Everything's Political

Here's video ; here's the text of a short excerpt.

"Matt Lauer: And yet you admitted that there were these CIA secret facilities. Okay?

"President Bush: So what? Why is that not within the law?

"Matt Lauer: The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law.

"President Bush: Well, we just disagree with him. Plus, my job is to protect you. And most American people, if I said [to them] that we had who we think is the mastermind of the 9/11, they would say, 'Why don't you see if you can't get information without torturing him,' which is what we did . . . .

"Matt Lauer: I don't want to let this 'within the law issue' slip though. I mean, if, in fact, there was water boarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and for the viewers, that's basically when you strap someone to a board and you make them feel as if they're going to drown by putting them underwater, if that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why did you have to go to a secret location around the world?

"President Bush: I'm not going to talk about techniques. And, I'm not going explain to the enemy what we're doing. All I'm telling you is that you've asked me whether or not we're doing things to protect the American people, and I want the American people to know we are doing so."

Wednesday's Speech

Bush's momentous speech on Wednesday -- in which he outlined new and highly controversial proposals for the treatment of terror suspects -- appropriately continues to spawn a great deal of exploration and analysis. (See my Thursday and Friday columns for background.) Plus I'll have more tomorrow.

Mike Allen writes in Time: "Thirty-five minutes after President Bush finished his surprise East Room announcement last week about plans for prosecuting some of the world's most prominent terrorists, White House and Republican officials convened a conference call of conservative TV pundits and other allies, and later of state party leaders around the country. A participant said listeners were urged to spread the word about the aggressive speech 'by talking about it in the context of the election.' The message: Republicans are strong, and Democrats are weak. The White House strategy isn't subtle."

Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff write in Newsweek: "The timing of last week's announcement, just before the fifth anniversary of 9/11, was no accident. It allowed the White House to showcase its successes in capturing terrorists, and to put pressure on Congress to quickly approve the tribunals. 'There were obviously messaging opportunities,' says a senior Bush aide. 'We could sit back and let the war be defined by the media and our critics, or we can define it ourselves.'"

But David Johnston in the New York Times casts doubt on Bush's Exhibit A in his argument for coercive interrogations: Abu Zubaydah, the first Osama bin Laden henchman captured by the United States after 9/11.

"[R]ather than the smooth process depicted by Mr. Bush, interviews with nearly a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials briefed on the process show, the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah was fraught with sharp disputes, debates about the legality and utility of harsh interrogation methods," Johnston writes.