Despite a report from the independent Government Accountability Office showing, not surprisingly, that the escalation in Iraq has not yielded acceptable levels of progress within the country, the Bush administration, also not surprisingly, is determined to stay the course.

President Bush's senior advisers on Iraq have recommended he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The recommendations from the military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker come despite independent government findings Tuesday that Baghdad has not met most of the political, military and economic markers set by Congress.

Congressional Republicans, too, seem intent, in their case to standing steadfastly with the President on the wrong side of this key issue.

Republican leaders on Tuesday showed no signs of wavering in their support for Bush.

"The GAO report really amounts to asking someone to kick an 80-yard field goal and criticizing them when they came up 20 or 25 yards short," said House GOP leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters he would like to ensure a long-term U.S. presence in the Middle East to fight al-Qaida and deter aggression from Iran.

"And I hope that this reaction to Iraq and the highly politicized nature of dealing with Iraq this year doesn't end up in a situation where we just bring all the troops back home and thereby expose us, once again, to the kind of attacks we've had here in the homeland or on American facilities," said McConnell.

This isn't real news. Despite the congressional mandate for the administration to report on the progress, or lack thereof, out of Iraq and make its determinations about the way forward based on those metrics, the Bush administration has never seriously considered any significant change in course. And we've known as much even before the escalation was announced. Even back in January it was clear that the Bush escalation in Iraq was not about improving the situation on the ground in Iraq but rather a means for extending the war for at least the duration of the Bush presidency so that the current President would not have to deal with the negative consequences of his disastrous decisions and actions.

Where does this leave the situation for Democrats on Capitol Hill? I've been mulling that offline for a while and will be putting up some thoughts this week. But how would you like to see the Democrats respond to the President here?