Bush Now Agrees to Timetable for Withdraw From Iraq!

Tweet

Bush must have hired someone to come up with a new phrase so it wouldn't appear that he'd waffled on his long-held position that there could be NO timetables for withdrawal from Iraq because it's now being calling a "time horizon". "President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or timetable." http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/18/bush-now-agrees-to-timetable-on-iraq-withdrawal-general-time-horizon/ Of course, the spin has begun. Here's an excerpt from the link above: The White House sought to make a distinction between talking with Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to force cutbacks. "I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who was traveling with Bush in Tucson, Ariz. "All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that," Stanzel said. "We are making progress on the security situation. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months." End of excerpt. I'm admittedly confused here but I trust someone here will help clear it up for me. Is Bush now agreeing to a timetable or is this a case where a timetable isn't really a timetable since we all know setting a timetable is the same as "cutting and running" which would mean "losing", even though nobody has ever defined "winning" or "losing" although we've heard that if things were still going badly and there was a lot of violence in Iraq we can't leave but when things are going better and there is less violence THEN we can't leave... How about McCain, is he now for a timetable that isn't a timetable? Here's his statment: "Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. ... If we had followed Sen. Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized." Meanwhile, this is what Ben Rose, a senior adviser to Obama, said: "It's another indication that the administration is moving toward ... Sen. Obama's position on negotiating the removal of our forces as part of our ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government." All this spinning is making me dizzy! Let's discuss it - who's right, who's wrong, who's now agreeing with who or is it all just a bunch of political nonsense? Annie