In his “Memorandum of Justification” for the waiver, Bush cited his Nov. 26 “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” between Iraq and the United States. This agreement has been aggressively opposed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress as not only unprecedented, but also potentially unconstitutional because it was enacted without the agreement of the legislation branch.
Today on CNN, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) voiced concern that this declaration may indefinitely commit U.S. troops to fighting Iraq’s civil wars.
For the record, we liberals saw this one coming a mile off, which is why many of us have said you do not play with Bush on Iraq War funding, as he will thumb his nose at Congress and do whatever he wants, anyway. That is why those of us on the left, written off as “defeatocrats” and worse, have been saying all along that we need to cut off war funding. Period.
And for the record, let’s not forget that one of the major beefs that Osama Bin Laden and company had against the U.S. was our military bases in Saudi Arabia. So I really don’t see how permanent military bases in Iraq make us safer.
Unless protecting the oil supply for ExxonMobil is part of our national security. In which case, I wish they’d just come out and say it already. Quit lying to us.
And here’s another thought: if, as has been suggested in comments here that we are involved in a resource war spawned by a dying oil economy, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend our treasure on developing a new energy economy and technologies that will help us transition away from the old one, instead of killing thousands of people to control the last drops of a dying energy source?
But of course, we have a bunch of oil men in the White House. And those aren’t exactly the people who have an interest in transitioning us away from oil, are they?
We get the government we deserve. And we will be in Iraq forever until the American people demand better.