Bushit & Nouri al-Maliki want to sign a long-term security treaty.  

Both are supposedly leaders of nations with Constitutions that require treaties to be ratified by their respective legislatures & both know that ratification doesn't stand a snow-ball's chance in hell of happening. 

So, in true neo-con flim-flam style, they've taken to calling what any reasonable person would consider a long-term security treaty a "co-operation agreement," saying that it's the equivalent of the kind of non-binding "status of forces" deals the US has with hundreds of countries around the world.  

As such, these two crooks argue, the legislature has no say in the matter. If all this sounds familiar, it should. 

Now, the Guardian has gotten a hold of a leaked draft of the deal & we can see the endgame taking shape. 

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country. The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit. The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US. Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force. Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the year. One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter." 

Secret US Plan For Military Future In Iraq 

meanwhile ….. Ryan Crocker, Bushit’s ambassador to Baghdad ... said a long-term agreement the US is now negotiating with Iraq will give a needed legal framework for the continued presence of US troops.  

Crocker said today: "The agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq & we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them. The agreement will not specify troop levels, and it will not tie the hands of the next administration.

"For Crocker, General Betraeus or Bushit to say there will not be 'permanent bases' is entirely misleading. The US government has taken to calling bases it intends to build and hold for the indefinite future 'enduring bases' or 'cooperative security locations' or other such euphemisms.  

Bushit & his gang are attempting to circumvent congressional Defence bills' provisions by characterizing any Iraq bases as 'temporary' or 'enduring' rather than 'permanent.' They appear determined to evade both the intent of the bill barring permanent bases as well as the democratic authority of Congress & the Iraqi Parliament - not its Cabinet - to approve what is de facto a basing treaty.  

Maintaining bases in Iraq is also a veiled way to prevent the withdrawal of US forces against the wishes of large & growing majorities in both the United States & Iraq. 

The US has over 700 official bases around the world, including, more than half a century after the end of World War II & the Korean War, 302 bases in Germany, 111 in Japan & 106 in South Korea. 

Many in Congress have raised alarm about the agreement & Democrats have accused the White House of trying to set troop levels or other elements of the Bushit policy in stone, ahead of the US presidential election. 

But, substantively, this approach - an indefinite military occupation - appears to be the establishment consensus on both sides of the aisle.