I haven't found this diaried yet and plan on updating throughout the day, so tell me if I'm wrong so I can delete this.

HuffPost via the AP is reporting our obstinate, stubborn, pathetic White House has finally agreed to what We the People (both here and in Iraq) have been demanding for years.

I'm uncomfortable about this election. McCain just doesn't seem to be a worthy opponent for Obama. The campaign has already descended into trivialities instead of issues. The Republicans need a credible, viable candidate to make this all worthwhile.

It's easy to forget that the Republican convention is almost a month away. It's not too late for them to pick someone else. Not only that, it would probably all be consistent with their party rules (I admit I haven't checked). That is, if all of the primary election candidates withdrew their candidacy, including McCain, then the candidate would simply be chosen at the convention, as they were in the "old days".

The Bush administration made it a point to declare that the U.S. military's strategical progress in the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions, would not, could not, and should not, be judged in terms of body counts or other such statistics.

But it is perhaps in the interest of both the American and Iraqi people, as well as the two presidential candidates, to reflect on these numbers and to let the facts and the statistics speak for themselves.

What do 265 million dollars, international rock stardom and an unprecedented first in American politics
amount to? A single digit lead in the polls to a 71 year old who is politically similar to the current
president, one of the most unpopular in US history. As you all know Barack Obama, along with the
majority of the press, just came back from his Europe and Mid-East tour. So far, everything has gone near picture perfect. Prime minister al-Maliki agreed with Obama's time table for withdrawal, he drew a
crowd of 200,000 in Germany and he even sunk a basketball from forty feet away while hanging out
with US troops. In Europe, the current day heartland of progressivism, he would win by a land slide. And American voters don't give a damn.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the Sunday, July 27, 2008 special Late Edition show "The Next President", John McCain, when asked if Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called for a withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a certain timeframe, how he would respond, McCain said:

"He won't.  He won't, he won't."

Senator McCain seemed to be upset earlier in the interview when first asked about the Iraqis calling for a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, responding:

"Prime Minister Maliki understands that conditions have to be kept."

Let us examine these statements.

How significant is the ‘first official act’ as President?  Does it set the tone for the administration?  Does it just cater to the base?  Is it even relevant, historically?

I am not sure if the McCain camp is going to pull back from this statement, but yes according to Reuters, McCain agreed that the troops can be pulled out within two years. I am in disbelief as I write this.

During McCain's visit with GHWB, McCain was asked whether the troops could be pulled out within two years. Normally, a question like this would have fallen on deaf ears. It was only last May that McCain said in Colorado, "I will never surrender in Iraq."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/...

Well, today, a very different story.

Sorry for the "breaking" but this is just huge news:

Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.

The statement by Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki — who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.

"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.

http://news.yahoo.com/...

Cross-Posted on MYDD

I don't usually have the luxury of watching morning Joe on a workday, and I know many of you don't either, so I'd like to share how Andrew Card just got ridiculed for his mealy-mouthed defense of Bush's/McCain's "Time Horizon." His shilling was actually going quite well until, a few seconds into it, the words "Time Horizon" escaped Andy’s mouth. The result was a loud guffaw courtesy of Joe Scarborough followed by the following, unusually non-anti-Obama conversation (paraphrased, but not loosely):

Gotta' love Chuck! Here he is making the point that the trip so far is a huge win for Obama, and that even in his "CENTCOM clarification" Maliki used the word "timetable," reinforcing Obama's message on ending the war. According to Todd, this all points to the economy returning as the central issue of the campaign.

Link: YouTube

The bush administration is trying to muddy the waters about Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki's quotes in Der Spiegel that he supports Barak Obama's 16-month timetable for a withdrawal of US troops from his country.  Despite claims of "translation errors," even Fox News made Iraq's position clear:

July 8, 2008 AP Report
Iraq Insists on Withdrawal Timetable for U.S. Troops
Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
The comments.. were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.  President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

As in:

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

That's in response, in particular, to the news that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki endorsed Obama's timeline for getting US troops out of Iraq.

This doesn't help their cause either:

Previewing his meeting with Obama, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was interviewed by Speigel, a German magazine. In interview Malaki stated, for the first time, that he supports Obama's  withdawal proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."  

I don’t believe in clairvoyance.  In fact, I don’t believe in superstition of any kind.  But I think I can see something coming.  I think I can see the grand strategy of the McCain campaign regarding foreign policy.  Listening closely (or maybe not even that closely) I can observe a pattern emerging.  Let me lay out what I think the next couple months of McCain tactics are going to look like after the median.

Here we go again. The Mouth of Bush speaketh yet another time with its last gasping, dying breath. It senses November approaching and knows that the End is Near. So what's there to lose?  I am sure you've all heard statements from Bush administration and so-called Iraqi government regarding something something troop reduction/withdrawal something. I call it "so called" Iraqi government because it would not last a month without direct U.S. logistical, military and financial support. Please join me as we look at this latest attempt by Bushists to say nothing concrete yet appear to promise something the voters want.

If this has already been written about I apologize.  I did a quick search before I wrote this and didn't see any others.

With the recent news that the Iraqi government has demanded a timetable for withdrawal (which, by the way, got way less media attention than it should have--but I guess Jesse Jackson's off-color remarks and Christie Brinkley's divorce are much bigger news), it's becoming more and more clear that a long-term presence in Iraq would be unpopular with just about everyone:  Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi government, the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of the rest of the world.

In Monday's New York Times, Barack Obama will lay out his plan for withdrawal, taking into account the current situation on the ground and the recent requests for withdrawal from the Iraqi government.

ABC News recently posted an article entitled "Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult."  

This article is dishonest.  

The ABC article says that Obama's plan would be very difficult logistically and uses as evidence the statements of an American Major General.  He claims the military has the ability to remove

two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month.

How is Obama’s plan to remove ONE TO TWO brigades a month proven impractical by an American commander saying we have the capacity to remove TWO-AND-A-HALF brigades a month?  I teach English, but even I can see the flaws in this math.

May 24, 2007:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.