"(Neither the US Congress nor the Iraqi parliament would approve this in a million years.)"

This is a surprising recognition of political astuteness on the democrats' behalf coming from you.

Is this an assertion meant only to bolster your central point that Bush/Maliki act as an entity unto themselves - free from laws, traditions, and the people they govern? Or do you really ascribe such political resoluteness to this dem controlled congress? And if you suddenly have faith the democrats - regardless of their motives - will do something that isn't totally fucked up, can you still hang out with your current posse? Or do you have to find new friends? Cause I'd totally hang out with you if your old friends shunned you provided you could stand a (much) less articulate digby: a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who happens to think the media, the D.C. culture, and republicans are a bigger problem than stupid cowardly self-defeating democrats.

Also, I live on the west coast, so you'd probably have to move if we're going to hang out.

Why do you hate Des Moines?

Actually, I changed the wording since I wrote that, since it was a little stronger than reality. I can imagine circumstances in which either congress or the Iraqi parliament would approve this. They're just unlikely circumstances. And congress would be more likely to approve something like this than the Iraqis.

In any case, it won't happen, since Bush is desperate to keep both legislative branches out of it -- both as a matter of principle, and because he wouldn't get everything he wants.

From WAPO's William Arkin:

The congressional hearings yesterday demonstrated that America, Democrat and Republican alike, is aching for an end to the Iraq war. The theory of the surge was that it would generate enough military security to allow space for a political breakthrough. That didn't happen, so it's reasonable to expect that fewer troops will not achieve that goal, either.

"We have the forces that we need right now," the general said in response to worriers and critics. "We've got to continue. We have our teeth into the jugular, and we need to keep it there."

Petraeus meant the enemy's jugular, of course. But I read it as referring to America's jugular, too.

Does anyone doubt any longer that the "plan," such as there is, is to leave some 140,000 American troops in Iraq until the 2008 elections? In a day of sharp questioning and declarations of alarm from senators from both sides of the aisle, Petraeus managed never to promise anything more.

Dammit.

Your new phrasing seems correct-ier.

Good post, but I agree with albany layman -- why does Iowa always bear the brunt of these hypotheticals? Because they derailed Dean?

See also:
http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2005/09/19/tomo/
("I guess we didn't really need Iowa.")

I say let's pick on (What's the Matter with) Kansas instead.

then Maliki and Bush could together agree without US congressional approval that Iraqis can be based in the US and kill Americans.
Giving the Democratic majority in Congress another opportunity to do that adorable thing where they roll over on their back, and wiggle back-and-forth, and wag their tail, and implore with their big spaniel eyes . . .

What a splendid idea. Bring in Iraqi contractors and troops. There's lots and lots of work to be done--in Detroit, DC, St. Louis and other cities, work American contractors are too expensive for and ill-equipped to perform. Third-world contractors for third-world areas and conditions!
Call it the Donescobar Plan. The Homeland Could Rise Again.

Courtesy of Democracy Now! here's Sen. Clinton's comeback:

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Ambassador Crocker, it seems odd, I think, to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform, the civilian employees whom you rightly referenced and thanked, as well as billions of dollars of additional taxpayer dollars, if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement that the United States Congress would not.

Call or write your representatives in Congress today and demand that Congress have the Status of Forces Agreement read to them too! (Of course, realistically, we should recognize that the Democrats will probably settle for the Congressional leadership having a classified summary read to them, but it's still a victory, right?)

> 2. If not, could Bush and Maliki decide tomorrow
> that Iraqi troops and private contractors will be
> stationed in Des Moines and have the legal
> authority to shoot Americans?

Try it this way:

Could Bush [...] decide tomorrow that [...] private contractors will be stationed in [New Orleans] and have the legal authority to shoot Americans?

I think that question has already been answered, so there is no need to postulate Iraqi involvement.

How seriously should we take an agreement between the Bush administration and Maliki, the mayor of the Green Zone? If President Obama doesn't withdraw our troops from Iraq (and I'm sure he won't) it's not because his "hands are tied" by a piece of paper. It will be because he wants to keep troops in Iraq.

I suspect this "Bush is tying our hands!" is just preemptive bullshit on the part of Democrats who don't really want to withdraw from Iraq.

@SteveB: It might be that kind of preemptive bullshit on the part of many Democrats. But for the rest of us, including a minority of Democrats in Congress, this is yet another serious step across the line on the part of this regime from constitutional republic to dictatorship.

I saw this thing at ThinkProgress:

Max Bergmann at Democracy Arsenal wrote yesterday, “Petraeus and Crocker have no problems projecting out the potential implications of leaving Iraq — but they refuse to make projections of what staying will look like. That double standard is absurd. Is there a strategic plan for our presence in Iraq? If so what? The answer is pretty clearly no. They have no end game. There is no exit strategy.[my emphasis]”

No exit strategy? No shit sherlock. Are you shocked the sky is blue?

I don't know if it's more frustrating that the administration lies to your face and the media winks, or that progressives feign surprise and shock.

Because I would have thought that taking troops out of Saudi Arabia at the start of the Iraq war would have them camping out permanently in Iraq. Permanently.

No, those little ME oasis like Qatar would never have been sufficient. Iraq, yes. Iran, slightly delayed but would have been preferred if the Iraq thing went well.

The Thinkprogress entry is, "What is the definition of winning?"

Well, the definition of winning is that we get to stay, as long as we want. And by we, I don't mean we.

SINCE WE are paying for it, WE does mean WE.

this is yet another serious step across the line on the part of this regime from constitutional republic to dictatorship.

Bush is certainly given to claims of dictatorial powers - the right to tap our phones without a warrant, the right to invade a country without UN authorization, the right to sign "agreements" like this without congressional approval - but those claims only have weight because Congress refuses to assert it's own powers. Bush does have congressional assent for his actions, even if its only the assent of inaction.

This month, Congress will be voting on another $100 billion for the war. How many of the Dem representatives and senators who are grousing about the Bush-Maliki agreement will refuse to vote for the funding? Not many.

That's why I object to the idea that Bush is a "dictator." Real dictators can't be stopped in their tracks by a simple "no" vote on a funding bill.

Did Clinton, or anyone, ask ol' Crock how to view this agreement in light of the Constitution?

SteveB: EXACTLY

Evidently the Administration is ready to go to the mat on not triggering the "advise and consent" clause on this Iraq occupation agreement. Karen DeYoung has reported in the Washington Post
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503492.html) an argument they have used: no need for Congress to approve again, the already did in 2002. Of course if Congress did keep the authority to approve this, the Democrats could stop/shape the war at their will. Let's take bets on the date the Democrats will abandon this potential power to lame duck Bush. I put my marker on Thanksgiving.

Real dictators can't be stopped in their tracks by a simple "no" vote on a funding bill.

Nah. Plenty of real dictators have parliaments. For example, Cuba has National Assembly of People's Power - the legislative parliament of the Republic of Cuba and the supreme body of State power (according to wikipedia). But it's still a dictatorship. The point being that they - as a practical matter - can't be, in fact, stopped in their tracks.

Cuba has National Assembly of People's Power...

You know, I like this analogy where U.S. Congress = Cuban National Assembly of People's Power. It explains a lot.

The point being that they - as a practical matter - can't be, in fact, stopped in their tracks.

OK, so Castro (or his Brother) can do whatever he wants, because the "National Assembly of People's Power" will rubber-stamp his every request. And Bush can do whatever he wants because...

Yet another proof that civics classes should be at the top of the high school and college curricula. Perhaps it's because there are only about 100,000 Americans out there who know that our Constitution requires congressional approval of treaties that this sort of travesty of our laws is passively accepted. When you don't know what your government is supposed to do, you can't call it on its errors.

It reminds me of Mitt Romney saying during a debate last fall that he would consult with his lawyers before ddeclaring war on another nation. I think it was Ron Paul who called him on it.

Today, from a mainstream hack:

That would have been extremely foolish. The U.S. would have been inserting itself into a part of Iraq that we don't know very well — the south — and taking sides against what is probably the most popular mass movement in Shi'ite Iraq. But the Petraeus battle plan apparently includes an anti-Sadrist move, which may mean a spurt of violence as widespread and vicious as the worst of the Sunni insurgency. Is that why the general wants a "pause" in the U.S. withdrawal this summer?

What could possibly be the rationale for this? Perhaps it is that Sadr's Mahdi Army is the most potent force opposed to long-term U.S. bases in Iraq — and that a permanent presence has been the Bush Administration's true goal in this war. I suspect the central question in Iraq now is not whether things will get better but whether the drive for a long-term, neocolonialist presence will make the situation irretrievably worse.[emphasis mine]

Yes, perhaps.

Irretrievably worse happened in March 2003. (its just worser that's all)

The difference between Iraq and a lightbulb is you can unscrew a lightbulb.

Yet another proof that civics classes should be at the top of the high school and college curricula. Perhaps it's because there are only about 100,000 Americans out there who know that our Constitution requires congressional approval of treaties that this sort of travesty of our laws is passively accepted.

Do you think the 535 members of Congress are among the 100,000 Americans who understand the Constitution? I hope it's not ignorance of their right to approve treaties that is causing so many member of Congress to take this lying down.

As for the rest of us, how much effort can we be expected to put into defending the constitutional prerogatives of a Congress that isn't willing to do a damn thing itself to protect those prerogatives?

And once again, Bush's actions mystify me. Who seriously thinks Congress wouldn't approve the Bush-Maliki agreement if he submitted it to them? The UN mandate runs out on Dec. 31, so if you want US troops in Iraq on Jan. 1 (and every member of Congress does), there has to be some agreement governing their presence, and who else is able to negotiate that agreement except the President? Congress would be no more willing to say no to this agreement than they would be willing to say no to funding the war (and we all know where they stand on that one.)

And finally, I noted earlier that this was an opportunity for some genuine international solidarity between US and Iraqi legislators, who are being screwed by their respective executive branches in exactly the same way. Instead, Hillary Clinton, monster that she is, takes the opportunity to turn this into an occasion for resentment at the relatively privilege "enjoyed" by Iraqi legislators: "How come they get the agreement read to them, and we don't? It's not fair! Waaaaah!" Those fucking Iraqis, first they're not even grateful for the precious gift of freedom we've given them, and now they're getting stuff read to them! Why can't they be satisfied with the two-line summary our Senators get in the Washington Post?

SteveB, I kind of wish the problem was ignorance of the right to approve (or reject) treaties. It'd be much easier to fix than the real problem is.