Lose, Please

Interesting couple of articles out of the same press conference:

Washington Post's take: Bush won't listen to the generals, just doesn't get it, and the parents of dead soldiers are angry.

New York Times, maybe trying to make up a little for assorted acts of treason: actually gives Bush a little room to run with his "Victory in Iraq is Achievable" line before hunting down a retired general for a somewhat lame Bush-bash quote and wrapping it up with the Dem reax.

AP's take on the press conference, though no doubt a dive at the negative, actually gives us a Churchillian Bush. Expect more losses. It won't be easy.

Meanwhile, clueless Carlson sees aimless Bush, a little odd seeing as he's been pretty clear about what he is doing, a rethink, and how he is going about it, with broad hints he's going to do it his way. She may be having the same trouble a lot of other people are figuring out who the president is.

If so, Professor Bainbridge is here to remind her.

Liberty Street thought that WaPo article was a piece of crap, too.

Instapundit is agnostic on the "more troops," and quotes a Mario Loyola takedown of my own position. One problem. The WaPo Abizaid quote is cherrypicked from a hearing over a month ago, and the strategy isn't out yet. Hey, they think they can do it without more troops, fine. I doubt it. It's more gotcha.

Michael Barone thinks a lot of people are going to be PO'd if Bush pushes a go-heavy win strategy for Iraq. I don't doubt they'll make noise. I do doubt at the end of the day they'll seriously obstruct.

The always indispensible Omar at Iraq The Model also would like to see a Sadr takedown.

Fred Kagan at USA Today says Bush is showing wisdom, not stubborness, because the U.S. cannot accept defeat.