Hillary makes moot point.

The Guardian pointed out on November 26th, 2007: US pledges long-term presence in Iraq

MSNBC announces the same day: Bush signs 'principles' for long-term Iraq role
Deal sets foundation for negotiations on troop size, U.S. investments which is a little clearer.

On one hand, it seems it is only a, "declaration of principles, which is not binding," according to General Douglas Luke, in The Guardian. On the other hand, "He noted that the agreement, because it was not a treaty, would not be subject to oversight by Congress."

This is not the only moot part, where there is some worry that Bush will tie the hands of future administrations.

Here is the mooter part.
Hillary does deserves points for bringing it up. But it has been out there for some time.

But more to the point is why are Bush's hands not tied already. But not to worry, nothing that Bush does should tie any one's hands in the future. But Republicans will still try to tie things up, until they can be back in the untied crowd.

Seriously, just because there is no clear line, and precedence and laws are quaint and old fashioned, does not mean that the vicious cycle will stop, but freedom from such is a double-edged sword which the people need to wield.

This was my flash analysis before finding the above two links, the first of which I had probably run by and filed before. Here are two more detailed links I will review later, for possible update.

US, Iraq set stage for long US presence Brisbane Times

Bush, Maliki pave way for permanent U.S. presence www.back-to-iraq.com *

* a sharp comment
[post dated: see update