Kevin Drum (formerly calpundit - now on the WashingtonMonthly blog)
Raises the question of the Straw, Bremer and Powell statements late last week that essentially say the "hypothetically... if the new government of IRaq asked us to leave after the elections... yes, we would leave". Strange back and forth comments - raising the question - folks speaking out of turn? folks floating trial balloons? or folks being foolish in using rhetoric to appease Iraqis but that have no rooting in reality?
Let's say its a trial balloon, based on Rovian calculations that unless we pull - things just get worse and worse for bush - with the belief that they can "spin" the pullout to appear not to be in contradiction with bush's rhetoric (his ... we will stay as long as it takes, but not a day longer...)
So how does his base react? He didn't find those WMDs - but he keeps telling them they still exist (we just haven't found 'em yet) and they believe him. So how do they read his hypothetical withdrawl - which would suggest... they don't care that the WMDs (that they claim are there) are still there... or that "oops guess they weren't there all along..."
Excerpt from his post:
SOVEREIGNTY UPDATE....On Wednesday I mentioned that the UK foreign secretary had told a talk show host that if the Iraqis wanted us to leave after June 30, then we'd leave. I was....surprised.
Then, on Thursday, a State Department lackey said that was our policy too. However he was contradicted shortly afterward by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, the policy and plans director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On Friday, Paul Bremer contradicted Sharp's contradiction: we'll leave if the Iraqis ask us to, he said. Finally, later on Friday, Colin Powell, echoed by the foreign ministers of Britain, Italy and Japan, confirmed that this was everyone's policy: the Iraqis are in charge after June 30. If they want us to leave, we'll leave.
Like me, Spencer Ackerman wonders what the hell is going on here:more - skim half way down the page:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com