What is extremely disingenuous about what Bush says is that he wants the US to be over there for "years" but doesn't want to establish permanent bases.

In February, US President George W Bush said Washington would seek a military presence in Iraq for "years" but pledged it would not establish permanent bases.

Huh? How is that possible? What in the fool is the definition of *permanent*? If, for example, your base is a tent, and you're there for 100 years, isn't it a base that is, for all intents and purposes, permanent?

But Iraq doesn't WANt a SOFA agreement, at least not the way it is now. If US troops committed crimes, there would be no accountability for them (just like it in other SOFA agreements in other countries the US quarters troops), and there's a provision that the US could use Iraq as a place to attack other countries, which doesn't sit well with Iran.

From another source, ArabNews, it's not only the US soldiers but the fact that private contractors, like Blackwater, would get immunity too!

Iraqi lawmaker Mahmud Othman said yesterday that Washington appeared to be flexible but there were some sticking points, especially the immunity being offered to American soldiers and private security guards.

“Americans are open to lift the immunity as far as the foreign security contractors are concerned but not for their soldiers,” said Othman.

The immunity issue has been hotly debated since the killing of 17 Iraqis by guards from the US Blackwater security company in Baghdad last year.

And what's a PERMANENT BASE ANYWAY? The language is itself a ruse.

When Democratic Senator James Webb asked the State Department's David Satterfield, "What is a permanent base?" Satterfield tried to avoid answering the question. But assistant defense secretary Mary Beth Long was more responsive. She said, "I have looked into this. As far as the department is concerned, we don't have a worldwide or even a department-wide definition of permanent bases."

Webb then observed, "It doesn't really mean anything," to which Long replied, "Yes, senator, you're right. It doesn't." She added that "most lawyers ... would say that the word 'permanent' probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term".

Iraqi officials quickly figured out that the real significance of the draft's wording on access to military bases was that it contained neither a time limit on access to Iraqi bases nor any restrictions on the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security".

Authorization for such operations was called "temporary", but the absence of any time limit makes that seemingly reassuring term meaningless as well.

The article goes on to say that the rejection of the term "permanent bases* is a ruse to both lull Congress into not insisting on ratifying what essentially is a treaty AND to fool Iraqi nationalists.