Here’s the analysis by the Associated Press:

President Bush’s announcement that he is sending more troops to Iraq sets up the first major test of wills between his Republican administration and the new Democratic-controlled Congress. Both sides are digging in.

The political stakes raised by Bush’s prime-time television address were high on both sides.

Democrats, who came to power in midterm elections two months ago in large part because of growing public opposition to the war, must walk a fine line between criticizing Bush’s plans and appearing to be obstructionists or undermining the military.

And they presently rule Congress with insufficient numbers to block Bush’s plan.

For Bush, the decision to send more troops to Iraq _ rather than begin a withdrawal of combat forces as recommended last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group _ is a huge gamble.

If it fails, he will have few if any options left.

Shorter AP: Dear Democrats, You can’t stop Bush, you can only hope his poll numbers go down. Surrender to the surge.

(cont.)
Well, that’s really insightful, isn’t it. Democrats, who control Congress have no power, none, zip, nada. And they better be careful about what they say, or — ooooooo — they’ll be blamed if we lose in Iraq more than Bush and the GOP will. That’s despite the fact that Bush’s approval ratings are in the tank, both personally as President and in his handling of the Iraq war. Such is the wisdom of what is now is commonly known as Higher Broderism.

Which makes me wonder, what does that High Priest of this powerful cult that dominates the Beltway discourse have to say about this speech? Let’s take a look, shall we?

Time and again over the 46 months of the Iraq war, President Bush has resorted to the ultimate weapon of his rhetorical armory — the prime-time or highly publicized address — to rally public opinion.

Taken together, the speeches constitute a catalogue of judgments and misjudgments of the situation on the ground and a set of optimistic forecasts, many of which have been betrayed by events.

Oh my goodness gracious! His holiness saying what I think he’s saying, i.e., Bush’s speeches about Iraq have been one long bamboozlement after another. Well, sort of:

(cont.)

What is consistent has been Bush’s belief that the battle for Iraq is crucial for the overall war against terrorism and the determination to avoid defeat. As he argued last night, this is “more than a military conflict,” that “it is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.”

That was also what Bush said on March 19, 2003, in announcing his decision to invade Iraq. …

At the end of 2003, there was another celebration, this one more restrained. On Dec. 14, Bush spoke from the Cabinet room about the capture of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. While warning that “we still face terrorists,” he said that “a hopeful day has arrived,” and that “all Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a New Iraq.”

Five months later, on May 24, 2004, the tone was much different when Bush addressed the nation from the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. Violence was increasing, and the United States had been embarrassed by detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison.

“We’ve learned from these failures,” Bush said, “and we’ve taken steps to correct them.” Among other things, he said: “We are accelerating our program to help train Iraqis to defend their own country.”

So, Broder has the (apparent) audacity (at long last, I might add) to point out the obvious: That Bush has consistently claimed the war in Iraq was getting better all the time, even when it wasn’t. One wonders what his conclusion will be after reciting all these missteps by our Commander-in-Chief will be. Will he actually tell us in plain simple English that Bush’s plan is complete and utter dog doo-doo? C’mon, people, this is David Broder, Master of the Beltway Consensus. The best he will do is imply Bush doesn’t know jack about Iraq. He would never say so explicitly. His little litany of Bush’s “misjudgments” just sort of peters out:

In a nationally televised address on Dec. 18, 2005, Bush ruled out troop reductions and insisted that the violence “does not mean we are losing. . . . Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory.”

In September, with members of the newly installed Iraqi government squabbling and the U.S. death toll fast approaching 3,000, Bush tried one more time, with an Oval Office address after a day of commemorations of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush deployed his bottom-line argument. “The worst mistake we could make,” he said, “would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.”

But have no fear, I’m sure given a day or two to reflect further on the speech, he’ll come up with lots of good reasons why, even though Bush has been consistently wrong, it would be a bad thing for Democrats to oppose him. After all, who cares what the Hoi Polloi (that’s you and I, for one) think? We don’t matter. What matters is what David Broder and his peers inside the Beltway think. Anyone else’s opinion doesn’t mean squat. I’m just surprised Tom Raum at AP beat him to that punch is all.

I wonder, did Broder even watch Bush’s performance last night? I only ask because this is what appears at the end of his report:

Political researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb contributed to this report.

Makes me wonder if Broder had his researcher do all the work, and prepare the entire report that went out under Broder’s byline. That would give him some time to talk with the moderates in Congress) (i.e., McCain and Lieberman) before having to issue his official final word on the matter. Nah. That would never happen. Not in the pages of the Washington Post. Not by the grandest of all the grand poobahs of the Gang of 500. Would it?

Not that Broder was alone in refusing to take sides in the great Iraq Debate between Bush and the Congressional Democrats. Check out this stunning piece of fence straddling by CNN:

Bush said he considered and rejected Democratic ideas for “phased withdrawal.” He concluded that would result in more violence, thereby forcing American troops to stay longer. The president’s argument is that greater security will increase the chances for political reconciliation.

In their response to Bush’s speech, Democratic congressional leaders made the opposite argument: “Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution … until they understand that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended.” (Watch Sen. Richard Durbin advise Bush to “face the reality of Iraq” Video)

That’s the crux of the debate. Both sides agree there has to be a political settlement in Iraq. Which will make that easier to achieve — a greater show of U.S. force, or a gradual U.S. withdrawal?

Shorter CNN: Bush is the President and who knows, even after all his mistakes and misjudgments and lies in the past, and the fact that his Democratic critics have been consistently proven right, this time he might get it right.

And to think, people get paid good money to come up with such brilliant insights. Well, time to go back into hibernation kiddies. Bush has another 8 months to get things right in Iraq (he said so himself, so it must be true). He’s even set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, for heaven’s sake. What more can you ask of him?

Nothing actually. Bush never changes. It will always be “My way or the highway” with him. What you and I can do is demand Congress do something. It’s a little word that starts with “I” and ends in “t” and has “mpeachmen” stuck between the two. It may not be pretty, it may not sit well with David Broder and 30% of the people who still think Bush was sent by God to save us from the Islamofascist menace, but it sure beats letting Bush keep driving us over the cliff, doesn’t it?