I fully expect Nouri al-Maliki to walk this back, but…

"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," Maliki said, according to a statement released by his office. "In all cases, the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq."

Not long ago, John McCain would have said Maliki’s desire gives the game up. Democracy Arsenal’s Adam Blickstein has a great catch:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain’s Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

That was from a Council on Foreign Relations Q&A in April 2004. It’s not hard to see how McCain gets out of this: Maliki will probably be persuaded by the Bush administration not to make a formal demand for a timetable; or if he gets around that, the timetable will be vague or open-ended — a non-timetable timetable, if you will — and McCain will either say that there wasn’t a formal Iraqi request for a withdrawal (under the first scenario) or that he’ll abide by the non-timetable timetable (under the second). And the press will care not at all, because for John McCain to flip-flop would mean that the grass grows in the sky and the cows all snack on clouds.