Bush and Rice are talking "Timetables"....uh isn't this what Obama and the

[Bread and Circus]

rest of us have been arguing for, for years?

Doesn't this in fact vindicate Obama's judgement and rhetoric while totally skewering McCain's never ending saber rattling?

How many times does Obama need to be right before people go, hey wait a minute let's listen to this guy and reject that fool that keeps wanting to get us deeper into the same trouble we've been in for 8 years?

I just have to shake my head in disgust at the media and the willfully ignorant citezenry that still somehow supports McCain.

I for one want my children to grow up in a world of promise and future, not a world of darkness and perpetual war proferred by old men that have no business sending other people's sons and daughter's off to war to fight for corporate profits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/white-house-iraq-agree-on_n_120323.html

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday that U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that timetables should be set for a U.S. troop withdrawal, but conceded that nailing down a broader pact on future relations is difficult.

...

[bushisanidiot]

1. Yep. AWOL Bush is a complete hypocrite. He ends up doing exactly what his opponents said he should

but he acts like HE came up with the idea.

What a tool.

[sakabatou]

2. Wasn't he too against timetables?

[blm]

3. Yes...but he came around to the idea in the months after that June2006 vote.

Only 13 senators supported a timetable then. I think some just didn't want to acknowledge that Iraq was already in a civil war then.

[Yavin4]

4. Here's The Algorithm

1. Obama says something that makes sense.

2. Obama is ridiculed and criticized for saying something that makes sense.

3. Media belittles Obama and praises McCain for being tough.

4. Obama is later proven 100% correct.

5. There's silence.

6. Repeat.

[Igel]

5. Might be.

Haven't read about this particular proposal.

One kind of timetable reads like this:
Dec 2008 have 2 divisions out if Diyala is stable; else play kick the can.
Feb 2009 remove 2 more divisions if Anbar is stable; else play kick the can
June 2009 remove 3 divisions if Mosul is stable; else play kick the can

Another kind reads like this:
Dec 2008 have 2 divisions out of Diyala as American troop safety allows it
Feb 2009 remove 2 more divisions out of Anbar if American troop safety allows it
June 2009 remove 3 divisions out of Mosul if American troop safety allows it.

In practice, presumably the second is incorporated into the first; the first is not part of the second. Since the first timetable is inherently unstable--since it's so conditions-based "guidelines" or "goals" might be a better way of putting it--the term's rejected for that, by and large. But it's a politically loaded term, implying a clear terminus ad quem, so it's popular.

However, there's a corollary to the second timetable: Maintain training and quick-response troops in sufficient numbers to support Iraqi troops in case of emergency. This fuzzes the clear terminus ad quem.

The second crucially leaves essential patrols and ground operations out, and does the "American casualties are down because they're holed up in their bases" game--this time, with approval from those who mocked the idea previously. With sufficient stability, those aren't an issue, however. With the difference in conditions and motivations neutralized, the two kinds of timetable then appear to be the same. But a flare-up in violence would again throw them into sharp relief.