Timetables vs. Benchmarks

I only caught a few minutes of Bush's press conference this morning while getting ready for work. But what struck me was how he tried to differentiate between his plan surrounding the war in Iraq (more of the same) and the timetables (which are, apparently, unpatriotic, defeatist, and --- Jah forbid --- logical) that the Democrats have been clamoring for all along.

Bush said that we'd stay in Iraq until the job is done, and that while the overall strategery is the same, he says that he's been making little tweaks here and there with regard to tactics --- seemingly to address criticisms of his foolish steadfastness and "staying the course" (which I guess now he's saying he never said - whatever).

Oh, now he's going to try to flip the script? What convenient timing.

So now that the election is coming soon, the Rovian camp is trying to give people just enough of this somewhat "new" Bush to make people who are on the fence think, well, he looks like he's trying to be a little more flexible. While the Rovian machine is introducing new catch phrases ("we're changing tactics," "don't leave until the job is done," and now openly admitting that he's "unhappy" with how things are going, Bush still insists we're winning.

What?

So yeah, maybe Bush concedes that he's not exactly thrilled how things are going. Wonderful. And maybe he's using the phrase "change tactics" to make people think he's approaching Iraq more strategically. But he's also made it clear that he doesn't see troops withdrawing from there any time soon. Is Bush still trying to win this war on semantics?

Say it with me now (in your best zombie voice):

Benchmarks, good. Timetables, bad.

Anyway, Glenn Greenwald has some great commentary on this. Check it out.