There were quite a few articles published today crowing the sudden 'breakthrough' in negotiations between Maliki and Shrub on the 'long term agreement'. As is typical of our Fawning Corporate Media, they fail to grasp the actual facts or basis of the 'agreement'.

Case in point would be the Grey Lady's version...

"U.S. and Iraq Agree to Goals for Troop Cuts"

The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.

The breakthrough, which was reached between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in discussions via video link on Thursday, could lead to the successful completion of a long-term security agreement covering American operations in Iraq — from combat missions to detaining Iraqis — by the end of this month, a White House official said.

Huh? What breakthrough on timetables for troop reductions do you ascertain from; "'general time horizon' based on 'improvements in the security situation'...?"

I think Rep. Delahunt summed it up best...

Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who has led House hearings on the agreement, described the "time horizon" as "very vague and nebulous."

Like many Democrats — including Mr. Obama — Mr. Delahunt said a “timetable with specific dates is critical."

He also expressed broader legal concerns about the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq once the United Nations mandate expires.

He said the agreement that was likely to be reached before the end of this month reflected a retreat by the administration, in that it seems "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated," he said.

Heh, it is definitely 'far less grandiose'... Of course, Maliki is none too anxious to set specific timetables for our departure either...!

In other paradigm shifts in Shrub's foreign policy, Condi announced...

Washington's top diplomat confirmed on Friday that the United States had shifted its position on diplomacy with Iran, as Tehran said it was prepared for a dialogue on establishing a US interests section in Iran and beginning direct flights between the two countries.

"The US doesn't have any permanent enemies," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in response to a question on the unexpected move to send a senior envoy to Geneva to participate in crucial nuclear talks with Iran's negotiator on Saturday.

"And we hope this signal we're sending, that we fully support the track that Iran could take for a better relationship with the international community, is one the US stands fully behind."

"This decision to send Undersecretary [William] Burns is an affirmation of the policy that we have been pursuing with our European allies ... for some time now," Rice said, adding: "We will see what happens on Saturday."

Huh? "For some time now..." Since when, Condi?

Personally, I think Laura Rozen's colleague gets to the real reason behind the flip-flop on Iran...

"Everyone seems to have missed the obvious: The State Department's third man is going to [talk with] Iran to send oil prices down. I'm sure Paulson told Bush this was the only way to stop a panic." Almost certainly part of it. (And is it working?)

Indeed, a US official involved with Iran policy wrote me a couple weeks back that high oil prices had severely crimped their policy: "It’s clear that the two-track policy put in place a number of years ago (incentives vs. sanctions) has been overtaken somewhat by the unforeseeable and dramatic rise in oil prices. Iran’s GDP has doubled, and they are more isolated from the effects of economic sanctions. At the same time the Iranians have made significant progress on enrichment. There are many, many more economic sanctions in the quiver, but we have carefully resisted imposing economic sanctions, unilaterally or multilaterally, that would significantly affect the Iranian people. Our goal remains an Iran without nuclear weapons, and our strategy remains the two-track approach. In light of the rise in oil prices and Iran’s enrichment achievements, the interim objectives that the two-track strategy should be aiming to achieve is something everyone is looking at, and there is no question that there is a way forward. ..."

Oil prices have put a crimp on Shrub's policy endeavors, maybe both foreign and domestic...? Hmmm... Ya think?

I am encouraged with the sudden shift to diplomatic talks with Iran, but, I'll reserve judgment until after the talks on Saturday... Stay tuned...!

UPDATE: Josh Marshall seems to think there's another motive to the paradigmatic shifts by Shrub and McInsane...

Over the last ten days or so, the President and the McCain campaign (who are clearly working in coordination, as they're entirely entitled to do) have been systematically drawing back from their positions on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran and either fully embracing or moving toward those held for some time by Barack Obama.

Let's run the list.

McCain and now the White House (via the DOD) are moving toward more US troops in Afghanistan -- a position they've each long opposed and which Obama has been on record in support of for at least a year.

Bush and McCain have each also in different ways tried to nudge closer to Obama's position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. The key shoe falling today is President Bush's embrace of a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, McCain's declaration of military victory in Iraq seems very much like an effort to get people thinking the troops are coming home soon within the conceptual architecture of his professed goals in Iraq.

And finally Iran. I'm not certain what McCain himself has said about Iran in recent days. But over recent months a key line of attack from the president and John McCain has been that Obama is a latter-day Neville Chamberlain for saying we should negotiate with Iran. And now over recent days we've learned that the White House is sending one of its top diplomats to negotiate directly with Iran's nuclear negotiator. And there are growing signs the White House is poised to open a diplomatic interests section (an unofficial diplomatic outpost) in Tehran.

In the case of Iran, the flashpoint has been meetings between heads of state. So there's not a direct equation. And McCain's and Bush's supporters can still point to this as the bright line they have not and will not cross.

But when the spin is wiped away, for all the scrutiny and hand-wringing about the nuances about Obama's 16 months, there's simply no denying that all the real movement at this point in the campaign shows Bush/McCain trying to nudge closer to the ground Obama already holds.

Wow, maybe Obama does have the right answers after all! Imitation is the highest form of flattery, right...?