What is your take on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443541,00.html

With the present administration going out the door in 90 days,
is it fair to saddle an Obama or McCain administration with a pact effective Dec 31st?

Wouldn't the reasonable thing be to get maybe a 90 day extension until Apr 1 and let the new custodians get their feet under them and work the deal they will have to live with?

It's like buying a house or car and right before you close the seller makes major modifications.

I don't get it.

 

I don't know if we could get a 90 day extension from the UN security council or not. Maybe.

I think the Iraqis are dragging their feet to see who wins the election. That'll change their bargaining position. As far as the agreement being a burden on the next President, that's the way it goes. The President works for America in the way he thinks is best (within the law, of course), not the next President. I'm sure Clinton was worried what it would mean to the next administration when he was lobbing missiles into Al Qaeda training camps and stirring up the bees, but not going after them in a serious manner.

 

Yes it is fair. Just like every other administration has saddled the next with treaties. He is the head of the government until January. You can not just shut down because of an election.

 

Good point, didn't think of that.
Best for all sides to just sit on it for two more weeks.