During a report about the future of U.S. policy in Iraq that was aired during the December 17 broadcast of KMGH's 7News at 5 p.m., ABC News national correspondent Bob Jamieson stated that President Bush is “considering” the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, including one for “the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces by 2008.” However, Jamieson failed to note that Bush already has dismissed that ISG recommendation.

According to the ISG, the report's “most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.” Specifically, the ISG concluded that "[b]y the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." Furthermore, the report states that "[t]he United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq."

Contrary to Jamieson's statement that Bush is “considering” the ISG's recommendation to withdraw U.S. combat forces by 2008, The New York Times reported on December 7 that “President Bush moved quickly [December 7] to distance himself from the central recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group” including “pulling back all combat brigades over the next 15 months.” According to the Times, following the report's release, Bush stated at a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair “that the United States needs 'a new approach' in Iraq and that he would 'seriously consider' the report, but was unlikely to accept all of its recommendations.”

Similarly, on December 8 The Boston Globe reported that, during the same press conference, “Bush said he welcomed new ideas on Iraq but indicated he opposed some of the study group's central recommendations. He said he would not set a goal of withdrawing the bulk of US combat troops by 2008, insisting that troops would stay until they had achieved their objective.”

During the press conference with Blair, Bush was asked directly: "[A]re you willing to ... pull out most combat forces by early 2008, unless there's unexpected circumstances?" As Media Matters for America noted, Bush hinted in answering the question that his administration's policy has assumed that U.S. support, including troop presence, will continue until conditions improve, while the ISG report recommends that U.S. “political, military, or economic support” should be reduced unless conditions improve.

Moreover, on the December 16 Democratic Party weekly radio address, ISG member William Perry, President Clinton's former defense secretary, reiterated: “We need to begin to pull out U.S. combat brigades, with the goal of having all except rapid-reaction forces out by first quarter of 2008.” Yet as The Washington Post stated on December 18, the day after KMGH ran Jamieson's report, “Bush has rejected the dire conclusions of the Iraq Study Group and its recommendations to set parameters for a phased withdrawal to begin next year.”

From the December 17 broadcast of KMGH's 7News at 5 p.m.:

THERESA MARCHETTA (co-anchor): In Washington tomorrow the new secretary of defense will be sworn in. Robert Gates replaces Donald Rumsfeld, who came under harsh criticism over the war in Iraq. Gates is taking the helm as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. And while everyone agrees that something must be done, there's just no consensus on just what the U.S. role should be. ABC's Bob Jamieson has more.

JAMIESON: With no end in sight to the sectarian violence that has turned parts of Iraq into war zones, the question remains, what steps if any should the United States take next? The recent report by the Iraq Study Group recommends the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces by 2008. President Bush is considering those recommendations as well as options that would send additional U.S. troops to Iraq on a temporary basis. The president's former secretary of state says he's skeptical about sending additional troops, which he feels could make a bad situation even worse.

COLIN POWELL: It's grave and deteriorating. And as Secretary-designate of Defense Bob Gates said in his confirmation hearing, “We're not winning.” So if it's grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost.

JAMIESON: There are now more than 130,000 troops in Iraq. At least one top retired Army official is recommending that the president send an additional thirty to forty thousand troops, who would be there for at least a year and a half. Some top Democrats agree that the crisis in Iraq needs to be handled politically by its own government. But they don't all agree on whether more U.S. troops should be deployed while waiting for that to happen.

SEN. HARRY REID [D-NV]: If it's for a surge, that is for two or three months, and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure, I'll go along with it.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY [D-MA]: We have heard in the Armed Services Committee who believe that adding additional troops would enhance the kinds of antagonisms against the United States forces at the present time --

JAMIESON: Bob Jamieson, ABC News.

MARCHETTA: Now, Colin Powell was also asked today if victory was even possible. He says the only way victory is possible is if you rid the country of every insurgent, and he doesn't see that happening. Powell says such a victory must become the responsibility of the Iraqi leadership.