Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, installed in office under U.S. occupation, rebuked his patron last week by proposing a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki said during a visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. He suggested a "memorandum of understanding" setting a departure date or setting "a timetable for the presence of [U.S.] forces, so that we know [their presence] will end in a specific time."

His stand contradicts the Bush White House, which says a planned withdrawal would embolden fanatic rebels, who would bide their time until U.S. soldiers are gone and then attack full-force. Republicans often equate U.S. withdrawal with "surrender."

The administration and Iraq are negotiating a security agreement to replace a U.N. mandate enabling the presence of American troops in Iraq. That mandate expires at the end of this year.

Maliki's get-Americans-out remarks may be self-serving, to appease Iraqi nationalists who are bitter about the U.S. occupation. Internal pressure for a U.S. withdrawal is growing in Iraq, apart from what Maliki says or does.

Naturally, President Bush rejected Maliki's call for phased withdrawal. But this response raises a question of hypocrisy: In demanding invasion of Iraq, the White House proclaimed that the war would establish democracy in the tormented Mideast nation. Yet when democratic wishes of Iraqis are voiced by their elected leaders, they're swiftly dismissed by the White House.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki said during a visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. He suggested a "memorandum of understanding" setting a departure date or setting "a timetable for the presence of [U.S.] forces, so that we know [their presence] will end in a specific time."

His stand contradicts the Bush White House, which says a planned withdrawal would embolden fanatic rebels, who would bide their time until U.S. soldiers are gone and then attack full-force. Republicans often equate U.S. withdrawal with "surrender."

The administration and Iraq are negotiating a security agreement to replace a U.N. mandate enabling the presence of American troops in Iraq. That mandate expires at the end of this year.

Maliki's get-Americans-out remarks may be self-serving, to appease Iraqi nationalists who are bitter about the U.S. occupation. Internal pressure for a U.S. withdrawal is growing in Iraq, apart from what Maliki says or does.

Naturally, President Bush rejected Maliki's call for phased withdrawal. But this response raises a question of hypocrisy: In demanding invasion of Iraq, the White House proclaimed that the war would establish democracy in the tormented Mideast nation. Yet when democratic wishes of Iraqis are voiced by their elected leaders, they're swiftly dismissed by the White House.