Perino: Iraq Agreement ‘Not Subject’ To Congressional ‘Yes-Or-No’, Regardless Of What ‘Other Countries’ Do
Perino: Iraq Agreement ‘Not Subject’ To Congressional ‘Yes-Or-No’, Regardless Of What ‘Other Countries’ Do
In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship.” Recently, the Bush administration has refused to say whether it believes there is “a constitutional requirement” for the White House to “consult with Congress…in the commitment of U.S. forces in a battle zone.”
Yesterday, Ambassador Ryan Crocker stated that the status of force agreement (SOFA) would be negotiated with Iraq as an “executive agreement,” which he said did not require congressional approval. Crocker also said that the Iraqi government may submit the agreement to its parliament, while the White House refused to do the same for Congress.
During today’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Dana Perino reiterated that, regardless of what the Iraqi parliament might do, the U.S. Congress would be shut out of its advise and consent role:
PERINO: An executive agreement like this isn’t something that is subject to a yes-or-no by the United States Senate. Other countries, under their constitutions, may have that type of rule, but we don’t. But that doesn’t mean we’re not going to work very closely with Congress.
QUESTION: (inaudible) make an end-run around the…
PERINO: No, it’s not.
QUESTION: Well, why can’t you submit it to Congress?
PERINO: I just explained why.
Watch it:
In fact, there is nothing precluding the White House from submitting the agreement to Congress. Indeed, as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) pointed out yesterday, negotiating such a treaty without Senate approval would represent a break from past practice. In 1951, for example, the Senate ratified a U.S./NATO SOFA to preside over the hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces stationed in over 40 countries, including Germany and Japan.
Conservative columnist George Will wrote recently, “Hundreds of such agreements, major (e.g., NATO) and minor (the Reagan administration’s security commitment to the Marshall Islands and Micronesia), have been submitted to Congress.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe we can count on Yoo to explain this also.
Dude: Where’s my country?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pmSo the next executive can agree not to honor this agreement, right, Liar Perino?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pmI have to say, that her continuing blabbering is, indeed, giving blondes everywhere a REALLY bad name!
April 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pm“I just explained why.”
“Because we don’t feel like it, and Cheney you!”
April 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pmIf it contains any language specific to troops and combat, it must be OK’d by the Congress.
Remember them? The folks who have the authority to:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
April 9th, 2008 at 7:13 pmWhat do you expect from the “Boldly go where no Administration has gone before” administration?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:15 pmDana’s losing it.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pmThe lackluster disdain and droopy eyes tell a tale of a soul being eaten away by having to tell lies, obfuscations and distortions, day after day.
Interesting how our “conservative” administration is doing the opposite in how it conducts it’s business. In fact, when it comes to executive functioning, these guys are radically liberal.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pmSo the American congress is against this and the majority of the American people don’t want it either. Hell the majority of Iraqis don’t want it. So, how is Bush different from a dictator? Do republicans really believe that all of our governmental authority should rest with one man?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pmIt reallllllly is time to REVOKE the force authorization. Completely.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:21 pmYes, provided they get to pick the man.
It’s called Authoritarianism. Of course, if they don’t like the man that another country has chosen, then they call it “dictatorship”.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pmRUCerious Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
It reallllllly is time to REVOKE the force authorization. Completely.
Yep. It would help us to immediately regain some of the lost trust and reputation we have squandered around the world.
Of course, Congress won’t do that.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pmStrat92117 - A Rethuglican Senate filibuster would bring that to a grinding halt before you could say “Boo.”
April 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pmPERINO: We’re gonna dis the congress and the people and you can’t do anything about it.
Question: Don’t you care what the American public wants?
PERINO: No.
Cheney: She certainly has been a good student of mine.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pmanyone see the report by cafferty on CNN about the record number of people that are on food stamps now?
double dribble
April 9th, 2008 at 7:40 pmrobbez_92107 Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Strat92117 - A Rethuglican Senate filibuster would bring that to a grinding halt before you could say “Boo.”
Agreed. But a man can always dream, can’t he?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:40 pmShe should have said:
“Why bother. They would complain, make suggestions, posture a bit in the press and ultimately cave to President Bush like every other political opportunity”
Now that would have been something!
April 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pmThe lackluster disdain and droopy eyes tell a tale of a soul being eaten away by having to tell lies, obfuscations and distortions
Either that or Dana Bimborino has been attending GDumbya’s daily “happy hour” lately.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:46 pmWho would have thought the first tyrant in U.S. history would have the IQ of an eggplant?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:47 pmDoes anything in the constitution say that Helen Thomas can’t hock a giant loogie in Dana’s face?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:49 pmRUCerious Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
…
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
This is the one that this President ignores the most. It is the Congress, not the President, who decides the rules under which our military forces willoperate. His role as Commander-in-Chief is to command the troops in accordance with the rules established by Congress. He does not have the constitutional authority to override Congress. He might think he does, thanks to allegedly-carbon-based-life-forms such as John Yoo, but he most certainly does not.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:49 pmpete Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Does anything in the constitution say that Helen Thomas can’t hock a giant loogie in Dana’s face?
No, sir, it does not. I checked. First Amendment.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:50 pmThe “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship.” between the U.S. and Iraq is clearly a treaty…and as such, advise and consent of the Senate is required.
From Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
“He {the President} shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”
April 9th, 2008 at 7:54 pmAll the more reason to lock Bush and Cheney up before they do more harm to this country. Throw Yoo in the cell as well. These men are the greatest terrorist threat this nation has ever known.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:54 pmHow much longer can we stand Emperor Bush? He has failed at everything he has touched. Daddy must be so proud….
What I never hear mentioned is that if the Senate does not ratify it then it’s not a treaty. Bush can shake hands on (or sign) any agreement he cares to. He may feel bound to abide by it (although I wouldn’t count on it), but there is no way that the next President needs to pay any attention to it. The Senate (and the Democratic candidates) should make this loud and clear to the Iraqis.
–Kibitzer
April 9th, 2008 at 8:00 pmExecutive agreements are extra-Constitutional, and in my own opinion which seems to be shared by many eminent legal scholars, it’s also unConstitutional. But the Supreme Court doesn’t agree.
Bush has outmanuveured Congress (Dems), and they’ve let him get away with it. Democrats refuse to assert their power and confront his abuses. For whatever reason. They just won’t do it.
When one branch does what it wants and the other branches do nothing, that’s passive agreement. Our problem is this Congress. Or more precisely, the individual Dems that are in office. We trusted these politicians, we put them into power, and we can’t seem to get them to do what we put them into office to do.
Joe Biden talks a good game, but Joe Biden (and just about every other career Democrat in Washington) has been duped by the Bush Administration or been in league with the Bush Administration at every single turn. They wring their hands, but that’s all they do. Democrats refuse to confront this situation with Bush. They ALL need to be replaced.
There is probably not a farthing’s worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, policy-wise. To date, Obama’s as non-populist, right-of-center as Hillary Clinton. Her only left-wing efforts are on abortion. Everything else with her has been just talk. She talks a good game on gay rights, but let’s not forget that Bill Clinton signed DOMA, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a chicken-hearted caving in to Repubs. In Obama’s favor is that he’s not the lying Hillary. We can hope that once in the White House, he would veer left, but we hoped Bill Clinton would, too.
The only exit strategy for getting out of Iraq is GETTING OUT OF IRAQ. You just do it. You put one boot in front of the other and you walk. Short of that, we will be there forever, drawn in to a wider war with Iran, which I expect Bush will be starting any day now. I think that’s what Hillary Clinton knows and is waiting for, to make that her case to superdelegates - “I’ll have a former President guiding me through a war, while Obama would be doing it on his own.”
All of these politicians are just waiting for this election to be over, so they can go back to business as usual: NOT having to answer to their constituents until the next campaign cycle begins anew and they can spin and stonewall their way through it again.
In the end, it will fall to us, the people, to get active in our democracy, active in the Democratic Party, clear the DLC out, replace those in office, and make the policies we want for ourselves. They get away with it because they think we won’t do it. Are they correct?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pmAt this point, I only hope Bushco leaves peacefully rather than needing to be dragged out of office by a mob with torches and pitchforks. Assuming there IS an election in November.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:21 pmDid anyone ask her how many other Executive Agreements have been entered into and what the nature of such agreements are?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pmJust another stretch of the envelope of unitard executivity by the putschist putz. He makes shit up, floats it and sees who believes.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:40 pmWhen Congress stops believing, the problem will solve itself, or Inauguration Day, whichever comes first.
wrong!
April 9th, 2008 at 8:45 pmJackie:
April 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pmThe Democrats don’t control Congress. They chair committees, and have ‘Majority’ instead of ‘Minority’ in front of their names, but they have 49 Democrats in the Senate.
There are two Independents, and one is Joe Lieberman. He alone can block the entire agenda of the Democratic Party even if Harry Reid invokes the nuclear option. (Sanders votes with the Dems, Lieberman votes with the Goopers, and guess who casts the tiebreaker? Dick Cheney.)
If every Democratt voted exactly the way we wanted on every bill and said all the right things, it would still be the case that not a single bill would be sent to the President’s desk without the help of either the Republicans or Joe Lieberman.
I am disgusted with the inaction and the betrayals on the part of the Congressional Democrats, but I’m tired of people equating dramatic and symbolic gestures with actual power.
If every Democrat voted against the Iraq War Resolution we would still be in Iraq. If every Democrat had voted against the Patriot Act it wouldstill be the law of the land. And if theDemocrats impeached George Bush and Dick Cgheney they would be acquitted.
It’s good to remember that.
Someone build a fire under Pelosi’s butt to get the impeachment rolling!
April 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pmImpeach. Now. We have evidence on at least 7 issues (signing statements, lies to get us into this Iraq mess, revealing a CIA agent’s and her cover company’s identity, bankrupting the country to the benefit of unfriendly countries, fraud and abuse by political cronies in Iraq and New Orleans, violation of the FISA act, violation of international treaties to torture prisoners). If the House doesn’t introduce impeachment articles soon, Pelosi needs to be held responsible for collusion.
Some want to wait until we bomb Iran. Too late–we’ll be in WWIII. Or is it IV or V? We’ll all be dead or trying to find clean water and food by then.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm#8 Nevar
I agree. I think she looks tired and brow beaten.
What I don’t understand is why Congress is not calling Bush on the carpet for this?? To do absolutely nothing at all is even worse than trying and failing. At least you could say you tried. But it would be on record who blocked the appropriate action that needs to be taken.
At least Senator Kennedy pointed out that is the way it has always been done.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:21 pmNot getting Congress’ OK for an agreement that binds the next president is “SOFA” King impeachable.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:59 amMaliki wants us out. What will Bush do, when the Iraqi Parliament rejects the agreement?
Dana Perino as nothing but a cypher - she’s like a robot regurgitating what she’s been told. She has no independent thoughts of her own, and doesn’t even know what the words she spouts mean. One day it’ll be discovered that, like Bush in the debates 4 years ago, she’s got a device in her ear and someone else is telling her what to say. Just to look at her, one can tell she has no mind, no soul and no will of her own. A typical Bushie.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:06 pmShe looks like she gets regular bukakke shampoos and facials from Darth Cheney, doesn’t she?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:29 pmJeez, they sound just like a parent having a conversation with a child…
Billy: “I want to stay up late.”
Mother: “No.”
Billy: “But Jason’s Mom lets him stay up late every night.”
Mother: “Just because Jason’s Mom lets him stay up late doesn’t mean I have to.”
April 10th, 2008 at 9:11 pmBy pretending that the proposed agreement between Iraq and the US does not require the Senate’s consent to become law, Bush adds another action to the record of his many assaults against democracy. Debate and public discourse are fundamental processes for decision-making in a self-governing political system like ours. By minimizing an exchange of views among the people on this proposal, Bush and Rice are making another end run, rushing the issue past public awareness without pausing to let us talk about it, and continuing the model of opaque executive function they’re notable for.
But we the people are more at fault than any political party or any of our representatives in the Congress. When it comes to organizing to assert our combined voices we find that we have no workable understanding of our role (and duty) in a republic such as ours and that if we did understand our role we wouldn’t be able to exercise it because we are out of condition–our skills as self-governing persons have atrophied. Obama has agitated us to move again, flex our minds, learn, and there is hope that we can achieve some growth as citizens now.
Why did we permit the Supreme Court to replace the electoral college? Was Bush’s selection as the 43rd president constitutional?
June 16th, 2008 at 9:49 pm