Newsweek: Bush attempts to negotiate long-term US-Iraq pact

[cmaff05]

which may last long beyond his presidency and render Democratic promises in this election obsolete.

(sorry if this was already posted)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

Camp Arifjan in the desert kingdom of Kuwait, America's depot to the Iraq war, feels about as far away as you can get from South Carolina, Super Tuesday and the election-year squabbles back home. And George W. Bush, who is currently midway through his six-nation tour of the Mideast, is doing a good job of distancing himself from the politics of 2008. But as Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a "Hoo-ah" and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race--and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process." The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House--in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

[Botany]

1. No way.

Bush, Cheney, Kristol, Rush, College Republicans, and others can go
"stay there" long term. So we went to give Iraq democracy? 80% went us
out so we should get out.

[TwilightGardener]

2. He can do whatever he wants, but he can't commit the next President

to anything without a law from Congress--and even with Congress' approval, it's hard to see how this can't be overturned in the next administration with a Dem majority. What would happen, say, if Iraq's government were to suddenly turn hostile or otherwise go against our interests there--would we have to stay anyway, because of an agreement Bush made in 2008? Of course not.

[cmaff05]

3. Pretty much

This is just wishful thinking by GW. A treaty will have to go through Congress, and it simply won't get passed. A "handshake" pact or anything of the sort can easily be overturned by Congress or the president when he steps in office.

[jody]

4. * unilaterally terminated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001. Any president can terminate any

document signed by * including executive orders, signing statements, treaties, etc.

[old guy]

5. At this point I think this is just more propaganda.

They can't expect to get this passed in treaty form as congress simply will not pass it. Anything * signs otherwise can be undone by the next Democratic president and there will be little or no backlash from the people. The way these paragraphs are presented it's a done deal, but I call BS as IMO it is far from that.

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. Negotiate is not a term shrub is familiar with.

[ladjf]

7. He doesn't have the authority to commit future American gvts.

to such a deal.