Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-07-23 at 5.55.02 PM


  • ***


« Another Republican Debate, Another Rhetorical Amateur Hour | Main | Rudy's free-wheeling rhetoric of literally unbelievable heights »

November 30, 2007



There's one little fly in Bush's ointment that makes this something less than a full constitutional crisis.

He can do anything he wants, sign any agreement while he's president and Congress clearly isn't going to stop him. But, what happens when his successor comes into office and decides to change the policy?

Bush's "Agreement" does not have the force of law because it's not a treaty. (Of course Bush also takes the position that the President can unilaterally abrogate any treaty passed by Congress), but that position hardly helps him bind his successor.

If the next president simply changes the policy, which they will, then this "Agreement" will be forgotten. Confined to the dustbin of history alongside Nixon's secret "Agreement" with the South Vietnamese of 1972.

Bush is trying to tie the hands of his successor. But, he can't control events or force the American people to tolerate U.S. troops in Iraq forever. They WILL come home. The only question is how long both parties can stall that inevitable development in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

And when those troops do leave, there is nothing that is going to enforce that Agreement. In fact, future Iraqi governments will likely repudiate it completely, considering it's wildly unpopular with the Iraqi people, as it is here at home.

In short, Bush would be better off, from his perspective by getting the cowardly Democrats in Congress to endorse a treaty. That would at least force a formal repudiation by his successor. As it now stands, all that President Clinton or Obama would need to do would be to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, by making policy without regard to Bush's Agreement. Which they will do the very first time it becomes inconvenient to them.


Bush is making this up as he goes.
And congress is clueless as usual!


So what is it? Are they stupid, lazy, bought off, or scared? Or are the Democrats full of Neocons also?

Rich Miles

In answer to Hotrod's query above, it's my contention that the war profiteering is being spread around so thoroughly that, if Congress voted for immediate troop withdrawals, there would be too many congressional districts hurt by the sudden loss of jobs and/or loss of defense-paid work. Thus, the Repugs AND the Dems have a dog in the fight, and none of them are going to have courage enough to call the damn thing off.

In other words: does an overwhelming majority of Americans want an end to the Iraq debacle? Yes. BUT do they want to lose the benefits of it out of their own particular backyard? No. They want to continue to reap the benefits of wartime production.

Congressdogs know this. And while I couldn't prove it in a zillion years, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that this very tactic was somehow a built-in intention by the neocons from the very beginning.

We are engulfed by evil. Not just incompetence, nor arrogance, but genuine, heart-stopping, bloody-minded evil. Believe it.

Oh, and P.S. Cugel is right too.


oh believe i do..these bloodsoaked buncha greedheads are beyond all morals,humanity and apparently accountability...and this latest developmnt is in no way surprising or even unheralded...we are living in interesting times indeed and innocents must be slaughtered at the altar of money,oil and empire...

The comments to this entry are closed.