Right now the rage around the political blogosphere is talking about Bush's press conference yesterday:

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

And so now the people on the left are once again shouting quagmire, while folks on the right are chanting "stay the course", as if somehow those are the only two choices.  And if you say that you want to remain in Iraq, you're accused of being thick headed, and not adjusting to reality.  And if you point to bad news in Iraq as showing that conditions aren't improving, and that change is needed, you're accused of wanting to "cut and run", as if that's the only allowed change in policy.

If only the world were so simple as to always be capable of reducing down to a simple dichotomous choice.  Stay and do nothing different, or leave Iraq and let them fend for themselves.

Now to be fair to Bush, which the press wasn't trying to be, he did talk about a true change in strategy:

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of instability.

But then in response to the very next question he says:

If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government has been in power for less than six months. And, yes, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- the reason I cite it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.

And so we're left once again with the fallacy of only two choices.  Is there a shift that we can make in real strategy that would truly change things in Iraq?  What specifically are commanders telling Bush that leads him to believe the current strategy will work?  This is where Bush's general lack of speaking ability really hurts.  If you're going to sell us on "stay the course", you're going to have to give us something more.  Why can't the course change a little, without totally reversing it?

Which of course leads us back to the importance of framing the debate.  The Democrats have done a very good job of framing the debate as a choice between "stay this exact course", and "leave Iraq now".  Bush needs to come back with something much stronger to change this perception.  In the end, history may end up proving him right.  But if he doesn't do something in the present, history may never get a chance to vindicate him.