“There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control,” Rubaie said.

What in the world? Could this actually be the end of the permanent-occupation deal? Who put something in my drink?

You’re forgetting that “one Iraqi on the gate” example from a month or so back.
There’s a ref from 2006 talking about 48 military bases being under Iraqi control. You’re thinking there’s zero, or that control equates to the presence of US forces.

“Mowaffaq al-Rubaie (has anyone else noticed he’s been in his position for the last three premiers? Who’s paying his salary, huh?)”

I don’t think he’s like that Shahwani guy the U.S. imposed as head of our the Iraqi intelligence agency. If anything, he’s the reverse — I’ve seen him described as the Iraqi politician closest to Sistani.

I’d also dissent from your take that “Sistani has had it up to here with Maliki’s flirtations with a permanent occupation.” Your interpretation seems to be that Maliki has to placate Sistani, but ultimately will obey Bush. I think the truth is (and always has been) exactly the opposite.

The really interesting question is what Bush/Cheney would say/do if the Iraqi government and parliament say no deal without a firm timetable for withdrawal and complete Iraqi sovereignty. Rubber, meet road. This would lead to some considerable shakeup’s in US campaign posturing before Nov. Would the GOP actually take the position that we will stay on the US’s terms, and continue an occupation with no agreement after the UN authorization expires at the end of the year? Or would Cheney go back to the UN for an extension and perhaps face a denial based on lack of Iraqi agreement. [rubs hands together].

One could almost have deja vu in advance of neo-con heads popping like popcorn.

It’s too good to be true in all likelihood, but a boy can dream.