The Cafferty File: Should The Bush Administration Negotiate Long Term Contracts In Iraq?
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Mar 19, 2008 11:50am
Download | play 
Download | play (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.
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.
Login or Register to post comments.
So?!?
Pete and Joan pretty much sum up my thoughts. Bush and Cheney could give sh*t what the people of the US think. They were given the reins by the Supreme Court in 2000 and they feel they don't owe us anything.
[ Don't incite violence,even if you're kidding.........Deleted ..Site Monitor]
Here are some big signs from yesterday:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2008/03/five-years-of-victory.html
Very Big.
prolly not but what's even more sad is dems not picking a candidate like edwards or ANYONE who could of actually beat mccain instead of going with clinton or obama. which has always been a republican wet dream...most likely some sort of rovian plot to guarantee republicans stay in power at the white house. hillary in on the rig, and obama believing his own hype...a useful idiot if you will...and u guys fell for it...LAME! to think obama has a chance to be president is so gullible and dismissive of american history is just retarded...sry but it is. so now we get 4 to 8 more years of neocon policies...nice! thx!
Bush is the Corporate Debt collector in Iraq. Our troops are his Repo men.
scarlet p. @ 4:
The traffic is that first picture kind of negates the message.
That was one exasperated and disgusted sigh after he read the Brian from California's email. I don't want to hear all about how they should be impeached. I agree, the whole bunch needs to frog marched out of office in handcuffs. The problem is they have demonstrated time and again that they will simply refuse to cooperate with any investigation that would lead to impeachment. Never before in history that I know of has a FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and Administration been so politicized to the point they will defend party over country and the law every time. They refuse to even honor a simple subpoena from congress and the Attorney General has said he will not enforce it. Who are you going to get to testify, who are you going to get enforce subpoenas for records. They will not follow any court directive or legal framework for cooperation. Outside of an armed insurrection I don't see an answer and sure hope it doesn't come to that.
Bush is going to do what they've always done, what they want, and basically the rest of us are being sold a pair concrete shoes with an extra measure of anchor chain around the neck for good measure.
I'm thinking of taking an "I didn't approve the Halliburton contracts" deduction on my tax return.
This is what I have been saying for 5 years.
The Bush/CHENEY (or is that CHENEY/bush) entire plan and reason for the ILLEGAL ATTACK ON IRAQ has it's origins in stealing Iraq's OIL.
We all know that. We have always known that. But here is how the game plan invented and perpetrated by DICK CHENEY has worked all along:
It's called ATTRITION. You pound them into the ground, starve them for 10 years, pound them again while they are weakened, and disarmed, then you set up an all out occupation in their nation, murdering them block by block, destroying all their homes and businesses, Mosques and families... one by one... ATTRITION you know.
Until they finally will sign the paper giving the oil and all it's value to HALLIBURTON.
This has been the plan all along. Dick Cheney uses our country like toilet paper to wipe his ass. He has used the military of the United States as his henchmen to steal the natural resources and murder the people of this nation. He is a war criminal as sure as Hitler was.
Any contract signed under duress will not withstand the test of law. I only wish the Iraqi government knew that. They are smart people, but the contract they are being forced to sign I am sure surpasses international law in its content.
They most surely don't want to sign. LOOK at the price they're paying.
So the question is NOT should the American people insist on Congressional approval for this contract.
The question is WHY HAVE WE NOT IMPEACHED AND IMPRISONED THIS WAR CRIMINAL?
Why do we continue to allow the bush administration to do murder in our name?
How exactly will this affect President Bush and Cheney from serving the same positions in Iraq?
It appears rather obvious that if this administration were any kind of team player, one who was interested in doing what is best for America, they would consider their time left in office and the general political landscape. The question implied answers itself. However, I am curious to know exactly what Cheney used to negotiate with. It couldn't have anything to do with his official power unless it includes actions he is willing/threatening to take in the months he has left. So, does this imply some other cudgel, perhaps effected through other interested parties, say, Halliburton, or perhaps connected to his recent trip to Saudi Arabia? What's the play? What's the tell?
Yellowbird @ 11:
Same reason the Germans didn't do anything about Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich apparently.
They didn't see it coming or were to busy trying to say afloat.
.
NO ONE in this Administration should be allowed to negotiate anything with anyone.
MEMBERS of this Administration ARE WAR CRIMINALS and TRAITORS to the U.S.A.
THEY MUST be INVESTIGATED, INDICTED, IMPEACHED, and IMPRISONED!
.
I think this site is about to crash again.
See you later.
[We're working on it........thanks L.A........Site Monitor]
L.A. Confidential @ 16:
It's the PBS ad I think LA. I've crashed at least 6 times today and it seems to be the reason.
On any given day I visit and read somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 - 14 websites, I posted a comment here at 10:15 and left to read and answer an email. It has taken me going on 20min to get back. I have more problems with this website than the other 12 - 13 combined. Its just to bad that this one is my favorite because if it wasn't I wouldn't even try anymore.
Bush and Cheney are like belligerent drunk friends who keep convincing us to let them take the wheel while our vehicle is going 90-to-nothing...and even though our car is almost totalled now, and the remains of thousands of victims are splattered on the hood and windshield, the passengers just can't find the guts to take the wheel back...
It's unconstitutional, isn't it?
I mean, I know Bush has stacked the courts with chuckleheads, but somebody should still challenge this.
If nothing else, it would at least add to the scores of documents already recording our decline and fall as a Democracy.
Future historians will be fascinated.
"negotiate" that is funny.
Short answer....No... for all the reasons already stated above and then some............JD
Come on America, here is another example of Mainstream Medias poor reporting or actually misinformation. How about calling it “The Cafferty Confusion File”. Please America here is a first line Journalist that could be forthcoming to educate the electorate in some Constitutional basics that would and could be impressive views on social issues but no.
What do we get cynical take from a weary looking guy who seems desperate for the truth and doesn’t know how to get it. An excellent example of news to nowhere. Here, a real example that should be able to direct for a rational view and target the Constitution sections that tell us all it is the Congress and Senate that has the authority to finalize treaties. The President could make a suggestion but thats all folks. This guy is a special time to contextually manipulate the electorate along with Lou Dobbs, along with Wolf Blitzer to generate as many confused electorates as possible. They like calling them Independents.
Wolf [deleted....site monitor] Blitzer, reminds me of Lieberman, from God’s lip to our ears. Or is it from Lieberman’s lips to McCains ear ? Who the heck will be President anyway ?
Do we really know who AL Qaeda is ? Not really, actually AL Qaeda is everybody in Iraq. Why in hell you think they don’t want to fight their war ? Don’t you get it. These people are all AL Qaeda harboring just those who have the spirit, and encouragement to fight. Or perhaps stupidity to fight. Those that fight are called extremist by the media and the politicians. In Americas early Independence war we called them patriots, and likely AL Qaeda are the current patriots.
How stupid can we get as Americans. Here, we can take a Mexican immigrant that can hardly speak English give them the opportunity to serve in the military in less than six months fight in a war to become citizen. Are you with me. Why for St Peter’s sake couldn’t our brilliant minds in the military train divisions and battalions of Iraqi’s by now. America has been screwing around with this problem for five years and four trillion dollars. Sheesh, it is simple they do want to fight each other. The bennies for the Iraqi are to good to be true. They are playing games with us. Period. Pulling out of Iraq will prove it.
So this is what Cheney and McCain met and talked about in Iraq. When will the Americans catch on that McCain is part of the set up of this deal. Bushco is going to push for McCain to protect them. It is so obvious!
L.A. Confidential @ 6:
So are the troops more like Emilio Estevez or Harry Dean Stanton?
why are we still so surprised by this. all that change we voted for in congress two years ago has amounted to squat. at this point i hold a democratically controlled congress just as responsible as buschco. for being so spineless...
The whole issue is irrelevant. The signing statement is already filed.
Jack,
Only if the Bush Administration gets 10% agent fees! Next, they can negotiate for the rights to the mini-series, book deal or movie rights.
No?
Any deal we make, Iraq needs to understand there's a good chance the next administration will just go right up in there and say, "I don't care what Bush said, we're outta here!" With the political climate in America right now, Iraq would be foolish and setting itself up for disappointment/failure to make any long term plans with this current administration.
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
Because the first guy to charge the hill is the first guy to die.
Freak@5 - NOTICE: Republican plants have been exposed and are not welcome on this site. Go away.
Freakaloin @ 5:
Why doesn't he have a chance?
Roket @ 31:
On the other hand, I fully welcome these kinds of posts. They remind me of the ignorance we are fighting against.
I thought the entire point of this country's government was to make sure that it was the will of the people and NOT of a monarch that was addressed. By disregarding our interests and desires, Bush and his cohorts have proven themselves to be immensly anti-American. It's not the radical Islamists (if you can even refer to a cult like Al Qaeda as holding any sort of Islamic principals) that hate us for our freedom; it's the leaders of our own country. They want to hold sway over us, or at least that's the impression I get from their antipathy for our rule of law. Christ, it's like the years leading up to the Revolution all over again, only this time we're fighting George the Dubya instead of George the Third.
Know what? I said this about the Supreme Court's rulings on eminent domain (sorry if I misspelled that), and I think it applies in the case of the executive brance as well: whenever they try to do something that goes against our Consitution and our wishes, we should say, "We didn't agree to that, so we're going to ignore it. YOU work for US" and find somebody to take their place. As per the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we have the right, or rather the duty, to discard a government that we feel is not fulfilling its proper role. If Bush doesn't know THAT, then he should be impeached for being too stupid to be the leader of a country: if you don't know the rules, you don't deserve to decide shit.
L.A. Confidential Says@14: Yellowbird@11:
The question is WHY HAVE WE NOT IMPEACHED AND IMPRISONED THIS WAR CRIMINAL?
Why do we continue to allow the bush administration to do murder in our name?
Same reason the Germans didn’t do anything about Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich apparently.
They didn’t see it coming or were to busy trying to say afloat.
_________________________________________________________________________
In reality, Americans are being rather smart. The way I see it, the Bush administration is itching for an excuse (civil disobedience) to start filling the KZ's that Halliburton has been building during the last three years. At the first sign of Americans taking to the street to reclaim this country, the first casualty will be the general elections in November. They know what they are doing. This is a long time designed plan. However, not everything has panned out the way they expected. But they're there, waiting for the right opportunity for a complete take over.
Zorro@23
How stupid can we get as Americans. Here, we can take a Mexican immigrant that can hardly speak English give them the opportunity to serve in the military in less than six months fight in a war to become citizen. Are you with me. Why for St Peter’s sake couldn’t our brilliant minds in the military train divisions and battalions of Iraqi’s by now. America has been screwing around with this problem for five years and four trillion dollars. Sheesh, it is simple they do want to fight each other. The bennies for the Iraqi are to good to be true. They are playing games with us. Period. Pulling out of Iraq will prove it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because these brilliant minds do not have the slightest intention of implementing what you, herein, so naively suggest.
There are too many rich Republican business groups getting richer for as long as we stay in Iraq. Why would anybody try to put an end to such a great source of income. Everytime a GI gets kill, the family gets $400.000 insurance and $13.000 gratuity money. (Emergency money. Somebody claims it went up to $100.000). That kind of money appeases many consciences.
The $12.000.000 we spend every month in this war come back to the USA to Republican stockholders. Yes, these stockholders, hold stocks in the Industrial Defense conglomerate of the nation. So, they are not thinking for a minute to walk out of such wonderful investment, to quote Condoleza Rica. Comprende?
32 stonicus@32
Freakaloin@5:
to think obama has a chance to be president is so gullible and dismissive of american history is just retarded…sry but it is.
Why doesn’t he have a chance?
__________________________________
He has a chance. This is a black man with a chip on his shoulder. Muslim in denial. Christian for the last 20 years. He has a chance.
That sigh alone is why Cafferty should be running...
There is nothing Bush can do today that can't be un-done the first day he is out of office...
fwacbar @ 39:
Except kill people. That one might take a week or two.
stonicus @ 32:
this is exactly what i'm talking about...and why mccain will be the next president...
whatever freak@41, if you can look at the turnouts for just the primaries and still believe mccain will win, then just keep drinking whatever it is you're drinking.
okay but when mccain wins u owe me a public apology :) but seriously, turnouts in primaries means nothing at the general...wait and see...
Login or Register to post comments.