Our "enduring relationship" with Iraq

[Proud Liberal Dem]

Although there has been much discussion in recent days about Iraq, "Surge", Patreaus, etc. I have noticed surprisingly little discussion about Bush's speech on Thursday, specifically his proposal of an "enduring relationship" with Iraq which, as the President has suggested, involves us having an ongoing military presence over there for years, if not decades a la South Korea. I thought that this statement would lead a burst of angry speeches, outrage among the public (of both parties), or at least some mention by Democrats and progressives but there doesn't seem to be much discussion or if there is discussion it seems to more out of resignation than hope for change. It seems inevitable, however maddingly frustrating, that Bush et. al are going to maintain our occupation in Iraq at least until the end of Bush's presidency and that Congress, now that the previously wavering moderate Republicans seem re-committed to Bush's plans for Iraq, will not defund the occupation anytime before then. Additionally, nearly all of the Democrats in Congress are indicating that they will continue to fund troops to whatever tune Bush presents as long as he keeps troops over there, which, of course, will at least be to the end of his disastrous Presidency but I don't understand how or why, in a country that is now firmly opposed to maintaining a military presence in Iraq, there is not much outrage, let alone discussion, about the notion of us staying there for several more years or decades and what that will mean for our country. Maybe a lot of people tuned out his speech or have just tuned out of the political process altogether and have no idea what is going on but it would seem to me that the Democrats should now have a stronger leg to stand on in terms of fighting Bush et. al over Iraq yet everybody seems to mainly be talking about Patreaus and his testimony, which, though at times was refreshingly (if unintentionally) honest (i.e. when he acknowledged that he didn't know that being in Iraq actually makes us safer), nonetheless still came across as a desperate attempt to maintain some veneer of credibility for Bush's "surge" plan. My biggest concern and what I believe the rest of us should be concerned about is Bush making commitments to other that other Presidents are going to likely feel obliged to maintain even if it may not be in the best interests of our country (and it isn't in my opinion), specifically this "enduring relationship" plan of his. Is this something that is going to have to be ratified by Congress or can Bush make these arrangements on his own? Aren't Republicans, who currently stand on the brink of total defeat in 2008 (largely because of Iraq), worried about this? So far, nobody on the Republican side, except for maybe Chuck Hagel, and certainly NONE of the GOP Presidential candidates other than the lone anti-war candidate Ron Paul, have denounced the idea. In fact, all of the pro-war GOP candidates seem to have fully embraced this plan. Any thoughts on this?

[whistle]

1. How many Iraqis are dying each day while Bush tries to keep his legacy

...as the War President who avoided defeat while still in office? 5,000 a month? 15,000 a month? 30,000 a month?