PUNT!

Atrios links to this LA Times piece on how some military assaults on targets in Iraq like Fallujah and Ramadi are being postponed until after the election by the administration because of the effect they could have on said election (i.e. lots of American troops getting killed).

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

I'm suffering from a bit of Bush-prioritizing-himself-over-Iraq fatigue, so I won't cover that here. But let's reverse the question.

Let's explore the hypothetical of Bush losing on November 2nd.

Bush's dad did virtually nothing to help the Somalia situation during his lame duck period before Clinton took over, electing instead to "punt". We all know how that ended up.

So my question is: Can we trust a lame-duck Bush to faithfully prosecute the war in Iraq between early November and mid January?

I mean, any more than we can right now, that is.

Hopefully, we'll find out the answer to that question, but if their similar demeanors at this point in the election cycle are any indication, perhaps it could be like father like son in this instance as well...