The Blog @ Spolitics

NY Times: Bush “Admits” U.S. Will Not Stay In Iraq Forever

From the New York Times:

The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.

But apparently this development wasn’t juicy enough for the Times.  They go on to say:

The White House offered no specific dates for troop cuts, but the inclusion of even just a reference to a time horizon is a significant concession by the Bush administration, which has long resisted setting a timetable for cuts in combat forces. It is a tacit admission that the United States military presence in Iraq is not endless.

The key word the Times left out was “artificial” timetable.  The Bush administration resisted tying a reduction in forces to an arbitrary deadline, regardless of the situation on the ground.  After all, didn’t the surge have a “timetable” element attached to it whereby the additional forces would be reduced by a target end date but only when certain objectives were met?  According to reports, this new agreement between Iraq and the U.S. is no different.  It’s the difference between setting goals and picking a date out of thin air.

Lastly, if the Times is under the impression that Bush has been advocating for an endless presence in Iraq perhaps they can explain what he has meant when he has repeatedly said: “We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.”

Update: It appears the NY Times has rewritten their article.