Welcome to PatsFans.com

The War's Expiration Date

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Heard this during the Patreus hearings.....

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402581.html

    A crucial yet overlooked deadline looms over the Iraq debate: Unless further action is taken, the war will become illegal on Jan. 1, 2009.

    Despite protestations to the contrary, Congress clearly understood that it was authorizing the president to intervene militarily when it passed its joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in October 2002. But it did not give him a blank check. It allowed for the use of force only under two conditions.

    The first has long since lapsed. It permitted the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This threat came to an end with the destruction of Saddam Hussein's government. It makes no sense to say that it continues today, or that our "national security" is "threatened by" the Iraqi government headed by Nouri al-Maliki.

    Instead, U.S. military intervention is authorized under the second prong of the 2002 resolution. This authorizes the president to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." This has allowed the Bush administration to satisfy American law by obtaining a series of resolutions authorizing the United States to serve as the head of the multinational force in Iraq.

    But here's the rub. The most recent U.N. resolution expires on Dec. 31, and the administration has announced that it will not seek one for 2009. Instead, it is now negotiating a bilateral agreement with the Iraqi government to replace the U.N. mandate.
     
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    1) Such an "agreement" will have to take the form of a mutual defense TREATY. Congress has to ratify all treaties.

    2)The administration making an "agreement" between the itself (not the US) and the Iraqi puppet government is like the one between the USSR and the Baltics in the late 40's.
     
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Yeah, it was amazing to see the ambassador explain how the executive branch was going to put together and sign a treaty with the government of Iraq, WITHOUT going to congress...

    that would make that treaty invalid....

    our executive branch is a bunch of frickin IDIOTS!.....uggggghhhhh.


    anywaY....


    Bush will still be president in Jan 2009, when the resolution expires. Do you think these fools go to congress for a treaty, or do the illegal things (ie. Staying in Iraq, or signing an executive treaty)

    ???
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2008
  4. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    They could argue that the potential for collapse of the current regime in Iraq would represent a threat to our national security, thus justifying our continued presence until the Iraqi government is independently stable. I know you don't like to hear that, but it seems to me to be a logical argument for why continued presence is necessary past Jan 1 2009. I mean logical only in the sense that they COULD argue that successfully, not in the sense that I agree with that thought.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>