White House Claims It Will Abandon Long-Term ‘Security Guarantee’ With Iraq
White House Claims It Will Abandon Long-Term ‘Security Guarantee’ With Iraq
In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship” that committed the U.S. in concept to helping “deter foreign aggression against Iraq” as well as “defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.” The White House said at the time that the arrangement would not need “input” from Congress because it was not intended to “lead to the status of a formal treaty.”
Critics of a permanent presence in Iraq blasted Bush’s effort to cut Congress out of the process, saying the President had “absolutely zero credibility” to “unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security.” Bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would bar the White House from making any such deals without Congressional approval.
The administration is now claiming it has gotten the message, with one “senior administration offical” telling CQ (sub. req’d) that the arrangement is “not going to have a security guarantee“:
But the administration has backed off its previous assertions that a long-term bilateral agreement with Iraq would include a security arrangement to defend the country from external threats.
“It’s not going to have a security guarantee,” a senior administration official said Tuesday. [...]
The administration has maintained that the agreement would not rise to the level of a treaty. The “security guarantee” statement appeared in the announcement because Iraqis wanted it on the table, the administration official said. But, he said, the United States does not believe it to be necessary. “We say, look, if you want a security guarantee, that will be a treaty, and a treaty will have to go to our Senate,” endangering the whole agreement, he said.
According to a “senior administration official” who spoke to CQ, the abandonment of the “security guarantee” means that “the final agreement would not include permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.” Congressional critics are “wary” of the White House’s commitment, however, “noting that the proof would come with the text of the agreement itself.”
The distrust is understandable, considering that last week President Bush attached a signing statement to a defense authorization bill, saying that he would disregard a provision that “bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq.”
UPDATE: During a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that “any strategic framework agreement” with Iraq “will not contain a committment to defend Iraq.” Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
He was for the agreement before he was against the agreement
February 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am“But the administration has backed off its previous assertions that a long-term bilateral agreement with Iraq would include a security arrangement to defend the country from external threats.”
So that makes it okay? What part of this concept does the administration not understand? The issue of a security arragement is irrelevant.
All international treaties or bilateral agreements must be approved by Congress. It’s written in the Constitution.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:50 amCongressional critics are “wary†of the White House’s commitment, however, “noting that the proof would come with the text of the agreement itself.â€
What they really should wary of is Bush’s tendency to say one thing while doing and intending the exact opposite.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:50 amBush should just stop talking. it’s not like anyone believes anything that anyone involved in any way with this adminstrations says. They are chronic liars. that goes for perino, bush, cheney, McConnell, mukasey, condi, gates, petrayus, and the rest of the stooges that get trotted out. They are all chronic liars. they should just shut up.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:52 amThe distrust is understandable,
Posted by Matt at 11:41 am
That’s the understatement of the day. How many lies from this administration will our Congress swallow? The rogue needs to be brought to heel.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:53 amYou mean he could not keep it SECRET and when the news gets out about his criminal activity and he is called out on it, he backs down? Don’t bet on it, this WAR CRIMINAL has no soul and will do what ever he can get away with.
Sociopaths are like that.
Buck Fush
February 6th, 2008 at 11:58 amWhite House Claims It Will Abandon Long-Term ‘Security Guarantee’ With Iraq
ok… so, that means, of course, that there WILL BE a supposed
long-term “Security Guarantee” with iraq…
see how easy that is?!?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:00 pmBushCo Bizzaro World logic prevails!
“defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.â€
that’s so cute…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm“defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.â€
that’s so cute…
Comment by katy — February 6, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Do these “internal threats” include the U.S.-funded Awakening Councils who are now clashing with Iraqi police in Baghdad?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm“noting that the proof would come with the text of the agreement itself.â€
Right, because this administration has followed all of the other agreements its made during its time in office. Please, it will do what it wants to do and no one, D or R, will do anything about it.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pmThank you, Hillary, for exposing this scumbags plans.
That’s leadership, folks.
Clinton / Clark ‘08
A∞Ω
February 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pmWhy do we need a security guarantee for Iraq when we are preparing to bomb Iran? This is just bushco preparing for something even bigger and better. Cutting internet cables. Iranian oil bourse (commodity exchange) based on the euro not the dollar opening soon. Russia making plans to dock their military ships in Syria and beefing up their pilot training. Bush making “peace”visitss to middle east just before much of this happened. Things are getting good for this war-mongering bunch of neocons.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pmI’m sorry, I don’t buy it that the people of Iraq want a long-term US presence in their country. They are tired of being occupied by the US and want us gone. The only people who want a long-term US presence in Iraq are people like Maliki and that is because they are getting very rich off of the US. They are all corrupt through and through. Since both the Iraqi people and the only elected body (the Parliament) do not want a long-term US presence, then Maliki has no more right to negotiate any such thing than Bush has to negotiate for us.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pmThe imperial lying election-stealing war-mongering torturing Mr. Bush tried to make an agreement with his puppet regime in Iraq. That puppet regime was illegally created by the occupying power and thus has zero standing in international law. This puppet regime will collapse as soon as the U. S. starts to withdraw its imperial occupying army. Stay tuned for quisling Iraqis clinging to helicopter skids, ala Saigon back in 1974…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pmstill waiting for those “Product [Oil] Sharing [Stealing] Agreements”…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pmUnfortunately, the complexity of the world has led to a practice of permitting the President to enter into agreements with foreign governments. Many of these agreements are indeed sanctioned by the Congress essentially delegating authority to the President or administrative agencies. These usually involve relatively technical, administrative or trade matters. It may also involve conclusion of military arrangements (where and how many troops to station in an allied country.) However, it is the tendency of the Republicans to distort common sense arrangements at every opportunity in order to gain power for themselves. My fear is that these attempts to distort the constitutional balance of power will set a precedent. We need to have these malefactors punished for their transgressions. The Republicans learned the wrong lessons from Watergate (in addition to destroy the tape): Stonewall forever, party loyalty over loyalty to the government, secrecy and no morality. These lessons were reinforced with Iran Contra. They need to be stopped for the sake of our democracy and our freedoms.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pmMcCain/Huckabee ‘08.
Comment by good_golly
Sounds like a good comedy act.
A∞Ω
February 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pmNeocons: “The constitution never intended the military to be used for purposes of national security. Contact Halliburton for a detailed explanation (Visa/Mastercard accepted). Call now and recieve free a partial Terrorist-Proof â„¢ statement of our 1Q earnings.â€
February 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pmMcCain/Huckabee ‘08. Get used to it.
Comment by good_golly
The resident loon GiGi is here today to give us all a good laugh. So, thanks GiGi, here’s my laugh Haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa!
GiGi obviously hasn’t looked at the number of Democrats who are voting compared to the number of Republicans are voting. That right there will be the end of the Republican party.
McCain doesn’t have a chance in hell winning the presidency. The religious right won’t vote for him and the centrist Republicans will probably cross the line because they are sick and tired of the “borrow and spend” mentality of Bush (and now McCain) and they are sick and tired of us occupying Iraq.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pmMcCain/Huckabee ‘08. Get used to it.
Comment by good_golly — February 6, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
I look forward to adding these names to the prestigious list of Republican losers that includes Bush/Quayle ‘92, Dole/Kemp ‘96, and Bush/Cheney ‘00
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pmSo he has in one hand, the right hand. what does the left hand, have a super duper longer term security guarantee.
Oh I forgot, he only has a year left.
He only has a year left.
He only has a year left.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pmThe administration is now claiming it has gotten the message, with one “senior administration offical†telling CQ (sub. req’d) that the arrangement is “not going to have a security guarantee“:
How about if the arrangement doesn’t have any arrangements?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pmI’m suspicious that they just changed the definition of “Security Guarantee”.
That is if Security Guarantee is defined as purple cats, the arrangement has no security guarantee.
However, Green Cheese is now defined as the establishment of a permanent base. And the arrangement has much detail over the delivery of green cheese.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pmMcInsane/Phuckabee ‘08 in the losers line….sounds about right.
GIGI you’re vile scum, and an idiot to boot.
Buck Fush
February 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pmComment by alphainfinityomega — February 6, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
On the campaign trail together, McCain could growl like a Chihuahua and spout obscenities; Huckabee could read out loud the instructions of how to use the magic wand that comes with his bible (it’s supposed to make the IRS go “poof!”).
February 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pmMcCain/Huckabee ‘08. Get used to it.
Comment by good_golly — February 6, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Daryll would disagree with you, as he’s already claimed God has dictated that Huckabee IS the president elect.
Clinton/Obama or
Obama/Clark
will trounce any repuglycan ticket the Greedy Old Pukes can muster.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pmSomehow I sense a McCain/Cheney ticket…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pmSkepticism is the word for this.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pmWe all know that what Bush&Co say and what they do are two different things. They always disregard the restrictions in the Constitution.
The outcry from the congress pressured Bush, but that doesn’t mean that the deal won’t go forward in another way. His ability to continue with his ridiculous and illegal signing statements is testament to that.
Clinton/Obama or
Obama/Clark
will trounce any repuglycan ticket the Greedy Old Pukes can muster.
Comment by RUCerious — February 6, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
After all the mudslinging in this campaign, I can’t see Obama joining the Clinton ticket.
Obama/Clark is interesting, though I see Clark more as NSA or SecDef. Edwards would be a pretty good fit in the ticket, though I doubt he’d want to be a bridesmaid again. I think he and Bill Richardson were running for cabinet positions. Edwards could be an interesting attorney general, and Richardson would be an interesting Secretary of State.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pmwhy do you guys even cover the war?
your party doesn’t even stand strongly to end it.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pmgood job, goon!
hey, you’ll really like this:
McCain Sings Streisand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTD7FP1mAYk
(via C&L)
February 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pmObama/Clark
will trounce any repuglycan ticket the Greedy Old Pukes can muster.
Comment by RUCerious
I like that combination a lot. Clinton/Obama, not so much. Besides, there is no way in hell that Clinton would share the limelight with Obama. If, for some reason she did put him on the ticket, the day she took office she would lock him in a closet and forget about him.
I would really like to see a President/Vice President team leading this country and Obama/Clark would make a great team. Clark has the foreign affairs experience and Obama is the glue that would hold everything together.
BTW, I heard something the other day that made me like Obama even more than I did before. He said he is actually for single payer health, even though that is not his health plan at the moment. I believe he came up with a health plan that was more palatable for the corporate types now, but once he is in office, he might just go straight for single-payer health. If that’s the case, I would love to see him appoint Kucinich as the head of Health and Human Services or whatever that cabinet post is called. Then put Edwards in as AG and we would have a great start on a new progressive government.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pmUPDATE: During a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that “any strategic framework agreement†with Iraq “will not contain a committment to defend Iraq.â€
oh, well then… all’s well…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pmi’m assured… are you?
McCain Sings Streisand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTD7FP1mAYk
Comment by katy
Did everyone hear his lawyer joke? That man has zero sense of humor and should stay way away from telling jokes.
Besides, can you imagine having a president who calls you “my friends” every five seconds. That is even getting to the Republiscums.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pmi agree, bilbo…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pmbut that video is amazing… technology…
only one problem: can you believe what you see, ever again?
why do you guys even cover the war?
your party doesn’t even stand strongly to end it.
Comment by Constitutionalist
A new kid on the block troll thinks that there is a war going on. But it is wrong. There is no war going on, there is an occupation going on. And, there is no way to win an occupation. It would come back and say “we are in a war on terror”, but I bet it can’t define what the “war on terror” is other than to say that it is a war against Islamofascists (the stupidest made-up word ever).
February 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pmCongress needs to reject any type of arrangement, however it is worded, that comes from the Chimp and his henchmen and women. We know once the bill is passed the Imperator will issue a signing statement exempting the executive (Imperial) branch from not forming a lasting security agreement if circumstances require such an agreement.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pmI picked up on the Clinton/Obama theme listening to the radio yesterday morning.
If Clinton gets the nomination, she’ll be evaluating the polls with a careful, calculating eye.
If that ticket virtually guarantees victory, I think she’d at least float it to Obama in private.
For him to turn her down in that scenario makes little sense, as he’d be set up for the 2020 race (or maybe sooner) as the Veep with experience, and would be the logical candidate for that election…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pmdontcha just love a bushlicking troll with the gall to moniker
Constitutionalist
Some trolls have NO shame…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pmbilbo, do you think they’ll ever proclaim a war against
AlabamoFascists?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pmbut that video is amazing… technology…
only one problem: can you believe what you see, ever again?
Comment by katy
You’re right katy – it is amazing what they can do with video these days. I wonder if we will see campaign ads with McCain’s lips moving and different words coming out of his mouth. Nope, it’s more likely to see an Obama ad with his lips moving and different words coming out of his mouth. That is a tactic that the Republicans would use, not the Democrats. Sometimes I get really pissed at how upright and honest most Democrats are. If they were a little more sleezy, like the Republiscums, they would win more battles.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pmI don’t believe one word that comes out of any of their mouths.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pmFor him to turn her down in that scenario makes little sense, as he’d be set up for the 2020 race (or maybe sooner) as the Veep with experience, and would be the logical candidate for that election…
Comment by RUCerious
I seriously doubt that Obama would be willing to play second fiddle unless Clinton guaranteed him an active role as a Vice President. I think that John Edwards was the first Vice President in our history that had a job other than being a figurehead and a placeholder. If Clinton offered Obama an active role with defined areas of his control, he might consider it. If not, there is no way that Obama would be willing to sit in a closet for 4 years, much less 8.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pmbilbo, I agree, he’d have to have a defined niche carved out, but please, no man sized safes??!@!
February 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pmA new kid on the block troll thinks that there is a war going on. But it is wrong. There is no war going on, there is an occupation going on. And, there is no way to win an occupation. It would come back and say “we are in a war on terrorâ€, but I bet it can’t define what the “war on terror†is other than to say that it is a war against Islamofascists (the stupidest made-up word ever).
Um so you’re going to argue semantics about what the war is called? you sound like a Bush Republican.
it’s true that the democrats have lost their way and spine as much as the Republicans have been corrupted from true conservatism.
Who cares if it’s not an official war…. hundreds of thousands are dead and dying and the democrats won’t stand to end it.
Half of your party voted for Hillary and she has most of the super delegates.
that tells me that half of your party is ok with somebody who
1. voted for the war.
2. hasn’t set a clear table to end it.
So what does that say about the democrats?
You compromise until you have nothing left.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pmMcCain/Huckabee ‘08. Get used to it
well maybe they’ll bring on the Rapture more quickly…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pmConstitutionalist, it seems that the Democratic Party’s idea of compromise is to expect mere tidbits and droppings from the Republican Party while surrendering the core of their aims and goals. Of course they don’t get those droppings so then it turns out that the Republican Party gets their bill albeit missing a few minor details passed.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pmbilbobaggins — February 6, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pmShould Clinton win the nom. there is no good reason why Obama should take VP if it were offered — her VP will be marginalized because Bill Clinton will be the defacto VP.
Regarding health care — people shouldn’t think that the plans proposed by the candidates today are the ones that will finally emerge from the fiture Democratic Congress. Right now, they are setting out their ideas, how they might work, and most importantly, how they can get substantial support from the public as the final plans are drafted. They are both going to push for universal health care, but at this time, they need to take the first steps.
BTW, I like your choices as potential cabinet secretaries.
Who cares if it’s not an official war…. hundreds of thousands are dead and dying and the democrats won’t stand to end it.
Half of your party voted for Hillary and she has most of the super delegates.
that tells me that half of your party is ok with somebody who
1. voted for the war.
2. hasn’t set a clear table to end it.
So what does that say about the democrats?
You compromise until you have nothing left.
Comment by Constitutionalist
The new troll thinks that the Democrats have done nothing to stop the occupation. Apparently it is forgetting that they have tried at least twice to cut funding but because of the obstructionist Republiscums they were unsuccessful in their endeavor. I guess this troll thinks that the Democrats can just wave their magic wand and make the Republiscum obstructionists go away. If only that were true.
This troll also is indicating that the Democrats voted for the so-called “war”. In fact most Democrats opposed it. And they have not set a clear timetable to end the occupation because every time they try to do it, the Republiscums either threaten to filibuster or in the case of the one bill that was passed, Bush vetoed it.
I am not happy with the stand the Democrats have taken. I believe they should put forth a bill ending the occupation and keep sending it back time and time again, allowing the Republiscums to show who they really are. But, that does not fit within the reality of the political system as it stands today.
To our new troll – Tinker Bell is a mythical figure. We can’t get what we want just by wishing for it. With the Republiscums still holding enough seats to block anything the Democrats want to do, there is relatively little they can do until after the 2008 election.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pmI think that John Edwards was the first Vice President in our history that had a job other than being a figurehead and a placeholder.
Comment by bilbobaggins
ha bilbo keeps doin this…….easy error. I respect and amire both John Edwards and Al Gore….wish we had them both totally engaged in our countries decision making proces..
February 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pmIm not a troll.
I use to be a democrat and I feel sold out.
I have a right to voice my opinion.
or are you all censorship nazis now too?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pmha bilbo keeps doin this…….easy error. I respect and amire both John Edwards and Al Gore….wish we had them both totally engaged in our countries decision making proces..
Comment by Fred
You’re right. I plead “old timer’s disease”.
But the sentiment was correct.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pmor are you all censorship nazis now too?
Comment by Constitutionalist
Constitutionalist, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (for now) and stop calling you a troll. But you are talking like a troll since you are trashing Democrats and you seem to think that because we are criticizing what you have to say, we are censoring you. If we were censoring you, you would not be able to post here at all, like the Republiscum sites.
Your trashing the Democratic party is what makes us think you are a troll. We have had many trolls here recently who come here and proclaim that they are a Liberal and then proceed to trash liberals and progressives. Your views sound decidedly un-liberal so you can get used to being criticized here or you can choose to leave. The choice is yours.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pmConstitutionalist – this was your opening post:
why do you guys even cover the war?
your party doesn’t even stand strongly to end it.
Comment by Constitutionalist — February 6, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
That comment was designed to start trouble. First of all, if you’ve ever been here before, you would know that posters here are not strictly Democrats. Secondly, are you implying that we should blindly file down the path that the party leaders are advocating?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pmI’ll second Bilbo, Constitutionalist, I was the one referring to you as a troll.
Perhaps if you commented on the topic of the thread, one would appreciate the point you were trying to make…
The topic of the thread is the BushitCo “arrangement” with Iraq.
Got anything to say about that?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pmConstitutionalist – this was your second post:
This is as divisive a statement as you can make here. It is designed to rip alliances based on hatred of hillary….you are a troll until you prove otherwise and i will treat you as such.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pmI think it’s fascinating that goon_golly managed to complete derail the thread with one short comment. The troll is definitely earning its keep.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pmPerhaps Mr Pee got a new IP ~?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pmWho cares if it’s not an official war…. hundreds of thousands are dead and dying and the democrats won’t stand to end it.
It’s repuglycan obstructionists who are preventing it, in the Senate.
Half of your party voted for Hillary and she has most of the super delegates.
Hillary has 80 more bound delegates than Obama, it isn’t about how the vote went.
Super delegates are not bound at the convention. A recent poll showed Hillary being currently favored. That doesn’t mean they are hers.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pmDo your homework.
besides, REAL dems/progressives don’t have to state as much…
February 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pmit’s known by the message…
besides, REAL dems/progressives don’t have to state as much…
it’s known by the message…
they get confused if they get away from the boilerplate.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pmThe very first clue, is, as always
“As a liberal/progressive…”
February 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pmAnd, you believe them???
February 6th, 2008 at 2:45 pmYes, and I just bought this neato bridge in Arizona!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pmThe press is finally doing its job. Bush tried to sneak this treaty obligation past us, without going thru congress.
Fortunately, NPR reported on it, and the story was picked up by other TV Networks. Clearly a commitment to defend Iraq from external and INTERNAL threats is News! I don’t know what other news sources and blogs carried the story…but Bush reacted to the story getting out by backing out.
This same pattern occured with Bush’s desire to attack Iran Militarily. Kudos to Seymore Hersch.
It’s a shame that the press’s backbone only developed after about six years of disasterous Bush Damage to our country.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pmExcuse me, but the foreign aggression Iraq has suffered through has come from THE UNITED STATES!
February 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm