In a September 15 article, The New York Times asserted that "[t]here were signs on [September 14] that [President] Bush's address might have succeeded in shifting some sentiment." On September 13, Bush addressed the nation in a prime-time speech outlining his plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in order to bring the number of troops down to the pre-“surge” level. The article then pointed to “The Washington Post's editorial page,” which, according to the Times, “has clung to a middle ground on the war,” but which “described Mr. Bush's strategy as 'the least bad plan' and one that would be 'less risky than the alternatives.' ” But the Post editorial to which the article referred did not attribute its decision to back the “Bush plan” to Bush's speech; in fact, it specifically criticized Bush for omitting key information about the situation in Iraq from his speech and for not setting realistic goals for the U.S. mission in Iraq. Moreover, the Post editorial stated that Bush is “unlikely to achieve the agreement in Washington on Iraq he said he now aims for,” not only not identifying a “shift in sentiment,” but suggesting that a shift necessary to reach agreement is “unlikely.” Indeed, the editorial concluded: “It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that U.S. troops will 'return on success' in order to accept the judgment of [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq] Mr. [Ryan C.] Crocker: 'Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse.' ”

The only other apparent “sign[]” of “possible” success the Times article -- by David M. Herszenhorn and David S. Cloud -- pointed to was the speech's television ratings, stating that, on September 14, “Nielsen Media Research reported ... that the president's speech drew a combined 28.8 million viewers across nine broadcast networks and cable channels.” However, that was down from Bush's previous prime-time televised address from the White House, on January 10, 2007, which drew 42.5 million viewers across all nine broadcast and cable networks. Likewise, Bush's 2007 State of the Union address, given on January 23 before a joint session of Congress, drew an estimated 45.5 million viewers. The Times article did not provide any explanation for how the fact that Bush's speech drew an estimated 28.8 million viewers indicated that it “might have succeeded in shifting some sentiment.”

From the September 14 Washington Post editorial, “The Least Bad Plan”:

President Bush's explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions. First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure -- because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible. Instead he focused on the real but reversible military gains achieved in and around Baghdad and on the unexpected decision of Sunni tribes to take up arms against al-Qaeda, a development facilitated but not caused by the surge.

Mr. Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops he announced. The president said that the tactical military successes meant that American forces could be reduced in the coming year to pre-surge levels. What he didn't say is that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr. Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments. Another way of describing Mr. Bush's plan is that it leaves every available Army and Marine unit in place in Iraq for as long as possible. If the war were going worse than it is, the deployment schedule probably couldn't have been much different.

Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker have argued this week that the maximal troop levels are necessary to prevent Iraq from returning to the downward spiral into sectarian war it suffered before the surge. They also have emphasized that political accords will be slower in coming than Washington has expected, if they are achievable at all. Yet Mr. Bush's plan for the coming year is based, once again, on the hope that Iraqis will take steps that will make the added security provided by U.S. troops sustainable -- and prevent a worsening of the situation when American brigades withdraw. Though this hope proved illusory during the past eight months, there will be no change in the U.S. mission.

It's impossible not to be skeptical that the necessary political deals and improvements in Iraqi security forces will take place.

[...]

Mr. Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order. For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that U.S. troops will “return on success” in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: “Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse.”

From the September 15 New York Times article, “Democrats Push a Tactic to Shift Iraq Plan”:

There were signs on Friday that Mr. Bush's address might have succeeded in shifting some sentiment. The Washington Post's editorial page, which has clung to a middle ground on the war, described Mr. Bush's strategy as “the least bad plan” and one that would be “less risky than the alternatives.” Nielsen Media Research reported Friday night that the president's speech drew a combined 28.8 million viewers across nine broadcast networks and cable channels.