'The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give...

...The key ingredient to understand is this: The Iraqi executive branch -- the cabinet and the presidency -- are completely controlled by separatists (including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians). But the parliament is controlled by nationalists -- nationalists from every major ethnic and sectarian group in the country -- who enjoy a small but crucially important majority in the only elected body in the Iraqi government.' Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'

'The Bush administration formally committed America yesterday to a long-term military presence in Iraq, pledging to protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup plots and foreign enemies.

The cooperation pact, endorsed by George Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, during a video conference yesterday morning, will set the agenda for a future American relationship with Iraq, the administration's adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, General Douglas Lute, told reporters at the White House...

...The promise was immediately seen as a potential bonanza for American oil companies.

Lute offered few details on the scale of future US troop levels in Iraq or permanent US bases. He noted that the agreement, because it was not a treaty, would not be subject to oversight by Congress...' Bush commits troops to Iraq for the long term

Is this 'executive' approach, bypassing parliaments, likely to stick?

'Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Sadr Movement and the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front both rejected the 'memorandum of understanding' between the US and Iraq signed by PM Nuri al-Maliki and US president George W. Bush two days ago. They complain that neither leader has the constitutional authority to make such an agreement without involvement of the legislature. They also complained that the document does not specify a timetable for withdrawal of US troops. One Sadrist called it a blueprint for a long-term civil Occupation of Iraq.' www.juancole.com

Wow, you seem to have grown fond of Juan Cole! If I discover an opposing viewpoint to which you do not subscribe, will it be called "ignorant drivel?"

That would depend on whether or not it was, in fact, 'ignorant drivel'.

Actually, Juan Cole was there simply quoting an Arabic language source. I'd have linked to that instead, but I doubt anyone here could read it.

Is there an opposing viewpoint - which says that the Bush-Maliki agreement is sound, and points out its upside? That'd be interesting.

Getting back to the subject - I know almost nothing about the Iraqi constitution, and little about their laws, other than some of them were written and passed by the US(?). But I do know the US Constitution reasonably well. Should such a "agreement" ever be challenged in court, I would be very surprised to find that it wasn't a treaty, and thereby subject to Congressional approval, just an agreement that has the force of a treaty. I doubt that even bush's Supreme Court would agree to that, if, for no other reason, the specter of a Democratic president in the near future playing semantics with the Constitution.

I don't know who's in charge of the Jordanian Parliament, either. Enjoy

It really does happen in many legislatures. Several state legislatures in the US have had similar confrontations, and in the US Senate, in the 1970s, Gene Tunney's son, Sen. John V. Tunney, got into an argument with Strom Thurman in front of an elevator. Tunney pushed Thurman, who promptly body-slammed Tunney. (Someone should have told Tunney that it was his dad that was the tough guy in the family, and he was a boxer, not a wrestler.)

'..Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing...

...The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through...' Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Ah, the flowering of a new democracy...

'US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday...' US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

'At an extraordinary hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday, members of the Iraqi parliament hand-delivered a letter to members of Congress that rejected the idea of a US-Iraq agreement unless the United States agrees to a specific timetable to get out of Iraq. The letter was signed by a majority of the 270-member parliament, reflecting a broad consensus among Iraqi factions...' Iraqi Officials Oppose US-Iraq Treaty

Good news, apparently...

Lieberman: Iraqi Opposition To U.S. Security Agreement Is ‘A Sign Of Our Success In Iraq’

'The Bush administration is not trying to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, even surreptitiously, the diplomat leading tense talks with Iraq said Thursday.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker rejected the notion that the legal and military agreements he wants this year are blueprints for an everlasting American military presence inside Iraq.

"It is not going to be forever," he told reporters at the State Department.' Fox News

'That commitment, which seems definitive at first glance, actually incorporates deliberate ambiguity on at least two different levels. The term “permanent military base” appears to represent a substantive legal term, but in fact is a completely misleading term.

When Democratic Sen. James Webb asked the State Department’s David Satterfield, “What is a permanent base?” Satterfield tried to avoid answering the question. But Assistant Defence Secretary Mary Beth Long was more responsive. She said, “I have looked into this. As far as the department is concerned, we don’t have a worldwide or even a department-wide definition of permanent bases.”

Webb then observed, “It doesn’t really mean anything,” to which Long replied, “Yes, senator, you’re right. It doesn’t.” She added that “most lawyers… would say that the word ‘permanent’ probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term”.' IPS News

So the US doesn't want "permanent" bases in Iraq, because it doesn't want bases that will last "forever" (the next 4 billion years?). The wordplay is almost childish, isn't it?

Anyway...

'It now appears that the Bush administration’s ambitions to establish a legal framework to legitimise the occupation before the end of Bush’s term will be frustrated by strong opposition to the pact from pro-Iranian Shiite political parties on whose support the al-Maliki regime depends. The government is under strong pressure from legislators belonging to al-Maliki’s own Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to scuttle the pact, and wait for the next U.S. administration before negotiating on the status and role of U.S. forces in Iraq.'

It seems the Iraqis have had enough Bush-style 'liberation' now, and would like it to stop.

You can't blame the Iraqi leaders. They're just acting in accordance with the majority of their constituents. But maybe you are right that it's all a political move on the part of the Shi'a politicians. In either case, bush should be overjoyed, shouldn't he? After all, he wanted to give the Iraqis an American-style democracy.

'Dick Cheney lavished praise on Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the major pro-Iranian political party, for his cooperation when he went to Baghdad in March, but leading figures in that same party are now attacking the Bush administration’s proposal for a U.S.-Iraq “framework agreement” as legitimizing U.S. occupation. So is Prime Minister al-Maliki’s own Dawa party.

Now that the beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion and overthrow of Saddm are joining with Iran to reject the Bush administration’s military demands, those who led this country into war must know that they stand to be blamed for having sacrificed all those American lives for the political benefit of Iran.' The Imperialist Right Threatens Obama on Iraq

'Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tossed a bombshell today. In a news conference about the still-secret US-Iraqi talks, which began in March, Maliki for the first time said that the chances of securing the pact are just about nil, and instead he said Iraq will seek a limited, ad hoc renewal of the US authority to remain in Iraq, rather than a broad-based accord.' Maliki Stunner: He Wants US Pullout Timetable

And they say the good news from Iraq isn't reported...

'Iraq’s national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials...

...The White House said Monday it did not believe al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie’s statement...

...Iraq’s government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country’s improved stability...' commondreams.org

I guess this makes any bickering between Obama and McCain about withdrawal/surrender/whatever moot. It's over - the troops are going home.