Official Optimism

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 1, 2005 11:00 AM

I had no idea things were going so well in Iraq.

In listening to President Bush's speech yesterday, it sounded like the Iraqi forces are ready to take over in a few hours.

Perhaps it is a coincidence that just as the post-Murtha debate on a U.S. pullout is starting to turn, the president finds so much to praise in the performance of Iraqi forces--despite all the negative reports we've had about their struggle. Bush even took on the official military estimate that only one battalion was combat ready--by saying you didn't need to be fully ready to be effective.

Some would call that moving the goal posts.

Is this the beginning of an exit strategy? Two weeks after Scott McClellan likened Jack Murtha to Michael Moore, everyone seems to agree it would be a good thing if Iraqi troops would assume more of the burden so that sizable numbers of American troops could come home. The main difference seems to be over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of setting a timetable. But if the administration is determined to accelerate the Iraqization of the war, and with the '06 elections looming, a precise timetable may not matter as much.

Bush obviously made a nod toward the appearance of bipartisanship by quoting Joe Lieberman. I briefly wondered whether the Democrats would try to find common ground with Bush or dismiss the Annapolis speech as so much presidential spin.

Moments later, Harry Reid provided the answer, saying Bush "recycled his tired rhetoric of `stay the course' and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home."

And Reid's strategy is . . . ?

"Moving to deflect criticism of the war in Iraq and lay out new conditions that would allow the departure of U.S. troops, President Bush said today he would settle for "nothing less than complete victory" there, and defined that success as creating an Iraq in which Iraqis could live in peace protected by their own security forces," reports the Los Angeles Times .

"The political calculation behind President Bush's speech in Annapolis on Wednesday is that Washington, not Baghdad, is the battlefront that will decide the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq, but that Mr. Bush's decisions do not have to be driven by fears of heavy Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections," says the New York Times analysis.

"At a time of increasing Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war and a drop in public support for the conflict, Mr. Bush's political advisers assert that they can still hold Congress next year. By their reasoning, there will be only 35 to 40 competitive seats in the House of Representatives, and at this point they see no evidence that the war will be the determining factor in those races. While there may be Democratic gains in the Senate, both parties doubt that the Republicans will lose control.

"In any case, the advisers say, Mr. Bush is adamantly committed to holding tough in Iraq, even if it means disregarding the domestic political repercussions and pressure from his own party."

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."

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle sees a Hillary pivot coming:

"According to The New York Times, Hillary Clinton sent a letter to thousands of her constituents calling for a plan to withdraw troops next year. But because Clinton--unlike, say, John Edwards--refuses to say her vote for the war was a mistake, she needs to find an ostensible success on which to predicate the withdrawal. It looks like she's found one. In her letter, she writes:

"I believe we are at a critical point with the Dec. 15 elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities.

"So, assuming nothing absolutely awful happens on December 15, look for Clinton to hail the elections as a victory for progress--and start calling even more forcefully for a troop withdrawal."

The anti-Alito forces may have found their smoking gun:

"Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, wrote a memo in 1985 to his superior in the Reagan administration saying that the Justice Department should set a goal of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and in the meantime should weaken the law by supporting state restrictions," says the Boston Globe .

" 'We should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to [present arguments on] the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled,' Alito wrote in a memo to the solicitor general at the time, Charles Fried. The National Archives released the memo yesterday.

"Abortion rights activists called the memo definitive evidence that Alito, if confirmed, would seek to limit abortion rights. But Alito's supporters said that he was merely outlining a strategy for the Reagan administration and that the memo does not necessarily reflect how he would rule as a judge."

Merely outlining a strategy?

Slate's John Dickerson examines why John McCain is one Republican who doesn't have to keep his distance from W.:

"McCain can embrace Bush without being hurt by the affiliation because voters think he's winking as he does it. McCain's fans see his stumping for Bush and his policies as completely pro forma and insincere. 'I genuinely like him,' McCain insists to friends, referring to Bush. Remembering how roughly Bush treated him in the 2000 primaries, the friends don't believe the senator, either

"Heightening the paradox is that McCain's nomination for sainthood is based largely on his reputation for unorthodox candor. In this case, the McCain crowd thinks he is so candid he can't possibly be telling the truth. And so he is free to make a show of embracing Bush, whereas politicians with no special reputation for honesty are taken at their word when they make patently insincere gestures of shunning the president. McCain has reversed the political gravity. When Bush's approval ratings go down, other politicians fear being dragged down with him. For McCain, the worse things get for Bush, the nobler his helping hand appears."

John Fund spanks Harry Reid:

"Is Senator Harry Reid all that swift when it comes to U.S. intelligence matters? Last Wednesday, the Minority Leader appeared on KRNV-TV's 'Nevada Newsmakers' program and dropped a stunning revelation. He had been informed just that day that Osama bin Laden was killed in the giant Pakistan earthquake last month. 'I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm, but if that's the case, that's good for the world.'

"Intelligence analysts tell me that the only proper action by a top U.S. Senate leader who has been given such information is radio silence. If the report is true, such information is best released at a moment of the U.S. government's choosing. For one thing, as long as the information is tightly held, it can be used to sift out electronic intercepts that might lead to other Al Qaeda leaders. On the other hand, if Mr. Reid's public speculation proves groundless, it only embarrasses the U.S. and contributes to enemy morale."

Oh, come on. Does anyone doubt the White House would wait beyond the next prime-time TV slot to announce Osama's death?

How's the new Cynthia McFadden/Terry Moran/Martin Bashir "Nightline" playing with TV critics? Not so well. Here are some reviews, beginning with David Bianculli of New York's Daily News:

"The first installment of the drastically revamped, post-Ted Koppel edition of ABC's 'Nightline' was a wobbly affair . . .

"The trio of stories, while commendable in subject, were less so in scope. McFadden's piece, the one most typical of a classic 'Nightline' report, had her questioning priests on opposite sides of the debate about gay clergy. The interview, handled live, could have gone somewhere, but never got the chance. After five minutes, with the gay priest from Albany chomping to respond to his colleague's charge that homosexuality was 'a disorder,' McFadden shut down the discussion.

" 'I'm sorry,' she said, 'that's going to have to be the last word for tonight.'

"I'm sorry, too. I would have loved to hear his response.

"Similarly, in Bashir's intriguing feature story on an all-deaf high school football team with an undefeated record, five minutes was far too little time to do justice to the topic. Even Moran's live lead story, on the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, seemed incomplete. Five minutes was all Moran got, too, with an additional minute for a postreport debriefing with McFadden."

Robert Bianco makes a sweeping declaration in USA Today:

"In all but name, Nightline is gone.

"The show that premiered on ABC Monday night (or early Tuesday in the East, post-football) was a solidly produced newscast. But in tone, look and content, it was far closer to a half-hour version of 20/20 than it was to the distinctive classic Ted Koppel led for 25 years -- and that is a tragedy. Something extraordinary has been replaced by the commonplace."

The Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik even objects to the look:

"There is polished, and there is excessively slick. In trying to energize the broadcast through the use of flashing lights, banks of video monitors, quick camera cuts and a backdrop of Times Square, [producer James] Goldston has created a garish-looking TV creature more reminiscent of the carnival midway than the pioneering broadcast whose name it bears. A stylistic marriage of prime-time newsmagazines and MTV, this hyped-up, neon-lit news program seems like the last thing one would want to see before trying to fall asleep.

"The irony is that Goldston and ABC News in some ways are trying hard to respect the program that Koppel and the late Roone Arledge built . . . The balance between substance and style at Nightline had been decisively - and sadly - reversed in the last week."

LAT blogger Michael Hiltzik is not a big fan, apparently, of MSNBC's "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct." He begins with an excerpt:

" 'But first, our top story tonight. An aspiring Broadway dancer by day, a topless stripper by night. Twenty-one-year-old Catherine Woods was found stabbed to death in her New York City apartment this weekend, and police are struggling to find her killer. . . .

"Tragic for her family back in Columbus, certainly. And the aspiring star making ends meet by dancing as a stripper . . . that's sort of like Rent, isn't it? But our top story tonight ? Let's see. Among stories fresher than a 48-hour-old murder among La Boheme de Manhattan, we've got a Republican Congressman pleading guilty to taking millions of dollars in bribes. More politicians, principally Republicans, in the crosshairs of the same corruption case. President Bush talking about an Iraq pullout. The death penalty erupting into a political issue in two states, California and Virginia. Shiite death squads operating in the guise of Iraqi security forces. Nine foreigners kidnapped in Iraq, including an American. The Vatican taking a strong stand against gays in its clergy. Saddam throwing a fit at his trial.

"Rita's number-two story, by the way, was more no-news in Aruba. The woman's got to be shooting for a permanent slot as a punch line on The Daily Show."

You'd think she was the only TV person focusing on crime!

Finally, an SBA spokesman responded yesterday to my New Orleans column by saying the agency has approved more than a couple hundred loan applications. The official figures: 264,000 applicants (businesses and homeowners in the Gulf region), and 1,703 approved.

When I suggested this seemed a rather slow pace, the spokesman assured me that 85,000 applications are being worked on in some form and $881 million has been approved. But 1,703 still seems to me to be a paltry figure, given the magnitude of the disaster.