Warnings of Chaos Ignored

Abramowitz concludes, however: "In some respects, yesterday's news conference seemed like a package of familiar White House refrains on Iraq, as Bush once again offered no regrets for his campaign to evict Saddam Hussein and spoke extensively of the threat to this country from al-Qaeda."

Peter Spiegel writes in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush said Thursday that once his troop buildup improved security in the Iraqi capital, he intended to follow the withdrawal plan proposed by a bipartisan study group, embracing recommendations previously spurned by the administration.

"Speaking at a White House news conference, Bush for the first time adopted the blueprint outlined in December by the Iraq Study Group, saying he envisioned U.S. troops gradually moving out of their combat role and into support and training functions."

That, Spiegel writes, "represented a significant shift in his public position on the study group's recommendations, which when they were unveiled were embraced by war critics but largely ignored by the White House.

"According to people familiar with internal administration discussions, senior officials were even more dismissive in private, suggesting the group's report was a recipe for defeat."

Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush warned Thursday that casualties in Iraq could increase over the summer as the United States completes its troop buildup there. . . .

"Mr. Bush made his comments during a news briefing in the Rose Garden at which he was occasionally combative but mostly good humored, clearly relishing the expected end -- for now -- of his fight with Congress over war funds.

"But his statements about his new Iraq plan reflected deep concern at the White House that an intense summer of fighting and higher casualties could further undermine support for the war and lead Democrats to take a harder line in future legislative clashes over how to proceed in Iraq."

Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: "Defending his widely criticized stance that Iraq has become the central front in a global war on terror, the president said, 'This notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naive. I would hope our world hadn't become so cynical that they don't take the threats of Al Qaeda seriously, because they're real.'"

Rutenberg called Bush "mostly good humored." Silva didn't think so: "At times during the news conference, Bush appeared frustrated, combative and tired in answering questions about a lingering war that many in his administration had thought would be far shorter and more decisive. The president seemed especially annoyed when a reporter asked why bin Laden was still free."

That reporter, as it happens, was Rutenberg. Bush's reply: "Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet, Jim. That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That's why he's still at large. He's not out there traipsing around, he's not leading many parades, however. He's not out feeding the hungry. He's isolated, trying to kill people to achieve his objective."

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post that Bush invoked al Qaeda "19 times and even suggested it was going after individual reporters' kids.