Digby has an entry up about an attempt by Bush to tie the hands of the next President, keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely.
It isn't a treaty so Senate approval (at least explicit approval) isn't necessary. It would be a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that would setup the disposition of our military in Iraq henceforth, replacing the UN mandate. The hope (by Bush) is that this will lock President Obama, Hillary, or Edwards into keeping forces in Iraq regardless of their wishes or the wishes of the public.
Frankly, I call bullshit. ANYTHING done by a President by the mere stroke of a pen can be undone with a simple contravening stroke of a pen by another President. Nevertheless, this situation MUST be addressed by the candidates. We MUST extract from Obama, Clinton, and Edwards a statement to the effect that anything Bush signs is entirely provisional and subject to review by the next Administration. That we will NOT keep a substantial military presence in Iraq beyond the next term. That we will NOT have permanent, nor semi-permanent military bases in Iraq. We must begin a new Administration without any anchors and make no mistake, what Bush is attempting here is to not only tie the hands of the next President, but to also tie an anchor to that President as well. Our candidates MUST be made to see anything signed by Bush as non-binding on them and they must make this clear to the Iraqi people and the Iraqi "government".