That would be the recent “pact” Obama signed with Hamid Karzai on the anniversary of the Seals taking out Osama bin Laden. It was hailed as mainly symbolic, blah, blah, blah, but now that the news is out about some of what it contained, I can see why they wanted to play it off that way. It is nothing like just being “symbolic,” if you ask me.
Before I get into the meat of it, though, I have to ask – doesn’t the SENATE have to give its mark of approval on any treaty put forth by the President? Now, I’m no Constitutional Scholar or anything, but that is sure what this passage says to me:
The Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2). The Constitution’s framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate’s advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)
So, what is Obama doing signing a pact all by his own self in the first place?
And now, the moment you have been waiting for, just what was in that pact Obama signed. From the Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.
The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden. (Emphasis mine.) That raid has proven to be Obama’s primary foreign-policy success because it killed bin Laden, scooped up much intelligence data and shocked Pakistan.
Obama’s commitment will also end the use of secretive drone-attacks from Afghanistan. Those attacks have killed hundreds of al-Qaida leaders since the mid-2000s. They’ve also been very popular with U.S voters, and usually have had tacit Pakistan approval.
The unadvertised provision is buried in the deal that Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Obama signed with much campaign-style fanfare May 1 in Kabul. It could provide a legal shield for Pakistani-based al-Qaida’s leaders, front-line fighters, terrorism-planners, allied terror-leaders, funders, terror bases and terror training-grounds.
“The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries,” says the provision, found in paragraph 6b of the eight-page deal.[snip]
Okkkaaaayyyyy. There is more in the article that spells out when and how we can go after targets in Pakistan, but overall, I have to ask, a la Sarah Palin, “WTF”??
But wait, there’s one more little tidbit that needs to come to light:
[snip] However, Obama and his deputies have indicated they would not necessarily oppose a role for al-Qaida’s main ally, the Taliban, in the Afghan government. If the Taliban is part of the Afghan government, it likely would veto any U.S. raids on al-Qaida in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. (Click here to read the rest.)
Are you kidding me with this? Obama and his posse wouldn’t “necessarily oppose” the Taliban, the organization that continues to target our military, having a role in the Afghan government? That begs this question: WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!?!
I am so thoroughly disgusted with Obama’s actions on this issue from start to finish. First, his acting like the BMOC about making the call, something anyone, ANYONE, int hat position would have done (and as it was, he had to be strong armed into it to overcome Valerie Jarrett’s opposition), had to be called in off the golf course, and acted like he single-handedly took out bin Laden. THEN, he does a complete 180 on the EXACT SAME PLAN, screwing his successors from ever being able to do anything comparable, as well as saying it is A-Okay for the TALIBAN to have a role in the Afghanistan government.
That last one just blows me away, especially since, as noted, it means they could block further actions on our part to dismantle the terrorist group that attacked us.
There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this pact, and with Obama’s actions. At least in my opinion. What’s yours?
NOTE: The Kentucky Derby will be run Saturday early evening at 6:27 pm EST. Should be exciting!