So I'm reading about Obama's speech today in which he says he might "refine" his timeline for ending the war given improving conditions in Iraq.
This seems to be a wiggly effort to extend his 16-month timeline for withdrawal. I'm sure he wouldn't go as far as John McCain's 100- or 1,000-year withdrawal plans, but extending at all is just as nonsensical.
If the goal is to stay until we stabilize Iraq, why does it seem as if we're making plans to stay longer because Iraq is more stable? For my dime (and all our billions) it should mean we can leave sooner.
But I am getting used to this.
After all, we helped the Democrats take Congress so we could end this war.
We even re-elected people like Hillary who had given Bush permission for it, because they'd learned the error of their ways.
Yet they've caved at every step and given Bush everything he wanted.
Yes, it's tough. If they refused funding, Bush might very well stage a showdown and them the troops there until they run out of bullets. Yes, the GOP will try to blame us if we leave without some semblance of 'victory,' and a 'loss' will not be easily accepted by many Americans.
But at some point, you have to stand up for principle. And you have to have the balls to know they can't blame you for something successfully unless you don't fight back.
Especially Bush. The guy has no credibility left, so why does he still get to call the shorts.
Obama seemed to understand this. His campaign has been based on the realization that this war is simply wrong, this occupation is bad for our country, and the fact that more troops means more security but doesn't make this war anything but a mess.
This speech, of course, is only Obama's preparation for his visit to Iraq. I understand the need to be diplomatic.
But I will be disappointed if he returns with a changed message of anything other than "one two three four, we still don't need this f****** war."
Well, he can be a little more diplomatic than that.
Here's the story.