George W. Bush has a new problem in Iraq. Since taking us into that war on claims that turned out to be 100% false, it's been one series of blunders after another. Unlike all the other problems, this new issue wasn't actually created by George W. Bush, but was created by his lack of comprehension about the mess he created.

On Monday, July 8, 2008 Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded a US troop withdrawal timetable. In a story published on July 7th by Reuters…

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

"U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Maliki caught Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a "dead end" after he complained Iraq's sovereignty was being infringed by U.S. demands."

"This means the phenomena of unilateral detention will be over, as well as unilateral operations and immunity," he said.

The Associated Press had a follow-up story published July 8th on the subject…

"Our stance in the negotiations under way with the American side will be strong," said Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, a day after the country's prime minister first publicly said he expects some type of timeline.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie told reporters.

President Bush has said he opposes a timeline. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

Bush's response is quite remarkable, in denying the intent of the clear and explicit statements of position from the Iraq Prime Minister and his National Security Adviser. Only a month earlier on June 9, 2008 this story was carried nationwide…

U.S. Seeking 58 Bases In Iraq / By Lelia Fadel / McClatchy Newspapers:

Baghdad Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases a part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that it is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

"Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said.

It would appear the lines in the sand have been drawn. The Iraqi government wants our troops to leave, and they want a timetable for the withdrawal. George W. Bush wants to build 58 permanent bases in Iraq for a permanent occupation, which the Iraqi government is adamantly opposed to.

This latest conflict also has serious political implications. On June 11, 2008 John McCain appeared on NBC's "The Today Show" and was asked by Matt Lauer if he had an estimate of when troops would start returning home. John McCain replied, "No, but that's not too important." Previously McCain had indicated he advocates keeping our troops in Iraq for 100+ years. That's not a position the Iraqi government supports, and in fact is on the record as opposing.

While George W. Bush's credibility on Iraq is totally exhausted, McCain would like to project that he has superior knowledge of the events in Iraq over his presidential opponent. Now John McCain is faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to flip-flop again on his opinions and claims or continue to push his previously stated positions and claims that are not only contrary to the views of the American people, but the democratically elected government in Iraq as well.

John McCain, by keeping his presidential hopes tied to his unwavering support of George W. Bush, has once again boxed himself into a corner. He can stand firm and be unwavering in his position, which is opposed by the majority of Americans and the Iraqi government, or he can once again flip-flop. That's not where he'd like to be, but he can only blame himself for the newest campaign strategy blunder.

John McCain is giving us an advanced look at what kind of judgment he would bring to the office he's seeking. It's not very encouraging.

I've heard many here say people trust McCains handling of Iraq over Obamas. With this new statement from Maliki, and the possibility of a time-table (something McCain has attacked, then made (2013), then attacked)... I wonder how this will effect voting.

__________________
The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst.
-Henry Fosdick