Bush today has made his position on withdrawal clear: the US will withdraw when an Iraq government asks us to (something a US supported government isn't likely to do) or when someone else is President.
This should make the policy difference of the two parties clear in a way that Reid, Pelosi, Warner, Clinton and Dean haven't. Continue Long-Term or End Narrow Term.
No non-Lieberman Democrat has advocated troops until 2009.
Although there is some speculation, even fear on our part, about an
'August Surprise' or 'October Surprise' in which troops would be let home right before the election, Bush's comment today makes it pretty clear that you can
forget it. Even if a nominal amount of troops were allowed to go home, this administration has no credible exit strategy and in fact, in the face of civil war, wants to continue its operations of escalation like Samara.
Bush, struggling to rebound from low job approval ratings that he blamed largely on the war, was asked at a news conference if there would come a time when no U.S. troops are in Iraq.
"That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," said Bush, who will be president until January 2009.
Notice its 'an objective.' But clearly not his.
If you read that it sounds like its coming from a lame duck waiting for the new President to be sworn in - not a guy who is going to be President for two and a half more years!
I now repeat my point in my diary yesterday, but with one added fact: the Big Honcho has now let you know that any hope you have that he might feel the pressure and remove the troops to save even his own GOPers should be gone.
It's time for Democrats to seize on the concept of 'escalation' versus withdrawal (or redeployment, buildown, troop removal, or anything else you'd like to call it). Despite the fact that the Democrats didn't create the difference, there is now a difference between the two parties on Iraq; might as well make some hay with it.