An Unhappy Union

Juan Cole writes in an opinion column in Salon: "The stunning victory of the militant Muslim fundamentalist Hamas Party in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration's policies toward the Middle East. Bush pushes for elections, confusing them with democracy, but seems blind to the dangers of right-wing populism. At the same time, he continually undermines the moderate and secular forces in the region by acting high-handedly or allowing his clients to do so. As a result, Sunni fundamentalist parties, some with ties to violent cells, have emerged as key players in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.

"Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority."

Ducking Objects and Questions

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post: "The best-laid plans for President Bush's news conference went awry just 30 seconds into the event. An Associated Press camera and tripod broke free from their bracket on the ceiling and, in view of the TV cameras, dangled menacingly over reporters from Bloomberg News and the New York Daily News."

Milbank's assessment of the event: "In all, Bush uttered nearly 7,000 words in his 45-minute Q and A. But his message could be summed up with a brief phrase in his least-favorite language: L'Etat c'est moi (I am the state). . . .

"Midway through this Bourbonic performance, the Los Angeles Times's James Gerstenzang offered an observation on Bush's surveillance policy: 'This seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was: 'When the president does it, then that means that it's not illegal.' ' Whispered 'oohs' could be heard in the room. Bush gave a look indicating he wished the dangling camera had fallen on Gerstenzang."

John Dickerson , writing in Slate, examines how Bush ducks questions.

"The pause to think gives him away. When he doesn't punch out a response, he's not puzzling out the answer. He's puzzling out the spin."

Among his tactics: "Distract the questioner with something else. Show reporters a sparkly ornament, and hope we'll forget the tree it's hanging on. (Talking about Saddam Hussein has served this purpose in ducking tricky Iraq questions.) When talking about Jack Abramoff, Bush focused on the pictures of the two together rather than the larger issue of what influence the lobbyist had with White House officials and what, if anything, he may have gotten in return for all of that campaign cash."

Then there's the answering-the-question-would-help-the-terrorists dodge.

"This doesn't avoid the question so much as it makes asking too many pointed ones an act of treachery."

Editorial Watch

Karl Rove's speech last week seems to have really gotten under the skin of an increasing number of editorial boards.

The Washington Post writes: "The Bush administration's distortion, for political purposes, of the Democratic position on warrantless surveillance is loathsome. Despite the best efforts of Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, to make it seem otherwise, Democrats are not opposed to vigorous, effective surveillance that could uncover terrorist activity. Nor are the concerns that they are expressing unique to their party. . . .

"Believing there should be constraints on unchecked executive power is not the same as being weak-kneed about the war against terrorism."

The Philadelphia Inquirer writes: "Here's a statement with which no American concerned about preventing terrorist attacks would quarrel:

" 'President Bush believes if al-Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why.'

"Thus said chief presidential adviser Karl Rove last week. True to his partisan form, Rove then went on to claim that 'some important Democrats clearly disagree.'

"Rove clearly has that wrong. The objections are not to the idea of spying on al-Qaeda. It's about the unaccountable, constitutionally dubious way the Bush administration put that idea into practice."

Newsday writes: "In politics, a strong offense may well be the best defense. But in this fight Bush is peddling two false dichotomies.

"First, that the debate is simply Republicans for, Democrats against. It isn't. Second, that the public must either accept this off-the-reservation electronic snooping or, as Gen. Michael Hayden, the administration's No. 2 intelligence official intimated, remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. That ignores the fact that there are well-established legal avenues for monitoring suspected terrorists that Bush simply chose to avoid.

"Given Bush's claimed authority to spy on Americans without court oversight, the nation needs a sober debate on the limits of presidential power. What it doesn't need is a cynical appeal to partisanship and fear."

The San Francisco Chronicle writes: "President Bush's public-relations offensive on behalf of his warrantless surveillance program is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. . . .

"The talking point often parroted by Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush allies on Capitol Hill -- 'If al Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why' -- is a classic red herring. There is no doubt that such an eavesdropping request would fall within the 99-plus percent the FISA court is approving.

"The question is: Will Congress have the fortitude to rein in a presidency that is acting as if it is above the law?"

Opinion Watch: The Fear Factor

Eugene Robinson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents."

Leonard Pitts Jr. writes in his Miami Herald column: "Karl Rove said in a speech last week that this year's midterm election will be about security. So you know it will be about fear. . . .

"The choice is simple: remain true to the ideals that have guided us for 230 years or surrender them on the altar of expedience because we were too scared to live up to them."