NYT edtorial: Don’t Tie the Next President’s Hands; Bush's "reckless" rush toward deal with Iraq

[DeepModem Mom]

Don’t Tie the Next President’s Hands
Published: January 17, 2008

President Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq. With so many Americans adamant about bringing our forces home as soon as possible, a sentiment we strongly share, Mr. Bush must not be allowed to tie the hands of his successor and ensure the country’s continued involvement in an open-ended war.

Given what’s at stake in Iraq in terms of American and Iraqi lives lost, national treasure and broad national security interests, the negotiations on any new agreement must be fully transparent — which they are not. The national debate must be vigorous and thoughtful, and then Congress must vote on whatever deal results....

***

Formal negotiations won’t start until February and few details are known, but already the two sides are laying down markers. The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir — apparently tone-deaf to the American political debate — told The Times’s Thom Shanker that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 or be able to defend its own borders from external threat at least until 2018. That is far too long for most Americans, but not for Mr. Bush, who is quite comfortable leaving American troops fighting in Iraq for another decade.

A related issue concerns whether the agreement would grant assurances that America would help Iraq defend against foreign aggression — something a senior White House official says has not been ruled out. That’s a worrying prospect. Such guarantees could further encourage Iraqi dependence on the American military and might draw the United States into a regional conflict....

Mr. Bush is rushing to complete a deal before he leaves office in January 2009. That is just as reckless and irresponsible as most of his decisions regarding Iraq. America’s interests demand that his successor has maximum flexibility to plot a course, which we hope includes a quick and orderly withdrawal of troops....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/opinion/17thu1.html?_r=1&oref=login

[Vincardog]

1. Excuse me but doesn't the Constitution say the Pretzeldent can negotiate treaties but the Congress

has to ratify them before they become binding? You know like the Geneva Conventions were ratified and carry the force of law regardless of what the clueless chimp says or does.

[tom_paine]

3. That was the Old American Republic. We don't live there anymore.

Amerika, Russia and China are all run by essentially the same form of government, though we Subjects of Amerika are treated by far the most "nicely" because of our old traditions of freedom which have to be paid lip-service. Also, the tyrants must keep people's everyday lives to some semblence of the old "normal" until it is far too late to do anything about it.

[Doctor_J]

2. Yes, and I am sure Stupid will heed the advice of the NYT

:eyes: