Problems with Iraq Treaty

Seems the Bush Administration is running into some problems with negotiating their "security framework" with Iraq. See this story in the Post. Here's a revealing quote:

The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq, said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.'

From reading the story it sounds like Bush and friends want to put American bases all over Iraq. The original idea was to have over 200 facilities across the country. How could this not be interpreted as a long term permanent presence in the country? And wouldn't these "facilities" as the story refers to them not be targets for terrorists? The number the Americans want has since come down to 58.

It makes you wonder if the administration is having problems with the Iraqis what problems they will have with Congress. And Congress on this one had better not roll over as they have in the past. I guess the White House is getting a little concerned about how Congress will react:

In Washington, the White House hastily organized a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, respectively, demanded Monday that the administration "be more transparent with Congress, with greater consultation, about the progress and content of these deliberations."

This is a treaty with Iraq no matter what the Bush Administration may want to call it and as a treaty it has to be ratified by the Senate.