Subject to final approval by the top Iraqi leadership, the exit date for U.S. troops would be December 2011, although the Americans insist on linking that target to additional security and political progress.

President Bush has long resisted a timetable for pulling out, even under heavy pressure from a nation distressed by American deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003. But that has softened in recent weeks.

The timing has major political importance in both Iraq and the United States.

The two contenders to replace Bush as commander in chief, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, spar almost daily over the future course of the war.

Obama wants all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, saying they are needed more urgently in Afghanistan. McCain says recent security improvements in Iraq show that decisions on the timing of further pullouts should be determined by circumstances on the ground rather than by prearranged timetables — a position the White House has vigorously held until recently.

The administration has inched toward the Iraqi view that setting at least a target date for withdrawal would make it politically palatable for Iraq’s government to accept a substantial U.S. troop presence beyond this year.

The rationale for the pullout is that Iraqi security forces will be ready to stand on their own, although it remains possible that some U.S. military training role would continue. In Iraq, provincial elections are supposed to be held later this year, followed by national balloting in 2009.
In one key part of the draft agreement, private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law, unlike at present, but the American side held firm in its insistence that U.S. troops would remain subject exclusively to U.S. legal jurisdiction, officials said.

Immunity remains the main point of contention between the two sides in finalizing the agreement. The Iraqis are reluctant to allow U.S. military contractors to have free rein when outside U.S. bases and without any Iraqi legal authority over them, according to a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe delicate negotiations.

There is an additional sense of urgency to complete a deal because the U.N. Security Council resolution that sets the legal basis for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is due to expire at the end of this year.

Asked about withdrawal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday in Baghdad, “We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in such an agreement.” Her use of the term “aspirational” suggested that the timetables would be linked in some undisclosed way to the attainment of measurable progress in the security, political and perhaps economic fields.
Other U.S. officials said the deal includes agreement that by June 30, 2009, U.S. combat forces would be out of Iraq’s cities, set up elsewhere in the country in what the military calls an overwatch role — available to assist Iraqi security forces as needed, while continuing to train and advise Iraqi troops.

At a joint news conference, Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the two sides had accepted the draft agreement and would await a review by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top Iraqi leaders — some of whom oppose some parts of the deal — as well as the Iraqi parliament. The next step is consideration by al-Maliki and his executive council Friday.

Rice’s visit was meant to push al-Maliki so he would take the draft agreement to Iraqis for approval, U.S. officials said.

In the Sadr City section of eastern Baghdad, more than 500 followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr held a rally Thursday evening to denounce the Rice visit and the proposed security arrangement. Marchers carried flags and al-Sadr’s picture, chanting, “No to the agreement.”

Saleh al-Mutlaq, leader of the second-largest Sunni faction in parliament, issued a statement saying the Americans should not depend on any agreement signed with the Shiite-dominated government. He called on the government to put the deal to a popular referendum rather than simply submit it to parliament.

U.S. officials in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because the deal is not final, said Bush administration acceptance of the arrangements was not in doubt unless Iraqi leaders insisted on changes. The administration has pledged to inform Congress but not submit the agreement for formal approval.

In Baghdad, Rice met with Zebari, al-Maliki and other officials on a brief visit intended to push the Iraqis toward agreement.
Said Zebari: “This agreement determines the principal provisions, requirements to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission, of U.S. forces.”

Bush has stood firmly behind al-Maliki, and the U.S. resisted pressure last year from its Sunni Arab allies elsewhere in the Middle East to dump the Shiite prime minister in favor of a more secular leader.

But al-Maliki has apparently taken a tough stand in the negotiations to refurbish his nationalist credentials and avoid the label of “America’s man” ahead of coming elections.

The Shiite political establishment is also anxious to run the country without U.S. constraints, believing it has the right as leaders of Iraq’s largest community, which had been marginalized politically since the modern Iraqi state was established following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

Rice spoke optimistically of completing a deal but stressed that it still needed top-level Iraqi approval. She also said it was made possible by security improvements.

“I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger,” she said.

Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: “This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. … There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this.”

A State Department transcript of Zebari’s remarks said he added that Iran had been advised of that provision.

But there’s a lot of folks this time around who might go off the deep end if Obama doesn’t win. People have really invested in him as a person, not as a politician. Some of that glow is fading, a bit, but it’s still pretty strong. These folks are true believers, and if they don’t get their dreams fulfilled, they’re going to be very, very upset.

Yes, there was a lot of passion in 2000, and 2004 also. But that was passion against Bush, not passion for Kerry or Gore. Let’s face it; Gore is an annoying, lecturing bore, with a large streak of hypocrisy. Kerry is an opportunistic dilletante. No one really loves either of them as politicians; they were Not Bush, and that was enough.

But a lot of folks are FOR Obama, not against McCain. You can see it in the fundraising. Obama’s handlers are very good at promoting the Chosen One image, and that image resonates with his supporters. You talk to them, and they simply can’t imagine anyone not voting for him.

It’s going to be a fairly close election; even Minnesota, which three months ago was a Strong Obama state, is now rated a tossup. Barring some sort of major mistake by either candidate, it’s going to be a furious fall, as the two campaign planes zip back and forth along a line from Virginia to Minnesota, with a side trip to Colorado and New Mexico now and then. Undecided voter’s doorbells are going to be rung again and again, as both sides fight for those precious few votes.

Chances are, there won’t be a to-the-wire standoff like Florida in 2000. But it might come down to a few thousand votes in Ohio, or Michigan, or New Mexico. If it does, and Obama doesn’t win, there are going to be lots of charges of fraud. Never mind that the Democrats wrote the book on voter fraud (don’t believe me? look at the history). People will be in the mood to believe anything. And people who are angry, people who believe they have been cheated of hope, change, whatever–those people will be seething.

November could be very ugly.

Personally, I hope that whoever wins, wins by enough that recounts and court battles aren’t needed.

The site in question:

Anyone care to explain this?… BB-Idaho correctly sourced this site in the comments so please do take a look.

Writing on Sudanese forum Brbr Net, Abu Al Derdiri [Ar] says that Al Basheer's arrest warrant fulfils Libyan leader Muammar Al Gaddafi's prediction that the US will hunt down Arab rulers to fulfil its expansionist plans in the region. He says:

يبدو أن تحذير الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي خلال القمة العربية الأخيرة في دمشق من أن أمريكا ستطارد الزعماء العرب واحدا تلو الآخر بعد إعدام الرئيس العراقي الراحل صدام حسين، بدأ يجد آذانا صاغية على أرض الواقع ، حيث فوجيء العرب والعالم في 14 يوليو 2008 باتهام المدعي العام للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية لويس مورينو أوكامبو للرئيس السوداني عمر البشير بارتكاب جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية وإبادة جماعية في دارفور ، مطالبا المحكمة باعتقاله .
هذا القرار اعتبره كثيرون بأنه سياسي مائة بالمائة ويؤكد أن الولايات المتحدة قررت استخدام سلاح المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لإسقاط نظام البشير الذي طالما حال دون تحقيق مخططات المحافظين الجدد وإسرائيل في تقسيم السودان والاستيلاء على ثرواته الهائلة وخاصة المعدنية والغذائية والمائية منها .

It seems that Libyan Leader Muammer Al Gaddafi's warning during the last Arab League Summit in Damascus that the United States will be hunting down Arab leaders one after the other after the hanging of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is ringing true. Arabs and the world were surprised on July 14, 2008, of an accusation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo against Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, and called upon the court to arrest him. A lot considered this ruling as political, stressing that the United States has decided to use the weapon of the ICC to overthrow Al Bashir's rule, which has so far not been achieved despite the plotting of the Neo-cons and Israel, who want to carve up Sudan and steal its extensive resources, especially minerals, food and water.

Al Derdiri goes on to say that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Sudan, which does not recognise the ICC and insists that singling out Al Bashir is a ploy to pave the way for the trial of other Arab leaders. He adds:

ولذا سرعان ما ركزت واشنطن على استخدام صلاحيات المحكمة لتأديب “الحكام المارقين” بعيدا عن الحروب وفيتو مجلس الأمن ، وهو ما ظهر بوضوح في حالة الرئيس السوداني ، وهنا يتساءل البعض : هل يشكل القرار سابقة لمحاكمة مسئولين عرب آخرين ، وماذا يفعل السودان لمواجهته؟ .

Washington is concentrating its efforts on using the powers of the court to discipline ‘rogue rulers' away from wars and the Security Council's Veto. This is evident in the case against the Sudanese president. Some of you may ask: Will this ruling set a precedence for the trial of other Arab officials and what will Sudan do to confront it?

Al Derdiri then draws parallels between Sudan and Iraq, and writes:

ورغم أنه بات من المؤكد أن واشنطن تسير قدما في مخطط تقسيم السودان سواء كان ذلك عبر اتفاقية السلام التي تضمن انفصال الجنوب أو من خلال إشعال أزمة دارفور، إلا أن العرب لم يقوموا حتى الآن بخطوات جدية لإنقاذ السودان من المصير الذي وصل إليه العراق.

It has become evident that Washington is continuing with its plans to divide Sudan, whether this is achieved through a peace agreement which guarantees the separation of the South or through fanning the flames over the Darfur crisis. However, Arabs are yet to take serious steps to save Sudan from Iraq's destiny.

He further calls on Arabs and the African Union to move fast - and push the international community to protect the immunity of presidents and the sovereignty of states:

فالرئيس السوداني بات في قبضة المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لأن قراراتها غير قابلة للإلغاء ولا تسقط بالتقادم ، ويبدو أن هذا هو الثمن الذي كان لابد أن يدفعه العرب من وجهة نظر بوش للتغطية على فشله في العراق وأفغانستان ولبنان ولرفع أسهم المرشح الجمهوري جون ماكين في انتخابات الرئاسة الأمريكية المقبلة .
ولذا لا مناص من تكثيف التحرك العربي والإفريقي في الأمم المتحدة لدفع مجلس الأمن لمطالبة المحكمة بتأجيل تنفيذ قرار اعتقال البشير ، بالإضافة إلى ضرورة تحرك الجامعة العربية والاتحاد الإفريقي سريعا لإصدار فتوى من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية حول حصانة الرؤساء لضمان عدم استخدامها كسلاح سياسي لخدمة مخططات واشنطن ، وباعتبار هذا الأمر يضر بمبدأ أساسي في القانون الدولي وهو مبدأ السيادة.

The Sudanese President is now in the clasp of the ICC, whose decisions are irrevocable and this seems to be the price Arabs have to pay, in the opinion of Bush, to cover for his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and improve the fortunes of the Republican nominee John McCain in the upcoming US elections. Arabs and Africans should now intensify their pressure at the United Nations, to force the Security Council to demand from the Court to delay the decision to arrest Al Bashir. The Arab League and the African Union should also move fast and extract an order from the ICC on the immunity of Presidents, in order for this tactic not to be used as a political weapon in the hands of Washington. Such decisions harm a fundamental clause in international law - and that is the issue of sovereignty.

In conclusion, he asks:

وبعد ذلك ، يبقى التساؤل الملح ” أي من الحكام العرب ستستهدفه واشنطن بعد صدام والبشير ؟ ” ، هذا ما ستجيب عنه الأيام المقبلة .

And after all this, there remains a pressing questions: Who of the Arab leaders will be targeted by Washington after Saddam and Al Bashir? We will know the answer to this question in the near future.

Also on Global Voices Online:
Bahrain: Omar Al Bashir and the Cross-Eyed Justice

Immediately when I saw this video, I really thought the McCain camp had released a video to try and compete with the Obama “Yes We Can” video which has been viewed 8 million times on YouTube. However, I was pleased to see it is a parody of Senator McCain hence I can continue to smile. In case you have forgotten the Obama video in question, here it is: