GovernmentExecutive.com

President Bush is planning to outline a revised Iraq policy before Christmas, White House officials said Friday.

Bush has not yet determined what the policy will be and is continuing a series of meetings with administration, congressional and other experts in what the White House describes as an effort to solicit input as he determines his "new way forward."

The president on Friday met with the congressional leadership, including outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and incoming Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

The group mainly discussed Iraq, and the Democratic leaders agreed to hold similar meetings with Bush on a regular basis to talk about Iraq and other issues. "I assured the leaders that the White House door will be open when the new Congress shows up," Bush told reporters after the session.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was general agreement that the White House and Congress should move from a political to a "governing road." Pelosi told reporters at the White House that "we all committed to work together in a bipartisan way."

In the run up to Bush's announcement of changes to his Iraq policy, the president will continue to consult with Congress and will meet next week with civilian and military Pentagon officials, State Department aides, and outside experts, according to the White House.

After Friday morning's meeting, Reid criticized Bush for not sounding enthusiastic about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which he received Wednesday.

"I just didn't feel today -- in his words or demeanor -- that he's willing to do anything right away," Reid told reporters. "Someone has got to get the message to this man that there has to be significant changes."

Snow said Bush would continue to take a "thoughtful look at the report" and that some of the recommendations track administration ideas. Snow noted that Durbin, while speaking to reporters at the White House after the session, said there would be objections to some of the recommendations on Capitol Hill.

Durbin also acknowledged that he did not agree with every suggestion. Democratic leaders have been reluctant to embrace the study group's proposals, but they insisted Friday they endorse the overarching principles that call for transforming U.S. military strategy.

Democrats are walking a tight rope on the issue -- they won the November elections because of their calls for change in Iraq, but they have been careful not to assume ownership of the situation and risk receiving the blame if the climate continues to worsen.

Greta Wodele contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• There's even more, today's AP story about Bush's plans talks about the surge option. I think it's so hilarious that Bush states that he has numerous options but that he hasn't made up his mind. But the only option he ever mentions is the "surge" option. I now have listened to about five news conferences with Bush or his lackies -- the only option they've ever mentioned is the surge option. What could it mean??? Today's AP story 7PM central, Dec., 20, 2006 states, "The shift in policy is likely to be accompanied by a shuffle of top American generals in Iraq. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to go ahead with a retirement that is months overdue. And the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has indicated he may not stay much longer than the end of this year. Abizaid and Casey have opposed sending more troops to Iraq, and their departures could make it easier for Bush to send more soldiers to the war. One option calls for sending five or more additional combat brigades — roughly 20,000 or more troops." There it is, the generals don't agree with the surge policy so one is taking retirement and the other plans to leave at the end of this year. "Their departure could make it easier for Bush to send more soldiers..." These generals have been asked (forced) to leave because their beliefs are in opposition to the new Bush policy. Just like Rummy not wanting to grow the military (so he had to go). With new generals (yes men) in place Bush will get all the agreement he needs to convince us that he's doing the right thing. Aren't there "bait and switch" laws in Washington? This sick act seems to have no end. Bush will juggle as many "top" personnel as necessary to protect his legacy. It’s not about doing the right thing -- it's about outsmarting your opponent (the American public). Un-Civil Servant GovExec.com reader Posted December 20, 2006 9:07 PM
• Bush is a genius! He figured out how to get more money for Iraq. The Democrats have been screaming for a bigger military for years now they're going to have to put their (our) money where their mouth is. The Democrats will have to give Bush more troops so as not to be accused of talking out of both sides of their mouth. Bush will use the larger military to justify a troop surge (in the face of military leader's opinions). Bush is also creating a bigger need for more troops by sending more war ships to the Persian Gulf. The guy's a genius! Is there no one who can stop these old demented men from slaughtering our soldiers? "Go vote" they say, "every vote counts" they say. "Your vote may be the one that makes a difference," they say. Well I am now convinced it was all a bunch of lies. Millions of votes didn't make any difference at all. Kicking the Republicans out of power didn't solve anything. Giving the Democrats power didn't help either. They cried "bloody murder" about disenfranchising voters in Florida yet they blatantly disenfranchised millions of voters without regard to public sentiment. I used to wonder why they called Bush "King George." I no longer wonder. Un-Civil Servant GovExec.com reader Posted December 20, 2006 9:58 AM
• Bush and his outfit had their chance and blew it! It is now time for Congress to tell the president what to do and to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (I am not sure about Afghanistan). Stop appropriating money for the military and do not pay to rebuild Iraq! That should stop the president and get the troops home. Congress, as the board of directors for the country, needs to tell the CEO (president) to stop spending on Iraq and get our troops out of the country and back to the United States. What is the timing? Immediately! Congress is the blame for this mess now for they allow it to continue! Why would the president withdraw or reduce spending when he thinks he is correct? Congress has to tell him he is wrong and do something about it! What do we elect these congressional representatives and senators for? Congress is useless and getting worse every day. Nancy is not helping us -- it is not a party problem! Taxpayer Posted December 18, 2006 9:53 AM