Bush says it's behind some of the technology for IEDs. First applause line here when the President says Iran is becoming more isolated and that the U.S. will confront the Islamic regime. Note the approach to Iran much different than Iraq. Here, it's still the Europeans taking the lead.

They are the focus of the speech now... IEDs, the roadside bombs which are the weapon of choice for insurgents. President says the threat is now the subject of a new task force among war planners. They want to target bomb makers and root out bomb-making cells. Iraqis, he says, are providing new intelligence. Number of tips from 400 last March to 4,000 last December about bomb making activities. Second, Mr. Bush says troops are getting new training on defusing IEDs. Key here, say advisers, is to try to show the public that they are making quick adjustments to conditions on the ground. The President also is speaking about putting best minds in America on the task of tackling the IED threat. He won't share some of the new technology being developed to defeat the bombers. This is quite a contrast to the body armor story. The President wants to convince the public that troops will get best equipment now. Interesting, it's IED explosions that get the most coverage day in and day out. The White House wants to deal with the public's perceptions.

The President said there are more than 100 Iraqi batallions fighting... today it's 130 batallions... with more than 60 taking the lead. Major focus now on training Iraqi police, which has been infiltrated by Shia militias. Troop levels? No change here. No artificial timetables. Still appears that troop level drops to about 100,000 by year's end. But if civil war breaks out?

President Bush points out that Iraqi troops responded to the Samarra bombing, not Americans. That's progress, he suggests. He's talking now about how Iraqi troops quieted the crowd after the mosque bombing. This is the kind of the detail that is so often missing from the White House communication of the war. I'm not sure most people know this level of detail. But is it really making a difference?

The President hopes not. He says that terror groups and Saddam loyalists now hope to incite civil war since they can't defeat US forces. But Iraqis won't let it happen, he assures us. Advisors caution that Iraq has approached the line of civil war before, but reliably step back. He reminds Iraqis how important it is to have a unity government. "We will not lose our nerve. We will help the Iraqi people succeed." Critics wonder whether we, alone, can help them succeed.

Moments from now President Bush will launch another attempt to soothe the nation's anxiety over Iraq with a series of speeches designed to explain how the war is going and the plan to turn things around. Press Secretary Scott McClellan said today that "progress is being made, but more needs to be done." The problem for the President is that the public has moved well beyond that. There isn't a communication problem in the country's estimation, there's a policy problem.

Unlike the President's last PR blitz, this one comes amid growing concern about civil war. The successful elections of last December have been overtaken by the real prospect that sectarian violence will overtake the insurgency as the greatest threat to the future of a unified, peaceful Iraq.

Is it hopeless? Polls show many Americans, including a majority of Republicans, are asking that question. The other question: what is the U.S. role now? We alone can't make it better, if Iraqis don't fix it themselves.

I'll be live blogging during the President's speech from George Washington University. Click "Discuss" to send me your comments.

If you saw today's White House briefing, none of us could believe that Scott McClellan was backing off the President's threat to veto any attempt to derail the ports deal -- allowing Dubai Ports World to assume management of major U.S. seaports. But he was, and minutes later we find out there is a deal: DPW will transfer management of the U.S. ports to a U.S. entity, thus giving the White House some cover.

The White House says they only knew of "rumors" of a deal, but one wonders whether there was coordination between the White House, DPW and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who announced the agreement. It's clear the White House knew, especially after meeting with congressional leaders this morning, that Congress was prepared to buck him on this.

No one here wanted the President to veto his own party, so leave it to DPW, the state-run company no one apparently trusts to manage U.S. ports, to be the great peace broker in Washington! More to come of course.

Our afternoon outing in Delhi took us to the Sarozgini Nagar market, a teaming outdoor bazaar where the relentless push for a sale is overwhelmed by the sadness you feel when accosted by young, barefoot children begging for money.

/

And this is NEW Delhi, an area filled with embassies and pockets of wealth. A city of almost 14 million people is caught between its poverty and its tremendous promise. The lead story in the Times of India this morning trumpets: "It’s A Deal. A Very Big Deal." The reference, of course, is to the agreement to share civilian nuclear energy with India. This is a big story and The New York Times explains why its so controversial back home. I remain enthralled with this part of the world and the growing U.S. interest in India as a counterbalance to China -- militarily and economically.

Meanwhile, USA Today previews our trip to Islamabad, Pakistan tonight, the final stop of this trip. U.S. officials acknowledge the visit is not without "its risks." A U.S. diplomat sitting in his car was killed when a suicide attacker rammed his car with a vehicle full of explosives yesterday.

I'm told the decision for the President to stay the night tonight was just made. The feeling was that Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf would consider a day trip to his country a snub by the President.

Our producer in Islamabad, Carol Grisanti, described the capital city as a fortress. They have cleared out the city, making the President's hotel part of the red zone. Apartments in the area have been searched and Afghan workers in the local hotels have been told to stay home. The White House will take a reduced staff. Nerves are frayed before the visit.

Editor's note: NBC News Producer Antoine Sanfuentes, on the trip with David, also snapped a few photos in India. Click here to watch his slideshow.

A pair of "Ambassadors" outside the Indian Finance Ministry. Photo by David Gregory.

It's a handsome car and you can't miss it around Delhi -- the Ambassador. I took this picture outside the Finance Ministry. The pearly white compact provides added flair to a city of 7 million people so rich in history. It reminded me of a bygone era in India, one I've read about in the history books. The Ambassador was made in 1957 by Hindustan Motors. Here's what a local write up said about the car:

"Though the sturdy Ambassador does not find many takers in India, with people looking to more fancy cars, its export has been steadily increasing, mainly in the British and Japanese markets. Trucks are being exported to Bangladesh, Egypt, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Mauritius. The Earth moving Equipments are being exported to Oman, Jordan, Iraq, Bangladesh, Mauritius and Libya."

Anyway, enough sightseeing.

The President has come all the way to India and he'll leave without seeing the Taj Mahal, known as the monument to love. Today during lunch, Indian Prime Minister Singh needled Mr. Bush, saying to the first lady, "I hope you will be more chivalrous the next time you are here." The President, during his toast, joked back blaming the oversight on "the George W. Bush schedulers," adding "Mr. Prime Minister, I'm sorry you brought up the Taj Mahal. I've been hearing about it from Laura ever since I told her we weren't going."

On a more serious note, the President responded today to the deadly suicide attack in Karachi, Pakistan. An American diplomat and three others were killed. Mr. Bush said he won't let "terrorists and killers" deter him from making the trip to Islamabad. A pared-down White House staff will be making the Pakistan trip and nerves are a bit on edge.

This is the President's first full day in Delhi. How is he being received? Well, the lead editorial in The Times of India says the President's schedule has been designed to created "maximum nuisance."

Big news here today is that the U.S. and India have reached an agreement on nuclear energy. This is actually a big deal. India needs nuclear energy if its economy is going to continue to grow at such high rates. American companies know that as Indians get richer they will buy more of what we produce. Consider this: the emerging Indian middle class is estimated at 300 million people -- bigger than the  entire U-S population. That is a rich prize for America's export market.

I spoke today with Ron Somers, who heads the U.S.-Indian business council and is part of the delegation of American CEOs on this trip. He imparted some interesting facts. India uses 400 kilowatts of electricity per person, per year. By comparison, the U.S. uses 11,000 kilowatts. India is a country of 1.1 billion people. That means that the country is going without adequate electricity. Brown-outs are not uncommon around the country. As India gets wealthier, the demand for energy will only grow. That's where nuclear energy comes in. Somers said this deal, if approved by Congress, would allow India to import nuclear fuel and equipment from nuclear providers like the United States and others. Why have U.S. CEOs accompanied the President on this trip? Because India's appetite for fuel and equipment creates, as Somers put it, "A $60 billion price tag of opportunity" for companies around the world selling those products. 

While India needs energy, it has also developed nuclear weapons. The U.S., through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), is trying to contain the spread of nukes around the world. It is giving India a pass, however, because the world's largest democracy has agreed to let international nuclear inspectors look over their shoulder and has agreed not to let nuclear know-how fall into the hands of dangerous countries like Iran or North Korea.

The former ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, who more recently coordinated Iraq policy for the White House, has written a very interesting piece on the deal and why it matters.

There is something remarkable about this port deal flap everyone is talking about. Think about it: President Bush, the 9/11 president who says he thinks every day about how to protect the country...  who said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"... whose top political adviser Karl Rove said in January, "Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world and Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world"... his administration is now making a much more nuanced argument about why the U.S. cannot block a deal with the UAE just because it's an Arab government with terror links. Two 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens and money for the plot went through UAE banks.

A top Bush adviser, who preferred to remain anonymous since he was offering more than the White House line, sent me an e-mail yesterday saying: "The President feels strongly that if we're to win this war (on terror) we've got to be adding partners in the ME (Middle East), not subtracting them. We can't pull the rug out from under them." This is an economic hearts-and-minds argument. We can't coax autocratic, anti-western Arab governments to be more modern and to clamp down on jihadists in their countries if we tell them, "We want you to modernize, but you can't do any business in the U.S. because we don't trust Arabs."

Democrats are still playing catch up on the security politics of this White House, so they are happy to run to the right of the president on this. That's what Republicans are so worried about.

At the White House, officials said today it was unfair to hold Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company in the UAE, to a different standard than a British company that had the contract until Dubai Ports acquired them. The real point he was making is that there are good Arab governments and bad ones. The UAE is a solid military partner for us in the Persian Gulf and we don't want to sever that relationship.

There may be a dollars-and-cents argument just as important as the hearts-and-minds appeal. As Steve Liesman from CNBC told me today during an interview, the U.S. is running a $7 billion trade SURPLUS with the UAE, not including a recent $10 billion deal between the Emirates and Boeing to buy airplanes. We don't have many trade surpluses around the world and we don't want to start a trade war with some pretty big markets.

It's not clear how any of this will turn out, but I can't be alone in scratching my head about how the administration let this one catch them off guard.

It's been a rough and tumble week in the White House press room over the Cheney hunting story. Many viewers have written me with praise and plenty of criticism about my questioning of press secretary Scott McClellan. The debate about this story has focused equal parts on my colleagues and me as it has on the unfortunate facts of this hunting accident involving the Vice President.

Let me say at the outset that I was wrong to lose my temper at Scott McClellan. I've worked well with Scott since we first met during the 2000 campaign. Monday, he suggested my aggressive questioning about the disclosure of the hunting accident was a stunt for the cameras. He said this during a morning OFF CAMERA briefing, which undercut his point. Furthermore, I considered it a cheap shot. I said, "Don't be a jerk to me personally, just answer the question." I regret saying that because it's never appropriate to speak that way and because it created a distraction from the issues at hand.

Putting that aside, I do not apologize for asking tough questions about this story. I'm in the business of getting information -- as much of it as possible. The public and I don't always get as much as I think we deserve, but I keep trying. I also try to demand straight answers. Covering politicians, I have to work harder to get them. I have not made any judgments about the facts of this story as it pertains to what happened on the Armstrong ranch. I have stuck to reporting the facts. I do, however feel it's appropriate to push hard for full and immediate disclosure from our country's highest leaders about their conduct -- public and private. My view is, as elected officials with unparalleled influence over the lives of the American people, the President and Vice President owe the public information about their activities. I see myself as a proxy for the public that has raised questions about what happened and why the Vice President did not immediately disclose it. Furthermore, when a sitting Vice President shoots a man, it's a helluva story -- worthy of public notice and discussion. Therefore, I think it's appropriate to question the White House about why the Vice President chose to disregard the President's normal procedures for public disclosure. Mr. Cheney, in my view, acted as if he had something to hide. He also chose to allow a witness to this accident and the White House press secretary to spend three days portraying this as the fault of the shooting victim, Harry Whittington. Wednesday, Mr. Cheney changed course and took the blame. That invites press scrutiny.

This episode was also emblematic of how the Vice President chooses to communicate with the press and by extension the public. It also revealed tension within the White House between the staffs of the President and Vice President.

Yet the debate playing out in the blogosphere, cable airwaves and on talk radio pits the Vice President against an allegedly left-wing, overly cynical, prissy White House press corps in a tizzy because it wasn't the first to know and angry because it hates the President and Vice President anyway. This is nonsense. If you believe an accidental shooting by Vice President Al Gore would not be met with the same press scrutiny, I think you are not being honest with yourself. Have you Googled transcripts from the Clinton administration at the height of the Lewinsky scandal? The pursuit of information at the White House is often tense. We push hard for it. Maybe you think we pushed too hard in this case. Maybe you think there was no grave harm in waiting to learn the facts of this incident for a few days. I can accept that. The way we do our business is not always pretty and we should be accountable for that. I happen to believe, however, on balance, our dogged pursuit of lots of information, all the time, is a good thing. I view the White House press corps as a proxy for the public. It provides fodder for important debates in this country. But then again, I do have a bias: I'm in the information-gathering business.

One final thought. In recent days, some people have suggested to me that the press corps has failed to recognize that this is a sad story. Two friends, one who happened to be the Vice President, were involved in a terrible accident. It could have happened to anyone. Our tough questions and our reporting failed to give that adequate attention. It's a fair point. I do think the Vice President himself helped to give voice to how painful this accident was. That's why I think it was appropriate he decided to discuss it publicly.