January 6th, 2009 admin
It’s funny how an election can reverse people’s opinions on the issues. Here we have John Yoo and John Bolton arguing for restraint on treaty power:
THE Constitution’s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.
Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a Congressional-executive agreement).
Executive agreements have an acknowledged but limited place in our foreign affairs. Congressional-executive agreements are far more troubling. They have evoked scathing attacks by constitutional experts and have been strongly resisted in the Senate, at least so far.
Of course, “scathing attacks by constitutional experts” are perfectly acceptable if you are, for example, abrogating agreements against torture. But now that they fear Obama will sign Kyoto or Rome, they want the Senate to be a bulwark against the President.
Not that Democrats are any more consistent. Harry Reid is pronouncing David Petraeus a genius. Take it away, Allahpundit:
The bit that’s getting attention is his squirming over having merrily pronounced the surge a failure and the war lost in two years ago. When asked if he still feels that way, his defense is to hide behind Petraeus: All he meant is that the war wasn’t winnable with military power alone, which is no different really from anything Petraeus has said, and Petraeus of course is a “genius” so how about getting off Reid’s back already? The follow-ups Gregory didn’t ask: If Petraeus is such a genius, why did Reid vow not to believe him if he reported progress at his 2007 Senate hearing? Why did he allegedly call Petraeus incompetent a few months later? Why was he one of only 25 Senators to vote against the resolution condemning MoveOn for the “Betray Us” ad? Why was he still declaring the surge a failure as late as December 2007, and even to this day insists that Iraq is in a state of civil war? The answer to all these questions is that, for Reid, the facts on the ground are always determined by political expedience. That’s why he was able to insist four months ago, with Obama pushing hard on the stump for a renewed commitment to Afghanistan, that the country is in “pretty good shape” when everyone but everyone on both sides knows better.
Note too how he tries to take credit for the surge at the beginning by emphasizing the Democrats’ role in forcing a change of direction in Iraq policy. Not the first time we’ve heard that argument advanced. The left demanded that Bush withdraw; Bush responded by doubling down instead and ordering the surge. Voila — a change of direction in policy. Thanks, Harry!
It’s going to be fun to watch all the “Iraq is a disaster!” opinion pieces morph into “Iraq is a success!” opinion pieces (and vice versa) while little changes on the ground.
Probably the most fun will be watching the principled conservatives like Chris Buckley, Bruce Bartlett and Andrew Sullivan (and us, I guess) welcomed back into the fold as we launch the same criticisms of Obama that we launched at Bush. What was once a betrayal of the party will now be bedrock conservative principle.
by
Hal_10000
Posted in conservative | Comments Off
