Bush finally agrees to a timeline (way too late)

For years, George W. Bush rejected any war funding bill that required a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars," he told us. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible."

After all, he wanted to keep the war profiteers happy and in control of all that oil.

But now he's changed his tune.

Yesterday, you see, Iraq's cabinet approved a security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

And now that the lame duck is a mere 64 days away from a one-way ticket back to Texas, the New York Times tells us that the White House welcomed the vote as "an important and positive step" and attributed the agreement itself to security improvements in the past year.

And so he takes credit for it. Of course. Karl Rove must be so proud.

This timetable isn't yet set in stone, however. The Iraqi Parliament must now approve the deal, and some opposition is expected.

If it does pass, what does this mean for Barack Obama's plan to withdraw our troops within 16 months? Well, here Dubya has placed Obama between a rock and a hard place. According to the Associated Press, "U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, who takes office in January, has said he would pull U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of moving into the White House. [Iraqi government spokesman] Al-Dabbagh said Iraq's government has received U.S. assurances that the Obama administration would honor the agreement, and pointed out that each side has the right to repeal it after giving a one year's notice."

Meantime, how many more U.S. troops will die? And how many more innocent Iraqi men, women, and children?