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.

Yup, just what I've been saying for months - immunity for U.S. troops is a deal-breaker because there is no way Iraq can be "sovereign" if American troops can kill Iraqi civilians or troops with impunity. And let's not even mention breaking into homes, arresting the men, and "offending" the women.

So without a SOFA, what is the fall-back position for the Busheviks? Most observers assumed Bush and Maliki would simply seek an extension of the U.N. mandate for another year, but that option seems to be "off the table":

Neither country wants an extension of the U.N. mandate. Iraq has rejected its explicit limits on sovereignty, and the administration believes that a limited extension would only postpone the need for a bilateral accord and potentially leave U.S. troops with "our backs against the wall."

The Iraqi objection is obvious, but the U.S. objection - leaving our troops with their "backs against the wall" - isn't clear, since Iraqi troops would not start firing on U.S. troops if the U.N. mandate was extended. The more likely explanation is that Russia and/or China would use their U.N. veto to block the extension because they hate Bush's guts.

So the Busheviks have adopted a new metaphor, a "bridge":

In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year...

the document now under discussion with Iraq is likely to cover only 2009. Negotiators expect it to include a "time horizon," with specific goals for U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations such as the former Saddam Hussein palace that now houses the U.S. Embassy.

Kicking U.S. troops out of the Green Zone? That's definitely spitting in Bush's face.

"We think that by the end of 2008 all the zones in Baghdad should be integrated into the city," said Ali Dabbagh, the government's spokesman. "The American soldiers should be based in agreed camps outside the cities and population areas.

"By the end of the year, there will be no green zone," he added. "The separation by huge walls makes people feel angry." Dabbagh acknowledged that getting rid of the green zone would be a huge undertaking, given the thousands of American soldiers, private contractors and foreign workers who live inside. He said the concrete walls that divide it from the rest of the city would be taken down slowly, "depending on the threat and circumstances".

Maliki wants U.S. troops out of his capital, and Iraqis want U.S. troops out of Iraq altogether. And they adamantly reject the idea that U.S. forces must stay to protect Iraq from domestic or foreign enemies:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his political allies have come under intense domestic pressure to reject any perceived infringement on Iraqi sovereignty. Maliki, who last week publicly insisted on a withdrawal timeline, wants to frame the agreement as outlining the terms for "Americans leaving Iraq" rather than the conditions under which they will stay, said the U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because U.S.-Iraqi negotiations are ongoing.

So how will the Busheviks preserve their imperial conquest in the face of this anti-imperial "frame?" By desperately trying to "change the narrative."

The idea, he said, is to "take the heat off [Maliki] a little bit, to rebrand the thing and counter the narrative that he's negotiating for a permanent military presence in Iraq."

That will be awfully hard to accomplish while Bush's chosen successor John McCain is telling voters he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 1,000 1,000,000 years. There may be just one way for Bush to get his "bridge" approved by the Iraqis: endorsing Barack Obama!

Update 1: Siun focuses on the fraudulent aspects of the U.S. proposal:

Will the “withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities” equal withdrawal from Iraq – or a withdrawal to bases - just as the “no permanent bases” means permanent bases “owned” by Iraq and “rented” to an American occupying force?...

While some see this new plan as a sign that the GZG has stood up to Bush, the final comment in the WaPo article lays out what is really happening here:

According to U.S. officials, Maliki also hopes that a temporary protocol would circumvent the full parliamentary review and two-thirds vote he has promised for a status-of-forces agreement. "He is trying to figure out, just as we did, how you can set up an agreement between the two and have it be legally binding," one official said, "but not go through the legislative body."

And that's because both the Iraqi Parliament and the U.S. Congress would reject a continuing U.S. occupation.

Bush and Maliki are trying to work out some kind of deal - any kind of deal - to keep over 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. But the Shia majority hates the occupation and wants us gone. "Rebranding the thing" would work in the U.S. because the Corporate Media controls all policy debates, but the Iraqi people aren't sitting home getting brainwashed by their TV's.

Meanwhile Bush needs a legal document - not a "rebranding" - with immunity for U.S. troops. And that document must be signed by the Iraqi government. And Maliki is unwilling to sign a document that gives immunity to U.S. troops. So they're left negotiating a temporary "bridge" document to be signed by two dictators, hoping each country's legislature won't object.

I have no confidence in the Reid-Pelosi Congress, but I'm pretty sure the only agreement the Iraqi Parliament will accept will be one that sends U.S. back to their bases immediately and gradually sends them all home.

And while our troops remain in Iraq, we will have to operate under Iraqi supervision. Our troops will not be allowed to meddle in Iraqi politics. We will not be allowed to arm Sunni opponents to the Shia government. We will not be allowed to use our bases to bomb Iran, or let Israeli planes land on our bases for that purpose. We will not be allowed to arm terrorists from MEK or other groups to infiltrate Iran.

The neocon imperial fantasy has come to an end. Their magical words like "liberation" and "freedom" have lost their magic. Our overwhelmingly powerful military is nothing more than a guest in a country that is determined to exercise its sovereignty and send us home.

At this point, the neocons can only slow the process of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, they can't stop it. But they can only slow the process with some kind of "bridge" agreement, or we "turn into a pumpkin" on December 31.

I think the odds are 50-50 we will turn into a pumpkin.