Charles Krauthamer was on Fox News this morning talking (candidly?) about GOP strategy for the November election.
He said something like, "Have you noticed that news about Iraq is no longer the top story? The reason is that whenever something happens in Iraq, we no longer go to Bremer or an American commander. We now turn to Iraqi leaders for commentary and response. That's because Iraqis are now in charge. So, what's going on in Iraq is of less interest to Americans. This is good. We've seen that coverage of Iraq doesn't help the Bush Administration."
He continued, "It would be most helpful if Bush had an Atlanta (reference to Abe Lincoln), but since he won't have that kind of victory, the best we can hope for is for people to think we're out of Iraq. People already think Bush has done a good job fighting terrorism. If they think we're also out of Iraq, they'll think he's good on foreign policy."
Krauthamer came on about 10 minutes into the morning's news on Fox. The top story was the "startling new evidence of an Iran - 9/11 connection." They talked about how the 9/11 report coming out will show that 8 of the hijackers had been to Iran at some point in late 2000 or early 2001. They also mentioned two rumors that Al Queda has connections with Iran, but said there wasn't conclusive evidence of either.
So, what does this mean? Was Krauthamer being candid? The GOP is going to try to bury the Iraq story and Bush/Cheney will run on being tough on terror without mentioning Iraq? Will they bring up Iran? It seems like a very tricky strategy.