As I detailed here, the three GOP presidential frontrunners have been distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq policy by treating it as the war that shall not be named. Case in point: just yesterday the latest edition of "The Romney Agenda" leaves out any mention of Iraq under its "global challenges" section -- nope, no global challenge there. But as the country (including 42% of Republicans) shifts toward a get the f**k out position, the inevitable shift in rhetoric among the presidential candidates may be beginning. As The LA Times puts it:

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have made it clear that their original support for the escalation does not mean they are signed on to keeping the current 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, even as they have laid out hawkish positions on other aspects of foreign policy.

Expect the first casualty to be the surge and also look for them to try to cling to September for an excuse to delay taking any strong position. Cases in point: these two profiles in courage:

If the fall assessment finds the surge is working, "then we'll pursue this strategy and, if it's successful, start bringing our troops home," the former Massachusetts governor said during a campaign appearance in Iowa this month.

"If it's not," he said, "then we'll have to take alternative strategies."

And...

Thompson, in a June interview with the Hoover Institution, said he worried that a wholesale withdrawal could have "an awful, awful lot of downside" -- risking lasting damage to U.S. standing.

But asked what policy the United States should be pursuing in Iraq, the former Tennessee senator said decisions had to be considered "on a day-to-day basis right now."

Of course there's no incentive for them to lead on the issue. After all, they've seen what's happened to the one candidate who has, but also in a recent DesMoines Register poll, 40% of GOP caucusgoers cited terrorism as the most important issue. Hell if the primary voters are covering their ears singing "la la la" when it comes to Iraq why shouldn't their presidential candidates?

But what do they think of the amendments being debated on the floor of the senate? That's what these guys should be asked. We already know Bush is going to veto anything with fewer than 67 votes, but would they? Do they want the position of president or not? Seems to me saying anything other than they'd veto any withdrawal bill would be going a bit far out on a limb for their tastes but all the more reason to force them to align themselves with Mr. 26%.