One of the major issues differences in this campaign has been the two candidates' positions on the immoral and irresponsible war in Iraq. Barack Obama, who was right in opposing the war from the very beginning, has proposed a 16-month timetable for getting our soldiers out of there; George W. Bush and his buddy John McCain, who were responsible for starting the war, have said that while it would be nice to withdraw soldiers, they're comfortable leaving them there for years, decades or even, say, a century.

Now Bush/McCain are coming around to Barack Obama's position on the issue, agreeing to a "time horizon," which is not to be confused with a timetable - after all, a table is furniture, and a horizon is a geographic entity. (In every other way, a time horizon and a timetable are indistinguishable from one another.) The only difference now between the Obama position (held by Barack Obama) and the Obama Lite position (held by Bush/McCain) is the length of this timetable - err, time horizon: Obama says by the end of 2010, Obama Lite say by the end of 2012.

Well, today is the moment of truth - because Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (the democratically elected leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq) says he agrees with Obama in wanting American soldiers out by the end of 2010.

In fact, he explicitly said he agreed with Barack Obama.

So now we see exactly how sovereign this new sovereign nation is: Will Bush/McCain do as the government of the sovereign nation of Iraq asks and start planning for a 2010 withdrawal, or will they ignore the request of the sovereign nation of Iraq and keep American soldiers there even after the sovereign nation's government has asked us to leave?

Ball's in your court, Mr. President. Will you do the right thing, or will you ignore the will of the sovereign nation your soldiers are occupying as well as that of your own people?

Labels: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Iraq, John McCain, Politics