Parsing the Platitudes

After earlier opposing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, both the leading Democratic candidates have been forced to become ever more specific on the campaign trail, in response to voters who want the United States to pull back from Iraq as soon as possible. Clinton's reversal on the question of the timetable has been particularly dramatic. She now says that she would get "nearly all" U.S. troops out of the country by the end of 2009; Obama says he would get all "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

A four month difference? Not much at all compared to John McCain's 100 year plus war.

But then I see the quotes, the wiggle room and loopholes. I like the "all" part of Clinton's statement; the "nearly" part troubles me, though. If Obama were to acknowledge that all US forces in Iraq are for all intents and purposes " in combat" (even the Green Zone REMFs and pogues), his statement works even better. Since most American troops in Iraq are not classified as combat specialties, Obama leaves the option for a big residual force.

At first read the quote suggests that each candidate is moving significantly toward withdrawing US forces from Iraq. On second read, all I see are words.

And speaking of words, I read that Clinton criticized Obama for advocating normal relations with Cuba. I wondered why seeking normal relations with another nation is bad. Doesn't normal connote an acceptable and beneficial relationship? Why would we not want to establish that relationship with every nation on this planet? Does Clinton's statement mean that she favors abnormal relations as a matter of policy or does she have criteria for deciding? I know that normalizing relations between hostile nations is not easily accomplished but I can't for any reason see wanting to continue hostile relationships with any nation and not actively seeking ways to change that relationship.

I just think building and cooperating beats destroying. I'm weird like that.