Can anyone make anything out of the Castle’s hemming and hawing in today’s News Journal?

The only clear point is that Mike Castle is not going to vote for withdrawal because liberals want him too. And that point was made by blogger/SC GOP chair and Castle guru, Dave Burris.

Here is the classic “yes, but also no” from Castle.

…Castle said he will seek guidance from the congressional testimony starting today of Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

He wants to hear their take on the progress of the Iraqi government and what the extent of U.S. military involvement should continue to be.

“My view is, personally, that that report is very important in terms of whatever my decisions and our decisions as a Congress are going to be,” he said during a 30-minute interview.

But his plans don’t hinge on the testimony alone.

In a move welcomed by his anti-war critics, he took steps with moderate colleagues over the past week to press for a new, bipartisan direction, saying “we shouldn’t wait” to discuss a post-surge strategy to start turning over more day-to-day responsibilities to Iraqis.

He was among a bipartisan group of 11 lawmakers who sent a letter to House leaders Sept. 4 seeking to “put an end to the political infighting over the war in Iraq.”

The next day, he signed another bipartisan petition, calling for a vote on legislation he co-sponsored that would require the Bush administration to report to Congress within 60 days, and every 90 days thereafter, on its planning for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“One of my goals is to be able to begin to bring our troops home, but I believe we have to do it in a way that maintains security,” he said. “There may be steps along the way before we get to the final solution of not having anybody there.”
Long story short: Don’t listen to the gibberish. Watch his votes and get the blank check ready Mr. Bush.  Michael Newbold Castle is ready to sign.