Can't rule out either bases or war. Muckraker has two adjoining posts this morning which suggest -- actually, which shout out -- that we aren't getting rid of ongoing war in the Middle East anytime soon.
First -- permanent bases. Muckraker's Spencer Ackerman and team had the opportunity to speak with Maliki's spokesman today.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the official spokesman for the government of Iraq, refused to rule out granting the U.S. military permanent bases in Iraq during next year's negotiations over the shape of a long-term U.S.-Iraq security agreement.
Second -- ain't nobody gonna tell George W. Bush whether he can stay in Iraq, least of all Congress.
"We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress." In other words, Bush can commit the U.S. to protecting the security of Iraq -- including, as [White House war adviser Douglas] Lute said, enduring U.S. bases in Iraq and a residual troop presence -- without Congressional approval. Can he?
"That reflects historical practice," says Peggy McGuinness, a former State Department official and current law professor at the University of Missouri.
...If President Bush wants to play constitutional hardball, then, he's within historical practice to commit the United States to the long-term security of Iraq without a word of discussion with Congress.
It's not like we voted Democratic majorities in Congress last year.
It's not like our representatives are doing what Congress is expected
to do if the president overruns their authority: cut off funding.
