Let's analyze further, since McCain and his Veep-in-Waiting Huckabee are continuing (since Friday) their "Romney wanted out" campaign.

This is supposed to be the most offending excerpt:

ME: I remember the debate a little differently from last year than Byron. The president did not want Congress setting timetables for strategic and constitutional reasons, and neither did most of us. I don't remember a debate of any significance anyway about whether the president should discuss timetables and/or benchmarks with the Iraqi prime minister. Indeed, why wouldn't he? But was that an issue that was even discussed? No, the issue was Congress's intervening in the management of the war and its use of timetables, etc., to justify not funding it. To conflate congressional authority with what a president might say to an ally in private is what it is — a distortion. Moreover, I have to believe that General Petreaus himself has set timetables and benchmarks for his management of the war, which he not doubt discusses with his staff and measures progress against, but which he does not share publicly. That doesn't mean he will recommend that we leave Iraq on a date certain if they are missed. But it's a critical way for "managers" to operate, including leaders who have to manage and not merely legislate or issue statements. Frankly, you have to stand on your head to see this the way McCainabee want us to see this. Why should we?

UPDATE: ME AGAIN: Hmmm. Is McCain saying that as president he would not discuss a series of timelines and milestones with the Iraqi prime minister that he would expect them to try to meet? If McCain would not have such a discussion, then how would he manage things? What would his progress report look like?