Government by treaty making

One of the undemocratic tactics employed in the crypto wars was the habit the civil service had of attempting to circumvent the legislative process by making a treaty containing the desired terms which would then be presented to Congress or parliament as a fait accompli.

This odious piece by the equally odious Michael Hirsh celebrates the Bush administration's attempt to use this tactic to force a perpetual occupation of Iraq.

"Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements."

The Washington Press Corps at its finest: Sorry voters the result in November does not matter, the decisions have been made and cannot be changed. You get no say so you might as well just sit back and watch us present it as a horse race to be judged by our meaningless construct 'character'.

Fortunately the world does not work this way. Bush has neither credibility nor political capital. Attempting to perpetrate this as a fait accompli is likely to result in a public repudiation by Congress. The Democrats will be forced to go on record repudiating the accord by their base. They will put the proposed 'accord' up for a vote in the Senate as if it was a treaty, there is no prospect of the required super-majority being found. The US constitution does not provide for one President to force his successor to continue his policies.