The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Bugs

Not much time yet today to look around, but I did find this - posted a few hours ago:
AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim

Obama denies he asked to delay troop pull-out, but says he did ask to delay the Strategic Framework Agreement until after Bush leave office.

When I get time I'll dig around on this a bit more.

__________________
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg

Norton

He is correct in his caution to rushing to agreement. Once signed the agreement would commit the US to a position that could be detrimental to it's interests. As a member of Congress, Obama was simply stating what others in Congress have been saying. Congress needs to be involved in the formulation of the final agreement.

"Several Members of Congress responded with demands that Congress be
involved in creating the planned Agreements, from negotiation to implementation, and took action to ensure such involvement. Congress has proposed numerous pieces of legislation that would increase its role in creating these Agreements, from calling for executive-branch consultation and reporting to requiring formal congressional approval."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34568.pdf

__________________
There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.

Woodrow Wilson

Jet Gorgon

^ And the Democratic Congress will conveniently delay the decisions until (as they hope) Obama becomes Prez. But, that ain't gonna happen.

Bugs

I can certainly understand congresses concerns over the issue. IMO this should be considered a treaty and thus would require the approval of the Senate anyway. But this does not appear to be a clear cut issue. I think this might be because this involves the military and since the executive branch is considered to be the commander and chief that maybe he can sign something that would not need Senate approval.

In that since Congress has taken the only step they have to counter that approach - restrict funding. This basically makes any agreement meaningless until congress approves it anyway.

I don't really agree with members of congress interfering in negotiations by going directly to the party the US is in negotiations with. Congress has made it pretty clear already that what ever gets signed will have to get their approval one way or the other anyway.

I might dig around a bit more and find out why this agreement may or may not be considered a treaty - from a legal standpoint. The congressional response touched upon this a bit. And it seems pretty clear regardless of the treaty issue that constitutionally the president is the one that should be negotiating this deal. Generally speaking this would also mean he needs to "consult" with at least the Senate - but consultation does not mean that anyone from congress has to be directly involved in the negotiations.

There has been quite a bit of a power struggle going on over the powers of the executive vs the legislative branches of government as of late. And generally speaking the executive seems to have been winning. Many times when I think they should not. But in this case I think the power to negotiate this deal is clearly an executive power, a power that should eventually require at a minimum Senate approval of any agreement, but one that should be handled on the front lines directly be the executive branch (without meddling between anyone in the legislative branch and the party the US is negotiating with).

Norton

No matter who becomes President, Congress has legitimate concerns. Spin it the way you like but read the concerns they have. They are concerns either party would have. Basically they concern issues already in law that could be overridden by a unilateral decision by the President. You know, separation of powers and other trivial matters of the same ilk that haven't seemed to slow down GWB in the past.

Texpat

Congress trumps State Department when there's something in it for them?

Don't think so.

Jet Gorgon

Hmmm. I think the Dem Congress would shift to suit their prez nominee. How many vetoes has GWB made, anyway?

Norton

Think again. Congressional oversight, finding approval and in cases of treaties, approval has and always will be fundamental to appropriate separation of powers. Last time I checked, the State Department is not omnipotent.

Jet Gorgon

How could a State Dept decision overide that of Congress?

Norton

All Congressional concerns as to preventing State from doing just this are contained in the bill.

A hint you haven't actually read the Congressional bill I provided in the link!!

Jet Gorgon

No. Been busy and now anticipating analyst report on AIG. Bladdy hell. Fed $85 bil loan for 80%. Yikes. What are they doing down there?

Mr Earl

No shit! This is pretty scary. The whole world is on edge over this.

britmaveric

Great deal for yank govt - 80% ownership in a 1.1trillion dollar corporation....

Norton

What they are doing is witnessing chicken's coming home roost. We shouldn't expect anything but disaster if "wall street" is allowed to operate using greed driven unethical business practices with no visible oversight. Throw in high unemployment, inflation, record deficits, house foreclosures, and government bailing out failed companies with bad business practices and what we get is what we have.

But not to worry. Don't pay any attention. "The fundamentals of the economy are sound" according to GWB and McCain.

Jet Gorgon

So, what's your fix, Norts? It was a domino effect. Or maybe a plot by the Chinese to take over?

Norton

Yes, a domino effect indeed. Without going into detail, the "fix" is to eliminate the number of dominoes that lead to economic downturns by addressing each one separately.

How each of the issues I point out in my previous post are resolved will be a combination of government and private business initiatives. Given many of the issues have been ignored for far to long, it will take a long time to a fix.

IMO, neither the current administration, Obama or McCain have the answer.

raycarey

GWB----the man whose administration socialized capitalism.....well, at least the risk aspect.

and the profits?

of course those remain privatized.


these people simply aren't fit to govern.

they run the dirtiest and most shameless campaigns and win elections.....but they aren't capable of governing.

britmaveric

RC - Cheers mate I agree BO running the dirtiest and most shameless campaign to win which will make him lose.

Begbie

Good article in the Straits Times today about the McCain campaign being caught out in a series of lies.

raycarey

he's sold his soul.

and that's probably why he's dodging the media.

Politico.com