Does Petraeus Have the Answers?

"A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Friday and Saturday finds that a White House push to spotlight progress in Iraq, including President Bush's surprise stop in Anbar province last week, hasn't fundamentally changed attitudes toward the war.....

"A record 60% say the United States should set a timetable to withdraw forces 'and stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'

"'The president's message has been offset by a stream of credible analyses that things are in pretty bad shape,' says Richard Eichenberg, a political scientist at Tufts."

Steven Lee Myers and Megan Thee write in the New York Times: "Only 5 percent of Americans -- a strikingly low number for a sitting president's handling of such a dominant issue -- said they most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.

"That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans. President Bush has said for years that decisions about force levels should be left to military commanders, although the decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq this year and keep them there was not uniformly supported by military leaders. It was primarily made in the White House, and specifically by the president in his role as commander in chief. . . .

"There is a deepening disillusion over the war's course and its purpose, with the highest numbers of Americans, 62 percent, saying that the war was a mistake, and 59 percent saying that it was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs. . . .

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans said the United States should reduce its troops in Iraq now or withdraw them. Asked if a timetable should be established for a 2008 withdrawal, a position many Democrats in Congress have advocated, 64 percent favored doing so."

Here are the Times poll results. Bush's approval rating is at 30 percent, near his historic low in that poll.

Poll Watch: Iraq Edition

Gary Langer writes for ABC News: "Apart from a few scattered gains, a new national survey by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK finds deepening dissatisfaction with conditions in Iraq, lower ratings for the national government and growing rejection of the U.S. role there. . . .

"More Iraqis say security in their local area has gotten worse in the last six months than say it's gotten better, 31 percent to 24 percent, with the rest reporting no change. Far more, six in 10, say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement. . . .

"More than six in 10 now call the U.S.-led invasion of their country wrong, up from 52 percent last winter. Fifty-seven percent call violence against U.S. forces acceptable, up six points. And despite the uncertainties of what might follow, 47 percent now favor the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq -- a 12-point rise. . . .

"Similarly, disapproval of [Nouri al-]Maliki's performance as prime minister is up by nine points, to 66 percent. His approval rating, 33 percent overall (very similar to George W. Bush's), has fallen by 10 points since winter, including by 13 points among Shiites and by 27 points among Kurds.

Take the Kurds out of the equation and the numbers are even more dire: "Seventy-nine percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in the country, essentially unchanged from last winter -- including more than eight in 10 Shiites and nearly all Sunni Arabs. (Seven in 10 Kurds, by contrast, still support the presence of these forces.)"

The Petraeus Factor

Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post that "the White House and its allies are feuding with congressional Democrats over the credibility and independence of one of today's star witnesses, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces there. . . .

"In a response to President Bush's radio address on Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said that Petraeus's assessment, before arriving on Capitol Hill, will pass 'through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked.' . . .

"MoveOn.org, a leading antiwar group, will be even more critical in a full-page advertisement to run today in the New York Times, describing Petraeus as 'General Betray Us' and a 'military man constantly at war with the facts.' The ad accuses Petraeus of 'cooking the books for the White House,' citing the general's claims of reduced violence in Iraq. It also refers to his statement before the 2004 election that he was seeing 'tangible progress' in rebuilding Iraqi security forces, a statement many experts now consider excessively optimistic

"The Bush administration and its surrogates hit back hard, saying the Democrats are unable to accept good news about the war and are unfairly attacking the messenger. 'Attacking the integrity of uniformed officers is unseemly, but it now looks like MoveOn is writing their talking points,' White House spokesman Tony Fratto said."

Meanwhile, Michael R. Gordon writes in the New York Times that Petraeus "has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday. . . .

"In effect, the much-awaited September debate in Congress over Iraq would become a prelude for another set of potentially difficult deliberations next year."

Reality Check

Leila Fadel writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "When President Bush announced in January what the White House called a "New Way Forward" in Iraq, he said that Iraqi and American troops would improve security while the Iraqi government improved services. Responsibility for security in most of Iraq would be turned over to Iraqi security forces by November.

"With better security would come the breathing room needed for political reconciliation, Bush said.

"With less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened."

Fadel writes that despite all the official expressions of hopefulness, "interviews with Iraqis, statistics on violence gathered independently by McClatchy Newspapers and a review of developments in the country since the U.S. began increasing troop strength here last February provide little reason for optimism."

Internal Dissent

Peter Baker, Karen DeYoung, Thomas E. Ricks, Ann Scott Tyson, Joby Warrick and Robin Wright write in The Washington Post about the dissent within Bush's own administration regarding the surge and its prospects.

For instance, they mention a discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago: "For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region."

The Post reporters explain: "For Bush, the eight months since announcing his 'new way forward' in Iraq have been about not just organizing a major force deployment but also managing a remarkable conflict within his administration, mounting a rear-guard action against Congress and navigating a dysfunctional relationship with an Iraqi leadership that has proved incapable of delivering what he needs. . . .

"Amid the uncertainty, the overriding imperative for Bush these past eight months has been to buy time -- time for the surge to work, time for the Iraqis to get their act together, time to produce progress."

(And, if I might add: Time to pass this along to his successor.)

The Post reporters disclose that the White House was in a tizzy after Bush's prime-time speech on Jan. 10. (I sure didn't think much of it.) They write: "The notion that the president was sending even more troops to Iraq after an antiwar public turned control of Congress over to the Democrats exasperated many in the capital. The visceral reaction induced near-panic among some in the White House."

And to Bush, suggesting that troops could start coming home anytime soon apparently has been seen as political poison. The Post reports that in early July, as some establishment Republicans were breaking with his policy, "[a]ides urged Bush to emphasize that the troop buildup would lead to eventual withdrawals once security was established. The president rejected that, concluding that if he 'showed leg,' as one aide put it, it would only encourage more Republicans to defect."

The New Plan: Withdrawal on His Own Terms?

But now, Michael Abramowitz writes in The Post: "President Bush has sought to reframe the domestic political battle over the war, putting himself in a position to do something his critics have long advocated: Begin drawing down the huge U.S. troop presence. . . .

"Leon E. Panetta, a Clinton White House chief of staff and a member of the Iraq Study Group, said yesterday that the president does not want to be seen as being forced into anything -- but can now claim that military progress makes it possible to begin a process of withdrawal. . . .

"Others close to the president suggest that he may be motivated by two other factors. One is the looming end of his presidency and his desire to put Iraq policy on a more sustainable basis for the next president. The other is that the president knows he will have to begin withdrawing troops by April, as 15-month troop rotations come to a close. That means the pressure is on for an alternative strategy, with a smaller force structure in Iraq."

Bush is expected to address the nation on Thursday evening.

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "While it is unclear what Mr. Bush will say when he addresses the country, it does seem clear that he will no longer insist on 'victory,' in the way he used the term in 2005, before troops can come home. Something more akin to Nixon's 'Peace With Honor' appears to be in the cards, officials say, rewritten and updated for a very different kind of war. . . .

"Until a week ago, every presidential speech, every bit of military testimony, was about the need to persevere, and to add troops. Starting Monday, the new argument seems almost certainly to be about how fast or how cautiously to draw down, and what would constitute a 'sustainable' presence in a country that even most of the Democratic presidential candidates acknowledge will require a major American presence for years to come."

Sanger writes that the "hard part" will be "easing Mr. Bush, a man who revels in his own steadfastness, out of the straitjacket of his past optimistic pronouncements about what must be accomplished. . . .

"'There's a lot of scar tissue that everyone has to cut through around here,' said one senior administration official, who has been surprised by the degree to which Mr. Bush and his longtime aides are trapped by their own vision, and past statements, of how success in Iraq would transform the Middle East. One former senior official, brought in for consultations recently to the White House, said he now feared that Tehran, not the United States, had the greater influence over events in Iraq. 'There was silence in the room,' he said."

Democratic Impotence

Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz write in The Washington Post: "In the past eight months, there have been multiple resolutions opposing the troop increase, numerous proposals to establish timetables for withdrawal, plans to repeal the original congressional authorization that gave Bush the power to go to war and even an effort to cut off funds for the conflict. But Democrats have not succeeded in forcing a single, substantial change in the president's policy, and they have watched Congress's approval rating, as measured by the Gallup Poll, slide to the lowest recorded since Gallup began measuring in 1974."

Neil King Jr. and Greg Jaffe write in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Despite talk of a possible bipartisan compromise in the Senate, the Democrats' calculus for forcing a real shift in strategy looks far less favorable now than it did earlier this summer, when efforts to force a drawdown of U.S. forces fell short of the needed votes. Lawmakers in both parties now acknowledge that, with Congress unlikely to muster sufficient votes to force a sharp reduction in troops, the decision on how and when to disengage from Iraq will almost certainly fall to the next president."

Bin Laden Watch

What's the appropriate, mature response to a new video showing that our public enemy No. 1 is alive and well? Surely not to goad him -- or quote him.

And yet, Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "Seemingly taunting Osama bin Laden, President Bush's homeland security adviser said Sunday the fugitive al-Qaida leader is 'virtually impotent' beyond his ability to hide away and spread anti-American propaganda.

"The provocative characterization came just days after bin Laden attracted international attention with the release of a video in which he ridicules President Bush about the Iraq war and reminds the world that he not been captured.

"Ahead of the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes, White House aide Frances Fragos Townsend made a clear attempt to diminish the influence -- or the perception -- of the man who masterminded those attacks.

"'This is about the best he can do,' Townsend said of bin Laden. 'This is a man on a run, from a cave, who's virtually impotent other than these tapes.'

"In appearance on two Sunday talk shows, she used the 'virtually impotent' reference both times, suggesting the language was chosen with careful purpose."

And here's Bush's reaction to the bin Laden tape on Saturday in Australia: "I found it interesting that on the tape Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is a part of this war against extremists. If al Qaeda bothers to mention Iraq it's because they want to achieve their objectives in Iraq, which is to drive us out and to develop a safe haven. And the reason they want a safe haven is to launch attacks against America, or any other ally. And therefore, it's important that we show resolve and determination, to protect ourselves, to deny al Qaeda safe haven, and to support young democracies, which will be a major defeat to their ambitions."

Why didn't Bush react with fury to evidence that bin Laden is still alive? Why didn't he tell Americans not to listen to a word that vile mass murderer said?

Bush has had a long, complicated and clearly conflicted history of speaking about bin Laden. See for instance my August 2004 column, The Unnamed Enemy, and my July column, Al Qaeda's Best Publicist.

Part of Bush's internal conflict may have something to do with this: As Tom Lasseter and Jonathan S. Landay write for McClatchy Newspapers: "[T]he Bush administration's campaign in Iraq has diverted troops, money and equipment from the hunt for bin Laden since late 2001."

First Lady Watch

The Associated Press reports: "First lady Laura Bush underwent surgery Saturday to relieve pain from pinched nerves in her neck. The White House said the procedure was successful. . . .

"Mrs. Bush underwent the 2 1/2-hour procedure at The George Washington University Hospital."

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles, Ann Telnaes and Stuart Carlson on Bush's report; Steve Kelley on crying; John Sherffius on the great seal.

Late Night Humor

Jay Leno, via U.S. News: "President Bush called the APEC conference the OPEC conference. He called the Australian troops Austrian troops. And he left the stage the wrong way. He was given the wrong information when he got there, he stumbled when he was there, and couldn't figure out how to leave. It's like Iraq all over again."