That moving of the goalposts that the Senator talked about is ongoing. The Administration wants to make the tactics the goal. The escalation, according to this argument, is working because there are military successes. However, that was not the reason giving for adding more American troops to the conflict.

Sen. Kerry, in the ABC News interview this morning, talked about the actual reasons that the Congress was given to justify putting more troops in harms way;

• to give the Iraqi government time to work out the oil sharing revenue law,

• to plan provincial elections,

• to develop a general amnesty plan, and

• deal with the de-Baathification law and its consequences.

There has been no progress in these areas. The GAO Report released last week noted this, the American Security Project report released last Wednesday noted this and the Iraq Security Fores Independent Assessment Commission, headed by Retired Gen. James L. Jones noted this. The escalation has not delivered on its stated goals. It has failed.

The New York Times lead editorial in it’s Sunday edition strongly condemns the Bush Administration for trying to hide behind Gen Patraeus. The goal of the escalation was not to compile American military victories. It was to give the Iraqis time to solve their political differences and begin a national process of reconciliation. Pres Bush is using Gen Patraeus and this hoopla surrounding this “Magic September” to redefine the mission again. The President is also trying to avoid his responsibility for the disastrous policies in Iraq by trying to hide behind his field commanders. As the New York Times points out, this is President Bush’s war, he started it, he planned it or failed to plan for it and he is responsible for it.

President Bush, however, seems to be aiming for maximum political advantage — not maximum clarity on Iraq’s military and political crises, which cannot be separated from each other. Mr. Bush, we fear, isn’t looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public, scare Democrats into dropping their demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office. At times, General Petraeus gives the disturbing impression that he, too, is more focused on the political game in Washington than the unfolding disaster in Iraq. That serves neither American nor Iraqi interests.

Mr. Bush, deeply unpopular with the American people, is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy. He frequently refers to the escalation of American forces last January as General Petraeus’s strategy — as if it were not his own creation. The situation echoes the way Mr. Bush made Colin Powell — another military man with an overly honed sense of a soldier’s duty — play frontman at the United Nations in 2003 to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war.