News of the U.S. push to complete a long term status of force agreement with Iraq continues to leak out:

Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.  (Link)

Speaking of Iran....following Prime Minister Maliki and President Ahmadinejad's just completed meetings came this announcement:

Iran and Iraq agreed to boost defense cooperation during a visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to Tehran on Monday, Iran's official IRNA news agency said, giving few details on the content of the agreement.

"The two parties, stressing the importance of defense cooperation in the balanced expansion of ties ... called for development of this sort of cooperation with the aim of strengthening peace and stability in the region," IRNA said. (Link)

Prime Minister Al Maliki also met with Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei while in Iran:

Khamenei told al-Maliki that the most important and fundamental problem for Iraq at present is the presence of Occupation forces. He affirmed, "We are certain that the people of Iraq, through their intrinsic unity and effort, will cross over these difficult conditions and arrive at a place befitting them. The dream of the Americans most certainly will never be realized." He emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran considers helping the government and people of Iraq a religious duty.

Al-Maliki expressed his conviction that Iraqis were attaining a consensus and beginning to speak with a single voice. Khamenei expressed his concern that the Americans would interfere illegitimately and "impudently" in Iraqi affairs and disrupt this building consensus. He compared the current role of the US with the one the British used to play in promoting divide and rule policies even in independent Iraq after 1932. He also expressed his worry that the US would worm itself into every aspect of Iraq's affairs.  (Link)

There is, in fact, some evidence Iraqis are "beginning to speak with a single voice".  From last week:

A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.

"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

"What are the threats that require U.S. forces to be there?" asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shi'ite political party, speaking through a translator.

"I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems," he declared. He favored a quick pullout of U.S. forces, which invaded the country in 2003 and currently number around 155,000. (Link)

Yesterday, the Bush Administration finally realized their agreement might not happen as they had planned:

Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the U.S. must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place.

This whole agreement is just another sign of Bush Administration ineptness and myopia.  First, the Administration concedes it's negotiating a deal with Iraq but will provide no details.  The Administration then ham handedly claims the agreement can be negotiated by the Administration alone and not require any oversight or approval by the U.S. Congress.  News begins to leak that the U.S. is looking to establish scores of U.S. bases and force the Iraqi's to guarantee U.S. forces free reign in Iraq.  The pushback from the Iraqi Parliament is evidence the Iraqi's are just trying to slow walk the status of forces agreement until the next U.S. president is elected.  Finally, it then becomes increasingly clear the Iraqi government is attempting to juggle alliances with both the U.S. and Iran. 

And then the craziest part; the Administration acts like their proposed agreement carries some legitimacy and permanence.  As the Administration has tried to circumvent our Congress, the agreement (if ever approved) is only an agreement between the Bush Administration and the current Iraqi Parliament.  In other words, come January the new U.S. President can easily just scrap the agreement.  Just like that.