Considering how "central" to the "war on terror" apologists for Bush's war say Iraq is, it's quite stunning to witness the lengths to which the Republican presidential candidates will go to avoid addressing the issue in any real way.

You'll recall Rudy's "12 commitments," what he calls his "vision and principles for the road ahead." Funny thing about Rudy's commitments, Iraq is nowhere to be found. When asked why, he responded:

"What I was trying to do was to look at the things, as best as you can predict it now, that are going to be there a year and half from now," he said. "Iraq may get better. Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq. We may not be. I don't know the answer to that. That's in the hands of other people."

Josh over at TPM thought this was strange so did some digging and found that it was actually quite consistent with the way Rudy has been treating the issue lately (complete with video compilation HERE.) Instead of actually answering the question of what he would do about Iraq, Rudy prefers to merely talk about it as a part of the larger "terrorist war against us" or just sort of plead ignorance, habits that have {gasp!} gone unnoticed by the media.

But turns out Rudy's not the only one trying to avoid addressing the war issue. As The Right's Field's Paul Curtis explains, Mitt Romney too has been playing dodge and weave, whether it be his channeling of Britney "I think we should just trust the president" Spears last September or more recently during a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on his "Comprehensive Strategy For Winning The War On Terror," where, according to Think Progress:

In the 600-word speech excerpt leaked to reporters today, there is not a single word about Iraq. Romney's "comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terror" makes zero mention of what Romney claims is the "central front" of this war.

In addition, Romney's website issue page is conspicuously silent on the matter, preferring instead to focus on Iran.

So what of the latest candidate to ascend to the top tier of Republican field, Fred Thompson? Since he is quite the blogger, I went online to look for what he has to say about Iraq. How about his American Enterprise Institute essays? Nope, hardly brings it up. Since March, only two mentions, one of which was to slam Democrats. OK, so how about his blog over at ABC Radio? Hmm, still not too much, unless you count a post attacking Reid for saying the war is lost or the text of his May speech to the Lincoln Club where all he has to offer is some concern trolling about "malaise talk" from Democrats and the international community. OK, well certainly there must be something on his new website, I'm With Fred, right? Wrong again. Not one mention of Iraq either under his 3 bullet points outlining his national security bona fides or his 6 "big issues and challenges our nation is facing now." Not one.

Umm, I think a few people might disagree with you, Fred, that Iraq doesn't count as one of the US's top challenges. Of course, I guess you can't really blame these guys for running from the issue. They've seen what's happened to the one guy who continuously speaks out in support of our continued presence in Iraq and even has a whole section of his website devoted to the issue. As Bowers repeated gleefully yesterday:

McCain is finished.

Fact is, as it becomes more and more clear that the escalation isn't working, we're going to start to see all these guys develop a September strategy whereby their prior stated support for the escalation and opposition to withdrawal will evolve into what is likely to become a mainstream Republican stance come this fall, that if there's no progress on the ground we should consider drawing down troops responsibly. But the damage may have been done -- the candidates of the party that once had a reputation for being tough on matters of war have ceded the issue entirely to the Democrats and have demonstrated themselves to be completely irrelevant on the most important issue of the day.