If they walked out because they were upset about the misrepresentation of a Presidential candidate’s words, I hope they walked out and lined up at a pay phone to call and apologize to Al Gore.
What’s being reported around here is that the Administration is said to have no intention of getting another renewal. Maybe that’s BS, but you notice they renewed the last two over a year ahead of the expiration of the mandate.
My understanding (if thats what it is…) is that the Bushiviks are seeking a seperate non-treaty treaty (the kind that doesn’t need Senate approval) for the express purpose of rendering that question moot.
Well, could be. Maybe Bush will leave it to “future presidents” to deal with. Still, I can’t see the UNSC not renewing it if they are asked to do so. No skin off their asses if we’re willing to put up our young men and women to get killed for some measure of stability it Iraq.
Mr. Moto, on a related issue, how long do you personally want the United States to continue losing troops in Iraq? Do you feel that it would be a good idea to remain ten more years? Would a decade of continuing resistance be enough for you to decide we ought to withdraw? Is there, in fact any length of time which, by itself, would convince you that, hey, maybe George was wrong?
You object to the characterization that Mr. McCain himself feels that one hundred years is not too much. Does that mean that some time before a hundred years you would reach a point where you began to question the wisdom of the Iraq war?
Tris
The flavor of Iraqi democracy is difficult to describe. It is a spicy democracy, seasoned heavily with roasted peppers and ground sesame seed paste, with hints of onion, garlic and even pomegranate. It is a democracy that is at once savory and sweet, after roasting on a spit over a low flame for hours on end. It is particularly delicious sliced up and served in a grilled pita bread with yoghurt sauce.
Yes . . . but it’s unclear whether such an agreement would be binding on the next administration.
Maybe I’ve got a primitive understanding of such things, but I don’t see how non-parties to an agreement can be bound by it.
IOW, if Bush and Maliki sign it, but neither asks for or receives the ratification of their legislatures, then IMHO it’s a personal agreement between Bush and Maliki that Bush’s successor is free to honor or ignore, at his/her whim.
Besides, IIRC, Bush has claimed that Presidents can unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from treaties ratified by previous Congresses, as well as treaties signed by previous Presidents but not ratified by the Senate.
When in doubt, start a thread.