President Bush has announced that he’s going to start withdrawing (some) troops from Iraq.

It’s not the point I’m trying to make here, but I want to being by noting that I think the linked article is very poorly written. My small amount of time writing for a college newspaper got me very acutely aware of word choice, so when they throw quotes around “success” and call Bush’s announcement a “boast,” I can’t help but think that they’re amateurs. But enough about that… I’m writing about Bush’s announcement to start a phased withdrawal of troops.

McCain and Palin have been seizing on Iraq, painting Obama’s plan to slowly remove troops from Iraq as surrender. And now President Bush is basically doing what the Democrats have been suggesting for a long time. Sure, it’s to a lesser extent, but still…

In more poor reporting, they mention, “Bush chose the measured drawdown in Iraq because he did not want to jeopardize recent security gains” right where I’d expect an explation of why Bush was pulling 8,000 troops out of Iraq. But that sentence makes no sense unless the emphasis was on “the measured drawdown” (as opposed to “the sweeping and drastic drawdown”), but that was never mentioned. President Bush explained that it was because of progress made in Iraq, and that we’re redeploying them to Afghanistan, which does make much more sense.

I just think it’s an awkward political move for the Republicans right now, as it’s pretty much doing what John McCain has maintained we shouldn’t do. But, of course, it’s welcome news in any event…