Not really but reading his quotes today on Iraq had me thinking this is the only implication that can be rationally drawn. Now those of us in the netroots know he is full of it, and has pretty much adopted most of Obama's thoughts without actually acknowledging it when it comes to current Iraq issues. The below shows my point:

McCain later told The Associated Press that he believed the agreement being negotiated was not a timeline, as advocated by Obama.

"It will be notional and aspirational dates, but it will be based on conditions, I know that," McCain said. "They will be times that we hope they can be out by. They will be based on conditions on the ground, not according to hard deadlines."

Here's Obama's quote from a few months ago:

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I've said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."

Now lately, we have heard Bush refer to dates as horizons (don't want to sure up timeline, right), we have seen the Iraqi Prime minister agree with Obama, then pull it back after a call from State. Now we see a deal in place, in principal, to have troop withdrawel aims of October, 2010, which is exactly 16-17 months after the next president takes his oath of office (sound familiar). Now McCain, in a backbend of epic proportions, refers to them as notional (really, do you really put in writing things that are notional?) and aspirational dates, knowing Obama has specificly stated repeatedly things will be done based on conditions on the ground.

McCain is becoming unhinged and delusional right before our eyes apparently, or he is banking on the fact that no one will call him out on these lies.

There's more...

It's certainly taken a long enough time, but it seems that there now be a fourth Republican vote in in the Senate in favor of Congress setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. The AP's Hope Yen has the story (via Steve Benen).

GOP Sen. John Warner, who wants U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq by Christmas, said Sunday he may support Democratic legislation ordering withdrawals if President Bush refuses to set a return timetable soon.

"I'm going to have to evaluate it," Warner said. "I don't say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider."

As Benen notes, this seems to be a departure from Warner's stance just a few days ago, when he said,

"Let the president set the timetable; let's not have the Congress set any timetable.... [T]he Congress has repeatedly tried to set timetables and a total plan by certain dates to have a withdrawal. I have voted against that, and I will continue to vote against that type of proposition."

First let's make clear that Warner is not yet coming out in favor of Congressional legislation setting a binding timeline for the withdrawal of American troops out of Iraq. But if he were to vote for such a measure out of unhappiness with the President's stubborn unwillingness to change course in Iraq, Warner would represent the fourth Republican vote in the Senate (after Gordon Smith, Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe) in favor of a timetable for redeployment.

Four Republican votes are not enough to force the President's hand -- or even to move legislation in the Senate. With Joe Lieberman voting consistently with the right on Iraq, it would take 10 Republican votes (plus a hopefully returning Tim Johnson voting with his party) just to get an up-or-down vote on legislation that would help bring an end to the war in Iraq. Yet despite the fact that Warner is seemingly on his way out, he does, as former chairman of the armed services panel, continue to maintain at least some sway with his Republican colleagues, perhaps enough to persuade even a few to join him in support of a timeline. That still doesn't get us to the 67 votes required to override the President in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture, but at the least it gets us a bit closer. So all eyes should be on John Warner in the coming weeks to see if he might actually follow through and try to force the President's hand on Iraq.

There's more...