The Bush administration is currently trying to push Iraqis into accepting a indefinite long-term security agreement, with demands including nearly 60 permanent bases, immunity for foreign contractors, control over air space, and authorization for war with Iran.

But Iraqis are rejecting the administration’s stubborn attempts to control Iraq’s future. Today, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki remarked, “The American version of the agreement infringes hugely on the sovereignty of Iraq and this is something that we cannot ever accept.”

Today, CNN’s Michael Ware said the U.S. presented a second draft of the agreement, but Iraqis rejected it because the draft is “the same as the first.” According to Ware, many Iraqis now want to “go it alone” and may even “take over this war”:

WARE: What we’re also hearing from the Iraqi government is they may go it alone, using a hangover snippet of law left over from the original American occupation authority of Paul Bremer.

They could create their own legislation in their own Congress or Parliament, and thereby dictate to America what U.S. troops can and cannot do in this country, where they can go, where they must stay, and how many you’re allowed to have. So you may see the Iraqis taking over this war, and you may see a lot of U.S. gains being drawn back.

Watch it:

Ware explained that in his conversations with U.S. officials, they have accepted that Iraq “going it alone, passing its own laws” is indeed a “legally viable option.”

The negotiations on the long-term agreement are going so poorly that today, a senior government official “expressed doubt an agreement could be reached before the U.S. presidential election in November,” according to the AP.

The administration and its allies are still in a state of denial, however. “We know the Iraqis want us there,” said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino this week. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) absurdly claimed the dissent in Iraq regarding the agreement is a “sign of our success.”

Given that Charles Krauthammer’s Ode To Victory in Iraq is more or less a rewrite of Fred and Kim Kagan’s from earlier this week, I think my response to them should suffice.

There is, however, one particular point worth responding to. Charles’ reverie climaxes with his claim that “the most expansive American objective — establishing a representative government that is an ally against jihadists, both Sunni and Shiite — is within sight.”

To understand what a monumental redefinition of “success” this claim represents, let’s look at something Charles wrote back in 2003. Oozing canned-Churchillian brio after the quick collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Krauthammer dismissed Iraqi Shiite protesters as tools of Iran:

The Shiite demonstrators in Iraqi streets represent a highly organized minority, many of whom are affiliated with, infiltrated by and financed by Tehran, the headquarters for 20 years of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

These Iranian-oriented Shiite extremists are analogous to the Soviet-oriented communists in immediate post-World War II Italy and France. They too had a foreign patron. They too had foreign sources of money, agents and influence. They too had a coherent ideology. And they too were highly organized even before the end of the war. They too made a bid for power. And failed. [...]

Tellingly, even the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sent a delegation to the last meeting with Jay Garner, our proconsul in Baghdad. Even the Islamic radicals know the Pentagon is prepared to move with or without them. They know who’s in charge.

The question is: Does Charles know who’s in charge now? Prime Minister Maliki’s governing coalition is dependent on the support of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), who until last year were known as — can you guess? — the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. ISCI still represents “a highly organized minority…affiliated with, infiltrated by and financed by Tehran,” but, by offering their support for the U.S. occupation, this minority has been able to establish itself in Iraq’s government, with members of its Badr Corps militia (which has now redefined itself as “not a militia“) firmly ensconced throughout the Iraqi security apparatus.

Unlike the Soviet-oriented communists to whom Krauthammer claims these Shiite extremists are analogous, ISCI succeeded in its bid for power, largely by telling the occupier what he wanted to hear. (Here’s the White House press release from President Bush’s meeting with SCIRI chief Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim in December 2006 — a few weeks before Quds Force officers were arrested at Hakim’s compound in Baghdad.)

This doesn’t necessarily mean that partnering with ISCI was the wrong play — though, considering that Bush’s policy has been to stay and stay in Iraq, it was really the only play available — but it does show that Charles Krauthammer has so radically defined victory down that he’s now crowing about about the establishment of an Iraqi government dominated by the very “Iranian-oriented Shiite extremists” he was sounding the alarm on a few years ago.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. The Bush administration and its allies quickly criticized the decision:

President Bush: “It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented. The dissent was based upon those serious concerns about U.S. national security.” [Link]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Senator Graham, and Senator Lieberman, and I…made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. [6/13/08]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I am deeply disappointed in what I think is a tremendously dangerous and irresponsible ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. … The court has conferred upon civilian judges the right to make military decisions.” [Link]

McCain and Graham’s objections sharply contrast with their positions in 2003, when they wrote a letter to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, urging him to swiftly resolve the status of Guantanamo detainees:

The treatment of the detainees is not an issue. However, a serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees – a considerable number of whom have been held for two years. [...]

Yet, we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action.

On Dec. 13, 2003, the New York Times also reported that McCain said, “They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I’m concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.”

Five years after their letter, just “one detainee has received a verdict.” Approximately 270 are still detained there and “about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them.”

This Supreme Court ruling will inevitably lead to a “flood of new litigation” challenging the Bush administration’s right to hold these detainees. Detainees will then finally get a decision as to their status — exactly as McCain and Graham requested.

In light of these 2003 remarks, it’s unclear why McCain considers this Supreme Court ruling the “worst decision in history,” except for the fact that it isn’t what the Bush administration wanted.

Cross-posted at the Wonk Room.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. The Bush administration and its allies quickly criticized the decision:

President Bush: “It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented. The dissent was based upon those serious concerns about U.S. national security.” [Link]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worstdecisions in the history of this country. Senator Graham, and Senator Lieberman, and I…made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. [6/13/08]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I am deeply disappointed in what I think is a tremendously dangerous and irresponsible ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. … The court has conferred upon civilian judges the right to make military decisions.” [Link]

McCain and Graham’s objections sharply contrast with their positions in 2003, when they wrote a letter to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, urging him to swiftly resolve the status of Guantanamo detainees:

The treatment of the detainees is not an issue. However, a serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees – a considerable number of whom have been held for two years. [...]

Yet, we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action.

On Dec. 13, 2003, the New York Times also reported that McCain said, “They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I’m concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.”

Five years after their letter, just “one detainee has received a verdict.” Approximately 270 are still detained there and “about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them.”

This Supreme Court ruling will inevitably lead to a “flood of new litigation” challenging the Bush administration’s right to hold these detainees. Detainees will then finally get a decision as to their status — exactly as McCain and Graham requested.

In light of these 2003 remarks, it’s unclear why McCain considers this Supreme Court ruling the “worst decision in history,” except for the fact that it isn’t what the Bush administration wanted.

– Ken Gude and Amanda Terkel

The Bush administration and its allies have repeatedly tried to claim that because of the surge, the United States is winning the war in Iraq. In February, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on The Tonight Show, “And by golly, they are winning, my friends. They are winning. They are winning.” Just this week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) claimed that Iraqi opposition to a long-term security agreement with the United States is a sign of “success.”

McCain has visited Iraq eight times since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a fact that he likes to tout as evidence of his national security credentials. NBC correspondent Richard Engel, however, has logged more time there than almost every other tv correspondent over the past few years, surviving bombings and kidnapping attempts.

Yesterday on the Daily Show, he sharply disputed the right-wing claim that the United States is winning in Iraq:

STEWART: What’s our record in these five wars? [...]

ENGEL: Maybe we’re 1-4.

STEWART: We’re 1-4 now. What are the five wars?

ENGEL: The shock and awe — the invasion. Then the nation-building phase, which had mixed results, dissolving the Iraqi army. Then an insurgency, then a civil war, then the surge, where violence has gone down dramatically. We’re about to face a sixth war — the exit strategy — and we have to figure out how to make that one a success.

This morning on MSNBC, Engel said that while, tactically, the surge has had some success, “the larger strategic question of stability in Iraq is one that is still unresolved.” Watch his Daily Show and MSNBC appearances:

Part of the right wing’s arguments about why the United States should stay in Iraq is that if troops redeploy, Iran will gain influence. But as Engel said on MSNBC, Iran’s influence in Iraq is already “huge” because of the U.S. invasion, a point that has been underlined by Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen as well.

Transcript: Read more