Somebody leaked the Baker/Hamilton report to the New York Sun, by reading it to them over the telephone:

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The problem here is that Bush believes his own rhetoric, and, as the Man in the Grey Turtleneck points out, will never agree to it.

But the real money quote is here:

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.

Call me crazy, but I thought that in a representative democracy, we had elections to deal with "politically explosive" topics. I guess not.

But let's be reasonable here, people. The troops in Iraq, and the Iraqi civilians, were always dying so that Republicans could be elected. True when the war started right before the 2002 mid-terms, true in 2004, true now.

So, why shouldn't they continue to die so that Republicans get elected? Why tamper with success?

NOTE Shame on any Democrat for going along with this Bipartisan charade. Wise men, indeed. Feh.