Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq. (Newsweek)

[stevedeshazer]

Here's the latest fantasy from the D.C. insiders:

Bush's efforts to negotiate a long-term U.S-Iraq pact may remove troops as an '08 election issue for Obama, Clinton.

Expect to hear much more of this officious bullshit in the coming weeks. -sd

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

Camp Arifjan in the desert kingdom of Kuwait, America's depot to the Iraq war, feels about as far away as you can get from South Carolina, Super Tuesday and the election-year squabbles back home. And George W. Bush, who is currently midway through his six-nation tour of the Mideast, is doing a good job of distancing himself from the politics of 2008. But as Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a "Hoo-ah" and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race--and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process." The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House--in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

As far as the number of U.S. troops that would remain in Iraq under such a pact, the administration is considering changes that could also pre-empt anything the Democrats have in mind. Gen. Petraeus told reporters that he and Pentagon planners were also working on a new "intellectual construct" for a U.S. troop presence in Iraq beyond the planned withdrawal of five brigade combat teams, two Marine battalions and the Marine Expeditionary Unit by the end of July. "We're going to continue to play with this, if you will," Petraeus said. "We literally meet a couple of times a week and keep working this along." Asked whether he and the Pentagon were considering a larger drawdown than the current one--which would shrink the U.S. presence to a pre-surge level of about 130,000, he added: "Certainly there is a possibility of that." In fact, one Pentagon contractor who is working on the long-term U.S. plans for Iraq says that the administration is considering new configurations of forces that could reduce troop levels to well under 100,000, perhaps to as few as 60,000, by the time the next president takes office.

</snip>

Am I too cynical? Is this pure fantasy?

We've got candidates on both sides saying that our commitment to troop presence in Iraq is open-ended, yet I'm supposed to believe that George W. Bush is preparing to withdraw troops specifically to take the Iraq occupation off the table in order to hurt the next Democratic nominee's chances for election?

Does anyone in the real world believe this?

[Angela Shelley]

1. Most of his decisions in the past 7 years were

close to unbelievable. Why should they change now?

[stevedeshazer]

8. Good point

[OKNancy]

2. He could, but I doubt it would make much difference

Most people ( not DU ) have moved on to the economy and health care as their number one issue.
Also, if the Dems play it right they could say " It's about time... I'm glad you listened to us."

I hope Bush does it too. That is what we want isn't it?

[Dhalgren]

13. No, it isn't what I want.

I want all US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. I don't want any troops stationed there for any reason, what-so-ever. If Democrats agree to garrison troops in Iraq indefinitely, then they are no better than the Republicans and I will wash my hands of both Parties once and for all. There is no compromise on the illegal occupation of another country...

[blogslut]

3. Thing is, he can SAY anything

He's said a lot of things and promised a lot of things and not one of them have have been true.

[rocktivity]

4. Not if they put impeachment back on the table.

Victory won't change the fact that we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

:headbang:
rocknation

[stevedeshazer]

14. I'm convinced that impeachment is dead.

Now, there IS the War Crimes thingy....

[Wizard777]

19. Maybe we just beat them at their own game. Tap Bush & RNC phones. ETC.

I think there is one element of Democrat party that we in the impeachment crowd are forgetting. As Democrats we tend to give the people what they want. So if the people want pure evil. Then lets give it to them in spades! Just make them rue every single day they didn't demand impeachment. Bush's evil can just as easily be called a precedent.

[DJ13]

5. Why did Newsweek single out Obama for the title?

They could have just as easily said Hillary, but they didnt.

[rocktivity]

15. To make up for putting Edwards on their cover a few weeks ago!

rocknation

[dysfunctional press]

6. the next president can nullify any agreement they make.

look at all the treaties and agreements bush broached as soon as he came into office.

the next president has to get busy right away doing the same kinds of things in reverse.

[Cassandra]

7. That helps McCain, how?

since he wants to be in Iraq another hundred years.

[rocktivity]

9. A "sworn obligation for the next president?"

And you're asking if it's PURE fantasy?

:rofl:
rocknation

[stevedeshazer]

11. Okay, you win

Best answer and most likely.

:hi:

[Dhalgren]

10. This is total bullshit. There is no way the insurgents will agree to

a continuing US presence in Iraq. If the Maliki government makes this kind of deal with the US it will be overthrown or become even more of a "bunker-government" than it is now. No US President would be bound by such a loser agreement. The Democratic congress ought never to approve it and will reverse it as soon as Iraq "Tets" - and it will if this kind of hare-brained scheme is tried. I am not saying that Bush isn't stupid enough to try it or that his lickspital generals won't nod and toe or that the running-dog-lackey Maliki government won't accept the pay-offs to agree to it; all I'm saying is that this will blow-up in the face of our remaining troops over there and we'll be flying people off roofs before the end of '09. Even the Republicans should be able to see the abject idiocy of this pathetic stunt...

[stevedeshazer]

12. That begs the question:

Why is this Newsweek writer humping this point of view?

My best guess is that this is the latest lip gloss on the Bush Crime Family pig.

[Dhalgren]

17. Right. They are trying to get everyone to accept the idea

of between 60,000 and 100,000 troops permanently garrisoned in Iraq as an end to the occupation! If any Democrat accepts this he or she is worse than a fool...

[Orsino]

16. The failed Obama presidency.

Only a year away from his inauguration, we are still hopelessly mired in two foreign wars, with recession at home.

I hope he has the sense to drop out of the race now. <tweety>This is great news for McCain.</tweety>

[Wizard777]

18. It's unconstitutional for him to do this with out consent of 2/3 of the Senate.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

But Bush has never let the US Constitution stop him before.

[Wizard777]

20. maybe we should just ignore the Constitution a run with it?

Clinton signed on to the International Criminal Court. It was never ratified by the Senate. But if Bush's signiture alone will bind the next president. Then Clintons' signiture alone will bind Bush to the ICC.

maybe use the Bush doctrine on the treaty. A treaty is as binding as toilet paper. You hold onto it while it serves you. Then toss it away when it get's messy.

[stevedeshazer]

21. Nice try.

Have a day.