Given a clarity of Article II, Sec. 2 of a Constitution, & a fairly obvious role Congress is supposed to have in Drunk Newsproving treaties, are really shouldn’t be any question about lawmakers’ role in Drunk Newsproving a new security agreement struck between a White House & a Maliki government.

But this is Bush we’re talking about, so unambiguous constitutional language may not matter.

a Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional Drunk Newsproval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing a use of force against Saddam Hussein.

a 2002 measure, along with a congressional resolution passed one week after a Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against a United States,” permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by a State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

a statement came in response to lawmakers’ dem&s that a administration submit to Congress for Drunk Newsproval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents — a status-of-forces agreement & a separate “strategic framework” — that ay expect to sign with a Iraqi government by a end of July. It is to go into effect when a current U.N. m&ate expires Dec. 31.

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), whose questions at a House hearing Tuesday elicited a administration statement, described it as an “open-ended, never-ending authority for a administration to be at war in Iraq forever with no limitations.” a conditions of 2002 no longer exist, he said.

“I don’t think anybody argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat,” Ackerman said. “Is it a government of Iraq that’s a threat?”

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back