Bush Losing Control of Agenda

"Analysts said the report could be particularly important in emboldening more Republican elected officials to call for a pullback -- thus putting powerful pressure on a president who must pay attention to his own party."

James Fallows writes: "The findings of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, as related through obviously authoritative leaks, mark a shift in the debate . . . because of the implied conclusion on which the panel's findings (as reported) are based: that things are not going to get better, and the time for cutting losses has come. . . .

"So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we'll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course. If we thought a longer commitment and presence would lead to a better outcome, then the extra commitment might be sensible. But nothing occurring in Iraq in the last year has given rise to any hope that things are getting better rather than worse."

Get Ready for a Reversal?

Here's a possibility that I suspect you'll be hearing a lot more of in the coming days: That Bush's recent talk is insincere bluster in anticipation of an abrupt reversal (at which point, he will try to argue it wasn't a reversal at all).

In other words: That he's lying.

Marc Sandalow writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "It would be reasonable to conclude after watching President Bush in the Middle East this week that the administration has no plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

"'This business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all,' Bush said at a news conference Thursday morning in Jordan with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Yet some experts say it would be foolhardy to assume, just because Bush said it, that the statement is true.

"There is mounting evidence that the world of public Bush-speak -- from his vigorous support for al-Maliki and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to his rejection of direct diplomacy with Syria and Iran -- bears little relation to what goes on behind the scenes.

"Senior White House officials even tangled this week with reporters who suggested that al-Maliki had snubbed Bush at a dinner with Jordan's King Abdullah. A three-way dinner had never been planned, the officials insisted -- until the reporters forcefully pointed out that it had been on the president's public schedule for nearly a week.

"At a time when Bush is under increasing pressure to significantly modify his Iraq strategy, it is difficult to know whether his public rigidity is a sign he is ignoring calls for change or simply putting a resolute -- some would say stubborn -- face on a policy about to undergo significant alterations."

As Sandalow notes: "[T]here is also evidence that Bush feels little compunction to tell the truth if he believes a purpose is served by not doing so."