The Lost Year

William Douglas and Renee Schoof write for McClatchy Newspapers: "Warner's statement reflects Republican discontent with Bush's Iraq policy. However, the Virginia Republican made clear that he won't support efforts by congressional Democrats to impose a withdrawal timetable on Bush. Asked if he'd vote for Congress to order a withdrawal if Bush refuses, Warner said that it's Bush's responsibility under the Constitution, not Congress'.

"Democrats had been hoping that Warner would help lead Republicans to break decisively with Bush. His stand Thursday, however, helps to ensure that Bush will prevail over Democrats on the issue, because without substantial Republican support, they lack the votes to override Bush's veto."

The Pentagon Challenge

Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel write in the Los Angeles Times: "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

"Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

"Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of the U.S. troop buildup before force levels are decreased to their pre-buildup numbers sometime next year.

"Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.

"According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates."

Barnes and Spiegel also write: "Planning within the White House has shifted in recent weeks to focus on how large a presence can be maintained in Iraq through the end of 2008.

"'If it's going to take time, and if we can't afford to just walk away from this, then . . . we better get ourselves structured for the long haul,' said the senior administration official, explaining the White House position."

Opinion Watch

Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall writes that Bush's "entire legacy as president is bound up in Iraq. Which is another way of saying that his legacy is pretty clearly an irrecoverable shambles. That is why, as the folly of the enterprise becomes more clear, he must continually puff it up into more and more melodramatic and world-historical dimensions. A century long ideological struggle and the like. For the president a one in a thousand shot at some better outcome is well worth it, no matter what the cost. Because at least that's a one in a thousand shot at not ending his presidency with the crushing verdict history now has in store. It's also worth just letting things keep on going as they are forever because . . . something better might turn up. Going double or nothing by expanding the war into Iran might be worth it too for the same reason. For him, how can it get worse?"

Vietnam Redux

Massimo Calabresi writes for Time: "Politically, President Bush has reached the point all gamblers fear: being so far down that higher stakes start to look worth the risk. Public support for his handling of the war in Iraq is already abysmal, with 70% against him and only 25% still in his camp. So perhaps he felt he had very little to lose when Wednesday, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, Mo., he effectively doubled down, arguing not only that America needs to stay in Iraq until a stable democracy can take root, but also implying we should have done the same in Vietnam a generation ago. . . .

"White House aides speaking on background insist Bush, who even made a curious reference to Graham Greene's classic novel of American misguided idealism, The Quiet American, was not trying to 'relitigate the Vietnam war.' 'We understand that people might be surprised by his using that example, but it's for a very specific purpose,' said one White House aide, 'which is what were people saying about what would happen if we left [Vietnam] and what are people saying about what will happen if we leave Iraq? The Vietnam war has been analyzed every which way and that's not what he was trying to do, he was trying to deal with the current debate we're in now, weighing the consequences should America walk away from its commitment in Iraq.'"