Where's the Outrage Over Escalation?

But get this: Casey's offense, in Bush's eyes, was evidently not that he was unreasonably optimistic -- it was that he wasn't optimistic enough!

"[A]s Baghdad spun further out of control, some of the president's advisers now say, Mr. Bush grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory. . . .

"In a telephone interview on Friday, General Casey continued to caution against a lengthy expansion in the American military role. 'The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias,' he said. 'And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems.'"

That sound realistic -- but it's certainly not what Bush wants to hear.

After a visit to the Pentagon a few weeks ago, Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine commandant, told marines about the president's message, the Times reports.

"'What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win,' he quoted the president as warning his commanders, 'not how we're going to leave.'"

Bush's Judgment

The president has repeatedly expressed his unconditional support for Casey -- going so far, in fact, as to use Casey as a cudgel in the mid-term elections against those who argued for troop withdrawal.

Here's Bush on June 26: "And so I did visit with General Casey, and I came away once again with my trust in that man. I've told the people here around the table that the decisions that I will make will be based upon the recommendations of people like General George Casey."

Goaded by the Right?

There's some evidence to suggest that Bush's forsaking of Casey was the result of some goading from the conservative media.

Here's Bush in September, in a closed-door session with conservative journalists, as reported by Rich Lowry in the National Review. Lowry, who was even then calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq, asked Bush to respond to that argument.

"Bush: The answer to that question is, if General Casey feels like he needs more troops, we'll send them. . . .

"I'm constantly asking General Casey that question. I've got direct contact with him through secure video.'

"Q: What if he's wrong?

"BUSH: Then I picked the wrong general.

"Q: You wouldn't override his decision in any instance?

"BUSH: Well, how -- I mean -- I query him thoroughly. I'm certainly not a military expert, nor am I in Baghdad. I talk to Zal [Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador] all the time. In other words, we get -- and I ask for data. So I know how to ask questions. I think I'm pretty good about filtering out which is real and which is not."

Lowry also blogged about that interview: "Asked if generals might be inhibited in asking for more troops because it might be such a politically unwelcome request, Bush used a dismissive expletive for the notion. He expressed his conviction that his generals know he has what it takes -- briefly showing his fluidity in Spanish -- to get them the troops they need even if the politics isn't favorable. To increase Gen. Casey's comfort level with him, Bush said he had invited Casey and his wife to spend time with him informally."

And here's Fox News's Brit Hume with Bush on December 4:

"Hume: 'Is it fair to say, then, that the approach in Iraq has been more a reflection of what Casey and Abizaid wanted than of anybody else over there? Or anybody else in the military?'

"Bush: 'I think from the military tactics that they are the chain of command through Rumsfeld to me.'

"Hume: 'Right.'

"Bush: 'Now they listen to all kinds of people on the ground and they are very thoughtful, decent, honorable men, who understand that -- what the mission is and understand that it is their obligation to design the tactics to achieve the mission.'

Domestic Politics

Here is President Bush himself on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page today, about working with a Democratic Congress over "the next two years -- one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people.

"Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington. To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual. Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve."

Bush rehashed the op-ed in a brief Rose Garden statement this morning, flanked by his Cabinet.

John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal: "In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bush proclaims that his deep tax cuts have kept the economy strong while shrinking projected deficits. 'The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget,' Mr. Bush writes. 'Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people.'

"He also writes -- for the first time, but with no details -- that the budget he presents to Congress in February will propose a way to 'balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent.'"

Edmund L. Andrews writes in the New York Times: "But Mr. Bush's budget plans in the past several years have consistently failed to take into account two major costs in the years ahead: the war in Iraq and the cost of restraining or repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax."

As for Bush's insistence that tax cuts shrink deficits, even some of his top economic advisers admit it's not true.

As Patrice Hill wrote in the Washington Times in October, for instance, Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Ed Lazear "conceded that the tax cuts have not prompted more people to get work and contribute to the economy, while they cut deeply into government revenue and contributed to record budget deficits that have not shown much improvement until recently.

Lip Service?

Richard B. Schmitt writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Setting up what could become the first showdown between the Bush administration and the new Democratic Congress, the Justice Department has refused to turn over two secret documents, describing the CIA's detention and interrogation policies for suspected terrorists, to the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who asked for the documents in November, said Tuesday that the department's response suggested that President Bush's promise to work with the new Congress 'may have been only political lip service.'

The Death of a President

Here is the text of Bush's eulogy for the 38th president.

Tom Shales writes in The Washington Post: "The current president praised Ford for making an unpopular decision -- the pardon of Nixon -- and sticking to it. That was also a theme of Bush's most recent radio address. Some reporters saw it as Bush's thinly veiled attempt to compare his own unpopular pursuit of the Iraq war with Ford's action -- and a way of saying both men were courageously standing on principle."

Among the many stories comparing and contrasting the Ford and Bush administrations, Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey wrote for Newsweek about the striking parallels -- unless you look past the words, of course.

"Just like the Ford team, [the Bush team] believed they could clean up the West Wing after impeachment and partisan wars, drawing on their own talent and experience to set a new course. After Monica, they thought they would end America's latest 'long national nightmare.' . . .

"Cheney went on to contrast his current and past experience with the Clinton years. 'In my office, I have a picture of John Adams, the first vice president,' he observed. 'Adams liked to say, 'The facts are stubborn things.'

"'Whatever the issue, we are going to deal with facts and show a decent regard for other points of view. This is not about questioning people's motives or their good faith. The days of the so-called war room and the permanent campaign are over.'

Who Would Eulogize Bush?

Struck by the presence of a former member of the White House press corps among Ford's eulogizers, Dana Milbank wonders in The Washington Post which of today's White House reporters would have the best Bush stories for his funeral.

"The current president would probably have Hugo Chavez deliver his eulogy before he would bestow the honor on a member of the White House press corps," Milbank writes. Nevertheless: "To help Bush choose, several current and former White House correspondents, though in no way encouraging the president to shuffle off this mortal coil, yesterday offered sample eulogies they would be willing to give many years from now."

No. 1 Villain -- and Hero

The Associated Press reports: "In a testament to how divided Americans are about their president and how strongly held those opinions are, George W. Bush earns two titles in the latest AP-AOL News poll, conducted by Ipsos: villain of the year and hero of the year.

"The poll asked adults to name a famous person to be named the biggest villain of the year, and allowed respondents to pick any name. Some 25 percent of adults picked George W. Bush as the biggest villain of the year. The poll also asked a similar question asking respondents to name a famous person as the biggest hero of the year, and Bush received the largest number of mentions, at 13 percent, of all respondents.

New Definition of Success

On CNN last week, White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend was pressed to admit that the administration's failure to capture Osama bin Laden was . . . a failure. But she wouldn't.

Stand-Up Guy

Michael Saul writes in the New York Daily News about Rep. Charles Rangel's appearance with a Bush impersonator during "'Laughing Liberally,' a traveling lefty comedy show that stopped at Town Hall."

"More than any other President that I can think of, you have really, truly shattered the myth of white supremacy," Rangel said.