Looking Ahead

Said Reid: "My displeasure with the president, he doesn't understand the urgency of this. It's all victory for him, but I don't know what that means anymore in Iraq. I do know what we are doing now doesn't work."

Robin Wright writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush formally launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy yesterday, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies, according to U.S. officials. . . .

"The White House review could give the administration alternatives so that it feels less pressure to fully implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report, foreign policy experts said.

"Bush made the decision after his national security team held secret meetings Friday and Saturday to discuss the disparate efforts inside the administration and the implications for Iraq after the Republican defeat in the midterm elections. Further informal meetings were held Monday before yesterday's decision, officials said."

It was on Monday, of course, that Bush and Cheney actually met face-to-face with the members of the bipartisan study group, led by James Baker.

So, after lots of warm words for the group, is this the first sign that Bush doesn't intend to follow their suggestions? Or is this a sign that members of his brain trust are actually starting to rethink things?

Wright writes that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "has been doing 'a lot of thinking' about the issue over the past two months, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday. . . .

"Rice's trip to Baghdad last month was a turning point in her thinking, officials said."

That would appear to suggest that her thinking has changed. But would that put her ahead, behind, or entirely out of sync with her boss?

Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks wrote in Tuesday's Washington Post about Bush's public comments after his meeting with the group:

"Bush offered little indication that he is planning to adjust his approach, telling reporters gathered in the Oval Office that 'the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground' in Iraq."

Abramowitz and Ricks describe a "rapidly evolving political landscape for the White House, which finds itself trying to balance the desire for change voiced by the electorate last Tuesday with the president's frequently stated conviction that the United States must remain engaged militarily in Iraq until the government there can maintain its own security.