It’s not a timetable; it’s a ‘general time horizon’

The White House issued a press statement this morning, coinciding with the latest video conference between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Pay particular attention to the delightful new euphemism.

“In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.

“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. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.” [emphasis added]

So, the Bush administration is coming around on the notion of a withdrawal timetable? No, no, of course not. Don’t be silly. They’re just beginning to see the merit in a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals.

I can just picture the White House communications staffers, sitting around, trying to come up with the right phrase that didn’t include “timetable.” They best they could up with is “general time horizon,” which I can’t help but find kind of amusing.

Newsday’s John Riley points out the ways in which Bush and McCain seem to be coming around to Obama’s way of thinking.

McCain can still take credit for anticipating the helpful effects of the surge, and he can point to the language about “improving conditions on the ground” instead of an “arbitrary” deadline. But how can he seriously argue that Obama and the Democrats are wrong in calling for a timetable for eliminating combat forces, when the White House and the Iraqi government are also calling for a timetable.

Notably, this comes during a week when the WH has also moved in Obama’s direction by authorizing a top envoy to meet with Iran over nuclear enrichment.

Yes, and McCain took Obama’s Afghanistan policy as his own, too.

In fact, Josh Marshall noted the trend, highlighting the fact that Bush and McCain, in coordination, have been “systematically drawing back from their positions on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran and either fully embracing or moving toward those held for some time by Barack Obama.”

McCain and now the White House (via the DOD) are moving toward more US troops in Afghanistan — a position they’ve each long opposed and which Obama has been on record in support of for at least a year.

Bush and McCain have each also in different ways tried to nudge closer to Obama’s position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. The key shoe falling today is President Bush’s embrace of a “time horizon” for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, McCain’s declaration of military victory in Iraq seems very much like an effort to get people thinking the troops are coming home soon within the conceptual architecture of his professed goals in Iraq.

And finally Iran. I’m not certain what McCain himself has said about Iran in recent days. But over recent months a key line of attack from the president and John McCain has been that Obama is a latter-day Neville Chamberlain for saying we should negotiate with Iran. And now over recent days we’ve learned that the White House is sending one of its top diplomats to negotiate directly with Iran’s nuclear negotiator. And there are growing signs the White House is poised to open a diplomatic interests section (an unofficial diplomatic outpost) in Tehran.

In the case of Iran, the flashpoint has been meetings between heads of state. So there’s not a direct equation. And McCain’s and Bush’s supporters can still point to this as the bright line they have not and will not cross.

But when the spin is wiped away, for all the scrutiny and hand-wringing about the nuances about Obama’s 16 months, there’s simply no denying that all the real movement at this point in the campaign shows Bush/McCain trying to nudge closer to the ground Obama already holds.

For an inexperienced rube, I guess that Obama guy knows what he’s talking about on foreign policy after all.

The difference between a “timetable” and a “general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals” is a lot like the difference between Bush and McCain.

These people are shameless. Totally, utterly shameless.

  • Does it occur to anyone else that getting to a horizon is like trying to find the end of a rainbow? It changes as you move towards it.

    This is the perfect term of art for the Bushites. They are aways moving towards a horizon. They just never get to one.

  • Two euphemisms in one sentence: time horizon for timetable and aspirational goals for benchmarks. And they call liberals politically correct. This is rich.

  • “A general time horizon” sounds a LOT more like “indefinitely” than it sounds like a timetable, despite the presence of the word “time” in it. Like Lance says, there is no way to get to “the horizon”.

    Anyone who believes Bush at this point needs their head examined.

  • This doesn’t surprise me. After all, when confronted with the overwhelming evidence that there were no WMD’s in Iraq the President smirked that Iraq had “Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities.” And who could forget that classic gem of accountability-free obfuscation when asked if not capturing Osama was a failure: “Its not a failure… it’s just a success that hasn’t happened yet.”

  • Isn’t “aspirational goals” just a fancy way of saying “Let’s give it another Friedman”?

    How many Friedmans til we get to the horizon, sir?

  • They should call it an event horizon, the moment just before everything gets violently swallowed up by the black hole that is Iraq.

  • I don’t see this as significant. It’s political posturing on both sides to come up with something largely meaningless but which appeases factions on both sides. From the AP article:

    “Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that precondition could take years to meet.” So, Iraq has “proposed” that several years down the road, if they have blah, blah, blah (and who will decide that?), the United States will withdraw fully five years later.) All dependent, of course, on conditions that actually occur. This is vague enough to allow both Bush and Maliki to claim they got their way after tough negotiations. See

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq;_ylt=AlNSG_RhwYsohTCD2nLt0l6s0NUE

    I don’t think this favors McCain’s objectives (whatever they are), or Obama’s.

  • A number of these right-wing twits must have been found in advertising where misleading people is paramount. They’re really involved in renaming things in true “1984”style. “General time horizon” equals “timetable,” “harvesting” equals “hunting” (or plundering), “No Child Left Behind” equals “No Child Given A Chance,” “Human Resources” equals plain old “Personnel,” etc., etc.
    George Carlin was right.

  • Maybe I’m a hopeless optimist, but I’d like to think Bush realizes that the only way Republicans stand a prayer in Hell is for him to start some sort of face-saving withdrawal. If he does it, I don’t even care that he gets credit for it — I just want it to happen.

    But we all know how Bush bungles everything he touches, so I’m not putting the champagne on ice just yet.

  • New List: Things McCain has stolen from Obama
    1. Logos
    2. Slogans
    3. Iraqi policy

    Surely the list must go on?

  • “time horizon” is an financial term, meaning… timetable. Obviously some finance guy in the white house came up with it.

    “The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.”

    Wait – did we say there should be goals based on dates? What does that even mean?

    Oh, I forgot, we are in the logic-free zone. Sorry.

  • Surely the list must go on? -Dale

    Let’s just hope that list ends before ‘The Election’ is added to it.

  • The goal here is to try and neutralize Iraq as an election issue. Bush/McCain get to claim ‘we’re winning’/’we’ve won’ and ‘troops are coming home’. The MSN will repear this mantra to push Iraq off the table as a key issue.

    The really annoying part is how the MSN continues to spin this as Obama changin positions rather than McCain/Bush changing positions.

    Obama calls for a rapid draw down of forces with the pace dictated by conditions of the ground but with the goal always being withdrawal. He’s been saying that for months/years now.

    McCain in the last couple of weeks goes from ‘100 years in Iraq’ to conditions now mean with can significantly draw down troops levels and its OBAMA who’s shifting.

    Obama has been calling for increased attention/aid/troops for Afghanistan for years.

    McCain basically ignores Afghanistan for months and now argues we need to increase attention/aid/troops for Afghanistan and again the MSN claims its OBAMA who has changed positions.

    Obama calls for negotiations with Iran and has been doing so for months/years.

    Bush/McCain refuse any type of negotiation with with Iran. Now bush is sending the #3 guy at State to meet with Iranians with our European allies to negotiate about Iran’s nuclear program. No mention in the MSN about how this has been Obama’s position all along.

    YEEAARRRGGHH!!!

  • a general time horizon? sounds like fuzzy math to me.

    Does this mean there is another general to consult on the ground?

    “General Time Horizon reporting for duty, sir!”

  • Since any fool always knew there had to be a time when Americans would no longer be willing to pay $12 billion per month to keep waiting.

    I wonder which insurgent or al Qaida will win the lottery betting the date of the timeline?

  • Bush is gonna be seriously pissed off when he finds out that he is agreeing to timetables.

    I mean waiving the white flag of surrender is not gonna play well in his Presidential library.

  • Am I the only one who can’t read the words “General Time Horizon” without hearing the voice of Christopher Lloyd from the Back to the Future movies???

  • Actually I thought General Time Horizon was some sort of retirement insurance.

  • When the campaign started I said the GOP would just put up their least embarrassing candidate for without recognizing all their policies have ended in disaster or have become disastrous they will continue marching the country over the cliff.

    Now these repubs inch toward democratic policies because their authoritarian pride prevents them from admitting they have failed and they cannot admit they were wrong on anything. Unfortunately some things they have done are not only wrong but illegal and evil for which I pray they will be held accountable.

    But lord how they spin in denying their reality. It’s kinda’, sort of. like different from what we’ve been saying but it’s nothing like what Obama’s been saying…it’s completely different..sort of.

  • I have a question for y’all out there…would you honestly in your heart be happy if we won the war tomorrow and pulled troops out of Iraq the next day if it meant Pres. Bush would get the credit for it… or would you rather see the country fail and lose more troops… my point is that I can just about guarantee that if you answered honestly … that yall hate Bush so much you would rather see the war lost than not…. I know you will all comeback with the normal B S but please in your hearts answer the above question honestly and simply..and respond if you can… surprise me…..
    Bubba Said That

  • bttyalth, I’ll tell you what, the sooner we are out of Iraq the better. If we get out as result of Junior pulling one out of his ass tomorrow so be it.

    Also, I’d like to be independently wealthy. If I get rich as a result of huge anonymous gift so be it.

  • bubba’s very silly: I know how you think, but answer my question honestly, and if you don’t answer the way I think you’ll answer, I know you’re lying.

    Great, thanks, Boober, nice to have options.

    If you’re a bona fide troll, you’re kinda bad at it. Almost a caricature of an actual troll.

    And if you’re a caricature of an actual troll…you’re kinda bad at it. See Insane Fake Professor. He’s a master. You could learn a think or two.

    So which is it, actual troll or caricature? Either way you answer, I know you’re lying.

    To answer you’re question, you mat as well ask us what we’d do if we caught a leprechaun, neither situation’s gonna happen.

    and back on topic, to all the grownups on the forum, my conspiracy theory du jour:

    Bush will actually start adopting some of Obama’s talking points so that the current McCain line that “Obama is actually more like Bush” starts to stick. He will also do such a piss-poor job of implementing those talking points that they’ll seem like they were bad ideas all along. Kinda like following grandma’s recipe for cookies and substituting sugar with rat poison, then complaining that the recipe was never quite clear so really, it’s all Grandma’s fault.

  • Just tossin out a honest question asking for an honest answer…
    who cares what kind of troll I am… I dont give a rats ass.. I just like to hear the other side.. sometime I would like an honest discussion about things without all the vile sputem ….
    No takers on the question…. I guess I just have to assume whats bad for america is good for the liberals…. makes for good rhetoric….

  • As to your ‘honest question’ bubba, the premise is in itself false. First the concept of victory is nebulous, how do you define it… and who are the real victors? It is the acceptance that there is no clean win in this situation that marks the realist perspective, there are only options of varying degrees of tragedy. This isn’t defeatist, because there are greater threats that make wasteful losses of citizens, resources and good will criminal. There is no victory because there is no gain for the people of Iraq, the US or the wider international community.

    In addition, by saying “…Bush would get the credit…” for any ‘victory’ you ignore the unnecessary sacrifice, and there is no other phrase for the tragedy of valiant young men and women dying in an illegal war, that he is responsible for. I doubt a person here wouldn’t love things to turn out just dandy, and for the troops to pull out tomorrow, but that doesn’t wash His hands clean of the blood. The anger against him would remain, because the interests of greater good of the nation he was supposed to lead were not, and continue not to be, a factor in his motivations. Dragging someone out of a burning house doesn’t make you a hero if you were the one to set it alight, especially if they lost everyone and everything else dear to them in that fire.

    Still, it was unnecessary for me to reply, because you aren’t actually listening. The people who have responded to your question did so honestly and directly, without ‘vile sputem’ (sic). Noam Chomsky himself could come to your door to personally hand you 100 pages responding in extreme detail to your 100 or so words, and still you would childishly remark…

    “No takers on the question?”

  • By the way, has anyone (who can read Iraqi Arabic) seen the Maliki press release on the “general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals”? I have a suspicion that it’s a lot less euphemistic. Maliki, after all, wants to show how toughly he has been negotiating, and how he will fulfill most Iraqis’ ‘aspirational goal’ of getting US troops and contractors out now. And Maliki also doesn’t need to worry much that the US media will actually read the Arabic press release and report on it.

    ——

    On bubba’s question, Dreamer said it perfectly: almost everyone here would be happy if peace, stability, prosperity and justice emerged tomorrow in Iraq — no matter who got the credit.

    If asked about the credit, however, we might first point out that the hard work of thousands of Americans — not least the many honorable troops in the theater — and millions or Iraqis would deserve most of the credit, no matter how it happened. Like most liberals, I don’t believe that political leaders simply wave their wands to bring about good results. At the same time, I also believe that good leadership produces better results than bad leadership.

    For seven years, we’ve had extremely bad leadership, in my judgment, and many — though not all — of the results have been bad. There have been some good results, too, of course, and where good leadership by the current administration contributed them, the administration, including the president, deserve some credit — say, on pushing for AIDS funding (though the execution has lagged the ‘aspirational goals’ by far, typically). Again, if administration policy starting tomorrow helps bring about a positive transformation in Iraq next week, huzzah for them — and good administration policy could make some difference, so I’m hoping for it (though not very optimistically).

    Yet the last seven years of mismanagement, deception, lies, cronyism, ideological blinders and other blunders don’t then magically vanish: they, just as much and no more than the wisdom, insight, care, prudence and openmindedness of the administration (where such things happened) are all part of the record.

  • I m glad to hear that honestly you would be happy .. How to define victory would be a hard answer..true.. probably victory could be defined as leaving the country in control of itself without our help, and having a viable govt in place.. I do not ignore the sacrifices our brave young men and women have made, as well as their families scacrifices here at home.. I just get irritated when those sacrifices are diminished by the rhetoric of bumper sticker talk and sayings that I see a lot of on this blog. as far as the question ….. it is a theoretical question for sure, impossible probably. but non the less I ask that you think about it.. that was my goal…I am not here to discuss the topics as such.. I leave that to you folks who thrive on such matters. If I wanted to hear what I wanted to hear, I would go to a conservative blog and hear people preaching to the choir. I enjoy evoking thought and love seeing the results… Like I said somewhere here before.. you toss some bait out on the ground and see who comes out of the bushes to feed….PQuincy you sound like a gentleman and a scholar…I enjoyed reading your reply ..
    Bubba said that.

  • so…Bubba intentionally acts like an asshole in the hopes that people DON’T take the bait? Putting people on the defensive with a very silly alter ego because only then will we think about our answers? If not for Bubba, our opinions are not well thought-out, too partisan, and therfore invalid?

    Seriously, wtf? Maybe you’re just a poor communicator, and whether you realize it or not, represent the LCD of society. Stop asking people to dumb it down for you; try to “smart it up” for the rest of us. Elevate your own discourse; lead, as it were, by example.

    Slappy said that. Too bad bubba can’t understand it.

  • Slappy.. dont take it so personally.. this is just a effort in intellectual masturbation anyway… your side does their yanking… the other side does the same.. and in the end nothing changes…. I just get a kick out of people like you who take this stuff so seriously… but in the future I will try and elevate my speak, especially to you… lets see now… Slappy, how was school today, were all the other kids on the short bus as happy as you… did you use your crayons today or did teacher still take them away… Nice boy Slappy.. Obamammas proud of you.. dont care what the other kids say Slappy they are just jealous.. dont let those mean ole trolls ruin your day… just ignore them and tell them they are silly..
    Bubba Said That…..
    Sappy.. just kiddin.. go talk to the other grownups and get things changed…

  • Watch Out! the Replicans are replicating Obama’s foreign policy.This will surely enAble mcCain.

  • bubba, it’s bad enough aspirig to be a faux troll – that’s like learning The Method to be a movie extra. But don’t be a hyporite aboutit either. If people took your trollitude seriously, got angry, cited examples, proved your nonsense, you would’ve been so happy to generate that kind of response your nipples would’ve killed a man 20 feet away.But because you’re called out, NOT over your dopey fauxpinion but on the labored way you presented it, then you get on the Condescension Express & pretend your assholery is healthy for civilized discourse, and if we don’t like it, then we don’t get it. Fuck that. It’s good to be the king, and it’s easier to win a debate when you get to write and RE-write the rules as you go, I suppose.

    Or you could try to..oh, I don’t know, express your real opinions in a real way, like I am towards you. Funny, I haven’t had to alter my style to provoke discourse, and yet I still think I’m fascinating. Sucks to be you, I suppose.

  • According to the relativity theory of Einstein the distance to the “time horizon” shrinks as you begin to think faster. Given the speed at which the Bush administration thinks, that horizon is lightyears away.

  • Comments are closed.