Let's imagine Dwight Eisenhower being undermined by Stevenson in 1953's Democratic Party over Korea

Obama joins critics of U.S. security talks with Iraq

By Leila Fadel and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers Tue Jun 10, 7:26 PM ET

BAGHDAD-A proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would set the conditions for a defense alliance and long-term U.S. troop presence appears increasingly in trouble, facing growing resistance from the Iraqi government, bipartisan opposition in Congress and strong questioning from Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama .

President Bush is trying to finish the agreement before he leaves office, and senior U.S. officials insist publicly that the negotiations can be completed by a July 31 target date.

But that seems increasing doubtful, and in Baghdad and Washington there is growing speculation that a United Nations mandate for U.S.-led military operations in Iraq may have to be renewed after it expires at the end of 2008. A spokesman for Obama (D-Ill) said any long-term U.S. security commitment to Iraq must be subject to Congressional approval; alternatively the administration should seek an extension of the current UN mandate. Obama wants a new administration to make it "absolutely clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq ," said spokesman Bill Burton .

That would be a FIRST in American history.

Germany

Japan

Korea

77 other nations.

No congressional involvement in any status of forces agreement. EVER. If American forces can lend stability while out of the way as they were in Japan and Germany, and as they did and do in Korea, AND deter actions by those inimical to our way of life, this requires congress and the UN now?

Oh and bipartisan? Name the republicans. Strange that this is claimed but not documented.

Are we back to Kerry's required UN stamp of approval for actions?

Worse still, are all American troop deployments overseas going to be subject to congressional mandate, even when they are non combat? I think this is NOT what the Constitution says, and I have a feeling a Presdient Obama would feel a lot different about that if faced with a paleo conservative Buchanan-Paul republican majority 6 years in. Don't think it's possible?

Lastly, PERMANENT bases? Even Guantanamo is not permanent. But then again, that base, clearly unwelcome by the government of Cuba is not a partisan football.

YET.

"There is only one agenda for us-we need foreign troops because our forces are not capable yet to defend Iraq inside and outside of Iraq ," al Askari said. But when Iraq reaches the point it can defend itself, "That's it, no more foreign troops on our soil," he added.

Now, if they can do that, and the elected govt there asks us to go home....100% of Americans should be back here, and as FAST as we can do it. That is the ultimate definition of victory.

But that is not yet the situation, except in the minds of Khamenei, Muqtadr, and the democratic party of the USA.

The majority of Iraqi politicians support some kind of security agreement with the United States and the presence of some U.S. forces, although on their terms.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq's government has reached the point of decision.

"Time is of the essence," he said. "There is a need for a clear political decision... Either the Iraqis want this or they don't want it." Maliki signed a declaration of principles for the accord last November, Zebari noted. "It hasn't come out of a vacuum or out of the blue."