Does Bush Mean It?

"Could you imagine if say the incoming Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a month before the election had said what Robert Gates said today, the charges of cut and run, and everything else from the White House behind me would have been flying around. But I think the bottom line is, this is a bad story for the White House tonight, maybe into tomorrow.

"But long-term, it could help them slightly in the sense that all of a sudden, Robert Gates has something Donald Rumsfeld lost, and that's credibility. With this one comment, all of a sudden Robert Gates has established maybe, and I stress, maybe, he's an independent voice, maybe he will stand up to the president. Time will tell. But for now, he's all of a sudden given himself some credibility, maybe an honest broker now at the table."

Here's the transcript of yesterday's press briefing. Snow was doing gymnastics.

"Q: If the president were asked that same question today, would he say, absolutely, yes?

"MR. SNOW: I'm not going to tell you what the president would say, but you can look at the president's answer and you can look at Bob Gates. What I would also suggest, though, is you take a look at the Gates testimony, and you see if that's consistent with what we've been talking about, because what you're going to try to take is that one little question, rather than taking a fuller look at -- . . . .

"Q: Does the president today believe that we are winning in Iraq? It's a very straightforward question.

"MR. SNOW: I know, but I did not ask him the question today. The most recently asked, he said, 'yes.'

"Q: Okay, so that might change from day to day. So it may have changed --

"MR. SNOW: No, I don't --

"Q: -- he may no longer believe that we're winning the war in Iraq. You don't know.

"MR. SNOW: I have no reason to think it changed, but also, again, go back and take a look at the broader answer that Bob Gates gave and ask yourself, is this consistent or inconsistent with what the president has been saying? I think you're going to find it's very consistent. . . .

"Q: But his statement is inconsistent with what the administration says. The president has said, we are winning. You from that podium said, we're winning --

"MR. SNOW: Right.

"Q: -- but we haven't won.

"MR. SNOW: Right.

"Q: He said -- he agreed that we are not winning. So how is that consistent --

"MR. SNOW: And he also said we're not losing."

Opinion Watch

Washington Post editorial: "Robert Gates tries out a new strategy for a Bush Cabinet member: candor."

New York Times editorial: "Mr. Gates played the role of the un-Rumsfeld masterfully yesterday. He offered just enough candor and conciliation to persuade most senators that he plans to be a very different sort of defense secretary, while deftly holding back any real information about how he plans to clean up President Bush's mess in Iraq."

What About Leaving?

Paul Richter writes in the Los Angeles Times: "With Americans leaning consistently in favor of disengagement from Iraq, President Bush has warned that a precipitate withdrawal would create a terrorism superstate in the Middle East that is rich with oil cash and determined to topple moderate governments around it.

"But to many U.S. lawmakers, regional experts and Middle East leaders, the chief risk is not a more menacing version of Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, but a Lebanese-style civil war that could result in the deaths of thousands more Iraqis and expand the conflict by drawing in neighboring states."

Norman Solomon writes on HuffingtonPost.com, however, that the traditional media's conviction that a quick pullout of U.S. troops would be disastrous reminds him of the media's conviction in 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: In both cases, dissenting voices -- that may, in fact, be correct -- are marginalized in a most unjournalistic fashion.

"The current media travesty is a drumbeat for the idea that the U.S. war effort must keep going," Solomon writes.

What the Democrats Might Do

Edward Epstein writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "House Democrats sent a strong signal to President Bush on Tuesday that they will attach conditions he is likely to find unpalatable, perhaps even unacceptable, to his anticipated request early next year for another $100 billion or more to pay for the war in Iraq.

"At the least, speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and other leaders of the incoming Democratic majority said they will seek to enforce greater transparency for the billions of dollars in contracts that the Pentagon pays private firms to perform numerous functions in Iraq."

Civil Liberties Board

Ellen Nakashima writes in The Washington Post: "The Bush administration's new privacy guidelines fail to protect the rights of Americans, and the board created to guarantee those rights lacks the independence to do the job, civil libertarians told the White House privacy board yesterday at its first public forum.

"The guidelines, released Monday, are intended to protect the personal privacy and civil liberties of U.S. citizens as the government attempts to strengthen its intelligence-sharing to fight terrorism.

"But, said privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg, the guidelines pale in comparison to protections offered under the Privacy Act of 1974. . . .

"The five-member privacy board, which started work in March, lacks subpoena power and has only four full-time staff members. President Bush appointed all five members, four of whom are Republicans, including Theodore B. Olson, the administration's former solicitor general. . . .

"Lanny J. Davis, the board's only Democrat, said he was puzzled about why Congress had placed what was supposed to be an independent oversight board under the president."

Strategery Watch

Ronald Kessler writes for Newsmax.com: "President Bush has a new mandate: It's back to the basics.

"Over the next two years Bush will focus on winning back Republicans and Congress by returning to basic Republican principles, Karl Rove is telling White House allies."

Kessler enigmatically notes: "While the White House knows Democrats will be launching investigations, a mechanism has been set up to deal with them without allowing staff to become consumed by these events."

And Kessler explains why the White House "has opened up more to the media.

"As Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor in charge of communications, told me long before the more open policy took effect, Bush wants results. Too much contact with the media can lead to leaks -- as occurred during his father's presidency -- and can undercut the president's efforts by forcing his hand and allowing aides to push their own agendas in the press.

"As Bush's poll numbers began to drop, he and his advisors began to recognize that, while his press policy was based on high-minded principles, it simply will not wash in this media-driven age. Without a higher approval level, Bush was in danger of losing his effectiveness.

"Reporters are human, and even if they are not pushing a liberal agenda, they will take it out on Bush if the White House does not return their calls and does not feed them tidbits for their stories."

Rove Speaks

Michael Barone blogs for U.S. News on Karl Rove's speech at Hillsdale College's annual Churchill dinner at the Mayflower Hotel.

"Usually in his public speeches, Rove talks mainly about domestic issues and politics. But last night he talked primarily about our 'new enemy': 'transnational terrorism.' In terms similar to those his boss, George W. Bush, has used of late (as noted in my U.S. News column this week), Rove declared that defeat in Iraq would be 'the beginning of the beginning' -- a terrible setback for the United States. . . .

"Much of the commentariat in Washington has been waiting for Bush to acquiesce in what it considers failure in Iraq. Bush, to judge from Rove's speech as well as his own comments, is not so inclined."

Elder Bush Watch

Here is AP video of the former President Bush breaking into sobs while delivering a speech ostensibly about his son Jeb. "A true measure of a man is how you handle victory and how you handle defeat," Bush said.

Webb Watch

Pundits have gone back and forth on who was ruder -- President Bush or senator-elect Jim Webb -- in a recent encounter in which Bush asked Webb about his son, a Marine in Iraq. Some say Webb was a boor; others say the president was being a bully.

The liberal Think Progress blog adds a data point: "[A]ccording to Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Bush was told that Webb's son had a recent brush with death in Iraq and was warned to be 'extra-sensitive' when talking to the Sen.-elect."

Mary Cheney Watch

Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts write in The Washington Post: "Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are 'ecstatic' about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple. . . .

"'The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild,' spokesman Lea Anne McBride said last night. . . .

"Cheney has described her relationship with Poe -- whom she took to last year's White House dinner honoring Prince Charles and Camilla-- as a marriage."

Live Online

I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET.