Sigh.

I shy away from posting items to Slog about the war since, you know, I was one of those clueless liberal hawks who thought it might be a good idea to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. (For the record: I was never in favor of converting them to Christianity. And, hey, we’re coming up on the three-year anniversary of my call for us to get the hell out—wow, times flies when you’re feeling mortified and complicit.) So when I see a news item about Iraq and think, “Hey, that might be Slog worthy,” I hang back, hoping that one of my colleagues—the ones without blood all over their hands, keyboards, laptops, etc.—will post the Iraq news while I provide wall-to-wall coverage of the pit bull, youth pastor, and sex toys beats.

But none of my less conflicted coworkers seem all that interested in posting items about Iraq. What’s up with that? Anyway, this news item seems relevant and Slog-worthy, and I waited all day to see it go up on Slog, and so far it hasn’t… so I guess I’ll have to post it.

Iraq’s national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq’s prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

This is big news, of course, because George W. Bush has been running around describing any timetable for withdrawal as tantamount to treason. He’s also currently trying to ram a deal down the throats of the Iraqis that would allow us to build 50 or more permanent military bases in their “sovereign” country, a deal that would allow US troops to stay in Iraq for ever and ever and ever, just like John McCain wants. But McCain, way back in 2004, said we’d have to pull out of Iraq if the sovereign Iraqi government we installed asked us to get out. Americablog has the transcript:

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because—if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

And now the elected Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawal. They’re gearing up to ask us to get out. And an overwhelming majority of the American public now regards the war as a mistake and wants to get out. But McCain, like Bush, has rejected any and all timetables and thinks we should stay in Iraq for 10,000 years. Unless, of course, the Iraqis ask us to leave—a request that McCain believes that we would obviously have to honor, seeing as Iraq has an elected government accountable to the Iraqi people.

So… there’s been a lot of shouting in the media lately about Obama’s supposedly evolving position on the war. Perhaps the shouters can now turn their attentions to McCain’s increasingly problematic stance on the war. Because if you’ve already agreed to leave if asked but you’ve also rejected a timetable for withdrawal, um, what’s left? What’s McCain got? “Okay, okay, we’ll withdraw—but not on your damn timetable, Iraq. We’ll leave but it’s gonna be a surprise. When you least expect it—pffft!—we’ll be gone!”