Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki raised the prospect of "setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington." Despite promises to adhere to the wishes of the Iraqi government if the nation's leader asked for the U.S. to leave Iraq, Bush rejected the proposal to offer a withdrawal schedule.

In an April 24, 2007 interview with Charlie Rose, the President stated he would remove troops if asked by Iraq, but he predicted that Maliki would not ask for a withdrawal:

ROSE: But if he said get out now, we don't want you anymore -

BUSH: I don't see how we could stay. It is his country.

ROSE: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested.

BUSH: That's why he's not going to say it.

ROSE: You don't think he'll say it?

BUSH: I don't. No, I don't.

Be thankful, the Commander and Chief and Chief Executive is not a soothsayer, but in case it was not clear, Iraq's National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie, said to reporters: "Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq."

The Iraqi proposal specifies, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country,  with reviews every six months to determine when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely.

While it is not always easy to understand exactly what politicians, whether U.S. or Iraqi, mean, it seems pretty clear that Maliki didn't say he'd like, someday, well into the future, when Iraq is hunky dory, to maybe think about sending U.S. troops home. What his office said, in writing, is that Maliki is working on an agreement whereby U.S. forces would either leave or "put a timetable" in place to schedule our leaving.

And that's clearly not White House policy.

Given this, and the White House's repeated assurances that U.S. troops would only stay as long as welcomed, should federal employees expect greater focus on the other governmental functions like health care, infrastructure, energy alternatives, the mortgage problems, etc.?  Don't get your hopes up.  From all perspectives, this really is the task of another administration, since the U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of 2008.  An inconvenient truth for sure.