Official Optimism

Says the Philadelphia Inquirer : "American critics of President Bush's conduct of the Iraq war heard words of concession yesterday from the commander in chief: Mistakes have been made, and al-Qaeda is 'the smallest' faction of the insurgency.

"But Bush again declined to specify when, and by what criteria, the Iraqis might become capable of defending themselves. After a sufficient and unspecified number of Iraqi troops are trained, he said, 'we will be able to reduce troops in Iraq without losing our ability to defeat the terrorists' - but he said only that 'this will take time and patience.'

"As a result, he may have failed to calm the increasingly restive lawmakers on Capitol Hill . . . Republicans up for reelection in 2006 will continue to fret about a potential voter backlash against the GOP."

Roger Simon is unimpressed:

"I don't know how many times President Bush can announce a 'major' speech on the Iraq war that turns out not to be major, but he seems to be going for a record.

"Wednesday's 'major' speech at the Naval Academy was so un-major, only CBS carried it live among the big broadcast networks. ABC decided that 'Live with Regis and Kelly' was more important than live with George Bush. ABC may have been right.

"The president spoke yet again in front of an all-military audience, which the White House believes guarantees him a sympathetic crowd. But he does this so often, it is beginning to look as if the president is afraid to present his views to anybody but soldiers in uniform and fat cats at fundraisers.

"Since the president is trying to win over the American people, what would be so wrong with allowing a broader cross-section of the American people into one of his speeches? Would they not clap loudly enough every time the president pauses?"

Pelosi seems to have flipped her position: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said yesterday she now agrees with Rep. John P. Murtha's call to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq immediately, adding that a majority of House Democrats also agree," says the Washington Times . Bill Kristol rips the San Francisco Democrat:

"Nancy Pelosi endorsed withdrawal from Iraq. Her statement is a political opportunity for the GOP.

"Until now, it seemed to me more likely than not that Democrats would win back the House in 2006: Bush's numbers are bad; the GOP is getting no credit for a strong economy (which could in any case weaken by a year from now); the Abramoff scandal is going to get bigger; twelve years in charge of the House, and three years in control of all three elected bodies, have created weariness and dissatisfaction with the GOP. All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi.

"I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory."