Bush already telegraphed yesterday that it was going to be a violent summer in Iraq. As the pundits and wobbly talking bobble heads were saying last night, he's setting the bar pretty low and setting up a Catch-22 argument for staying in Iraq no matter what.

It's either "See? The surge is working so we need to stay the course," or "The surge was not big enough, so we need to escalate* and give it three/six more months and all will be well in the garden."

The only thing I can figure with the coward Ds in Congress is that they've decided to let Bush and the GOP own this thing until Nov. 08, regardless of how many American soldiers' lives it costs.

*P.S. What do you make of this?

But it's a meaningless landmark. Either they'll just play more rhetorical games, or they'll come up with a "new" strategy to implement, and we'll reboot the cycle.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

It looks like it came from Petraeus originally.

September will also be the beginning of the "crunch" part of the presidential primary campaigns, and both sides know the war is issue #1. Both sides will use September as a rallying cry to mobilize their respective bases; I think this is the only reason Clinton voted against the funding bill. She intends to use that vote as a campaign point when the September "deadline" rolls around, but so do the rest of them (in both parties).

Personally, it reminds me of that old Earth, Wind, & Fire song "September":

Do you remember the 21st night of September?
Love was changing the minds of pretenders
While chasing the clouds away

Our hearts were ringing
In the key that our souls were singing.
As we danced in the night,
Remember how the stars stole the night away

Too bad this September won't look anything like that.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

Bill Arkin is convinced Bush is preparing to bail (or begin bailing) this fall.

I have a hard time believing that, but on the other hand I can't shake my gut feeling that some kind of grand bargain's been struck behind the scenes. These PR themes just don't pop out of nowhere.

Or maybe it's a synthesis of both: Bush and the congressional GOP have agreed to start cutting troop levels this fall to give the appearance that it's all starting to wind down. And the Dems have agreed that a smaller force will stay in Iraq long term (which is all the Bushies really give a shit about anyway - Iraq as a forward operating base in the Middle East).

Democrats failed miserably in dealing with Bush. Why couldn't they frame their vetoed bill with the simple question to Bush:

"When we cut off funds for your failed Iraq War, will you use the funds we do allocate to bring the troops homw or will you throw a tantrum and leave them twisting in the wind to die in Iraq?"

Here's a story the Post front-paged on May 8:

In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.

"September is the key," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. "If we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration."

September is the end of the Friedman Unit which started with "the surge."

____________________________

Am I the only solipsist here?

Hmmm. Remember back on April Fool's Day when it was revealed Petraeus had a secret meeting with the Senate minority caucus and promised progress by September?

Three weeks later, he briefed the entire House behind closed doors right before the vote. That's also when he made a big too-do about the September progress report.

Bush vetoes the supplemental on May 1. A week later, the Post story runs with both Ds and Rs talkin' 'bout September. And a day after that, on May 9, that wacky gang of congressional goopers had their "frank discussion" about September with the commander guy.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell predicted a change, and said Bush would show the way.

"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall and I think the president is going to lead it," he said.

McConnell said he expects Bush announce his intentions on his own timetable.

[...]

Also due by September is an independent assessment of progress made by the Iraqi government.

"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall and I think the president is going to lead it," he said.

New direction = eastward into Iran?

____________________________

Am I the only solipsist here?

eastward into Iran?

You've probably seen Steve Clemmons' piece by now, which says Bush has gone soft and Cheney's going for broke.

I think we've got the makings of a plausible narrative here:

- GOP legislators are unnerved by the surge (i.e., by it's effects on their electoral prospects; they send a warning signal to the white house

- The WH sends Petraeus over to calm down the roost. He offers (perhaps without WH consent) the September gar-own-tee.

- The Goopers hold fast through the Dems' vote (which may have been a sop to the Out of Iraq caucus and Move On)

- The Goopers tell the WH, "You mofos owe us one"

- The WH, whose abiding goal is to run out the clock, say, "OK, we'll start ramping down in Sept. But we're still keeping troops in for the duration."

- Cheney goes "ZOMG WTF???? Man the cannons and get Olmert on the horn!"

The Dem leadership had to have gotten word of the Sept. deal somewhere along the line, probably when Andrea Mitchell did. I think they knew they wouldn't get a timeline, but had to appease the left flank. They just wanted the vote overwith by Memorial Day. Wankers.