Is Failure an Option?

Opening statements are expected Monday.

Meet the Scooter

Scott Shane writes a glowing profile of Libby for the New York Times: "Paradox seems to define I. Lewis Libby Jr., who remains a bit mysterious even to close colleagues. He is the White House policy enforcer who also wrote a literary novel; a buttoned-down Washington lawyer who likes knocking back tequila shots in cowboy bars and hurtling down mountains on skis and bikes; and a 56-year-old intellectual known to all by his childhood nickname, Scooter.

"But now comes the most baffling paradox of all, as Mr. Libby, former chief of staff and alter ego to Vice President Dick Cheney, began his trial in federal court here on Tuesday on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. By all accounts a first-rate legal mind and a hypercautious aide whose discretion frustrated reporters, he is charged with repeatedly lying to a grand jury and to the F.B.I. about his leaks to the news media in the battle over Iraq war intelligence."

What, precisely, is so bafflingly paradoxical about that, I'd like to know?

Opinion Watch

Harold Meyerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Today's Republicans now must choose between Eisenhower's way and Nixon's way. If they're like Ike, they will recognize that the war is lost and that public support for it isn't likely to be rekindled. . . .

"A Nixonian perspective also acknowledges that the war cannot be won but believes that blame for the defeat can still, somehow, be placed on the Democrats. If only the Democrats can be held responsible for defunding the troops, if only the U.S. presence in Iraq can be prolonged until it falls to the next administration (which may be Democratic) to end it, if only enough Republicans on the Hill can be dissuaded from voting with the Democrats' attempts to rein in the war, if only the surge engenders some wild and crazy antiwar demonstrations, then maybe, just maybe, there's a way to keep the war going without destroying the GOP."

David Ignatius writes in The Washington Post: "It was axiomatic during the Cold War that presidents should not gamble with matters of national security. The stakes were too high. The Bush administration's Iraq policy has long suffered from a lack of that prudence -- and the misplaced gambler's instinct is especially evident in the administration's plan to send more troops to Baghdad.

"President Bush's 'surge' is a mistake because it is piling more precious chips -- more human lives -- on what so far has been a losing bet. The public sent a clear message in the November election that it wants to take some of those chips off the table."

Who Are They Talking About Really?

Philip Dine writes in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about yesterday's White House visit by the World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals.

"The president praised the team's 'character and leadership,' and singled out manager Tony La Russa," Dine writes.

Bush said "that he had dinner with La Russa in August, during a tough stretch for the team, and afterwards remarked to an aide that the Cardinals were going to win the championship -- because their manager believed they would.

"La Russa conceded later that he was just trying to end their meeting on an optimistic note."

And from Cheney's remarks at the naming ceremony for the USS Gerald Ford yesterday: "He didn't shrink from a tough call. In such a moment, even with a popular choice in plain view and the easy path laid straight out in front of him, President Ford asked only what was right for the United States of America, and acted accordingly. When criticism came, he kept his head about him, focused on his job, and persevered. History looks favorably on such a man, and President Ford's reputation has, indeed, grown even greater in the three decades since he left this city."

A Little Joke

Joe Garofoli writes in the San Francisco Chronicle, mocking the White House Correspondents' Association for its decidedly safer headliner this time around: "impressionist Rich Little, mimic of dozens of celebrities -- most of whom are dead. . . .

"Who wants to hear Paul Lynde? Cary Grant anyone? Jack Benny?

"Hip? Perhaps in 1976. . . .

"Sound like a reactionary pick after [Stephen[ Colbert's edginess? . . .

"Decidedly not, said Correspondents Association President Steve Scully, who booked both Colbert and Little.

"'I thought Colbert was great. I loved him,' Scully said, adding that he didn't field any complaints from the White House, Bush included, about Colbert's performance. . . .

"Scully acknowledged that Little is 'not hip. But the other thing you have to keep in mind is that we don't have a half-million dollars to get Will Ferrell.'

"Scully said even President Bush asked a few years ago, but Ferrell declined."

Greg Mitchell writes in Editor and Publisher about Little: "He can be funny but usually in a very safe and sound way." And he points to this recent clip of Little, via YouTube.

On Signing Statements

Nary a murmur in the news columns for more than a week, but editorial writers around the country remain incensed about Bush's latest signing statement -- this one asserting his right to open mail without a warrant.

The Denver Post: "Once you've issued a signing statement to undermine anti-torture legislation, as the president did last summer, the next ones come all too easy."

The Hartford Courant: "Considering the president's inclination to enforce the laws as he sees fit, experts on civil liberties and national security were right to complain that the latest signing statement is an attempt to bypass the legal restrictions on reading mail."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "The Bush administration is always pushing the boundaries of executive power - at the expense of other branches of government and of the people. To that end, President Bush has taken signing statements - his written commentary on bills he has just signed into law - to new heights."

The Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Stringent laws are supposed to guard this nation's first-class mail against search without a warrant. If President Bush really meant nothing new by his signing statement, he should withdraw it - and provide Congress credible assurances that he was merely asserting a right to open mail, not already exercising it."

The Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune: "Such an expansion of presidential power should trouble all Americans."

The Sacramento Bee: "Clearly, our system of separation of powers is in doubt as the president claims unilateral powers to do whatever he wants. More than 200 years after Americans rejected the tyrannical acts of King George III, we've got another George with kingly pretensions that need to be checked."

The Daytona Beach News-Journal: "Bush's statement directly defies an explicit law. 'Unitary theory' or not, it's one more act of arbitrary law-breaking -- dictatorial in its particulars, but not nearly as outrageous, for its brazenness, as congressional silence since. Only Congress writes the laws in this country. Only the courts interpret them. The president only executes them. This president is doing all three. The other two branches, to their inexcusable discredit and mounting injury to Americans, are letting him."

The Albany Times-Union: "The postal signing statement shows that the Bush administration, far from being chastened by the uproar over electronic surveillance, has in fact been emboldened by it. And America's basic liberties remain in peril."

The Washington Post: "Does the administration contend, as in the case of its warrantless wiretaps, that the president has the inherent constitutional authority, or power granted by the post-Sept. 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), to open mail without going through the process outlined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Administration officials have been less than eager to answer these questions....

"Given the president's signing statement, given his demonstrated willingness to stretch the boundaries of his authority and dispense with inconvenient legal niceties, it seems necessary to ask again."

Trillin's View

Calvin Trillin writes in the Nation: "George W. Bush Explains His Signing Statements, Among Other Things."

"They sent me a law against torture./ I signed it, although it was quaint./ I said, though, that I'm the decider/ Of if something's torture or ain't.

"I'll do what I want when I want to,/ Though Congress's will may be foiled./ I've always done just what I want to./ You see, I'm a little bit spoiled."

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles on the flaw in Bush's logic; Steve Kelley on Bush's mess; David Horsey on the death of a salesman; Tony Auth on Bush's idea of disaster; Jim Morin on Bush's hands.

Live Online

I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET. Come visit.