Who's the Decider?

It's no surprise that commissions get formed for the purpose of researching an issue in order for politicians to take political cover beneath the commission's findings.

It's also no surprise that commissions get formed in order to arrive at the pre-ordained recommendations favored by those who created the commission.

Here's a surprise: the Great Decider can't even get his own commission, the Baker/Hamilton Commission, to endorse his agenda.

Mr. Bush spent 90 minutes with commission members in a closed session at the White House two weeks ago “essentially arguing why we should embrace what amounts to a ‘stay the course’ strategy,” said one commission official who was present.

There's more on the flip.

And yet, the NYT reports that the draft report calls for plenty that W opposes, i.e. direct talks with Syria and Iran.  Granted they're not setting timetable for troop withdrawal ("performance benchmarks" sound so much better), but they are inevitably going to be part of the debate over the final report.

You'd think that a sitting President who spends that much time with a commission would be able to get his agenda through.  It just shows how out of touch he is that the commission, most of whom are pretty darn conservative themselves, is going to repudiate his approach.

Or... is it something more sinister?  Are they floating details of this meeting for political purposes?  I've got to go teach this morning, but I'll be back later to see if anyone has any ideas about it.