The Cafferty File: Should The Bush Administration Negotiate Long Term Contracts In Iraq?

[media id=4649] [media id=4650] (h/t Heather) Like most Americans who resent living in under a dictator, Jack Cafferty is more than a little upset

icon Download icon Download (h/t Heather)

Like most Americans who resent living in under a dictator, Jack Cafferty is more than a little upset that Dick Cheney--absent any public approval or congressional sanction--has pressured the various factions of the Iraqi government to commit to reconciliation and furthering the relationship between Iraq and the US, the deal to take effect after Bush leaves office. Now while the administration is officially saying that the new deal does not commit to a long term presence or tie the hands of the next president, we all know how trustworthy this administration can be. Don't miss Jack's exacerbated sigh at 29%er Brian from California rah rah cheerleading for Bush.

And in keeping with the arrogant, unilateral way it has conducted business for more than seven years, the administration says it probably will not get Senate approval for this plan. Why should the American people have anything to say about it?

The administration says that’s because it’s not a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees. Democrats in Congress aren’t happy. Some lawmakers have proposed legislation that would make the administration’s agreement null and void without Senate approval. Given the Democrats’ overwhelming lack of success in stopping President Bush from doing anything, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Full transcripts below the fold.

Today of course marks 5 years since the United States invaded Iraq, but if it’s up to the Bush administration, our involvement there will stretch far beyond the 5 years.

Vice President Dick Cheney has been in Iraq this week playing let’s make a deal when it comes to our nation’s long-term role in a country we now occupy. Cheney came away from two days of private meetings with promises from Shiia, Sunni and Kurdish officials to firm up a new blueprint for relations between the two countries.

The deal would replace a U.N. Security Council resolution that expires in December – you know, the same time that President Bush leaves office. The administration insists the deal will not create permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, set terms for U.S. troop levels or tie the hands of future presidents.


↓ Story continues below ↓

And in keeping with the arrogant, unilateral way it has conducted business for more than seven years, the administration says it probably will not get Senate approval for this plan. Why should the American people have anything to say about it?

The administration says that’s because it’s not a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees. Democrats in Congress aren’t happy. Some lawmakers have proposed legislation that would make the administration’s agreement null and void without Senate approval. Given the Democrats’ overwhelming lack of success in stopping President Bush from doing anything, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Here’s my question to you: Should the Bush administration be negotiating long-term agreements in Iraq without the consent of the American people?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Tony from Louisville, Kentucky writes:
Geez, Jack, You act as if this president has never broken any laws! This president should be tried for war crimes or treason! But he won’t. Controlling the oil in the Mideast means we have to be there to babysit the Iraqi government while they cheat their own people! You know, it’s called “Democracy”.

Ian from Greensboro, North Carolina writes:
Hey Jack, Great question, but here is a better one: Even if Bush had 95% support from the American people, would it be proper to continue with over 2/3 of the Iraqi people saying “get out now”? I don’t think it matters what Americans think; no amount of polling will change the fact that a grave breach of international law has occurred.

Barbara from Connecticut writes:
Absolutely not. Too many things in this administration have been done in secret. This is how Bush & Co. set up themselves and their cronies for years to come. The heartbreaking part of it is that it will not be their children/grandchildren/family members who will be stuck in the Middle East dealing with this setup for years to come - ours will.

Brian from California writes:
Absolutely, Bush and any president dealing with Iraq has the authority and right to make any military decision they believe is in the best interest of the people of this country.

Joan from North Carolina writes:
How many times has Pres. Bush said he told the Iraqis that he did not plan a long term presence in Iraq… and that they had to get on with the benchmarks because our occupation was not open-ended? He lied; he was planning this all along.

Pete writes:
Since when has this administration checked the pulse of the American people before they did anything? I saw where Dick Cheney responded a blunt “So?” when told that two-thirds of Americans are against this war.

About Nicole Belle

Nicole Belle's picture
Mom, Wife, Media Critic/Political Analyst, Blogger, Austen Fanatic, Unapologetic Liberal NicoleBelle@crooksandliars.com

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.