Well - we're off into tangential territory to the article, so this will all probable get modded offtopic. That's ok - the US presence in Iraq is relevant to the US ability to affect any change in Iran, so it's not too far offtopic. :)
First off, I generally support the idea you're getting at - the appearance and perception of imperialism doesn't help the US in the slightest. Furthermore, the entire war premise was on dubious grounds to begin with (and "dubious" is a generous description of it.)
That being said - accuracy is important. Forming opinions about what's going on based on an understanding of the facts is much more useful than forming opinions based on kneejerk reactions to the crappy media reporting we get.
Have we abandoned our permanent military bases in Iraq?
Repeating this question over and over again doesn't really hep anything. You claim that the text of the agreement leaves room to interpret what we still "own" places or have made permanent structures. This is incorrect:
From the agreement: (Article Two - Definition of Terms)
"The installations and areas agreed upon" refers to the Iraqi areas used by the U.S. Forces while this agreement is valid."
and later (Article 5 - Ownership of Property)
Iraq owns all the buildings and installations, the nontransferable structures on the ground that are located in the areas and installations agreed upon, including those the U.S. utilizes, constructs, changes or improves.
and even later (Article 24 - Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.
All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns ... on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces... are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns
The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.
So you claim that the bases are permanent, but the agreement clearly states that they are owned by Iraq, not the US. You claim that we aren't withdrawing combat forces, pointing to the Victory Base Complex as your sole example. You claim we aren't leaving when the agreement clearly states a specific end date when all forces will be gone.
As far as as the Victory Base Complex goes - where do you suggest soldiers go as they depart the country? Maybe to the airfield where they will fly out? Might it make sense to stage all the units at the large base next to the airfield? Also - it's way off on the western edge of the city, which has urban sprawl that's now reached it. One side of VBC is against the city, while the other side faces the open desert. The Iraqi Government has specifically said that while it's status as "outside the city" is uncertain for the purposes of this agreement it will be defined as such. You seem to imply that such a position is tantamount to keeping combat soldiers in every city in the country. Your position is hyperbole at best and downright false at worst.
Where is your source of information? Who is telling you that we aren't abiding by the terms of the agreement? I'll tell you. I'm in Baghdad right now, I can see with my own eyes the how the pullout is going. I read the orders that define where we can and can't go, I see how tightly restricted our operations are. The "drawdown" has had an extremely marked effect. I know that from your perspective I'm merely some internet asshat, but I'm here, on the ground, in Baghdad and I can see it playing out before my eyes.
As far as the oil ownership goes - a couple of comments: ExxonMobil is American, Shell is Dutch, British Petroleum is British (who would have guessed?), and Total is French. Additionally, from the article you linked as your source - these are small, short term contracts between the Iraqi government and the companies in question - i.e. the Iraqi government set these contracts up, not the US Government. How, pray tell, does this indicate that "we own the oil"?
I know I'm probably appearing as a war apologist here which really couldn't be farther from the truth. I just want to see the public discourse centered around facts not emotionally laden hyperbole and fabrications.
Should we have invaded Iraq? I doubt it.
Should we withdraw? Yes.
Are we in-fact withdrawing? Yes.