Sunday, January 27, 2008

What doesn't get covered

Friday, on CounterSpin, Peter Hart noted, "Also in the way of ink that might have been better spent, the post South Carolina debate rundown provided by The Washington Post's Dan Balz on January 22nd offered readers this insight "Democrats differ on whether Obama or Clinton emerged as the winner of the two hour session. Some said Obama came off as defensive and working too hard to explain his records and his positions, others said Clinton was so aggressive that it could cost her support. Edwards' backers think that he will benefit if voters are turned off by his rival's tone and temperament.' So some thought one person won and others disagreed while still others hoped their preferred candidate does well. Tell us more. The especially sad thing here is that the debate did actually contain substantive discussion about health care policy in particular that might have benefited from serious exploration. What readers likely didn't need was another story about whose barbs were more pointed and whose tone was more disgruntled."

Peter Hart, you said a mouthful.

Iraq was mentioned as well in the debate between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What happened there?

You have to ask that and you have to ask it because where was independent media?

Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.

That was said in the debate and, maybe if Bambi had said it, independent media could have pretended to give a damn?

Take heart Bambi groupies, Friday, Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) noted, "The New York senator has filed legislation that would block the expenditure of funds to implement any agreement with Iraq that was not submitted to Congress for approval. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, became a cosponsor to the bill on Tuesday."

What's it all about, Indy?





Here's Senator Joe Biden's letter which he made public in a press conference Thursday:

December 19, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:
I write regarding the Declaration of Principles signed by you and the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 26, 2007, in which you committed the United States to negotiate a long-term security relationship with the Republic of Iraq.
The Declaration of Principles contains language suggesting that the agreement you intend to negotiate with Iraq may oblige U.S. Armed Forces to support Iraq in combating “Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.” I am concerned about the implications of such a commitment, as it could mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely, especially if a sectarian Iraqi government determines who qualifies as a “Saddamist” or “other outlaw group.”
Equally troubling is the suggestion by General Lute, your Assistant for Iraq and Afghanistan, that, in negotiating the agreement anticipated by the Declaration, your Administration does not expect to seek “formal inputs from Congress” or even engage in formal consultations with Congress. Yet, the Declaration anticipates that the agreement would include “security commitments” to Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression against Iraq.” As a matter of Constitutional law, and based on over 200 years of practice, I believe that such an agreement would require Congressional authorization.
In 1969, the Senate adopted the National Commitments Resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that “a national commitment by the United States results only from affirmative action taken by the executive and legislative branches of the United States Government by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment.” The National Commitments Resolution defined a security commitment quite broadly, stating that, among other things, it includes any “promise to assist a foreign country, government, or people by the use of the Armed Forces . . . either immediately or upon the happening of certain events.”
While the Executive Branch has never accepted the definition of national commitments reflected in the National Commitments Resolution, there has been general agreement that security commitments require Congressional authorization. The disagreement has focused on what constitutes a “security commitment.” In a 1992 report submitted to Congress by President George H.W. Bush, the Executive Branch defined a security commitment as “an obligation, binding under international law, of the United States to act in the common defense in the event of an armed attack on that country.” The report provided a list of U.S. security commitments, all of which were either undertaken as advice and consent treaties, or as congressional-executive agreements, and thus were concluded with Congressional authorization.
I expect that your Administration is using the same Executive Branch definition of “security commitments” in the Declaration of Principles with Iraq as was used in the aforementioned 1992 report. Yet, General Lute’s comments suggest that the Administration will not seek Congressional authorization or even Congressional consultations in negotiating such a commitment. The Constitution and our past practice clearly require that the executive and legislative branches act together in order to provide a legitimate security commitment to another country.
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive’s power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, “[t]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy.”
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any “security commitments” the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman
[Senate Foreign Relations Committee]


Clinton's comments came on a Monday (ooh-wah, ooh-way). On Wednesday a subcommitte on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight Subcommitte on the Middle East and Asia held a hearing -- it's a subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. NPR, not independent media, covered it. Rep. William Delahunt disputed the spin the White House has put out, the claim that it was not a treaty -- "If this doesn't rise to the level of a treaty, I don't know what does." In fact, let's note a bit more of Delahunt's remarks:





Many of us are aware of the propensity of this administration to interpret and expand executive power to a point never contemplated by the Founding Fathers. The voluminous so-called "signing statements" issued by the White House are testimony to that attitude.
Senator Chuck Hagel, our Republican colleague in the other body, has said that during the run-up to vote to invade Iraq, the Bush administration considered Congress to be "an enemy and a constitutional nuisance."
Well, this is a different Congress.
I find it particularly disturbing that the Bush Administration has even ignored State Department regulations requiring that:

The appropriate congressional leaders and committees are advised of the intention to negotiate significant new international agreements, consulted concerning such agreements, and kept informed of developments affecting them, including especially whether any legislation is considered necessary or desirable for the implementation of the new treaty or agreement.

These regulations specifically state that when it comes to questions about whether or not an agreement is to be considered a treaty, consultations are to held with Congress in which:

Every practicable effort will be made to identify such questions at the earliest possible date so that consultations may be completed in sufficient time to avoid last minute considerations.

I have inquired of our leadership on this Committee and in this House, and I can find no evidence that any of this has happened.
This is disturbing. For considerable American blood and treasure have been invested in this war launched by the Bush-Cheney Administration, a war that has devastated Iraq, divided America, diminished how we are viewed by the rest of the world, as well as jeopardized our reputation for decency and the rule of law that is a valuable component of our national security. And if you have any doubts about the war's impact on our economy, check your stock portfolio.
As I said before, this is a different Congress. Not just the Bush Administration, but the Maliki Government must understand that reality, and that Congress has a constitutional role to play in international agreements. And that we shall ensure that our constitutional prerogatives are fully respected.
Furthermore, we are not unaware that many respected experts on Iraq have characterized the Maliki Government as dysfunctional, and beset by corruption and factionalism. Our hearing in December elicited testimony that the Maliki Government secured the extension of the UN Mandate, which serves as the legal basis for U.S. troops to occupy and engage in combat in Iraq, without receiving the consent of the Iraqi Parliament, despite its own assurances to the contrary.


A different Congress? We really haven't seen that but what about a different independent media?





On Thursday, Joe Biden held his press conference and the State Department's Tom Casey was caught off guard in his press briefing by the reporter's interest in the issue and their insistence upon pursuing the line of the questioning. It was not a topic Casey had scheduled to be addressed. (See Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" for more details on that press conference.)





It's not that big media couldn't cover it. Among last week's reports and columns were Michael Abramowitz' "Democrats Attack Iraq Security Proposal" (Washington Post), Guy Raz' "Long-Term Pact with Iraq Raises Questions" (NPR), Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes' "U.S. defends proposed Iraq accord" (Los Angeles Times) Charlie Savage's amazing "Bush plan for Iraq would be a first: No OK from Congress seen; Constitutional issues raised" (Boston Globe) and Helen Thomas' "What Will Next President Do About Iraq?" -- the last of which we'll quote from:




Congress should keep Bush from making commitments concerning Iraq that could tie the hands of his successor and trap the next president in his pointless war. In responde to my question, deputy White House press secreatry Tony Fratto said Bush had not signed any documents to keep the war going, but he added that work is under way on an agreement to cement the U.S. relationship with Iraq.


Yeah, it's a big issue. But you didn't really hear about it from independent media last week. And, worse, when some tried to play catch up on Friday, they used Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers' "U.S. Asking Iraq for Wide Rights on War" (New York Times) as their primer. Does anyone in the world not grasp that the paper has been a megaphone for the US State Department decade after decade? The State Department wants this treaty and The Times shows up to steer everyone to a point of the treaty (that some foolishly seized on) when the larger point is that the treaty cannot be made without Congress -- which is not rushing to make it due to the fact that it will tie the next president into Bully Boy's illegal war.


Peter Hart said a mouthful and, if you followed indymedia last week, you saw that they ignored this repeatedly. Instead, they were bringing up such 'pressing' topics as Monica Lewinsky. Yeah, the left really was that pathetic last week.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }