| Page 5 of 5 < |
Bush Losing Control of Agenda
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
On CNN yesterday, Wolf Blitzer asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales if the Justice Department will launch an investigation over who leaked the memo.
Gonzales waved off the question. "Oh, I don't know, Wolff."
In a briefing on Air Force One, on the flight back to Washington, Hadley was asked about the leak, and responded with bemusement, rather than outrage.
A reporter asked about one of the memo's recommendations.
Q. "[R]emember, in the memo?
" MR. HADLEY: I do have a recollection of the memo, and now you do, too, unfortunately.
" Q You're saying it wasn't leaked intentionally?
" MR. HADLEY: It sure was not leaked intentionally by me, I can tell you that.
" MR. SNOW: Or the White House.
" MR. HADLEY: On the eve of going to a meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, no, I don't think so."
A Fulsome Choice of Words
Several readers e-mailed me to point out that the senior administration official who I identified as deputy national security adviser Meghan L. O'Sullivan made a poor -- or, arguably, unintentionally honest -- choice of words in describing the meeting between Bush and Maliki.
"There was, as I mentioned, quite a fulsome conversation about the situation in Baghdad," O'Sullivan said.
Fulsome, however, isn't a fancy way of saying "full" -- it means offensively excessive.
Will v. Webb
George F. Will's Washington Post opinion column yesterday, accusing newly elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb of acting like a "boor" when he didn't respond warmly to Bush's question about his son, a Marine in Iraq, has inspired furious response in the blogosphere and among washingtonpost.com readers, who have posted more than, 1,500 comments at last count.
Nora Ephron writes on HuffingtonPost.com: "Washington is a place where politics is just something you do all day. You lie, you send kids to war, you give them inadequate equipment, they're wounded and permanently maimed, they die, whatever. Then night falls, and you actually think you get to pretend that none of it matters. 'How's your boy?' That, according to George Will, is a civil and caring question, one parent to another? It seems to me that it's exactly the sort of guy talk that passes for conversation in Bushworld, just one-up from the frat-boy banter that is usually so seductive to Bush's guests. . .
"So finally someone said to George Bush, Don't think that what you stand for is beside the point. Don't think that because you're President you're entitled to my good opinion. Don't think that asking about my boy means that I believe for even one second that you care. If you did, you'd be doing something about bringing the troops home.
"George Will thinks this is bad manners.
"I don't.
"I think it's too bad it doesn't happen more often."
Plain Talk Watch
Al Neuharth has a to-do list for the president in his USA Today opinion column
"·He must admit that our invasion of Iraq was a mistake based on faulty information and that we have no realistic plan for 'victory.'
"·He must promise that our troops will get out, sooner rather than later.
"·He must agree that we will pay the enormous bill to clean up the mess we made, restoring all public and private facilities.
"Tragically, we can't restore the lives of the nearly 3,000 dead Americans or the untold tens of thousands of Iraqis. . . .
"Eating crow never tastes good. But Bush, Cheney and those members of Congress who nearly unanimously approved and funded this disaster need to get in that chow line."
CNN commentator Jack Cafferty had this to say yesterday afternoon: "First, we had that White House memo that suggests the administration thinks Nouri al-Maliki is a loser who can't handle the job of governing Iraq. And that was followed by the snub of President Bush by al-Maliki, a snub that both sides agreed wasn't a snub at all.
"And then they finally met, right?
"And al-Maliki now says Bush is great and Bush says al-Maliki is great. And the U.S. is going to speed up getting Iraq on its feet so it can defend itself and blah, blah, blah, blah.
"There is nothing new here. It's the same junk we've been hearing over and over and over again.
"Meanwhile, the civil war in Iraq gets worse every day. This Iraq Study Group is going to sit down with the president next week, talk about a gradual pullback of troops. Presumably that will happen after we send more troops to Baghdad. That was announced yesterday.
"And while all this is going on, the Shiite cleric, Muqtada al- Sadr, and his political cronies, who hold 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament, well, they're refusing to participate in the Iraqi government until al-Maliki comes up with a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, something George Bush says isn't going to happen.
"Don't you just love this war?"
Lawyering Up
Al Kamen writes in The Washington Post: "The White House counsel's office, anticipating a blizzard of subpoenas from Democrats for what we all know are top-secret or constitutionally protected 'deliberative process' records, is filling slots on the legal team."
Bubble Watch
A New York Times editorial this morning argues that Hadley's memo indicates that Bush's advisers aren't entirely shielding him from the truth in Iraq.
"But the president's performance this week -- his refusal to impose any deadlines on Mr. Maliki to start reconciliation talks and break with the militias, and his refusal to give the Pentagon a deadline to stand up an effective Iraqi Army -- tells us once again that Mr. Bush does not listen. . . .
"The president's advisers need to tell him all the harsh truths about Iraq in the vivid terms they require; they need to tell him how little time he has left to act. This administration has been orchestrating a foreign policy disaster of epic proportions, and history will remember both that the president failed to hear the warning bells and that many others failed to ring them loudly enough."
'1600 for Men'
Where can you buy official presidential toiletries?
Bob Pool writes in the Los Angeles Times about how Lesa Glucroft's lotions and powders ended up bearing the presidential seal, and selling at the White House gift shop.
The shop, located at the National Press Club, is operated by the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division Benefit Fund.
The toiletries are not yet available at the online story (although this adorable stuffed Air Force One toy is.)
Cartoon Watch
Tony Auth on the padded oval. Ann Telnaes on an exit strategy.
Christmas at the White House
The first lady was all over the airwaves yesterday, giving interviews and previewing the White House Christmas decorations.
On ABC, Laura Bush divulged that her poor husband was hosting his first Christmas party last night -- not long after getting back from Jordan.
Here's a fact sheet on this year's decorations, and lots more White House holiday information. (What? No new Barney video?)
Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts write in The Washington Post: "Because she hasn't found a replacement for pastry chef Thaddeus DuBois, the first lady persuaded his predecessor, Roland Mesnier, to make the 300-pound gingerbread White House on display in the State Dining Room. Tiny renderings of Barney and Miss Beazley sit in Santa's sleigh on the rooftop; Willie the cat lies under a small birdhouse; 800 icing snowflakes cover the house.
"The menu: New executive chef Cristeta Comerford added some Bush favorites to the traditional holiday buffets -- mini-chicken-fried steaks with white onion gravy, sweet potato souffle and tamales, which the Texans always eat on Christmas Eve."
According to the Associated Press, the president and first lady plan four dinners, one lunch and 19 receptions for the holidays.
Marian Burros, an expert in White House Christmases past, blogs for the New York Times that something, maybe the war, seems to be casting a pall over this year's festivities.
"[I]t was hard to escape a feeling that there was not a lot of holiday joy evident in the Executive Mansion, despite its holiday garb," Burros writes.
"The usual presents under the tree were missing.
"The chief usher, Gary Walters, offered his usually diplomatic opinion: 'It's different,' he said.
"The Marine Corps group that plays in the entrance foyer was fewer in number this year, down to three.
"Even Mrs. Bush's choice of wardrobe was in keeping with the subdued atmosphere: a tailored, muted, brick tweed pants suit, with minimum jewelry. . . .
"One of the house butlers, who has been there through many Christmases, wondered what was happening to the White House. 'It's just not the same aura that it used to be,' he said."



