BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have reached agreement on a proposal calling for a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by 2012, the head Iraqi negotiator said Friday.

The deal still must be approved by both sides, said Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, deputy foreign minister and head of the Iraqi negotiating team.

Hamoud said Thursday's meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was helpful in reaching the tentative agreement.

Hamoud said the proposal also says the last date for the presence of U.S. troops in cities and towns will be June 30, 2009.

There are clear caveats, however.

If the Iraqi government sees the necessity of keeping the American forces in cities and towns or in Iraq past December 31, 2011, it would ask that the Americans stay. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground.

Regarding the issue of troop immunity from Iraqi law and American authority over military operations, American authorities would have jurisdiction over their troops. Hamoud also said that in case of a major crime such as murder, the case would be reviewed by a U.S.-Iraqi joint committee.

As for detainee authority, any kind of detention must be ordered by a judge under Iraqi law. Detainees must be delivered to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their arrests by both Iraqi and American forces. This would go into effect January 1, when the U.N. mandate outlining the presence of U.S.-led coalition troops expires.

Asked to comment on Friday on these remarks, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said Rice noted progress toward hammering out a pact.

After Rice met with al-Maliki, she and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari briefed reporters. Zebari said both sides were "very close" to finalizing the agreement. Rice said that what had been formulated up to that point was a "very good agreement."

She said that the "ultimate goal is to have Iraqi forces responsible for the security of Iraq" and that they agreed to "some goals, some aspirational timetables" for troop withdrawals would be worth for having.

"What we're trying to do is to put together an agreement that protects our people, that respects Iraqi sovereignty, that allows us to lay the kind of foundation that we need for making certain that we complete the work that we've all sacrificed so greatly to see accomplished, and that work is being accomplished," she said.

His response to this could be the thing that finally decides if i am going to throw my support behind him.

I am glad that the Administration has finally shifted to accepting a timetable for the removal of our combat troops from Iraq.

Success in Iraq depends on an Iraqi government that is reconciling its differences and taking responsibility for its future, and a timetable is the best way to press the Iraqis to do just that. I welcome the growing convergence around this pragmatic and responsible position.

A mutual agreement between Iraq and the US on how and when to withdraw troops is not at all the same as the US decided upon timetable for withdrawal that Democrats have been stumping about.

Maybe he hasn't read over the agreement, but we aren't forcing them to do anything.

This agreement has been in the works for a long time now. Discussions were started ages ago because a U.N. mandate that gives the U.S. legal cover to stay in Iraq ends in the coming months. This timetable gives us legal recourse to continue operations in Iraq.

Heck, at one point, Obama was stumping to have all the troops out within a month![

This is a MUTUAL agreement, not a one sided decision.

McCain and Bush were not in any shape or form suggesting to maintain anything resembling our current presence there, and for you to continue to suggest it, after I have explained this to you before, is simply blatantly and purposefully lying.

Again, we have a PERMANENT presence in over 70% of the countries in the world.

I'm sorry, in what way does this prove that I'm lying about a permanent troop presence in Iraq?

Oh right, it doesn't.

what he is implying is that you seem to think that permanent presence means we will be in Iraq in the same fashion we are now for the rest of time.

If the same can be said for a permanent base in Iraq, then why so much grief?

Sigh, as big a fool as you are

Continuing to represent what McCain said regarding a permanent presence to seem as though he supports keep the status quo forever is nothing but a lie, regardless of whatever you want to call it.

You are lying because you blatantly and knowingly misrepresent information in a falsified way.

And heck, at one point, Bush and McCain were stumping to have the troops stay forever! I guess that means the current deal is in no way what Bush was suggesting either. So not mutual then, right?

I guess that means the current deal is in no way what Bush was suggesting either. So not mutual then, right?

You then counter by clearly reference McCain's comment on a permanent presence in a light that makes it seem as thought they want to maintain the current situation forever.

Please go read the agreement, it in no way removes our troops from their country, and in no way ends our presence there, it just removes us from their cities.

The presence McCain was referring to, a presence similar to what we have in 135+ other countries, will be EXACTLY what is remaining come 2012.

There is no doubt, I am making assumptions from what you wrote, but they are sound logical continuations based on your current, and past comments.

If I am so wrong on what you meant, please, explain your comment to me!

Were you instead mocking a permanent presence in the country of the fashion we have in 135 other countries? If so, why? What exactly do you find so outlandish with that situation?