Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer

Here we go:

-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

This is Maliki offering Bush a permanent presence in Iraq as long as Bush will guarantee to protect Maliki's government against any internal coups. Senator Lindsey Graham recently hinted that if Maliki's government didn't do more then it would have to be replaced:

The conditions are right now and, quite honestly, if they can’t do it by the end of the year, I have real doubts that this group will ever do it so we need a new political strategy to find a group that can.

And now we have Maliki offering Bush a permanent presence in Iraq as long as the US will protect Maliki's government from internal coups, from... well, perhaps from the Sunnis that the US has recently started co-operating with.

Now, of course, the Bush administration have always insisted that they do not want permanent bases in Iraq:

"We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal."

Of course people like Tony Snow found it hard to keep telling the blatant lie as this exchange shows:

Q Would you like to reaffirm what you said earlier today, that the U.S. wants no permanent bases in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- let me -- because -- can you define what a permanent base is?

Q No, I can't.

MR. SNOW: Well, then how can I get a question --

Q Except into infinity -- no, no, no, you're dancing around already.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not dancing around. I'm actually trying to get a specific question answered.

Q Okay, say flatly, does the United States want bases in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: It has bases in Iraq, and the United States will have bases -- look, the United States, Secretary Rice has said -- well, number one, it's premature to talk about how long they're going to be there. Number two, Ambassador Khalilzad has said we have no desire for permanent bases. Number three, when it comes to a permanent base, that is not the call of the United States. As you know, Iraq has a sovereign government. So the issue of --

Q It's about as sovereign as the President being able to go into Iraq and not even tell the President.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, obviously, Helen, you're preaching and not asking. Let's go to you.

Now, there were many of us who always wondered why, if there was to be no permanent US presence on Iraqi soil, that the US was bothering to build an Iraqi embassy larger than the Vatican and several bases which certainly looked permanent.

Now, not only are the US to be invited to stay longer, but they are to bribed into doing so:

The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

The discussion foresees a US permanent presence of about 50,000 troops stationed outside of Iraq's main cities as opposed to the 160,000 US troops currently in Iraq.

As Muckraker puts it:

Make no mistake: this is Nouri al-Maliki offering the U.S. a permanent presence in return for guaranteeing the security of his government. In exchange for a platform for the indefinite projection of American power throughout the Middle East, the Bush Administration probably considers protection for Maliki and his coterie to be a small price to pay.

A small price indeed. And, finally, Bush's lie is exposed for what it is:

"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."

Oh, wait... suddenly we do...

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Maliki, permanent US presence, Iraq, permanent bases