Staying The Course

As discussed previously, an interesting drama is playing out on the right: The White House has reiterated they have no intention to change their Iraq strategy, while also denying their use of the 'stay the course' battle cry that has been the cornerstore of their Iraq speeches for years. They are also now using words like 'benchmarks' and 'measures' as if this represents a change, when they've been using those words for years too as they get increasingly meaningless in the face of an impotent Iraqi leadership. And after months of parroting the 'stay the course'/'cut and run' rhetoric, Republicans on the ballot are distancing themselves from Bush and the war, but only so far as they think will satisfy voters. Many of those Republicans are verbalizing positions on the war that just months ago they were saying would embolden the terrorists.

They are attempting once again to portray themselves as the smart, serious party on the war... this time by blatantly lying about their past rhetoric, embracing some positions Democrats have been advocating for over a year, and then telling people to vote against the same Democrats whose positions they are cribbing from.

Josh Marshall has been posting many examples of this, including a Pelosi-related one.

Is this what the President meant in January by wanting open and honest debate on the war?

Still, preparing now to dial down their level of support for the war, have these Republicans learned their lesson? Have they really changed? No. They will continue to make more mistakes for which they will never accept the blame. For instance, if President Bush tries to push for war with Iran in the near future, those who are now slowly seeing the light on Iraq and Bush's foreign policy will be among the first to cheer him on.

The dialogue changes, but in reality (in both rhetoric and policy), it's still stay the course.

Case in point: The talk from U.S. officials these days is about wanting to increase the U.S. troop levels inside Iraq, not looking at ways to decrease the American presence there.

Meanwhile, a revealing moment in Baghdad yesterday-

This morning, coverage of U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. George Casey’s Baghdad press conference was briefly interrupted.

The TurkishPress notes that “the hall was plunged into darkness by one of Baghdad’s regular power cuts, despite the fact the venue was in the capital’s heavily-fortified Green Zone, also home to the US embassy.”

This was not just a random glitch. This is life for the average Iraqi, even inside the capital.

(UPDATE: Boy, those Republicans really are cutting and running from the Iraq debate. Sen. Frist has told Republican candidates that they should avoid focusing "on the Iraq and terror issue" and focus on more important economic issues. It's a 2002 in reverse!

Elsewhere, the President gives a speech. He acknowledged concerns, but says it's all good.

And Prime Minister al-Maliki tells Bush to take his timetable/benchmarks and shove it. )

In related news, Andrew Sullivan explores how steadfast, conservative heartland voters are on the brink of turning against Bush and the war that is being fought with their children.

Finally, this info... the amount the war costs us for every second that we remain in Iraq? $6,300. Take that, poor people! One of the top priorities for the Democrats when/if they win back Congress must be to investigate where that money- our money- went exactly. I don't expect the White House will cooperate on that.

[PS- Bill O'Reilly says bad news from Afghanistan is a "myth". Someone should tell him the sand is a very bad place to store ones head. At least he is mentioning that war, unlike our big, tough War President. These are the very wise and serious people who are in charge of our country. And on that scary note, I will go to bed.]