Vitter Speaks--But Only Briefly

This LAT piece says the value of Dow Jones stock could drop by as much as two-thirds if dissident family members block the sale because it's already built into the share price.

Meanwhile, I guess I can stop sitting around waiting for George Bush's new message on Iraq.

Rhetorically, at least, it's stay the course.

Last week, I got the impression from this WashPost piece that the president was about to engage in some repositioning. The story said that Bush, "facing a growing Republican revolt against his Iraq policy, has rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve, senior officials said yesterday."

And then: nada.

The reason I can be reasonably sure of this is not based on any senior officials but on the ultimate Senior Official. Bush summoned 10 conservative journalists to the White House on Friday, and he made clear that Lugar and Warner notwithstanding, he's not contemplating any withdrawal, pullback, redeployment or reshuffling of the Iraq deck.

One report comes from National Review's Kate O'Beirne and Rich Lowry:

"Forget the leaks and the speculation, President George W. Bush is not looking for a way out of the surge and the Iraq war. In a session with about ten conservative journalists Friday afternoon, a confident and determined president made it clear that he is going to see the surge through, and will rely on General David Petraeus's advice on how to proceed come September, regardless of the political climate in Washington.

"He scoffed at reports to the contrary in the press. When specifically asked about a Washington Post article this week reporting that his administration is looking for a way to draw down, President Bush said dismissively, 'I didn't read it,' and then, 'there are a lot of talkers in Washington.' When it was pointed out that the sources were people in his administration, he repeated, just as dismissively, 'That's what I said, there are a lot of talkers.' He said that not everyone gets to talk to him: 'I'm not on the phone chatting up with these people writing these articles, ascribing motives to me.' "

Now this is an interesting analysis of the media. Peter Baker, the lead author on that piece, and most other White House reporters don't have the ability to just ring up the prez for his take on things. Nor do they get invited to the equivalent of these little soirees with conservative soulmates. So they must rely to a significant extent on the people who work for Bush (who, of course, may have their own agendas). If said senior officials represent to a journalist that Bush plans to do something, it is reasonable to publish that (though we can always be played by sources who dish only on background). For Bush to then grumble about that is to suggest that reporters shouldn't believe members of his own staff, including folks who are paid to deal with the press.

Another veteran conservative pundit, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes offers his own take:

"White House officials were pushing the line last week that President Bush would soon take a positive new tack in defending the war in Iraq. He'd talk about what Iraq would look like after the 'surge' of American troops in Baghdad had succeeded and the soldiers were beginning to come home. Peter Baker of the Washington Post was told Bush 'will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year.' The president would deliver his 'vision for the post-surge,' an aide told Baker. Indeed, I talked to two White House officials who mentioned the plan for Bush to stress the bright future in Iraq rather than the dimmer present.