Bush has hinted that he is taking a fresh look at the suggestion from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that U.S. troops be reduced in number and redeployed to concentrate on training Iraqis and fighting al-Qaeda. He was cool to that report when it was issued in December, but now he has moved on another of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations by having his ambassador in Baghdad open talks on the future of Iraq with the Iranian ambassador.

Meanwhile, a significant movement is developing in the Senate to make Baker-Hamilton's recommendations the official policy of the government. A resolution to that effect, co-sponsored by Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado and Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, will be introduced in early June, with at least six other senators -- three from each party -- endorsing it.

These senators are centrists -- the kind who can exert leverage on their colleagues. But the man who can do the most to catalyze the shift among Republicans is Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the widely respected former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Colleagues say that Warner is torn between his loyalty to the president and his deep anxiety about events in Iraq. And as a former Navy secretary, he has an acute awareness of the price America's fighting men and women are paying for the policy mistakes there.

If Warner shifts, many other Republican senators will move with him, and the policy will change. I think that time is coming soon.

I was very surprised when I did not run across any of the blogs picking up on the fact that Rice's visit to Syria and our recent sit-down with Iraq was in fact in step with the B-H Iraq Study Group. And now Bush is looking at other suggested areas of the B-H recommendations.

Who says the Dems efforts are not having any affect?
.
.
.
And then there is this from another long time war supporter David Ignatius:

President Bush said publicly last Thursday what his top aides have been discussing privately for weeks. He talked about a transition to "a different configuration" in Iraq after the surge of U.S. troops is completed this summer. When pressed on whether he was talking about a post-surge Plan B, Bush answered: "Actually, I would call that a plan recommended by Baker-Hamilton, so that would be a Plan B-H."
...
Funding would run out again at the end of September, and there were growing signs that Republicans would join Democrats in calling for a troop withdrawal. Before that September vote, Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, would be making a crucial progress report. It was unlikely that Petraeus would be able to proclaim such glowing success that congressional criticism would disappear, and in any event officials were wary of putting all their eggs in that basket. Political reality required a reduction in U.S. troops during 2008, rather than an open-ended surge.
...
The internal debate seems to have been quite open for a White House that sometimes appears to be operating in a bubble. Officials say it helped that the president has a new team on Iraq -- from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Centcom commander Adm. William Fallon to Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. Petraeus.

So Bush is actually quoted as saying "Plan B-H". Interesting.

Yeah well OK - the blogs missed this one also. Seems like the old saws that support the war are not only seeing the writing on the wall - they are reporting it.

Got to give them credit - they beat the blogs to the punch on this significant news.

And again...