Iraq, to Boy Blunder: "Get the (cheney) OUT!"

You remember all those times Bush The Lesser claimed "We'll stay as long as we want need to, and not a day longer", don't you? You remember watching, remember hearing, remember reading "I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake." don't you?

Well, Boy Blunder is hoping, WISHING, that you don't, because now he's come the full 360 degrees: there's going to be a timetable (even if the misAdministration won't call it that), and we're going to leave not when Boy Blunder And The Plunderers want us to, but when the Iraqi's want us to. Here's what the misAdministration posted, on the White House webpage, yesterday:

"In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (White House)

"...general time horizon..."??!? Huh??!? Oh, wait - that's a TIME LINE. And, just for historical perspective, let's look at what Governor Blunder said about timelines, back when he was running to be Prez:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” (Houston Chronicle) and “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

Which, of course, should remind everyone that "Hypocrisy, thy party is GOP" because once George aWol Bush became President, timetables became bad things. Until recently, when - suddenly! - timetables are now good things, except republiCons won't call timetables "timetables", they'll call "timetables" "time horizons"

Whatever. Those that pay attention, are used to Boy Blunder And The Plunderers lying their ssessa off parsing their words.

So, why is a TIME LINE being set? Because, the United Nations Mandate that (retroactively) legalized and legitimzed the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, is set to expire at the end of this year. And although the misAdministration of Bush The Lesser has shown a clear and consistent disdain for the Rule Of Law, even the misAdministration knows they have to have some semblence of a legal basis for the continued occupation. To do this, the misAdministration has to get a "Status Of Forces Agreement" with the Iraqi Government in place, before the United Nations Mandate expires, at the end of the year. And to get a Status Of Forces Agreement in place, the misAdministration has to get the Iraqi Government to sign-off on it.

Ruh roh. "Houston, Boy Blunder got a problem." Remember, Boy Blunder said that we'd leave only when we wanted needed to, but now "we" includes "the Iraqi Govenment" in determining that. Oh, and there's a few other things the Iraqis want, if Boy Blunder wants to stay beyond the expiration of that United Nations Mandate, under a Status of Forces Agreement, like revocation of the immunity for gunslingers like Blackwater, for instance. You can expect Iraq to extract a whole bunch of "concessions" from the misAdministration, because the closer to the expiration of the United Nation's Mandate the misAdministration gets without agreement, the lesser Bush The Lesser's bargaining position is. Make no mistake: Bush The Lesser needs that Status Of Forces Agreement, which means that Iraq can - and is - telling Boy Blunder to "get the (cheney) OUT!"

Ladies and Gentlemen, what this sordid little episode of flip-flopping by Bush The Lesser clearly demonstrates is that not only can't reasonable people believe a single thing the misAdministration of Bush The Lesser says, the misAdministration of Bush The Lesser is clearly in Lame Duck status -- and the Iraqi Government is clearly aware of that.

Clearly, it's time that Democrats in Congress start acting like they are aware of it, too. It's time to start acting like the party in power, because that's clearly what the Democrats are - even if some of those currently elected, don't act like it.