What’s in a word?

I really shouldn’t read the newspaper when I’m eating breakfast. It seems George Bush and Nouri al-Maliki are talking about a “horizon” for withdrawing more troops from Iraq. As an "aspirational goal", of course.

Cough, sputter, choke. What an optimistic, happy meal, word. “Deadline” is just so negative. I could almost believe Karl Rove hadn’t left for Fox News’ witless protection program. But objects transfer spin, and I’m sure his trained minions are carrying on despite the computer hard drives he shredded on his way out of town. (Whew. Maybe that Red Bull wasn’t such a good idea, but my power went out at 6:30.)

Back to the Bush.

What’s going on here? Facts on the ground? Sure, it’s reasonable to reduce our occupying troops as the “surge” (Oh, Karl.) appears to be working, or is it the Sunnis who switched sides? In either case, there are a lot of Iraqi politicians who don’t want to defend our presence. And downsizing makes as much sense as, um, talking to Iran and “surging” into Afghanistan.

Those are all reasonable actions based on the current situation. Barack Obama was castigated for being naïve when he suggested them. Except the Iraq surge, of course, that’s John McCain’s baby.

I’m always pleasantly surprised when George Bush flip-flops based on reality.

Zori wars

Unfair words, you say? Times change, people change, somewhat. Well, McCain and Obama have marshaled armies of pundits to police their opponent’s positions and play gotcha!

I’m less concerned, within limits. Speaking of reality, these are politicians running for President. You’re looking at the trees instead of the forest when you concentrate on the minutiae.

Obama needs to ‘center himself’; show he’s no Jesse Jackson, if you will. That’s much easier than McCain’s unenviable task of holding the center while showing his base he’s really one of them.

Maybe they should both give Rove a call and get some buzzwords.