Bush will not tie successor's hands in Iraq: U.S.

[Barrett808]

Source: Reuters

Bush will not tie successor's hands in Iraq: U.S.
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration will not tie the hands of the next president with a planned agreement on future relations with Iraq and such a pact will not set U.S. troop levels, the State Department said on Thursday.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey was responding to concerns expressed by U.S. lawmakers and presidential candidates that the deal to be negotiated might lock in a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next White House occupant is elected on November 4.

"If anybody is worried that this agreement somehow ties the hands of future policy-makers, it's just simply not true," Casey told reporters in a regular briefing.

"It's a basic framework agreement for normalizing the relationship," Casey said. "It's not something that establishes force levels, either minimum or maximum, or determines specific operations. Those are obviously things that are determined by the military commanders, and ultimately by the president."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080124/pl_nm/iraq_usa_accord_dc

[old guy]

1. The very fact they are making such an issue of this,

tells me it is exactly what they are doing.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

2. He already did...

When he decided to invade Iraq. We're going to be stuck there for a long time, even if it's not on th military end. There is still a lot of ethnic tension, poverty, and a real need for some diplomatic help - diplomacy should have been the first resort over there, IMHO.

[catnhatnh]

3. Another non-denial denial.....

The point was he was making a long term commitment just below a treaty level (which would require congrssional approval). If he can lock the next president into that, then the rest is discussing draining the swamp when your up to your ass in alligators..."it's not something that establishes force levels"- no-it JUST ensures there will be force levels for decades to come.

[damntexdem]

4. No, instead he plans to use handcuffs.

And body chains.

[rodeodance]

5. Anyone trust the WH?

[Orsino]

6. He won't have to.

Clinton and Obama are long past promising an end to the occupation. It's in safe hands.

[Ian David]

7. Because The State Department says this will not lock us into a presence in Iraq, this means...

that this WILL lock is into a presence in Iraq.

[pleah]

8. Lie # 936

[Barrett808]

9. US not interested in permanent Iraq bases: Gates

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has no interest in setting up permanent bases in Iraq, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

Gates sought to dismiss concerns among critics that a planned US military accord with Iraq would tie the hands of future US presidents regarding the mandate of US troops in the war-torn country and create permanent US bases there.

"I think it is pretty clear that such an agreement would not talk about force levels. It would not involve -- we have no interest in permanent bases," he told reporters.

The US defense chief also insisted that discussions had just barely started on the on the still-to-be-negotiated Status of Forces Agreement.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080124/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarybases

[TwilightGardener]

10. How are we going to be there on the "Korea" model, for decades

or a hundred years (McCain), without permanent bases? Is it just that we're not going to call them "permanent" in a philosophical way--like, even the Sun isn't really "permanent", if you think about it? Are our troops going to live scattered in hotels and take up quarters with Iraqi citizens? These people need to get their lies straight.

[Demeter]

11. Pull the Other One, Mr. Gates

You can't be talking to Cheney if you believe a fairy tale like that.

[old guy]

12. This means we will definitely have permanent bases in Iraq!

[ixion]

13. then why are we building them?

hmmmmm?

As usual, another government troll tells a lie, and no one calls him on it.

[Orsino]

14. The * Administration says it. Therefore it isn't so. n/t

[glowing]

15. Yeah.. right.. (insert a lot of sarcasm right here)

[LiberalFighter]

16. Perjury

[Mithreal]

17. Permanent, no, JUST UNTIL THE OIL RUNS OUT

[rcsl1998]

18. That's Because They Renamed Their Status 'Enduring Bases'...

...during the Tony Snow news management sessions...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. U.S. to Insist Iraq Grant It Wide Mandate in Operations (grant contractors legal protections)

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.

This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.

At the same time, the administration faces opposition from Democrats at home, who warn that the agreements that the White House seeks would bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush’s policies and a long-term military presence.

The American negotiating position for a formal military-to-military relationship, one that would replace the current United Nations mandate, is laid out in a draft proposal that was described by a range of White House, Pentagon, State Department and military officials on ground rules of anonymity. It also includes less controversial demands that American troops be immune from Iraqi prosecution, and that they maintain the power to detain Iraqi prisoners.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?_r=1&ex=1358917200&en=34c33828b32fadbf&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

[AlertLurker]

20. They should correct the article:

"WASHINGTON — With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist on selecting a government in Baghdad in order to give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials."

Now it's ACCURATE.

[Teaser]

21. that's some mighty fine sovereignty you got there.

.