Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline
July 19, 2008 – 11:54 amHOUSTON — President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home.
Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.
The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.
The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe.
But the White House statement said that the two leaders “agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”
The announcement could alter the American political debate over the war in Iraq and how best to end it now that even Mr. Bush is willing to speak of an end to the American presence. It came on the eve of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who has vowed to pursue a strict phased timetable for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq over 16 months beginning next year. He has cited Iraq’s eagerness for a timetable as support for his strategy.
Anyone else get the feeling that we’ve stepped Through The Looking Glass into Lewis Carroll territory…that Humpty Dumpty is once again telling us, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
In an effort to distance themselves from Senator Obama’s long-standing call for a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, the administration has devised the maddening locution, “a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals,” and has the chutzpah to deny that this in any way represents a timetable for…troop withdrawal!
Apparently, when reality bites these Masters of Dissembling and Obfuscation in the ass, they have no qualms about adopting the very positions that they have previously ridiculed!
6 Responses to “Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline”
Flip flopping is bipartisan, however, the American public needs to know that Senator McCain’s policy in Iraq is to the right of the President. That is indeed newsworthy.
By Joshua Rosenstock on Jul 19, 2008
The phrase, “…a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals,” is a masterpiece of the art of writing gobbledygook, not that Bush would have the wherewithal to come up with it himself.
This administration has far exceeded any lawerly stretches of language ever essayed by Bill Clinton in its continuing assault on the rule of law and our Constitution.
Not since Nixon have we seen such arrogant abuse of executive power as the Bush/Cheney partnership has committed in its drive to secure the oil fields of Iraq.
These petro-thugs have never hesitated to assert powers never delegated to them by any Congress, and have distorted the language of Constitutional law, through the Justice Department, to gain political advantage whenever convenient.
Men without conscience or principle have hijacked our government. When will we take it back?
By Vince Williams on Jul 20, 2008
@Steve - excellent post.
@Joshua
I’ll dissent on the point whether one being against an actual timetable is an example of right wing thought. Timetables are the easy way out and a bit disingenuous in my book. Leaving should predicate on three things. The desire of the Iraqi government and the country’s people to have us there, our national security interests, and the situation on the ground.
Bush is sort of now getting a pass on the first one, our national security may be worse as to whether we go or stay, and the situation on the ground is improving with the surge.
Bush and the neocon blowhards may be setting up the next admin to take the fall post election…Iraq gave us the thumbs up to start pulling out…the situation was improving…it isn’t our fault that there’s chaos now. It’s McCain’s/Obama’s fault.
By Jonathan Trenn on Jul 21, 2008
Being against a timetable may not be an example of “right wing thought, but it still defies logic.
The past five years have shown that a timetable is the responsible way out of a war that otherwise has no end in sight.
The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people want us to leave, and there is evidence that the situation on the ground has improved, although it is still dangerous.
Obama has always based his position on meeting those three conditions.
McCain, who has been a cheerleader for this war from the beginning, is certainly responble for the chaos there.
But how the hell can this be OBAMA’S fault???
By steve levine on Jul 21, 2008
Steve, when Jonathan said, “It’s McCain’s/Obama’s fault”, he was pretending to speak in the voice of Bush and the neocon blowhards– imagining what bullshit they’d say to deflect blame and try to get themselves off the hook, post-election.
Bush would find any scapegoat useful in his attempt, however futile, to burnish his legacy of failure.
By Vince Williams on Jul 21, 2008
Thanks for pointing that out, Vince.
My mistake. I missed the context of “it’s McCain/Obama’s fault” in Jonathan’s 7/21 post.
By steve levine on Jul 22, 2008