U.S. Nears Deal To Keep Troops In Iraq

But Iraq's Foreign Minister Cautions "Bold Political Decisions" Needed To Finalize Agreement

(CBS/AP)  Iraq's foreign minister said Tuesday the U.S. and Iraq were close to a deal to keep U.S. troops in the country next year, but it would take "bold political decisions" to overcome the final hurdles.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari made the comments to reporters at a press conference with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.

Zebari said the two sides were "very close" to an agreement to replace the U.N. mandate that expires this year.

But he added that the issue needs "some bold political decisions." He said he expected "hectic political meetings here in Baghdad" to determine the fate of the agreement.

Meanwhile, a top Iranian military official urged Iraq to reject the proposed U.S.-Iraqi security deal, calling the agreement a "disgrace."

Gen. Masoud Jazayeri's comments came Tuesday as Iraq's parliamentary speaker arrived in Tehran to discuss the deal and as Zebari spoke with Negroponte in Baghdad.

Iran, which is close to Shiite parties who dominate Iraq's government, has repeatedly expressed its opposition to any security deal that allows American forces to remain in neighboring Iraq. Tehran contends that the American presence is the cause of instability in Iraq and the region.

"The Iraqi people won't be deceived by propaganda and the psychological warfare launched by the U.S. and its allies to pressure the Iraqi government to approve the security deal," Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff at the Iranian armed forces, said in a statement Tuesday.

"Undoubtedly, the Iraqi leaders are careful of any mischief in this regard and won't allow Iraqi history to be stained with such a disgrace," Jazayeri said.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker accused Iran last month of blocking the deal, saying a steady stream of public statements from clerical and political figures in Tehran make it clear that Iran is interfering in the bilateral negotiations between Iraq and the United States.

On Tuesday, Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani told the Iranian news agency IRNA he would discuss the proposed deal with Iranian officials during his Tehran visit. No reports are yet available on the details of the talks.

Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, arrived in Tehran Tuesday using an Iranian plane, a day after his Iraqi plane was initially turned away. Iranian officials said the type of the plane was the reason for not being granted permission to land in Tehran, but they did not elaborate.

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating for months on the agreement, which would set the terms for the future U.S. presence in Iraq for years to come. A main sticking point has been the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops under Iraqi law.

Iran's hard-line newspapers have said the U.S.-cooked deal would "turn Iraq into a full-fledged colony" and have urged Iraqis to oppose the proposed deal.

Supporters of popular Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - who is close to Iran - oppose the accord, arguing that U.S. forces should leave Iraq as soon as possible. Earlier this year, an Iraqi delegation visited Iran to convince Iranian officials to halt their alleged support for Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and urge Tehran not to publicly oppose the deal.

[ajayvee]

Iraq''s foreign minister said Tuesday the U.S. and Iraq were close to a deal to keep U.S. troops in the country next year ....
---------------------
Sounds to me like al-Maliki is about to sell out his people one more time. But then again, that''s what he was put there for, wasn''t it?

[barbaraf4]

U.S. Nears Deal To Keep Troops In Iraq
~~~~~~~~~~~
This sounds like a giant step backwards. Aren''t we supposed to be working on an exit strategy?

I''d say if we decide to stay and fight the war for al-Maliki, then Iraq should foot the entire bill. Remember how the oil money was going to cover the entire cost of the war. Bush said it so it must be true.

[beehive21-2009]

Bush and his band of thieves (Republicans) trying to make as many deals as possible before he''s out.Disgusting,DISGUSTING Bush.

[yourpointis]

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism." www.barackobama.com

Obama wants to safely RE-DEPLOY troops, 1 to 2 a month, for 16 months...that will make it 2010. doesn''t look like he''s in as big of a hurry as he says, huh? AND he still wants to keep some troops in....interesting, when he said he wanted immediate withdrawal. And yes, this IS from his website, under "Phased Withdrawal". So, we''ll never be out of Iraq, like you Obama followers thought...... :D

Have a nice day!!

[bigtaco10]

This Republican led Bush Administration "INVADED" this country...

now, we are making "deals" with Iraqi leaders? How come this dictator (president) doesn''t keep his policy and tell the Iraqi government what they''re going to do? He INVADED THEIR COUNTRY.

Usually, and I''m not sure if it''s "policy" or written in a regulation, book or someplace for United States presidents to follow/use --- "How to invade a country and then make deals with a new government."

Bush has no plan. Never did. This is a joke at the expense of 4,000 + "PATRIOTS" and 320 million taxpayers who are funding this idiots "invasion" because he wants the "Bush" name to live in infamy!

Well --- did he ever succeed. Too bad it will be in print with the following words...

"The Worst President in the Modern Era."

[bigtaco10]

This Republican led Bush Administration "INVADED" this country...

now, we are making "deals" with Iraqi leaders? How come this dictator (president) doesn''t keep his policy and tell the Iraqi government what they''re going to do? He INVADED THEIR COUNTRY.

Usually, and I''m not sure if it''s "policy" or written in a regulation, book or someplace for United States presidents to follow/use --- "How to invade a country and then make deals with a new government."

Bush has no plan. Never did. This is a joke at the expense of 4,000 + "PATRIOTS" and 320 million taxpayers who are funding this idiots "invasion" because he wants the "Bush" name to live in infamy!

Well --- did he ever succeed. Too bad it will be in print with the following words...

"The Worst President in the Modern Era."

[mydiatribe]

"A watched pot never boils!" In this case, too many Mahmouds are watching this pot!
If experience counts for anything the Iraqi people realize they have more to fear from an Iranian presence than the US presence. Al Quida & Iran will pluck away at what is left of the bones of a defeated Iraqi government if the US is forced out too early.

[timesupreps]

does not matter what backdoor deal Bush tries. As soon as Obama is POTUS he can change the terms if he wants.. That is his right as the POTUS. especially if the deal was ill advised or contrived for monetary gain rather than for purposes of US security. The point is, Obama is planning a well thought out withdrawal from Iraq that will take time and will require certain forces to remain for a period of time.. That is what an intelligent POTUS does, THINKS ABOUT THINGS AND PLANS FOR WITHDRAWAL...
OBAMA/BIDEN 08''

[jackp32]

Where is my bailout check and new credit cards?

[nursehope]

OBAMA will implement a responsible phased withdrawal. We caused this mess, now we are stuck and have to withdraw slowly while the diplomatic phase kicks in. That phase Bush was not interested. War gives him the power he craves.

OBAMA 08

[nursehope]

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating for months on the agreement, which would set the terms for the future U.S. presence in Iraq for years to come. A main sticking point has been the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops under Iraqi law.

It is important for us to allow them to continue to murder, rape and destroy without consequences, just the way the Bush administration likes to be treated.

[ljb6599]

demslie2u....repubslie2u!!

[indivthinker]

nursehope, you are such an antipatriotic person. No, it''s not your antiwar attitude that makes you antipatriotic. It''s your belief that our courageous soldiers--the guys that have protected your freedoms for 232+ years--are murdering, raping, and destroying. The mission may or may not be moral, but the soldiers themselves (at least 99.99% of them) are serving honorably. They have helped to rebuild the country, secure the cities, and fight off the real terrorists... you know, the ones that strap a bomb to their chests and blow themselves up and kill a hundred innocent Iraqi civilians. That is who our troops are fighting against.

To say that you are calling OUR troops the terrorists is alone giving cause to the enemy, while harming the effectiveness of the soldiers (you try doing your job when someone tells you that you are murdering and raping people). It is immoral, treasonous, and disgusting to judge and accuse honest soldiers of such wrongdoing. You are no better than your labels.

[sly_64]

Who in America wants to stay in Iraq ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are in deep trouble.

[sly_64]

It may be time to overthrow our own government.

[arlt1627]

There is nothing on this Earth More Full of Hate For America than Democrats. The country we "Invaded" was ruled by a Genocidal Dictator for 30 years who killed a million of his own people. Now, the troops on the ground say, the IRAQI people are worried about what will happen to them when the American Troops leave. The only people who universally hate The American Troops are Terrorists and Democrats.

Posted by demslie2u

Hey....just answer a question for me. Who supported that Genocidal dictator for well over a decade and GAVE him chemical & conventional weapons to fight those terrible Iranians?? Can''t talk outta both cheeks can we??

[sly_64]

It''s not a matter of hating the troops, it''s sacraficing their lives for nothing. We don''t need to be there. My cousin died there. I wonder for what ?

[sly_64]

Time to lick our wounds and leave. Take care of business at home.

[lindh4]

A continued US presence in Iraq is excellent PR and a wonderful recruitment tool for al Qaeda. On the positive side, the US military presence in Iraq and another 130 countries makes great profits for the imperialist pigs (as long as the US taxpayer keeps bailing them out).

[edward1975-2009]

arlt1627: To answer your question we did. We not only armed Hussein, but Bin Laden in Afghanistan. It was us who funded and armed the coup that put Hussein in power. But that still does not take away from the fact that both had to be dealt with. Had Clinton done his job, Bin Laden would have been taken care of after the first attempt on the WTC. Iraq had him and offered him to Clinton, he declined. And after Hussein had shown his liking of gassing Northern Kurds, to the tune of 600K, it was time for him to be eradicated.

[edward1975-2009]

lindh4: Don''t call Democrats imperialist pigs, they''re lapdogs for the Republicans, get it right.

[duhrer]

What part of the word NO does this administration not understand. I''ll never understand the logic of taxing to the extreme limits our armed forces far away from home and labelling it as "...in the defense of American freedoms." I can tell people honestly that I can''t think of a single freedom I have that requires soldiers from my country to kill soldiers from another country. I suppose it''s the same mentaility of "if you don''t agree with our bizzare and unsubstantiated war, you hate America". America is today, not only NOT #1, but by evidence of some of these postings our educated people aren''t the shiniest stars on the tree. Even the whole notion of conservatives and liberals as labels is a lie that many Americans have fallen into the trap of believing. Wake up folks... we don''t have to kill brown people all over the world to have our freedom.

[biger-e]

What do you think will happen to the billions in oil money if we leave Iraq before it is secure. The terorist will take over and every dime will be spent trying to destroy America. Look at the damage that was done on 9-11 and they didn''t have those kinds of resources. Leave too early and we will be back later no doubt. I am aware that Iraq did not cause 9-11 but they will take over Iraq if we leave. finish the job.

[inventagod2]

DEAL.

Just wanted to let that sink in....

LIES.

[briannorwood]

Someone should remind our lame duck President that Congress must ratify any international treaties and trade agreements.

Of course, he probably thinks that is just another part of that pesky Constitution that he can ignore!

[leo261]

We are in Iraq because Iraq was the biggest competitor to Saudi Arabia (Bush''s friends) in oil.
This war stopped the destribution of oil from Iraq.
That''s why your parents, little kids, pay so much for gas. If there''s no competition they can mark the price as they please. Now they are taking out Iran (second top competitor), then Russia by creating this problem with Georgia. Wake up people 15 of 19 terrorists were Saudi Arabians-FACT. McCain wants to spend another 100 years there, WHY? MONEY. It''s all about MONEY. When they all die, and they will, they will take it with them. Well, the sooner the better.

[usclimey]

Posted by demslie2u

As usual you''re just being an idiot.

It''s ironic really, here we are having killed Saddam Hussein and spent bazillions on invading his country and now we''re all upset and worried about Iran interfering in Iraq. Who was Iran''s most persistant foe over the years - Saddam Hussein. You shall reap what you sow.

[usclimey]

50,000 people a year die on our nations highways, thats 350,000 since the begining of the WAR.

Posted by demslie2u

And your point would be??? I could cut the number of deaths on the roads tomorrow if I were dictator. Drop the blood alcohol max to zero and apportion fines as a %age of income as in Sweden. Raise the driving age to 21 preferably, 18 in reality. Make everyone over 65 take a new test every two years. Not popular, but I''d bet it would work.

I could stop Americans being killed in Iraq just as qickly - BRING THEM HOME!!!

[janetlynn12]

If Bush/Cheney get a signed agreement with Iraq for American troops to remain in that country, Bush/Cheney will have won the war. The ONLY reason they sent our military men and women to Iraq was to establish a lasting presence there to protect the oil supply. Don''t believe it? Check their website: newamericancentury.org (if it''s still up) They didn''t care how many soldiers and civilians had to die to accomplish their goal.

[janetlynn12]

If Bush/Cheney get a signed agreement with Iraq for American troops to remain in that country, Bush/Cheney will have won the war. The ONLY reason they sent our military men and women to Iraq was to establish a lasting presence there to protect the oil supply. Don''t believe it? Check their website: newamericancentury.org (if it''s still up) They didn''t care how many soldiers and civilians had to die to accomplish their goal.

[secundus2]

If an Iranian general denounces the deal, it is probably o.k. for both Iraq and the US.

If the deal is subject to Congressional (Senate)approval, it will pass easily.

The way in which the Iraq war is ending is about the best that could have been expected -- diminishing violence, provincial elections in January, new federal governments next year in both US and Iraq, further drawdowns of US troops throughout 2009.

[eroosevelt08]

So if we stay in Iraq will any of Iraq''s 79 billion dollar surplus help pay for the cost???

[bigbowler5]

Well, you can keep our brothers and sisters only for another yr or so. Once Obama becomes President, all are coming home.
Let the *** pay for their own security! Have you ever even heard "thank you" from these unappreciative Iraqis?
Obama ''08!

[antoniof123]

So if we stay in Iraq will any of Iraq''''s 79 billion dollar surplus help pay for the cost???

Posted by ERoosevelt08 at 02:30 PM : Oct 07, 2008

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

[maine11111]

They need to pull those soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan those people were never a threat to us, they never had any nuclear weapons and they never had a chance against us in a war. We went to that country and ruin the place. Im pretty sure that they would whether have a tyrant, dictator running Saddam running the place than the tyrant, dicatator George W. Bush. The american people should be ashamed of themselves for not standing up to the president and stopping him from getting all those people killed american and Iraqis. Our messed economy is just the reflection of the messed up econonmy we created in Iraq. All of those young soldiers dying for a cause they dont even believe because our president had a grudge against Saddam.

[barbaraf4]

"Have you ever even heard "thank you" from these unappreciative Iraqis?" Posted by Bigbowler5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly why would they thank us? We have destroyed their infrastructure, their society and their economy. The oil profits will go overseas and the average Iraqi citizen will never see a dime of it.

All we did was remove Sadam. They must have been satisfied with him or they would have overthrown his government.

This is the arguement against getting involved in civil wars in other countries. It didn''t work in Korea, Vietnam or any since.

[maine11111]

Bigbowler5 Why would the Iraqis thank us? We ruined their country and WE are the threat now. We are still occupying their land and telling them what to do on it. We took their oil blew up their buildings and then charged them to fix them and killed countless amount of people on their side and ours!!!! WHY WOULD THEY THANK ANYONE FOR THAT!!!

[emelder]

Why not let the deal expire? Or, since we helped them have a democracy (our idea, of course) why not simply let them vote ... "stay or go". We can live with a democratic decision by the PEOPLE of Iraq, right? Isn''t that so, President Bush??? This is all NUTS ... it''s Obama time!

[inventagod2]

Hmmm....

What is more important to this administration?

''Deals'' in Iraq or our economy?

[inventagod2]

Guess our troops will be showered with flowers and songs soon...

[babooph]

Will they buy their own supplies-two wars bankrupt Britain-AND THEY WON THEM !!

[tangouniforn]

Keeping a presence in Iraqi IS critical! Otherwise it will leave a vacuum in Iraq for the Iranians and ***** control.

Keep hacking away at an agreement Bush!

------------------------------------------------
Iraq IS under Shia control, why do you think that the Sunnis are upset?

Time to get the hell out!

[labrat9999]

Ahh Goerge W. Bush and the GOP nut bags you''ve really made a mess of things now. Note how the Iraqis are being influenced by the Iranians? Great job. And by the way, the economy...I really want to send you a big thank you on that one too. Your idea that Companies and Businesses will do the right thing and we don''t need regulations or oversight...that works extremely well. Thanks a bunch!!

[tangouniforn]

"A watched pot never boils!" In this case, too many Mahmouds are watching this pot!
If experience counts for anything the Iraqi people realize they have more to fear from an Iranian presence than the US presence. Al Quida & Iran will pluck away at what is left of the bones of a defeated Iraqi government if the US is forced out too early.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Bush and the neo-cons had left Saddam alone there would not be an Iranian nor Iraqi problem now. The fact that Saddam is gone is a good thing but the price that we and the Iraqis are paying it too great.
Over 4,150 US military died on Iraqi soil, over 1,000,000 more Iraqis dead than would have died because of our presence there. Remember "thou shalt not kill".

[tangouniforn]

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT change america to defeat


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by obanau4 at 11:35 AM : Oct 07, 2008
+ report abuse
____________________________________________________

Please, please tell me how you define "wining". Do you plan on signing a peace treaty to show the end of the conflict? If so, with whom are you going to sign it? Is it when no one in Iraq hate us? As long as there are any Iraqi left that remember the invasion, they are going to hate us. We could eliminate every Iraqi in Iraq. That way there would be no Iraqis in that country to hate us and will us ill. Of course there would be a lot of people in the world that would hate us. So please tell me how it will end.

[jamster31]

Get our troops out of there. We wouldn''t want foreign troops in our country under any circumstances. the kids need to come home. I''d hate to think my child died there when there''s no more need to be there.

[tangouniforn]

This Republican led Bush Administration "INVADED" this country..

Posted by Bigtaco10

There is nothing on this Earth More Full of Hate For America than Democrats. The country we "Invaded" was ruled by a Genocidal Dictator for 30 years who killed a million of his own people. Now, the troops on the ground say, the IRAQI people are worried about what will happen to them when the American Troops leave. The only people who universally hate The American Troops are Terrorists and Democrats.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by demslie2u at 11:05 AM : Oct 07, 2008
+ report abuse
-------------------------------------------------

This post is one of the most asinine I have ever read. I am voteing with the democrates now because of the terrible things the republicans neo-cons have done to this country. When N. Korea invaded S. Korea, I volunteered to fight for this country because I believed that we were at risk. Now for you or anyone else to tell me that I do not love this country is one of the lowest comments that I can imagine. What do you think gives you the right to question the love of anyone except your own self?

[bobgee_1999]

(AP) The current plan to abolish the U.S. standing military (http://thomas.loc.gov/) due to the financial crisis, will result in a substantial tax decrease for Americans. It is hoped -- and feared by some -- that this move will also usher in a new era of peace and prosperity in the global community. At a press conference, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated, "The military option will always be on the table. However, war has become too expensive, both in monetary terms and the cost of human lives, for us to rely any longer on conventional military solutions to global issues." Critics have suggested that the U.S. will become more vulnerable to attack as a result of the decision. Harvard political science professor Ferris Nuesbalm believes that just the opposite is true.

"Volunteer and draft options will likely be utilized in times of conflict, as was originally intended by the framers of the Constitution," says Nuesbalm. "All this decision means in the overview is that the U.S. will no longer have access to military solutions as a first recourse. I see it as a healthy move, toward peaceful relations with other nations and more meaningful diplomacy."

[ajmarine111]

If Bush and the neo-cons had left Saddam alone there would not be an Iranian nor Iraqi problem now. The fact that Saddam is gone is a good thing but the price that we and the Iraqis are paying it too great.
Over 4,150 US military died on Iraqi soil, over 1,000,000 more Iraqis dead than would have died because of our presence there. Remember "thou shalt not kill".

Posted by TangoUniforn at 04:54 PM : Oct 07, 2008


This is something I saved from a time ago, it might fit here:



"Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards'' new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out," Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Wouldn''t we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers."

[tangouniforn]

Posted by jamster31 at 05:19 PM

No need to be there? we need to be there, to finish and win the war....we are very close to victory, to pull out now at the very end would be disasterous


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JoeCoolSwat1 at 05:57 PM : Oct 07, 2008
+ report abuse
________________________________________________

Please, please tell me how you define "wining". Do you plan on signing a peace treaty to show the end of the conflict? If so, with whom are you going to sign it? Is it when no one in Iraq hate us? As long as there are any Iraqi left that remember the invasion, they are going to hate us. We could eliminate every Iraqi in Iraq. That way there would be no Iraqis in that country to hate us and will us ill. Of course there would be a lot of people in the world that would hate us. So please tell me how it will end.

BTB most of my adult life I spent voting republican. After reading the lack of intelligence exhibited by this generation of republicans, I regret every vote for them that I made.