Down in the Mud

"Speaking in Baghdad just hours before President Bush gave a news conference in Washington," says the NYT , "Mr. Maliki tailored his remarks for his own domestic audience, reassuring the millions of Shiites who form his power base that he would not bend to pressure by the American government over how to conduct internal Iraqi affairs.

"His comments stood in stark contrast to the message given on Tuesday by the two top American officials in Iraq, General George W. Casey Jr. and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who said the timetable for political measures was one the Iraqi government had accepted."

Could there be a bigger embarrassment?

This kind of undercut the Bush presser, covered here by the LAT :

"President Bush admitted today that the situation on the ground in Iraq is not following the script he would have written, but he pledged to keep U.S. troops there as long as necessary to prevent terrorism from spilling into the United States. 'If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I would bring our troops home tomorrow,' he said at a news conference."

Joe at Americablog notes that the White House had billed the appearance as making major news on the Mess O' Potamia:

"Okay media: where's the substantial statement on Iraq? You were DUPED again by the White House. You are all like Charlie Brown kicking the football. The Bush team does this to you over and over. It's a scam for free air time on all the networks. The funny thing is that this time, it hurts the GOP. Bush is making Iraq THE ONLY ISSUE and that hurts the Republicans."

Slate's John Dickerson says the problem with Iraq isn't Bush's rhetoric:

"The linguistic gamesmanship may be absurd, but it's true that 'stay the course' hasn't been President Bush's policy for a while, if it ever was. On the ground, U.S. military tactics have been shifting all the time. Unfortunately, this semantic truth should comfort no one, least of all Republicans. The problem in Iraq is not that new tactics haven't been tried. It's that they have been, and they've failed.

"Democrats have enjoyed using the 'stay the course' expression in their campaign ads to suggest that the administration, and Republican candidates, are oblivious and rigid. Recently Republicans have started to embrace a similar sentiment to distance themselves from Iraq policy. 'We can't continue to keep doing the same things and expect different results,' said Sen. George Allen. 'We must adapt. We must adjust our tactics.' Sen. Lindsey Graham said, '[W]e're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working...It's [the administration's] job to come up with a game plan' to end the violence.

"If simply adjusting tactics or drawing up a new game plan were all that were necessary to reduce the violence in Iraq, then U.S. forces would already be on their way home. Since at least early 2004, the administration has been asking military leaders to be more flexible. After the particularly gory March 2004 murder of four civilian contractors, Gen. John Abizaid's initial plan was to flatten the city of Fallujah, but the administration took a different path after talking to locals. Their sources told them such an overwhelming and indiscriminate response would permanently alienate the Iraqis and spoil the chance for political progress.

"Since then, the U.S. military has tried a series of different tactics. And on the stump, the president has increasingly tried to show that he and his military advisers have learned lessons and adapted . . .