Fred Hiatt has been a silly person for a long time. But his latest contortions on Iraq are not interesting in its disingenuous but in what Hiatt will say in December 2008 or January 2009. Why do I say that? Because Hiatt writes:

[Obama] says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future. "What if . . . Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Leave aside Hiatt's contortions about what the Iraqi leaders said. What happens to Hiatt's rationale in January 2009, when there will be no Bush Administration (and hopefully, no McCain Administration) to force Maliki to halfheartedly soften his request that the United States leave Iraq? What then will happen to Hiatt's silly argument? One more Friedman Unit and Hiatt and his ilk will have to think up some other rationale for why the U. S. has to stay in Iraq.

By Big Tent Democrat, speak for me only