preview from Fox news:

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night that he should have sent more troops to Iraq to fight the war during the earlier stages of the nearly four-year conflict, a senior administration official revealed.

Speaking from the Library -- a White House room never before used by the president for a public address -- Bush will also acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed and will seek support for a new strategy to win the unpopular war, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said.

The new approach includes sending 21,500 additional U.S. troops -- 17,500 to Baghdad and 4,000 to al Anbar province -- to join the 132,000 already there. Their purpose will be to help "break the cycle" of violence to "allow for the type of breathing space that the Iraqis need to get the type of political and economic reconciliation we all know that's necessary for that country to move forward," Bartlett told FOX News.

"President Bush would not commit one additional troop to Baghdad if it weren't based upon a new strategy with new outcomes to be expected," Bartlett said. "And that requires two basic things ... one, there has to be more Iraqi troops on the ground -- what we saw last time is that the Iraqis made pledges to bring in Iraqi troops that didn't materialize -- and, two, and just as importantly, is that the rules of engagement, the places where these troops can go and actually conduct operations, have to be different."

"Tony said he will be making statements in the... COMING WEEKS about some of the accomplishments that have not been getting much media coverage." But not tonight! His Big Night! O, Lord! Deliver us from Rich Kids who can't get out of bed if 3000 more lives depended on it! Amen! (But seriosly, can we get a Dr.Feelgood for this guy? Cocaine? Meth? Whatever will get him out of the fetal position!

I just participated in a blogger conference call with Tony Snow and asked if the President will be talking about some of the accomplishments that have been acheived in Iraq.

Pretty Cool. And here I am posting in the comment section of a person who was just in a conference call with the President's Press Secretary who probably just spoke to the President on the night of a big speech.

I almost feel like I'm somewhere in the loop. I know it's way, way, way out there on an outer band.

But pretty cool Lorie.

jumpinjoe, you never called Tony's old call-in show? You could have been an apostle!

Remember wizbangers, make sure you have your drinking hats on tonight for the big speech tonight. And remember to clap very loudly for Dear Leader. If you clap very loudly, you will make sure we don't hear any of those negative nellies who want us to lose, because we really can win in Iraq, yay!

Delusion has set in amongst too many of you. It's kind of sad in a way, but somewhat amusing to witness.

But remember, clap very loud for Dear and Glorious Leader.

On June 28, 2005 -- just 18 months ago -- Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would "undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever."

I'll look forward to hearing what our flip-flopper in chief has to say.

"President Bush would not commit one additional troop to Baghdad if it weren't based upon a new strategy with new outcomes to be expected

Do none of you bother to think about what statements like this mean?

If Bush is implementing a new strategy, that means the old one wasn't working. Which means the people who have been telling him that the old one wasn't working were right, and his statements to the American people that the old one was working were wrong.

If Bush is expecting a new outcome, that means he acknowledges that the old outcome was not desirable. Which means the people who have been telling him that the old outcome wasn't good were right, and his statements that "we're winning" were wrong.

Regardless of your political affiliation, isn't it insane to continue to put your trust in someone who has repeatedly been wrong, while you continue to ridicule those who have repeatedly been right?

Are liberal blogger's invited in on the conference call, or do they get a separate conference call?

I googled a blog search and came up with this regarding today's conference call: "White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and Brett McGurk, Director for Iraq, National Security Council, discussed President Bush's speech on the way forward in Iraq today at 4 PM with a small group of bloggers to discuss the way forward in Iraq. Joining me was Austin Bay, Lori Byrd , Wizbang John Hawkins - RightWing News, Human Events Online, Redstate , NZ Bear among others.".

There are a few names I don't recognize, but it appears to be primarily a list of right-wing bloggers. Lorie, were there any liberal bloggers participating? It would be interesting to see a liberal blogger's account of the call, and to be able to compare that with a conservative bloger's account.

I hope to hear some specifics about not only how many schools we have rebuilt in Iraq, but how many bad guys we have killed and how many terrorist plots have been disrupted, and how much has been done to set the stage for a functioning democracy to emerge in the heart of the Middle East.

Then...

Tony said he will not be doing much of that tonight, but will be making statements in the coming weeks about some of the accomplishments that have not been getting much media coverage.

Lorie, Lorie, Lorie... you are so gullible and naive. You're like a dog panting in front of the butcher's waiting for a bone, not realizing that you're actually standing in front of the laundromat. How many times must the laundry guy tell you "it's almost here" before you give up in disgust and realize that what you've been promised doesn't exist? Instead, you keep wagging your tail.

"If Bush is implementing a new strategy, that means the old one wasn't working."

In the weeks leading up to the election Bush told America what were winning the war in Iraq, and that he had no intention of firing Donald Rumsfeld. As soon as the election was over Bush fired Rumsefeld, and has slowly admitted that the war in Iraq has failed. This post-election catharsis, occurring after he looked America in the eyes and lied to us just weeks before the election, will go down as one of the memorable milestones in his administration.

It is indeed a tragedy to have this happen to our great country -- but tonight, when the President of the United States looks America in the eyes and begins speaking, he cannot be trusted to be telling the truth.

jumpinjoe, you never called Tony's old call-in show? You could have been an apostle

Not the same. Tony wasn't inner circle then. That's the diff.

Besides, I don't have the patience for busy signals and long holds for nation wide call-in shows. However in December 1995 I did get some great close up shots of me in the studio audience of Rush's T.V. show.

Update: I just participated in a blogger conference call with Tony Snow and asked if the President will be talking about some of the accomplishments that have been acheived in Iraq. Tony said he will not be doing much of that tonight, but will be making statements in the coming weeks about some of the accomplishments that have not been getting much media coverage.

Tsk, tsk. Just an all-around bad, bad idea. You have the nation's attention, Mr. President, use it. There's simply no excuse for leaving this kind of important progress info out of such an important speech during wartime. This literally is making me shake my head.

Re: jumpinjoe: I like you. I think we met at the Boston Tea Party. Things were simpler then.

Lorie, Lorie, Lorie... you are so gullible and naive. You're like a dog panting in front of the butcher's waiting for a bone, not realizing that you're actually standing in front of the laundromat. How many times must the laundry guy tell you "it's almost here" before you give up in disgust and realize that what you've been promised doesn't exist? Instead, you keep wagging your tail.

Spoken, no doubt, by a guy who still believes the leftwingers who told him that Karl Rove's indictment was imminent. lol.

Talking with Tony? Very cool. They don't get much better than him.

I don't usually comment about speeches that haven't happened but since they're scripted anyway, why not?

Some interesting items in this Washington Post article:

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

.....

Although the president was publicly polite, few of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which intensified its own deliberations over a new "way forward" in Iraq. How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.

As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton. One senior administration official disputed that, arguing that staff members were attracted to the "surge" option to address long-standing concern that earlier efforts failed because of insufficient security forces.

Of course all of this is unattributed, but if true, it does not bode well for our country that the policymakers in the executive are basing their decisions on spite rather than what is the best course of action. I mean seriously, just because the Study Group said to do it, we'll do the opposite?

As usual, Washington doesn't give the full picture
From powerline

In Anbar, our additional forces will try to consolidate recent gains. According to Snow, tribal leaders there have turned strongly against al Qaeda, and want us to send in more forces with which to rout them. President Bush will oblige.

Shouldn't we help the people fighting the terrorists? Do we want to oppose working with the Ethiopians and Somalians to rout the AlQ terrorists on the run in Somalia?

Brian

War is a competition therefore it is in constant change. Like football, in the beginning one strategy could be working then the opponent make changes to counter it. In the natural process, strategy changes. It changes back and forth where you last strategy might be the one you started with or it could be completely different but to not change at all would be foolish.

Also one can be winning and still think a change of strategy is warranted in attempt to accomplish it faster and with less cost.

Lee
I was not happy with what Bush did with Rumsfeld and did feel like Bush lie to us on that occasion. Most of what the libs have claim he lied about is B.S. Compare to how often President Clinton has lied to us in and out of office, Bush is a Saint. How about Sandy Berger?

Wayne,
The one thing we want in a competition or a war is to win. The Dems seem to want us to lose. Their actions indicate that they don't want to win no matter what. All their rhetoric is intended to cause us to lose as well. What a sad commentary on a party in power.

LoveAmerica, just leave out the word "seem" in your post and you have it right.

Wayne, what are you talking about? War is easy, bloodless and always goes according to plans and schedule. At least that's what the liberals tell us.

Jo, maybe you can help me here. what does winning in Iraq entail?

I was not happy with what Bush did with Rumsfeld and did feel like Bush lie to us on that occasion. Most of what the libs have claim he lied about is B.S. Compare to how often President Clinton has lied to us in and out of office, Bush is a Saint. How about Sandy Berger?

Once again I am amazed at the right wing obsession with yesterday's politicians. Clinton is not in office anymore, you dig, and his lying was restrticted to mostly insignificant personal matters.

It's just hysterical to see those who hold up Bush as some divine saviour who run away from him and bring up Clinton as soon as their arguement hits a wall.

Lee,
Were conservative bloggerss invited to the same info-calls (from big figures on the left and the Democrat party) as DailyKos and Atrios in the past? Is it relevant that not every pol invites the same people? The one word answer to both is the same.

LoveAmerica Immigrant, Why curse the audience for what the players won't do? The neo-cons wrote the script and they're acting it out.

Cornwell

Clinton lied about Sandy Berger stealing classified information from the archives during the 911 investigations. Some of them were the originals, which we may never know what they were. He lied about policies and the use of the FBI. It is sad that you consider that insignificant. To think comparing two Presidents as hitting a wall is reaching. Of course the libs never want to talk about Clinton unless it positive.

Winning in Iraq entail removing a dictatorial leader and a government that was a threat to the region, took potshots at our military, and also foster terrorist activities that included but not limited to paying suicide bomber family and giving medical aid to known terrorist. Mission accomplished. A second Victory would be establishing a relatively stable prosperous country that don't support terrorist. Work in progress and besides what the MSM say, we are making headway.

"but if true, it does not bode well for our country that the policymakers in the executive are basing their decisions on spite rather than what is the best course of action."

Indeed. Maybe they're stealing a page from the DNC's playbook.

Once again I am amazed at the right wing obsession with yesterday's politicians.

Display your ignorance and explain why Clinton is not relevant. I'll show you a thousand quotes from contemporary liberal intellectuals (I know, I know, that is an oxymoron) that underscore his relevancy. Just as present-day conservativatism is the legacy of Goldwater and Reagan, so present-day liberalism has much for which to thank Clinton. Take that last part however you wish.

You mock Americans who still respect the American Presidency and care to consider what is said from the office, but any of you would drop to your knees in the presence of Clinton. Either Clinton, and for whatever reason imaginable.

We're obsessed with yesterdays politicians? Five minutes of listening to the liberal rants on the occassion of President Reagan's death would lead any rational being to say, "Pot. Kettle. Black." Hypocrisy is the shoe that fits.

The neo-cons wrote the script and they're acting it out.

I'm interested in your definition of neo-con. Without research, and in your own words, please define the term. On your honor now.

Spoken, no doubt, by a guy who still believes the leftwingers who told him that Karl Rove's indictment was imminent. lol.

Wow, just keep trottin' out the same stuff, don't you? Spoken, no doubt, by a guy who still gives a rat's ass about Karl Rove. lol.

According to Snow, tribal leaders there have turned strongly against al Qaeda

Big whoop. The Iraqis have always been strongly against AQ. Now you're going to try to make this look like some sort of progress?

Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings.

Spoken, no doubt, by a guy who still gives a rat's ass about Karl Rove.

And spoken, no doubt, by a guy who still wets his panties because KR stole, not one, but two elections.

War is a competition therefore it is in constant change. Like football, in the beginning one strategy could be working then the opponent make changes to counter it. In the natural process, strategy changes.

I couldn't agree more. That's why the Democrats have been screaming for changes in strategy early on, once it became clear that things were not going well. It's the Republicans who insisted on "staying the course", and that things were going well.

A troop surge would have been good... three years ago, when the generals requested it (and the Democrats supported it). Now, after insisting that "we're winning", "we're making progress", "we've turned the corner", "last throes", "violence is only increasing because we're winning/the Iraqi election/the American election", "we're training them to take over", on and on and on... now, only after losing an election, is there any admission that the prior strategy isn't working, and we need more troops.

Now is too late.

The Iraqis have always been strongly against AQ.

Just curious, but do you believe that the percentage of Americans believing Iraq had WMD has risen?

The Iraqis have always been strongly against AQ.

Oh, and what from the report caused you claim that the Iraquis have always been against AQ?

Ooops. your & Iraqi.

Oh, and what from the report caused you claim that the Iraquis have always been against AQ?

Bin Laden loathes the secular regimes and has long maintained that they should be destroyed and replaced with fundamentalist regimes. Saddam returned bin Laden's antipathy.

The Iraqi people themselves have always tended toward the secular side (unlike their Saudi neighbors). The Wahabbists who form the backbone of Al Qaeda have never had any real following in Iraq (though they have in Pak, Saudi, Egypt, and the UAE).

Iraq's Sunnis don't want to live under a fundamentalist regime, they only tolerate the foreign Al Qaeda fighters because they need help defending themselves from Iraq's Shiite-dominated government that wants to exterminate them.