[Dialogue] No Need For Lawmakers' Approval of Iraq Pact, Administration Reasserts

[Harry Wainwright]

Published on Thursday, March 6, 2008 by The Washington Post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR200803050
3492.html?hpid=topnews>  

No Need For Lawmakers' Approval of Iraq Pact, Administration Reasserts

by Karen DeYoung

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does
not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement
with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative
through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam
Hussein. <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0306_03.jpg>
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0306_03.jpg> 0306 03
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0306_03.jpg> 

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week
after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States,"
permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by
the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

The statement came in response to lawmakers' demands that the administration
submit to Congress for approval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are
traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents - a
status-of-forces agreement and a separate "strategic framework" - that they
expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go
into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), whose questions at a House hearing Tuesday
elicited the administration statement, described it as an "open-ended,
never-ending authority for the administration to be at war in Iraq forever
with no limitations." The conditions of 2002 no longer exist, he said.

"I don't think anybody argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat," he
said. "Is it the government of Iraq that's a threat?"

The proposed agreement has become a contentious issue in the presidential
campaign. Democratic candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have
charged that the administration is trying to lock in a U.S. military
presence in Iraq before the next president takes office.

According to yesterday's statement, the administration's interpretation of
the 2002 resolution is that "Congress expressly authorized the use of force
to 'defend the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq.' "

In a letter to Ackerman, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner
said that authority exists with or without a U.N. mandate. In addition to
the resolutions, he wrote, "Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the
Iraq war." Democrats have failed in several attempts to curtail funding for
the Iraq war.

The Iraqi government said late last year that it will not agree to renewal
of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops there beyond 2008, and the
administration announced that it was opening negotiations with Baghdad on a
new bilateral agreement to replace it. A declaration of principles signed by
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush in December said the
agreement would include "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to
deter foreign aggression.

Democrats, and some Republicans, maintained that any such agreement -
particularly if it includes a defense commitment - would require Senate
ratification. The administration has claimed executive authority, but has
pledged that the agreement will contain no troop commitments and no promise
to defend Iraq, and will not constrain the next president.

But Democratic lawmakers have demanded details of the proposed agreements
and also assurances that Congress will have veto power. The administration
declined until Tuesday to provide a senior official to discuss the drafting
of the agreements or negotiations with Iraq.

During a tense joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs oversight and
Middle East subcommittees, David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice's chief Iraq adviser, did not answer to lawmakers' satisfaction
questions about Congress's role in the agreements. Ackerman gave him 24
hours to respond.

Bergner's letter, said Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), "creates the basis for
a constitutional confrontation."

C 2008 The Washington Post

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org 

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/06/7513/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080306/3a0120c9/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6731 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080306/3a0120c9/attachment-0001.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42948 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080306/3a0120c9/attachment-0001.jpe