Bush blackmailing Iraqis into signing security agreement?

When I read Patrick Cockburn's article yesterday about the "secret" agreement for the US military to remain in Iraq indefinitely I thought he was a little bit behind the story. The only place where the discovery that the US wanted permanent basing rights and air superiority and immunity from prosecution for their personnel was HERE, where we've all been dazzled by the election. The Iraqis have been fighting this agreement and making direct signals of moving away from it, calling for a national referendum on any agreement and demanding national sovereignty within it.

Now, the follow-up article shows what may be the Cheney Administration's strategy to get the Iraqis to sign it:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

Unbelievable.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

This is the very point that Bush used to hold up the defense bill with that pocket veto last winter. He claimed that the claims against the Iraqi government would bankrupt a young country on the road to democracy. Now we know why he vetoed that provision - he wanted to make sure he could use those lawsuits as a bargaining chip instead of having the money get paid out to the plaintiffs.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

Read this entire article. This is blackmail, plain and simple. Bush and Cheney are demanding a permanent agreement that would basically turn Iraq into a client state of the US and corporate interests.

This is a hardball move. And a President Obama would not be able to extricate himself from such an agreement so easily. The neocons in the White House are laying the groundwork for a permanent presence, and using the tactics of an economic hitman to do it.

Amazing.

Our Man In Baghdad

Earlier today I wrote about the comments from the Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir, who claimed that a US presence would be needed in Iraq until 2018 at the earliest. Swopa informs us that Qadir is kind of the "player to be named later" in the Iraqi government:

A quick Googling expedition reveals that the minister's full name is Abdul Qadir Muhammed Jasim (why the NYT refers to him only by the first half of his name, I don't know), and he was appointed defense minister at the end of the wrangling over security ministries between the Bushites and Iraq's Shiite-dominated government in 2006.

The odds are good that Jasim was imposed on Team Shiite in much the same manner as the U.S. has kept its preferred intelligence chief in place for the past couple of years, viewing the position as too important to let the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government control it. Of course, in the case of the intelligence director, the Iraqi government simply developed a separate spy service to circumvent him.

Swopa seems to be saying that nothing Abdul Qadir says should be believed, and his influence in the Iraqi government is minimal at best. However, it's undeniable that the US is negotiating a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis, and the defense ministry would conceivably have something to do with that. And we know that the Administration desires to cut the Congress out of the deal. And unless there's a separate Army we don't know about, Qadir at least will have some say in that agreement. Being a virtual puppet of the Americans probably smooths the negotiations, too.

A lot of people questioned whether or not Bush could lock in a permanent military presence in Iraq through such an agreement. One thing I know for sure is that these bills, which would "require the administration to consult with Congress on the agreement and withhold funds for the agreement if it did not come in the form of a formal treaty," aren't likely to help. Bush wouldn't sign anything that would give up his own power, so obviously this would require Republican support. And these are the people who obstructed S-CHIP, I don't think they'll bat an eyelash obstructing this one.

Funding for permanent military bases in Iraq was banned by the Congress... in the defense authorization bill that Bush pocket-vetoed in late December. Eventually a defense authorization bill needs to be passed; Nancy Pelosi should simply seek to override it, since Bush's pocket veto wasn't an actual pocket veto. Watch and see if that rider suddenly flies the coop. If you want to stop a permanent military presence in Iraq, banning the funding would be the best way to do it.

Invisible Congress

So the Senate is still gaveling those pro forma sessions, even though late Friday the President politely informed them that they don't exist.

Because the bill has so much in it for veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, Bush apparently doesn't dare sign an affirmative veto. Instead, he'll pretend it... just went away on its own.

But this bill was presented to the president for his signature on December 19th. It's been eight days since then, not counting Sundays as the Constitution outlines. Seven if you give an extra day for Christmas. Hasn't been ten days yet.

Not only that, but you may recall that the Senate has remained in session all this time explicitly to prevent trickery like this. The most oft-cited reason was to prevent recess appointments, but the pro forma sessions -- the most recent of which was held today, yes, the very day Bush claimed there was no session -- also serve to avoid adjournment, and therefore the pocket veto.

But not in Bushworld. In Bushworld, these sessions don't count. Because he says so.

And if Bush thinks the Senate's sessions don't count, what's stopping him from making recess appointments?

How much more abuse can this Congress stand?

There was some confusion about whether or not this was a legitimate use of the pocket veto, since the House created the spending bill, and technically they weren't in session. It depends on how the Constitution is interpreted. It may not surprise you to know that I'm not going with the reading from the guys who think Article II allows them to torture.

Constitutional questions aside, Bush is vetoing the defense bill. And while the cover story is that he's doing it to save Iraqi government assets from claims of reparations dating back to the Saddam regime (not "pork," as a commenter here claimed), it could be for any number of reasons (provisions conditioning funding for missile defense, Congressional requests for intelligence assessments, etc).

But regardless, we know how this should be handled politically, right? Bush is vetoing a bill that includes a pay raise for soldiers and increased medical care for veterans. That should really be the only discussion of the bill from national Democrats. Your President just took the troops' pay raise away. Any reference to the President should include the phrase "who just vetoed a pay raise for the troops." Any reference to REPUBLICANS should include the phrase "whose leader just vetoed a pay raise for the troops." It should be made absolutely radioactive.

Of course, I expect none of that.

9 Seconds

Whatever you want to say about Harry Reid and his, er, uneven stewardship of Senate Democrats, he sure got this right.

A nine-second session gaveled in and out by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., prevented Bush from appointing as an assistant attorney general a nominee roundly rejected by majority Democrats. Without the pro forma session, the Senate would be technically adjourned, allowing the president to install officials without Senate confirmation.

The business of blocking Bush's recess appointments was serious. It represents an institutional standoff between Congress and the president that could repeat itself during Congress' vacations for the remainder of Bush's presidency.

In such situations, pro forma sessions also could give Bush some political cover on popular legislation he doesn't want to sign. When Congress is holding pro forma sessions and is not formally adjourned, a bill sent to a president automatically becomes law 10 days after he receives it - excluding Sundays - unless he vetoes it.

That could be the fate of two bills Congress passed last week. One growing out of the Virginia Tech massacre makes it harder for people with mental illness records to buy guns. The other makes it easier for journalists and others to obtain government documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA bill, for example, would become law on New Year's Eve if not vetoed before then, according to Senate Judiciary Committee officials.

What goes unsaid is that this doesn't just give Bush political cover, but it prevents the possibility of a pocket veto of that legislation.

The recess appointment was instituted in a time when the fastest modes of transportation were sailing ship and horseback, in case Congress couldn't get back to the capital to respond to an emergency. Every President, Democratic or Republican, has abused the privilege, and if you can't eliminate it through Constitutional amendment, then I completely support making it irrelevant through pro forma sessions. In addition, this is the kind of "block Bush" strategy progressives would like to see on a whole host of other issues.

Reid's getting a lot of goodwill out of 9 seconds. Would that he would do something constructive with the other 31,556,917.