Just as a matter of political communication, I don’t agree with the Bush adminisitration’s hestitation to describe things it’s doing as new.

These two tid-bits are drawn from the Hotline:

Bartlett, on the New York Times’ story [on deadlines]: “I was a bit puzzled by the report this weekend because it was stating publicly something we’ve been talking about for months. … I think this was a story that was a bit overwritten in suggesting that this was something new.“
Sec/State Condoleezza Rice, stressing to reporters that Bush “often talks with his generals” in Iraq: “I wouldn’t read into this somehow that there is a full-scale push for a major re-evaluation.”

Why not say, instead, “We’ve been thinking about deadlines for some time, but adopting them would undeniably be a big change in our policy–we are constantly looking for new ideas to make this project succeed”? Or, “Of course, Bush is re-evaluating with his generals, as he should”? The challenge in the current environment is to convince people the administration is re-adjusting to conditions on the ground. They want new, and they want re-evaluations. Bush makes feints this way (“what is changing are the tactics”), but it needs to be more than a rhetorical after-thought.