ARTICLE: "Bush ties pullback to success in Iraq," by David Jackson, USA Today, 14 September 2007, p. 1A.

EDITORIAL: "In for the long term? Maybe. But not with a blank check," USA Today, 14 September 2007, p. 14A.

Bush's open-ended pass is sort of stunning, just saying troops "return on success" and that such success "will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency," is just so weak. I mean, the guy's got 16 months and that's all he can say about the biggest commitment of U.S. troops in a generation?

On where to shift troops, the Dems lean north and south: toward Kurdistan (Clinton) and Kuwait (Edwards), with much smaller amounts in southern Iraq (primarily focused on hunting AQI and doing mil-mil training and advising).

"Cut and run" to the strategically immature, but it's how you get a sustainable casualty rate for actually staying as long as it takes to fix Bush's many mistakes to date.

As the editorial states:

Americans might be persuaded to accept a sustained presence, as they have in stationing U.S. forces in Europe and South Korea. But those deployments have claimed fewer U.S. lives in several decades than Iraq claims in a few weeks.

90-plus deaths per month with the surge, and this administration clearly redirecting its efforts to Iran

The Democrats should be nervous that they're being set up for an unsustainable presence in the region, with Bush leaving them with a tapped out military, unaddressed issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan with al-Qaeda's clear resurgence (you just know the GOP will accept blame for the next strike once a Dem lands in the White House), and a welcome-to-the-White-House war with Iran as Bush's parting gift.

If the Dems don't start paying attention, that's the legacy Bush is going to leave them, along with Kim's nukes, a pissed-off Putin, and a China that's no more of a "stakeholder" than when Bush entered office.

That is going to be a huge foreign policy agenda, bestowed upon a newly-minted presidency facing a ton of anti-Americanism all over the world (frankly, I was amazed how down Australian officials were two weeks ago).

In a parliamentary system, we've got a new PM already and we're moving on. It's only at times like this (Bush's early post-presidency is a Carter-plus-plus) when you reach for such straws, but with vague speeches like Bush's last night, it's hard not to.

No clear benchmarks.
No firm deadlines.
No commitments on troop levels.

One big "I dunno" by the Decider-in-Chief who's outsourced the political leadership of his administration-defining war to a general.

I know, I know, thank God for small favors. But I still find this near complete abdication of political responsibility absolutely stunning.

Bush is just playing out the clock, and it shows.