JOHN BRUMMETT Advertisement

As recently as Aug. 31, President Bush was vowing to "stay the course" in Iraq. But, early last week, a White House aide and a general got quoted as saying we were giving Iraq's government a timetable for assuming responsibility for securing its own country, at which time the United States' military presence would be reduced.

Tony Snow, the former Fox News anchor who moved to the White House to do his apologia directly, told reporters in the White House briefing room that the president was no longer availing himself of that phrase, "stay the course."

The president himself stumbled verbally, which was not news. He said "stay the course" had always meant whatever the generals decided and that if the generals wanted to change course, then that amounted to staying the course.

It depends, one supposes, on what the meanings of "stay" and "course" are.

Most likely, these definitions are politically fluid.

On Aug. 31, Bush juxtaposed "stay the course" and "cut and run" as polar opposites, meaning that if one didn't stay the course, then one was cutting and running. Today the warrior president must Clintonize to reconcile this notion that, suddenly, one can propose an American pullout, or pullback, without cutting or running.

Actually, generals had talked in August of this very timetable, but without this change in presidential rhetoric. Even now, one general leaves open the possibility of more troops in the meantime. That contradicts yet another thing the president once said, which is that additional American troops would make the Iraqis more dependent on us and less motivated to attend to their own security. Alas, bad policy sometimes gets in the way of good spin.

On Aug. 31, it seemed only possible, but not yet likely, that Democrats would make enough gains in the midterm elections to take back the House and put the Senate in play.

Since Aug. 31, the Mark Foley scandal has dismayed the religious conservative base, and the killing and maiming in Iraq for no clear aim and with no evident extrication has intensified.

Today, Democrats probably would take over the House and erase their Senate deficit.

The first Republican response to the altered landscape was to warn that Democratic votes would effectively install a San Francisco liberal, Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the House.

But that required the individual voter to engage in strategic balloting, meaning for a secondary purpose. Voters from Montana to Georgia don't plot with each other that way.

Now it seems clear that the White House has heard and responded to the cries of Republican congressman to give them a talking point on Iraq. So, the White House has put out this new line that signals to voters that they need not go Democratic to effect imminent change in Iraq.

There's still time for one more ratcheted-up Republican tactic. Since security remains the pivotal issue, it would not be at all surprising to see Republicans do as no less than Dick Morris, the Clinton adviser turned Republican hit man, proposes. That is to warn that if Democrats take over, no longer will we be able to tap phones to listen to our terrorist enemies and intercept their plans to mass murder us.

That's despite the fact that the most I've ever heard any Democrat say is that the administration ought to get automatic warrants from that secret court.

Some Democrats, and even the occasional Republican, have had the courage to suggest that we can defend ourselves against terrorists and preserve our constitutional liberties at the same time -- and that those, in fact, are equally sober concerns.

John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com.