The New York Times, accused of political bias for running -- at a steep price discount -- an anti-war ad insulting the top U.S. commander in Iraq, on Friday blasted President Bush's "failure" in Iraq.

The latest criticism came, not in a political ad, but in an editorial.

The lead editorial dismissed President Bush's speech to the nation Thursday night, in which Bush announced that "because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing some troops come home."

President Bush mentioned a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. By July, the reduction could total more than 20,000 troops, he said.

But in the editorial on Friday, the New York Times accused President Bush of putting up smokescreens: "Mr. Bush has no strategy to end his disastrous war and no strategy for containing the chaos he unleashed," the newspaper said.

Bush's speech to the nation on Thursday night was a rehash of previous speeches -- a "carnival barker's come-on," the paper said, considering that the infusion of 30,000 troops was always intended to be temporary.

In a phrase reminiscent of MoveOn.org's anti-war ad, the editorial said Bush's claims about progress in Iraq "are believable only if you use Pentagon numbers so obviously cooked that they call to mind the way Americans were duped into first supporting this war."

The MoveOn.org ad -- which ran in the New York Times Monday for a price far lower than the going rate -- accused "General Betray Us" of "cooking the books for the White House."

(MoveOn.org reportedly paid $65,000 to run the ad, about $102,000 less than the going rate. A New York Times spokeswoman refused to discuss rates paid by any advertiser, and she also denied any political bias.)

On Friday, the New York Times insisted that President Bush has no new Iraq strategy; and it said President Bush's "endless insistence on staying the course will only make Iraq more bloody and frightening."

The editorial blasted Bush for failing to draw Iraq's neighbors into a solution to the conflict; "the world is still waiting" for Bush to involve Middle Eastern nations in a diplomatic effort, the newspaper said.

"Once again, it is clear that Mr. Bush refuses to recognize the truth of his failure in Iraq and envisions a military commitment that has no end," the editorial said.

"Congress must use its powers to expose the truth and demand a real change in strategy," the newspaper said, urging Democrats not to back off their insistence on an immediate troop withdrawal.

Noting that the burden of ending the war undoubtedly will fall to the next president, the editorial concluded that President Bush's "real plan is to confuse enough Americans and cow enough members of Congress to let him muddle along and saddle his successor with this war that should never have been started."

President Bush on Thursday night ordered the first gradual steps toward cutting U.S. troops in Iraq — betting he can buy time with the war-weary public by holding out hopes of deeper reductions later.

Rebuffing political pressure to bring the war to a speedy end, Bush instead offered a series of modest reductions by July, including pulling out 5,700 troops by Christmas and roughly 21,700 by the summer.

Bush's plan still could leave more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in July — more than in January, when the president authorized current troop levels.

That fact did little to appease Democratic leaders, who dismissed the move as a token gesture masking an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops.

Bush, however, sought to portray his plan as a down payment on future reductions and assured Americans that security and political gains in Iraq would set the path for U.S. forces to leave — without saying how many or when.

In his eighth address on the war, the president coined a new slogan to describe his latest strategy, "Return on Success."

"The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," he said. "And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy."

At the same time, Bush warned that substantial numbers of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years. Iraqi leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency," he said, although he said such a scenario "requires many fewer American troops."

The speech followed congressional testimony this week by Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, both of whom warned that a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces could plunge Iraq into even greater instability.

Bush is embracing the plan laid out by Petraeus, who told Congress that additional U.S. troops had improved security in parts of Iraq, but that he needed at least until March to determine if deeper cuts are possible.

The redeployment will start this month when a Marine expeditionary unit leaves Anbar province without being replaced. An Army brigade will leave Iraq in mid-December. Four other brigades and two Marine battalions will leave by mid-July, about one month earlier than the additional troops would have moved out under current deployment rules.

Neither Petraeus nor White House aides would say how many troops that means, but typical force sizes for such units would add up to about 21,700, about the same number Bush initially announced in January that he was sending to Iraq.

Petraeus and Bush made no commitments to pulling out the 8,000 additional support troops who later became part of the buildup, although officials said at least some probably would come home, too.

Bush said he has ordered Petraeus and Crocker to give another report to Congress in March, when troop levels will be readdressed.

But the president's steadfast support for the war sets the stage for bruising battles long before then both on the presidential campaign trail and on Capitol Hill.

In the official televised Democratic response, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said Bush's plan "does not amount to real change," and he vowed that Congress will "profoundly change" U.S. war policy. "Once again, the president failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it," Reed said.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, staged his own rebuttal by buying two minutes of airtime on MSNBC, chastising the president for a failed policy and his rivals in the Senate for not doing more to stop him. "When the president asks for more money and more time," Edwards said, "Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."

Democrats hope to peel away moderate Republicans worried about the war to join legislation to force Bush into quicker, steeper troop cuts — but also acknowledged this week that they might have to abandon hopes of a firm timeline for withdrawal. Democrats now propose more modest measures, such as limiting U.S. troops in Iraq to training Iraqi forces or extending the time between tours.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the president's withdrawal of some forces "meets a demand that many of my members have been looking for" and pronounced himself "very optimistic" that this would ease concerns on the Republican side. "We've turned the corner on Iraq," he said.

Other Republicans were not convinced. "If the Iraqis fail to take appropriate action to accomplish political settlement within their country, the United States should consider dramatically accelerating its disengagement," said Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., a moderate who has so far stuck with the president.

Still, for all his plummeting approval ratings, low marks from voters and erosion of support within his party, Bush seemed remarkably unbowed Thursday.

He largely echoed much of the rationale for staying in Iraq that he's used since launching the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 — that a secure, stable Iraq can be a potent ally in the war on terror, while a failed one would embolden those who would harm America.

"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East," Bush said.