Where's the Leak?

Here's video from Hadley's ABC appearance.

George Stephanopoulos: "So the president agrees a major adjustment is necessary?"

Hadley: "He said that. He has said publicly what Secretary Rumsfeld said. That things are not proceeding well enough or fast enough in Iraq. We have to make some changes. We need a new way forward in Iraq, and that's what this policy review is all about."

Here's video from Hadley's CBS appearance. Host Bob Schieffer marveled at the timing of the Rumsfeld memo.

Schieffer: "But isn't that much different than what we were being told in public before the election, and in -- in fact in the days after the election? I don't hear -- I didn't hear anybody talking about a change in strategy, a change in policy. . . . [T]here seems to be a real difference here in what the administration is talking to each other about, and -- and what the public is hearing."

Hadley: "I don't think so, Bob. You know, we -- the president has been saying in the -- in -- in -- over the last year -- in fact, he gave a series of speeches about the changes we have made to adapt to the situation, adapt to changes in Iraq, also adapt and take advantage of what we've learned as we've done Iraq. He's talked about the change in our approach to training Iraqi forces, changing our approach to reconstruction. . . . "

Schieffer: "But Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about drawing down troops. The president never talked about that."

Hadley: "The president has said publicly that we had hoped before -- over the course of this year to be in a position where we could begin to bring down troops. . . . "

Schieffer: "Well. . . . "

Bush on Fox Tonight

When the going gets tough, the White House goes on Fox News.

Michael Learmonth writes for Variety: "President George W. Bush will try to get his message out tonight, giving his first interview since the midterm elections to Fox News Channel's Brit Hume.

"The interview, scheduled to be taped today, will air at 6 p.m. on 'Special Report With Brit Hume.'"

Shiite Meeting

Maxim Kniazkov writes for AFP: "President George W. Bush will reach out Monday to a powerful Iraqi Shiite cleric in search for ways to rein in sectarian violence spinning out of control and threatening to undo his plans for Iraq.

"Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who heads the pro-Iranian Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), will make an unprecedented stop at the White House."

Middle East Panic

Paul Richter writes in the Los Angeles Times that Bush's attempts to showcase his diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East last week backfired badly.

"President Bush's summit in Jordan with the Iraqi prime minister proved an awkward encounter that deepened doubts about the relationship. Vice President Dick Cheney's stop in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, yielded a blunt warning from the kingdom's leaders. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's swing through the West Bank and Israel, intended to build Arab support by showing a new U.S. push for peace, found little to work with.

"In all, visits designed to show the American team in charge ended instead in diplomatic embarrassment and disappointment, with U.S. leaders rebuked and lectured by Arab counterparts. The trips demonstrated that U.S. allies in the region were struggling to understand what to make of the difficult relationship, and to figure whether, with a new Democratic majority taking over Congress, Bush even had control over his nation's Mideast policy."

Vindication

Walter Pincus writes in The Washington Post: "Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

"With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power."

It's not exactly common for a newspaper to scold itself in its news columns, but Pincus uses Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) as an example of how antiwar views within congress were ignored at the time by The Post, among others.

Writes Pincus: "Lee was described as giving a 'fiery denunciation' of the administration's 'rush to war,' with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

Here, for the record, are those two stories, one by Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin; the other by Dana Milbank.

Webb Redux

Was newly elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb out of line when he answered Bush's question about his Marine son with an objection to the war in Iraq? These two columnists consider him a hero.

Eleanor Clift writes in Newsweek: "Every so often a politician comes along who doesn't pander to the president. . . .

"A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way -- 'That's not what I asked you' -- trying to force the conversation back to Webb's son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. . . . Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint. . . .

"It's justice long overdue for a president who has so abused the symbols of war to get his comeuppance from a battlefield hero who personifies real toughness as opposed to fake toughness. Bush struts around with this bullying frat-boy attitude, and he gets away with it because nobody stands up to him."

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Good for him. We need people in Washington who are willing to stand up to the bully in chief. Unfortunately, and somewhat mysteriously, they're still in short supply.

"You can understand, if not condone, the way the political and media establishment let itself be browbeaten by Mr. Bush in his post-9/11 political prime. What's amazing is the extent to which insiders still cringe before a lame duck with a 60 percent disapproval rating. . . .

"[H]ere's a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?"

On Civil War

James Poniewozik writes in Time that NBC's decision last week to call the conflict in Iraq a civil war "was a signal moment in the war between the Bush White House and the media. If the issue seems like pointless semantics, it is hardly so to the administration, which has been fixated on framing issues and politicizing language. . . .

"The White House got its way for a long time, and that's not surprising. The period from 9/11 through much of the Iraq war was often shameful for the media, especially TV news. . . .

"This was not because the media were jingoistic but because the media business was, and is, existentially scared. TV audiences and print readerships are shrinking, along with media payrolls; nightly newscasts and newspapers wonder how much longer they will exist, much less thrive. The administration has played on that fear of irrelevance, freezing out big institutions in favor of friendly local outlets and allies. A Bush aide told reporter Ron Suskind that journalists were an ineffectual 'reality-based community.' Were the mainstream media dying? The ebullient Bushies seemed to answer, They're already dead! . . .

"With the worsening of Iraq, however, coverage became more assertive, and after Hurricane Katrina, reporters found they could question the administration without being struck dead. With the 'civil war' fight . . . the momentum has reversed."

David Carr writes in the New York Times: "On closer inspection, what seems like a bold, transgressive step by the media is considerably less. It is not a coincidence that some members of the mainstream media were only willing to attempt to redefine the terms of the current debate after a massive electoral setback to the current administration. . . .

"The willingness to use 'civil war' now is less a brave declaration than a wet, sensitive finger in the wind because mainstream media is much more likely to follow, than lead, political debate."

Frank Rich writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "When news organizations, politicians and bloggers had their own civil war about the proper usage of that designation last week, it was highly instructive -- but about America, not Iraq. The intensity of the squabble showed the corrosive effect the president's subversion of language has had on our larger culture. Iraq arguably passed beyond civil war months ago into what might more accurately be termed ethnic cleansing or chaos. That we were fighting over 'civil war' at this late date was a reminder that wittingly or not, we have all taken to following Mr. Bush's lead in retreating from English as we once knew it.

"It's been a familiar pattern for the news media, politicians and the public alike in the Bush era. It took us far too long to acknowledge that the 'abuses' at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere might be more accurately called torture. And that the 'manipulation' of prewar intelligence might be more accurately called lying."

I share some of my own thoughts on reporters calling it like they see it over at the new Niemanwatchdog.org Watchdog Blog.

Worst President Ever?

The Washington Post's Outlook section asked five historians how Bush ranks among his peers.

Eric Foner writes that Bush is the worst president ever: "Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

"Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law."

Douglas Brinkley writes, "after six years in power and barring a couple of miracles, it's safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq. . . .

"Oddly, the president whom Bush most reminds me of is Herbert Hoover, whose name is synonymous with failure to respond to the Great Depression. When the stock market collapsed, Hoover, for ideological reasons, did too little. When 9/11 happened, Bush did too much, attacking the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."

Michael Lind writes: "It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all time. He's merely the fifth worst."

Vincent J. Cannato was Bush's one defender -- and the best he could do was write that it's too soon to say: "I don't know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will bequeath a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait."

Bolton Bids Adieu

Here is Bush's statement about the resignation of John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate. They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their Nation."

Bush also meets with Bolton in the Oval Office this afternoon.

Vice President Cheney still has plenty of loyalists in high positions throughout the government, but Rumsfeld and Bolton were two of his key lieutenants. This is a big blow for him. More on this tomorrow.

Drilling Ban

John Heilprin writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush is deciding whether to lift a ban on oil and gas drilling in federal waters off Alaska's Bristol Bay, home to endangered whales and sea lions and the world's largest sockeye salmon run."

Scooter Libby Watch

Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "Former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby says that during the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity he was preoccupied with terrorist threats, Iraq's new government and emerging nuclear programs in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. . . .

"Court records released Friday offered the first glimpse of the type of classified information Libby wants to share with jurors at his upcoming perjury and obstruction trial. . . .

"Libby plans to testify that he had other, more weighty issues on his mind and simply misspoke or forgot when interviewed by the FBI and the grand jury."

Legacy Watch

Paul Bedard writes in U.S. News that Bush's legacy "doesn't look pretty . . . but insiders say he's taking the long view... 'His legacy won't be written for 50 years,' shrugs an ally, 'and, anyway, there's nothing we can do about it now.'"