What, BushCo said something that isn't true? Say it ain't so!

I wonder what's next for Perino. There are plenty of jobs that involve telling obvious lies with a straight face and a condescending attitude, but most of them would be a pretty big step down. And I imagine the resume in-box at Fox "News" is pretty big these days...

These people are incapable of embarrassment.

"I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible." - GW Bush

So according to Bush he is irresponsible? demoralizing people? Breaking committments? Encouraging killers? Choosing to fail?

This is not news, George.

Redshift is right, Perino will definitely be moving to Fox News, she's got the looks and the brains for the job.

Hack-Tacular!

Obama is the King of SOFA.

He's SOFA King great.
He's SOFA King smart
He's SOFA king cool.

I'm SOFA King glad he won.

Yes, I'm going to milk this joke for all it's worth, thank you.

We spent 5-1/2 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and all we get is a new SOFA?

Off topic, but I think we need a this week (or maybe this day) in God blog now--did anyone catch the latest Pastor requiring his congregation to NOT abstain (because the bible said so) and for couples to pledge the same for seven days. What a joke! So now we need to have sex because the bible says it's the holy thing to do...This is the same flip side of arrogance when they preach to abstain at certain times...

Clearly this is all about this Pastor wanting to get media coverage...

And what about unwilling couples? Does that make them less pious? Less worthy? What about women and men in abusive relationships? Will this give new license to the abusive spouse to engage marital rape?

This is both funny and pathetically so not funny!

Perino. She makes Bahgdad Bob look like an honest man. They all lied, Scotty, Tony, Ari, and Dana, but she always had that Palin condescension that cuts to the bone, like being smart is an unforgivable liberal flaw.

And of course her trademark 'disagreements' over the meanings of words, like 'aspirational'. I hope she goes to an undisclosed location for ever and ever.

Perino used the same term ('aspirational') a few months ago when the timetable originally was set in stone.

Is this or is this not a treaty? If not, why not? The Iraqi parliament needs to ratify it. Why does nobody seem to be asking why the U.S. Senate may need to ratify it too?

Either way, to call the withdrawal timeline "aspirational" just isn't true.

Well, yeah, but this whole 'aspirational" bullshit is just so the right can get its Dolchstosslegende on.

After all his protesting that agreeing to a withdrawal timetable was tantamount to surrendering to the Islamonkeys, Bush agreeing to "aspirationa;" timetables isn't really losing. Obama actually withdrawing the troops will be called losing.

It's the same as dishonest Republicans -- but I repeat myself -- claim that Democrats simply allowing tax cut sunset clauses that Congressional Republicans voted for and Bush himself signed into law to expire will be a "Democratic tax increase."

good for George Bush, who's getting a slightly longer timetable than Barack Obama would have negotiated

I don't doubt that Bush sees it as good for him, but what purpose does the extra time serve him? It allows the creation of more dead Iraqis and more dead US servicemembers? What does he need that for?

Either way, to call the withdrawal timeline "aspirational" just isn't true.

But if it makes the Bushies feel better to say it, what's the harm? They'll be gone in 63 days, 19 hours, and 40 minutes (not that I'm keeping track, or anything).

That should have been "63 days, 19 hours, and 20 minutes."

I don't really think this agreement is anything more than an extension of our occupation to the end of 2011, which is six Friedmans, many more than Bush usually asked for.

Hopefully, we'll have pulled out by then, but for some security forces to guard our (oil) interests. I think it's a political face saving agreement for both sides. The Iraqis can say they are kicking us out, and Bush can say we negotiated three more years, at which time conditions on the ground can be evaluated by the new president, and a new agreement reached if necessary. And all the pundits can argue that the agreement confirms their predictions. Everybody wins.

Now, how does this agreement affect our world's-largest-embassy? And what the hell is it for if we're pulling out?

"I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people [...] -- Bush

I'm sure that the front page photo in NYT -- of Iraqis *and American soldiers* dancing in the street following the announcement -- is proof positive of this demoralisation and general derangement.

Is it just me or are there others who get annoyed everytime they see the word "war" being used instead of "illegal invasion and continued occupation"?

The Bush regime survived, in part, by re-defining language into its own version of NewSpeak - facilitated by a lazy media more interested in profits than facts - but, surely, we can return now to the actual definition of important words, such as War.

I agree with Hark; "the end of 2011" is more than three years away! Obama needs to shorten that up considerably.

And, Steve missed half the story on this, namely the number of Sunni cabinet members who abstained from voting.

Oh, it will get approved by the Parliament. But what will the Sunni parties do then?

So is JCS Mullen seriously off message today, suggesting that the agreement can be modified in the future based upon conditions on the ground?

Either he doesn't wish to work in the Obama Admin, or he knows something we don't.