Bush, Maliki sign Iraq-US relations plan

[deminks]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Monday adopted a plan to set the stage for talks next year on issues including a long-term US troop presence, the White House said.

Bush's "war czar," Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, said the non-binding "declaration of principles" laid the groundwork for negotiations in 2008 on political, economic and security ties.

It was "an important document that frames our emerging strategic relationship with Iraq," he said after the plan was signed separately by the two leaders during a video-conference.

(snip)

"The shape and size of any long-term or longer-than-2008 US presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiations between the two parties, Iraq and the United States, so it's too soon to tell what shape and size that commitment will take," he added.

Asked about the possibility of permanent US bases in Iraq, Lute said "likewise, that's another dimension of continuing US support to the government of Iraq and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071126/pl_afp/usiraqpoliticsbushmaliki_071126170417

---

Forever is a long time, don't you think?

[Tempest]

1. Malaki needs the U.S. troops to stay in power

He's a dead man walking if the U.S. pulls out.

[eagler]

15. The Iraqis must be allowed top determine their own future.

Just as we need to determine OUR own future. GET THE HELL OUT. We have absolutely no business being there.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Did Bush pass out souvenir crayons afterward?

[donkeyotay]

3. Ooh, this not be cheap!

Asked about the possibility of permanent US bases in Iraq, Lute said "likewise, that's another dimension of continuing US support to the government of Iraq and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year."

[Hulk]

4. Get the f*ck out now!!

Any doubt in your minds that we plan to leave sometime soon should be cast aside now. Unless the democratic president and democratic Congress answer to the people, this country is f*cked. So sad.

[Amonester]

9. ... Congress answer to the people = Can't have that.

Congress answers to who give them the most money. (Period)

[alfredo]

5. They are calling it an "agreement" not a treaty. Bypassing congress?

[Cambist]

7. Executive Agreement

Unfortunately he doesn't even need a treaty. He can use what's called an Executive Agreement. This is in effect a treaty without Congressional input. :o(
He is such an Ass Hat!

[alfredo]

8. King George

[Dr.Phool]

6. Finally,.... The exit strategery revealed.

[rodeodance]

10. US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence

Source: ap

US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.


The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

"What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them — all these things are on the negotiating table," said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush's adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal underlines how the United States and Iraq are exploring what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. It comes as a Democratic Congress — unsuccessfully, so far — prods Bush to withdraw troops faster than he wants.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_3;_ylt=AlVCNHM8oo1RAMVI3b_ogViWwvIE

[Zorra]

11. Give 'em the beads, sign the Treaty, steal the land, move 'em to the Rez,

and take the oil.

Isn't that how it works?

[Robbien]

12. Guardian's headline is better "US pledges long-term presence in Iraq"

with the lead sentence being: "The Bush administration today formally committed America to a long-term military presence in Iraq"

None of the wishywashy terms being used by the AP such as "sees" or "sets the foundation" or "exploring options".

What Bush did is a formal long term commitment.

[Diclotican]

13. deminks

deminks

Dont USA, and the President once promised to not be in Iraq a moment more than nessesary, and the pull out the forces.. And restore a Independed Iraq

Now he want military forces to be in Iraq " for the long term":. How low can this man dont be.. When you belived that this man cant be lower, he allways supraise you with going lower...

And as one of the other debatants was saying.. if Mr Malakai was loosing power from the american forces, he would end up to be a dead man walking.. The other fractions in Iraq really want to tear him to peaces.. And it just the military presidends of 150.000 US forces who are making him President...
The other military forces, the Iraqi forces are in the hands of warlords and clearics who dosent like mr Malakai a lot...

So, now shall american forces, in userting number be in Iraq for the long term, not what the Neo-cons in it heyday promised would be the end result of the war to "liberate Iraq from evildoers" wasent it?.. This is Vietnam all over again.. But this time the case innvolved is mutch, mutch bigger than just loose against the "comunists" But also to loose a foothold in a area of the world, who are going to be more and more important when the time goes by..

And for the record. It was a fair share of Oil in Indo-China too.. But it was never devolped as something the US or before it, France want to protect.. And to this day it is a fair share of Oil in the Vietnamese waters. And Chine and Vietnam have been in some hard diplomatic water who own what in the SoutH Shina Sea as it is.. But have not going to war - yet.. But when they first are starting to do that, it may even go to a shooing war, even in the South Shina Sea...

But, then it was not the case here wase it.. Just to protect a "friendly regime who share the same values and want a democracy" for the public... O yes, off course it is never about trillions worth of Oil.. Who can be produces at the price of 4-5 CENT a baroll...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

[humbled_opinion]

14. Of Course this is the strategy

Surge worked, declare victory, establish long term military presence and basing rights, bring in Exxon and Texaco...

Did anybody here expect anything less?

and our illustrious Congress just lets him write those blank checks.. i.e., Our long term presence in Iraq will costs TRILLIONS. $$ we don't have but Congress goes right along marching in lock step doesn't matter what we poor little people want... We will get it shoved down our throats... I expect to hear Democrats backing up his plan soon because DEMOCRATS are afraid to take a stand. DEMOCRATS are afraid to stand up to this Lame Duck. When we needed them the most our DEMOCRATS failed us best.