"Not too important"

John McCain, fact-challenged, out-of-touch presidential candidate, suggested this morning on the Today show that the question of when we bring our troops home from Iraq is "not too important."

And it isn't. Not to John McCain, at least. To the folks mucking around the desert in 120 degree heat, every moment fearing they will be shot or blown to bits by the local citizenry who decidedly do not want them there, and to the families of those folks struggling to pay their bills and raise their children without them (all while suffering under $4.00/gal gas prices driven by $140/barrel oil, which is in turn driven by, among other things, the troops' presence in Iraq), I would hazard a guess it is at least somewhat important.

Meanwhile, the current occupant of the White House has his minions "negotiating" a "status of forces agreement" with the Iraqi government which will "setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq".

But let's stop right there and define our terms:

(1) the term "negotiating" as used herein means: shoving down the throat through any means available;
(2) the term "status of forces agreement" as used herein means: treaty, provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to imply that said "status of forces agreement" must, or will be, submitted to Congress for its advice and consent as would be necessary in the case of a "treaty";
(3) the term "setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq" as used herein means: occupation of Iraq by U.S. troops.

Ok then. So, among other things, this treaty will dictate that the U.S. retain 58 "long-term" (but not permanent!) military bases in the country, that U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors be immune from Iraqi laws, that the U.S. military control Iraqi airspace, and various other provisions of the kind which you would expect.

As you might also expect, certain shrill voices have been heard to complain about this. According to the article, "some" in Iraq view such a deal as "a form of continued occupation". Heh. One Iraqi critic states that the agreement might "lead to the colonization of Iraq". Giggle. Those silly Iraqis, going on and on about their "sovereignty". Classic!

Then we are treated to this gem: "Absent the agreements or the extension of the U.N. mandate, U.S. troops would have no legal basis to remain in Iraq." I wonder, would that be the same U.N. mandate that was passed only after top officials from the U.S. and British governments, in support thereof, unloaded upon the international community a pile of steaming bullshit, since proven almost 100% false? Because if it is, then I'd say the "legal basis" for remaining in Iraq -- in terms of validity -- closely approximates the legal basis for the Germans being in Poland some decades ago.