Treated As Liberators?

by Steve Soto

Those negotiations on a Status of Forces Agreement between the Bush Administration and Iraq to lock into place a more permanent occupation?

Kaput.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.

The two governments will hammer out something that allows our forces to operate inside Iraq beyond the expiration of the UN mandate at the end of this year, but it won't be what Bush/Cheney wanted for their legacy.

The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

Although President Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one U.S. official close to the negotiations. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing. They need something like this in there. . . . Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever."

And how does the McCain camp view this? Well, if the comments of a moronic potential VP selection are any guide, it doesn't matter what the Iraqis think or want.