttocracy]

8. That's why I really think it's a symbol to Iraq. nt

[gateley]

10. Self Delete.

[gateley]

9. As JoeIsOneOfUs opined in the OP - this is probably more of a statement

to Iraq than anything else.

[Eurobabe]

11. Come on, one more rec? K & R

:thumbsup:

[Muttocracy]

12. Maybe everyone has me on ignore. Or has given up on Congress'

ability to maintain its own power. Thanks though.