What if NEITHER candidate's position on Iraq withdrawal mattered?

[240 is Back]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

"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.

[240 is Back]

What if the election suddenly IS NOT about iraq, at all?

What if it's already decided BY IRAQ when we leave.

Mccain's entire platform now - and Obama's weak area due to his wavering - is the iraq War.

If Iraq suddenly says "you're out in 24 months, period.", then the election is suddenly about the Economy and the economy alone.

[headhuntersix]

Its really about the economy anyway..Obama has flipflopped on it and has read the tea leaves on this one. He'll go along with P4's recommendations and that will be that. His base may not like it, but they aren't going to vote McCain anyway. If McCain can detail why his plan won't cost as much, not as intrusive etc and appears sinmple, he can win on that. Obama isn't for drilling, yet he has no alternative plan. Mccain says do it all....by us some time. Most Americans are for drilling, and more will be by Nov. McCain has a history of taking the common sense approach, its up to his campaign to let him be Mccain.