When "Out" Means "Out"

"A general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals." That doesn't sound like a whole lot -- and in fact it isn't, but it's a damn sight better than the digging in of heels that the Bush administration has displayed up until now when it came to the question of when we would ever get out of Iraq. The Iraqis want us to leave, and we haven't said no -- at least not in so many words. Isn't this because, if they ask us to leave and we refuse, it will call into question one or more of our current justifications for having gone over there in the first place? And of course we can never publicly admit the real reasons we're over there, so that's no help either -- if you fall back on "special pleading" you at least have to have a plea, otherwise it's a non-starter. But it is interesting -- although it may be purely coincidental -- that the Iraqis have chosen our election season as the time to take a stand. Maybe they think that a refusal by the Bushites would endanger the Republicans in the November elections... and that is something that, obviously, cannot be permitted to occur. Or maybe they've decided that Obama is going to win, and they are paving the way for him to -- with great relief! -- withdraw American troops with the full consent and cooperation of the natives. Or maybe it is, indeed, just a coincidence... but it's funny how many "coincidences" in the foreign policy arena happen to coincide with American elections. It's almost as if foreign governments and other entitites see our elections as windows of opportunity -- or as our Achilles heel -- or a bit of both... in any case, times at which their pleas are likely to fall on somewhat more receptive (or desperate) ears. Well, we already know how they play our State Department like a violin at every opportunity -- so why not the American electorate? American voters are known, world-wide, for their impulsiveness, foolishness, gullibility, and misplaced patriotism -- and a foreign government or entity with an agenda would be silly not to take advantage of this fact. Plus, let's face it, the fine hand of America has left its greasy fingerprints on any number of foreign elections, coups, revolutions, etc. over the years -- so maybe it's payback time. Maybe it's "karma". In any case, it's good to see someone standing up for their right of self-determination.

And to the above I might add that "White House spokesman Scott Stanzel denied that the agreement with al-Maliki represents a concession by the Bush administration". When you hear that you know that that is precisely what it _does_ represent. It's like the best evidence for UFOs being the fact that the Air Force has always denied they exist. But that raises a question -- what do the Bushites do now? Do they pretend to go along with this idea, figuring that will give McCain the best chance in November? Or do they trash the idea and go back to business as usual, figuring _that_ will give McCain the best chance in November? Or... if they don't care any more about McCain than they do about their own reputations, well...