When Barack Obama began his trip to the Middle East and Europe last week, he was dogged by two loud critics of his foreign policy plan: George Bush and John McCain.

Earlier this year, John McCain ridiculed Obama for proposing a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and added the following: "I am convinced, as I have said before; we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I'm confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about since he has told me that for the many meetings we have had."-

He added that the Iraq war can be won by 2013 and that troop withdrawal was "not too important."- 2013 is not a timetable, said McCain. "It's victory, it's victory, which I have always predicted."-

"I'm not putting a date on it. It could be next month, it could be next year, it could be three years from now. I know from experience, you set a day for surrender "" which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing "" and you will pay a much a heavier price later on,"- added the Republican nominee.

As most of us know by now, Iraq Prime Minister Maliki said the following just last week: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." Maliki's position was confirmed later in the week when the Iraqi government reiterated it's wish to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by 2010.

McCain, despite repeatedly bashing Obama for supporting a troop withdrawal from Iraq, has completely reversed his thinking and is now in support of a TIMETABLE for a troop exodus from Iraq. McCain now states the following regarding Obama's troop withdrawal plan: "I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should "" or horizons for withdrawal."-

Speaking of "horizons," as McCain described it, let's take a look at the authors credited with the new term "time horizons," as we don't wish to steal their idea. The Bush administration can be so creative at times.

Remember when George Bush indirectly criticized Obama for putting forth the idea of talking with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush said the following when he spoke to the Israeli Knesset just a few weeks ago:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Bush added: "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Like McCain, the Bush administration did a complete about face recently, as they sent William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, to attend talks with the Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili to persuade Iran to give up it's quest to develop nuclear weapons.

Wait a minute: I thought Iran was a "Nazi regime!" What happened to completely change the Bush doctrine? Why is Bush suddenly doing what Obama has been campaigning on for the last two years?

Let's get back to what John McCain said at the end of his interview yesterday when he uttered that new word that is supposed to differentiate between Barack Obama's plan for a timetable to get out of Iraq and that of the Republicans who are copying his ideas:

"Horizon."

What is the difference between a "timetable" and a "time-horizon?" We can borrow language from Native Americans and call it "many moons into the future" and it will still mean the very same thing: A timetable to get our troops out of Iraq and either back home with their families or fighting the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan.

 1  |  2