Bush Rules

Many of the questions at the briefing dealt with what I think may be the sleeper aspect of this NIE. Most of the media attention has been on its determination that going to war in Iraq has made the terror threat worse. But isn't the bigger story that the intelligence community has concluded that overall, we're losing? When Bush insists we're winning?

The estimate, after all, clearly states: "We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the time frame of this estimate." And the time frame is five years.

From the briefing:

"Q Why does the president continue to say that we're winning the war on terror and we are more safe, when the overall picture painted by these key judgments is actually quite bleak and points to several areas where that is not a conclusion you could reach by reading it?

"MR. SNOW: I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure I agree. For instance, I know it's been characterized as being bleak. What it is, is it's a snapshot, as of February 28th, of what was going on in the region. . . .

Q. "[Y]ou're talking about things the administration has done and, yet, the intelligence estimate is taking this into account and coming up with this conclusion that the factors fueling this growth of the movement, they report, outweigh the vulnerability of the movement and will do so for some time. That's not 'we're safer.'

"MR. SNOW: No. It talks about jihadism.

"Q It's also not 'we're winning.'

"MR. SNOW: Well, it doesn't draw judgments like that. You've read the National Intelligence Estimate.

"Q I'm practically quoting verbatim from the report. I could read it.

"MR. SNOW: I know, but -- look for 'we're not winning.' Please show me."

Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write for Newsweek that the NIE is "probably the single most important document to emerge in this election" because of its definitive assessment that "the war in Iraq has not made America safer, but defeat in Iraq would make America even less safe than it is today."

The conclude: "In November, voters will have a relatively simple choice: they need to decide whether to punish the GOP for starting the war or trust the GOP to end the war."

Rumsfeldian

At that briefing yesterday, Snow once again demonstrated that he's happier asking questions than answering them.

Among his questions:

* "Think of it this way, if we had done nothing after September 11th, would the threat have vanished?"

* "This gets back to the fundamental issue -- are you going to go on the offensive against them or not?"

And:

* "Look, let me ask you a simple question: Do you think bin Laden is better off today than he was six years ago?"

Is that going to be the White House slogan for the mid-term? I think that could backfire.

Is That Appropriate?

Snow also made official what Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reported on Monday: "White House press secretary Tony Snow is taking his gift of gab across the country in the coming weeks to raise money for Republican candidates, an unusual task for the president's top spokesman. . . .

"Snow said taxpayers will not pay for any of his travel -- the bill is being footed by the Republican National Committee. He said fundraising is 'fairly unusual ground' for a sitting press secretary, and he won't hesitate to cancel a political appearance if he's needed at the White House."

Unusual, indeed. From yesterday's briefing:

"Q Will your appearances be open to the press?

"MR. SNOW: I think there may be a couple closed, but most of them are open, yes.

"Q You're only going to rail against Democrats to us? [Laughter.]"

Snow said he had established some ground rules for himself: "What you have to do is to present a factual account of what the president is doing and not draw yourself into ongoing political disputes between Democrats and the president because that, to me, I think, would be crossing a line that I don't want to cross."

But what is that line? It seems to me like Snow, standing behind the White House podium, has repeatedly injected himself into such ongoing political disputes -- more so than any of his predecessors I can think of.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, formerly of Fox News, still likes to think of himself as a journalist by trade. But on Wednesday, he made clear that his transition to pitchman was complete: He announced he had begun headlining fund-raisers for Republicans."

Reuters reports: "White House press secretary Tony Snow is taking his made-for-TV style onto the campaign trail to raise money for Republican candidates, an unusual role for a president's chief spokesman."

Snow v. Clinton

Bill Sammon writes in the Washington Examiner: "The White House took a swipe at former President Clinton on Wednesday, just days after he accused President Bush of doing 'nothing' to catch Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11.

"White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that Clinton spent his presidency 'dramatically' slashing military and intelligence assets that are vital to fighting global terrorism. . . .

"Snow seemed to suggest the Clinton administration did not try hard enough to counter the rising threat of global terrorism in the 1990s."

Parsing Bush

Yesterday's column provoked an unusual amount of e-mail.

I parsed some of Bush's recent statement to expose how, rather than acknowledge and attempt to rebut the many concerns about his policies, he makes up inane arguments and then ridicules them.

Several readers pointed out things I'd missed.

Larry Mack wrote: "You quote President Bush as follows: 'We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.'

"Seems to me the only one citing bin Laden (the enemy) these past couple months has been President Bush himself in his recent speeches on Iraq."

Jorge Ovalle writes: "'We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993,' says President Bush. The stronger point is that President Bush consistently fails to distinguish between the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 and the Hussein-led Iraqi government. It is not surprising that half of the American people still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

"This is effective politics. But this is also why we are failing to be effective in yet another war on a vague enemy."

Johnson Gudens wrote: "Kudos to you for your intricate dismantling of the senseless reasoning of President Bush. I'm writing about one that has not been mentioned, specifically, his constant referral to being 'on the offensive.' Can you or anyone else point out where, exactly, we're on the offensive, especially in Iraq? Our military is stuck in the middle of sectarian violence, and they're building a moat around Baghdad, for God's sake!"

And Gretchen W. Pritchard wrote: "A further rhetorical wrinkle in Bush's straw man repertoire is his increasing habit of saying 'some good people,' 'some decent people,' 'some fine patriotic folks' and then attributing to them outrageous views that no intelligent or patriotic person would actually have. This adds a kind of pseudo-benign but totally condescending 'Christian charity' to the put-downs -- akin to the classic Southern technique of insulting people while adding, 'Bless her heart.'"

The Comma

A reader in my Live Online discussion yesterday prompted me to acknowledge that I have been remiss in writing about "the comma."

For the record, Bush was talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN last Wednesday about all the carnage in Iraq when he said: "I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy."

No one seemed to notice for several days, until the comment was rebroadcast over the weekend. But since then, it's gotten quite a bit of attention.

Greg Sargent posted about it in the American Prospect, and linked to Greg Mitchell 's interesting piece in Editor and Publisher. CNN's Jack Cafferty got all riled up about it on Monday. And Ann Telnaes even did a stark cartoon about it.