IRAQ 4EVAH

White House, Iraq Agree On "Principles" For Permanent US Presence
White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 11:12AM
So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have released a joint declaration of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a morning teleconference.
Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.
-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.
-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.
A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup.
Notice also the timetable. The U.S. and Iraq will negotiate another year-long United Nations mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which will expire (I think) in late December 2008. According to today's declaration, following the forthcoming renewal at the U.N., "we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship." That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence. Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse.



War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 12:54PM
Could Congress stop a Bush administration-brokered deal to garrison U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely? Not according to General Douglas Lute, the so-called "war czar." Here's Lute at today's gaggle:
Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?
GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it's not -- it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.
Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?
GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.
Lute said the White House intends to conclude negotiations on an enduring security guarantee with the Maliki government in July. Permanent military bases and residual troop levels will be specified in the final accord, he said.


______________________________________



The Bush Administration: Against Permanent Bases in Iraq Before It Was For Them
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 12:26PM
Oh, for the halcyon days when the Bush administration saw fit to deny that it sought a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. Let's take a look at what senior administration officials said way back when, shall we?
President George W. Bush, April 13, 2004:
"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."
then-U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, August 14, 2005:
"We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal."
Condoleezza Rice, April 4, 2006, quoted by Agence France-Presse (Via Nexis):
Rice would not say when all U.S. forces would return home and did not directly answer Rep. Steven Rothman, a Democrat, when he asked, "Will the bases be permanent or not?"
"I would think that people would tell you, `We're not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days.' We are, in fact, in the process of removing base structure from a lot of places," Rice replied.
Tony Snow, June 15, 2006:
Q Would you like to reaffirm what you said earlier today, that the U.S. wants no permanent bases in Iraq?
MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- let me -- because -- can you define what a permanent base is?
Q No, I can't.
MR. SNOW: Well, then how can I get a question --
Q Except into infinity -- no, no, no, you're dancing around already.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm not dancing around. I'm actually trying to get a specific question answered.
Q Okay, say flatly, does the United States want bases in Iraq?
MR. SNOW: It has bases in Iraq, and the United States will have bases -- look, the United States, Secretary Rice has said -- well, number one, it's premature to talk about how long they're going to be there. Number two, Ambassador Khalilzad has said we have no desire for permanent bases. Number three, when it comes to a permanent base, that is not the call of the United States. As you know, Iraq has a sovereign government. So the issue of --
Q It's about as sovereign as the President being able to go into Iraq and not even tell the President.
MR. SNOW: Okay, well, obviously, Helen, you're preaching and not asking. Let's go to you.
_______________________________________
It's been widely reported and that makes it fact-esque. - Stephen Colbert

Happy Thanksgiving Budget Update
This is what I hear: Bush wants $22B cut from the appropriations bill across the board. The Dems, just prior to watching the dead-enders in the House refuse to override BushCo's veto of Labor H, announced that they would come back with a compromise and cut $11B from an omnibus spending bill. Labor H, the bill that funds Head Start, Early Start, Community Block Grants, nutrition programs for the elderly, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, programs that help Homeless vets, job training and dozens of other human needs programs and which was already cut to the bone in a first attempt to appease the Republicans, will take another hit of about $3.5 billion. I don't know where the exact cuts will be but nobody can afford to give anything else up without causing increased suffering to fellow Americans so additional pain is guaranteed.
The Dems' message going forward will continue to tie funding the debacle in Iraq to domestic spending and will be clear and simple: every vote for blank checks to fund the President's failed and failing Iraq War means money we can't spend on domestic needs. It's the classic guns or butter framing.
The GOP's message reads like a twisted ransom note: Fund the President's glorious War on Everything and we'll let some domestic spending through. So the party of fiscal responsibility wants to break the bank killing and dying in Iraq with no end in sight and unless that demand is met, they won't allow any FY 2008 spending bill to pass this year - or probably next. That means that we'll be stuck with another Continuing Resolution to keep the federal government going. It will cover all spending that hasn't already been signed into law. Defense has passed and been signed, MilCon/VA is on the brink.
A Continuing Resolution is what BushCo wants because it will mean de facto cuts to everything. Remember, we're already operating on a CR from last year, which didn't move in any substantive way from FY 2006 funding. This is Death by CR and it's a twofer for the GOP because they get to position the Dems as do-nothing, while starving the beast that is the American public and infrastructure.
The federal budget process is very complicated but in terms of broad strokes, it's not too difficult to understand. The Dems started the game by negotiating with themselves and the loathsome Blue and Bush Dogs. They sent a stingy budget to both chambers and came out of conference with a stingier one. BushCo swore to veto nearly every part of it (appropriations bills) and has been doing that to great effect with the help of his party-over-country minions, who refuse to budge. We're stuck with nothing getting past the dead-enders and faced with operating on funding from last year, which is essentially funding from the year before.
If you do nothing else on this issue, call your reps in Congress once a day to tell them that you are watching. You want the budget passed this year with the fewest cuts possible. No CR. No more Starving the Beast. The Beast is us.