Any theories? It’s as curious to me as the nutroots’ sudden disinterest in Anthony Cordesman’s battlefield assessments. Let me know in the comments if you stumble onto any answers.

If she wants questions, wait until this constitutional confrontation in the making starts heating up. I’ve written about it before, assuming that Bush was going to try to frame the new security partnership with Iraq as an “executive agreement,” which wouldn’t require Senate ratification, instead of a treaty. Instead the argument is that Congress already ratified the partnership when it passed the original AUMF against Iraq under 2002 stating its intent “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” So long as jihadis are trying to establish a base in Iraq, the logic goes, then the president has all the authority he needs to take necessary security measures. That’s too cute by half for me, as it’s an obvious end-around public sentiment (for the moment, anyway), but if the claims in the article are right about the next president not being bound by it, then no harm, no foul, I suppose.

Tags: terrorism