Bush sends conflicting signals on troop withdrawal

Heard last night on television news on way out to dinner:

...the White House is now said to be talking about slashing its combat presence in Iraq by roughly a third, from about 150,000 soldiers to 100,000 — just in time for the 2008 election.
WJZ.com

What a cowinkydink. But wait!

The White House said on Saturday it was premature to talk about reducing troop levels in Iraq after a newspaper report suggested the US administration was considering a drastic cut in force levels next year.

"The business at hand is to complete the mission, and to pursue the present strategy, and any decision for future force levels will be made by the president based on advice from commanders in the field and his national security advisers," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told AFP.
RawStory.com

So, which is it? My personal political cynicism leads me to believe that Bush may pull off such a stunt to thwart the presumedly anti-war Democratic candidate in the presidential election. With a preceived withdrawal of American forces from Iraq much of the wind would be taken out of an anti-war presidential candidate's sails, leaving the field open for a decidedly pro-war Republican.

And my instincts tell me that Bush's heir apparent is none other than pampered, billionaire Willard Mitt Romney. My instincts also tell me that should the Democrats commit another political faux pas, like the recent Iraq war funding vote, or descend into bitter internecine squabbling then the Mittster will be our next president.

It just gets worse and worse, doesn't it?