We've known for years that the biggest winner in Iraq was Iran. After all, Iran sacrificed untold blood and treasure fighting Saddam's Iraq in the 1980's, and was delighted to see the U.S. capture and kill their nemesis Saddam. Better yet for Iran, Saddam's Sunni regime was replaced by a Shia regime with close ties to Shia Iran, led by Nouri al Maliki.

Bush and the Neocons wanted Chalabi to run Iraq, but had to settle for Maliki. As Maliki got closer to Iran, the Neocons wanted to stage a coup but quickly abandoned the idea. Today Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times reports U.S. influence over Maliki is practically nil, while Iran's influence is steadily growing.

In July, an anonymous U.S. official famously described the US-Iraq basing agreement as "a bridge to have the authority in place so we don't turn into a pumpkin on December 31" - because the U.N. mandate that authorizes the U.S. military occupation of Iraq expires at midnight, just like the spell that turned Cinderella's carriage back into a pumpkin.

Several times since, Busheviks have declared the US-Iraq agreement a "done deal." But each time, that declaration proved to be a lie. And so it is again:

Chances of completing the signing of an agreement... retreated following the optimism caused by the statements of [Condi Rice] in Baghdad last week. The two sides said negotiations are still going on in an attempt to solve their differences, and one of the members of the Iraqi negotiating team told AlHayat that the two sides are in agreement on the broad lines, but there are particular conceptual and legal differences respecting these clauses and the methods for applying them and their timing. Meanwhile parliamentary sources [said they] are inclined to think that putting this through Parliament will be delayed until next year.

Delayed until next year? It looks like Condi's carriage will turn into a pumpkin in 127 days...

The position of George Bush and John McSame on Iraq has been consistent, adamant, and simple: victory not surrender. So when will Gen. Petraeus be court-martialed?

"We have to let go, and we're not reluctant to do that. And the Iraqis are not reluctant to take control," Gen. Petraeus said.

Could there be a clearer statement of surrender than this?

Petraeus' surrender appeared in yet another article about an all-but-signed "deal" to extend the U.S. military occupation beyond the 12/31/08 expiration of the U.N. mandate. But just like every previous "deal," this latest one is nowhere near "done."

John McCain's campaign consists primarily of negative attacks on Barack Obama. But on those rare occasions when he "goes positive," McCain's claim to fame is the alleged success of "the surge" in Iraq. In fact, as Satyam at ThinkProgress notes, McCain now advocates a "surge" as the solution for just about everything.

Moments ago, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who last year famously admitted to not understanding economics — called for an “economic surge” in a speech in Ohio today...

McCain’s policy prescriptions for the major issues often boil down to simply tacking on the word “surge.” In the past, he has trumpeted the Iraq surge and recently embraced an Afghanistan surge. Last week, he suggested a surge to control inner-city crime.

After Nouri al Maliki declared his support for Barack Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan to Der Spiegel, the Busheviks squeezed Maliki's testicles as hard as they could to get him to "walk back" his statement.

But Maliki stood his ground. On Sunday, his spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Maliki did not endorse Obama's candidacy - which is consistent with what Maliki told Der Spiegel - but refused to "walk back" Maliki's support for Obama's 16-month plan.

Nouri al Maliki's interview with Der Spiegel is making headlines:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

A week ago, Obama got into big trouble when he said he would "refine" his 16-month Iraq withdrawal policy based on "more information" from "commanders on the ground." Was that a sign he was going to pull a "FISA flip-flop" on Iraq? Obama insisted he wasn't, and in today's NY Times he reiterates his 16-month withdrawal plan.

Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president.

But there appears to be a powerful force pushing Obama to not end the Iraq war - the Center for a New American Security, or CNAS for short.

In June, the Busheviks admitted the Iraq SOFA was dying a slow death. Today they admitted it's dead.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration. 

What killed it? The Busheviks blame "the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms." What were those terms?

The most contentious unresolved issue is the legal immunity of U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi prosecution for any alleged crime.

On Monday, Nouri al Maliki told Arab ambassadors in Abu Dhabi that he was seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of the security agreement with the U.S.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."

The Busheviks insisted there must have been a translation error. 

On Tuesday, Maliki's national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaien went further and declared the timetable non-negotiable, according to Agence France Presse.

Josh Marshall is right to attack McCain's attempt to bamboozle the Corporate Media (and voters) into believing there is no difference between Obama and McCain on Iraq.

We have two candidates with starkly different positions. Barack Obama is for an orderly and considered withdrawal of all US combat forces in Iraq, a process he says he will begin immediately upon taking office. John McCain supports a permanent garrisoning of US troops on military bases in Iraq -- a long-term 'presence' which he hopes will require a constantly-diminishing amount of actual combat and thus an ever-diminishing toll in American lives.