State Department official won't agree administration consult Congress before deployment of troops

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 11:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey0RjP6uDYU   Posted on YouTube: March 04, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 06, 2008 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 705

 

[ProfessorPlum]

1. The gloves are coming off

the military empire is now beginning to openly mock the impotent Congress.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. You know this pisses me off

if was posted by Nancy Pelosi's staff, yet what is she going to do about it?

Don't just outrage me and then don't do anything about it, Nancy!

[Doc Martin]

3. Who is testifying?

His arrogance displays the regard he has for Congress

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Some state department official

[frog92969]

5. They all sound like that anymore.

[frog92969]

6. But we already know it's "just a god damned peice of paper"

That's why none of their cronies bother to read it.

Arrest the criminals in the WH already!
Then people might start answering questions.

Nobody's gonna take congress seriously until they do their sworn duty.

[peace13]

7. This is the saddest to date.

Condi Liar is hard to watch but this guy is unbelievable. He knows the answer he just doesn't want to say it. Ya....right us a letter. What a coward. Peace, Kim Hussein

[Andy Canuck]

8. I hope someone will post the 24 hour response to Congress.

[Daveenla]

9. Why don't he just bring out the constitution?

They should go over it right then and there.

[peace13]

10. Good one! n/t

[For PaisAn]

11. Bingo

He should whip out the Constitution and read it to this ass and then pose the question. When is this from?

[Sam Ervin jret]

12. everyone who works for this and any administration should be made to sign a copy of the Constitution

just so we all know they ALL KNOW the very BASICS.

Take an oath. Sign a copy. What's the big deal? Any and every immigrant has to take a test to show basic knowledge yet this Bushian can get away with either ignorance or the claim of it. He and other like him need to be held to account.

Teachers have to take a basics knowledge test to be able to teach. These idiots should have to take a basic civics test in order to be able to get a check from Uncle Sam. They weren't voted in.

[slipslidingaway]

13. From Salon...Bush's attempt to dodge Congress on Iraq

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/05/iraq/index.html

snip>>>

"...Then, in February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the proposed agreement between Iraq and the U.S. would contain no such guarantee of protection. Gates told a Senate panel, "The status-of-forces agreement that is being discussed will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq and neither will any strategic framework agreement." As Juan Cole noted at the time, the reason for America's sudden about-face on the issue seemed to have resulted from the fact that any promise of U.S. protection of Iraq would have required Senate approval -- approval Bush did not want to have to seek.

Which finally brings us to Tuesday. Satterfield made a number of remarkable assertions during the hearing. According to the Air Force Times, he said the Bush administration will soon commence negotiations with Iraq on two key agreements: One is a "strategic framework" agreement that would pertain to "normalized" relations between the nations, while the other, a "status-of-forces agreement," would, in Satterfield's words, "provide all necessary legal authorities and protections for our troops to continue to operate in Iraq" following the expiration of the United Nations mandate authorizing combat operations at the end of 2008.

Satterfield went on to elaborate that the Bush administration believes the two agreements do not require the approval of Congress. Why would this be? Well, remember Secretary Gates' announcement in February? As Paul Kiel points out, the administration's position is that it doesn't have to check with Congress about stationing troops in Iraq as long as there's no actual pledge of the use of force by those troops. Under the administration's current proposal, troops would be stationed in Iraq, but if Iraq came under attack, the troops would not actually be allowed to lift a finger to defend the country until Congress was consulted first. Funny how that works out.

Which is why Democrats were demanding answers. When Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, D-N.Y., pushed Satterfield on the issue of whether the Bush administration actually will allow Iraq to be destroyed rather than intervene on the nation's behalf, Satterfield deftly sidestepped the question. Here's the exchange that followed, courtesy of the Washington Post:..."