Bush's Mysterious Iraq Policy

Karen DeYoung had previously reported in The Washington Post on July 13 that U.S. negotiators expected the agreement "to include a 'time horizon,' with specific goals for U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations."

Bush first mentioned "aspirational goals" in the context of Iraq at his press conference last week: "We're in the process of working on a strategic framework agreement with the Iraqi government that will talk about cooperation on a variety of fronts -- diplomacy, economics, justice. Part of that agreement is a security agreement, and I believe that -- you know, they want to have an aspirational goal as to how quickly the transition to what we have called overwatch takes place. Overwatch will mean that the U.S. will be in a training mission, logistical support as well as special ops."

Previously, that particular euphemism had been limited to discussion of Bush's climate-change feint, in which he proposed "aspirational goals" for emissions, rather than agreeing on an actual cap.

The phrase "time horizon" is most common among financial counselors, and refers to the length of time over which an investment is made or held before it is liquidated.

Dan Eggen writes in The Post: "In its most literal sense, of course, the horizon is the line where the sky meets the earth -- and thus can never be reached. That does not appear to be what the White House, or the Iraqis, have in mind."

Mike Littwin writes in his Rocky Mountain News opinion column: "A 'time horizon' is apparently not a 'timetable' for troop reductions. A 'timetable' would be what 'Obama' and other war critics have been calling for and a 'time horizon' is, well, 'not.'

"If you're confused, the 'time horizon,' we were told by a White House spokesman, is an 'aspirational' goal and not an 'artificial' timetable.

"I have no idea what that means, either. But I do know that when I told my editor we should no longer think in terms of artificial deadlines, but rather in time horizons, he told me exactly what I could aspire to."

Diplomacy Watch?

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "With his moves last week involving Iraq, Iran and North Korea, President Bush accelerated a shift toward centrist foreign policies, a change that has cheered Democrats, angered some Republicans and roiled the presidential campaign. . . .

"Former White House Middle East director Flynt Leverett, who has criticized the administration for being too hawkish, said the moves on Iraq, Iran and North Korea were signs of 'tactical desperation,' adding: 'It's a recognition that if they don't make these moves, they'll be left with nothing.'

"White House officials bristle at such criticisms, saying that partisans on both sides have misinterpreted tactical decisions as policy changes. Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman for Bush's National Security Council, said Saturday that the moves were 'fruits of the diplomatic labor that we've been engaged in in the last couple of years.'

"'The actions that we've taken this week are all tactical moves brought about by the overarching strategy that the president has put in place,' he added."