The Libby-Cheney Bummer

The White House press corps yesterday aggressively questioned press secretary Tony Snow about the refusal of some senior military leaders -- most notably Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff -- to stand behind that claim of Iranian government involvement, which the White House has endorsed.

Here's the highly readable transcript of yesterday's briefing.

Snow was particularly unforthcoming, contentious and condescending -- at one point even telling CNN reporter Ed Henry to "calm down" when Henry persisted in trying to get Snow to address the central issue.

Some excerpts from the briefing:

"Q [T]he briefers over the weekend said that these parts are sent to Iraq with the approval of senior Iranian officials. And the bottom line is he seems to be contradicting that.

"MR. SNOW: Well, I think what General Pace may have been saying -- in fact, I know what he's saying -- and this is where we get to the rhetorical question I was asking you before -- do we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khomeini or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. But are the Quds forces part of the government? The answer is yes.

"So the question is, I think this ends up being a semantic dispute about senior levels of the government or the government. And the fact is, the government knows about it.

"Q Okay. But isn't it really a question about whether or not you have strong evidence? When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to be saying something different than the White House, does that raise questions about how solid this evidence is?

"MR. SNOW: No, because you've got -- you have explosively formed penetrators. He says they exist, correct?

"Q I didn't see that in this particular quote, but --

"MR. SNOW: Well, no -- he said that there are weapons --

"Q He says that there are projectiles manufactured in Iraq.

"MR. SNOW: Okay, all right. So, okay, so there's no doubt about that, correct? There are Iranians in Iraq. There's no question about that, correct?

"Q Sure.

"MR. SNOW: All right, so where's the credibility problem, in terms of -- are you saying --

"Q In terms of the Iranian government being behind it. That's not -- nobody's disputing whether it's manufactured in Iran. That's what -- you keep changing what my question is.

"MR. SNOW: No, no, I'm trying to clarify your question, because I think this is a --

"Q I don't need it clarified, I'm trying to tell you -- I know what my question is, and basically, he's saying that he doesn't see evidence that the Iranian government is clearly behind it. That's my -- I've asked that three or four times. You haven't answered that. You're saying the Iranian government is behind it.

"MR. SNOW: Okay, let me put it this way -- I'll say it one more time. The Quds force is part of the Iranian government. The Quds force is behind it, is associated with it."

The North Korean Agreement

Glenn Kessler and Edward Cody write in The Washington Post: "The six-nation deal to shut down North Korea's nuclear facility, four months after Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test, was reached yesterday largely because President Bush was willing to give U.S. negotiators new flexibility to reach an agreement, U.S. officials and Asian diplomats said yesterday.

"Ever since the North Korean nuclear crisis erupted in 2002 after the discovery of a clandestine nuclear program, the Bush administration has insisted that North Korea should not be rewarded for its bad behavior -- and many of the U.S. offers have required Pyongyang to give up a lot before it could receive anything in return.

"Now Bush has signed off on a deal that accepts North Korea's original position -- a 'freeze' of its Yongbyon nuclear facility -- and requires Washington to move first by unfreezing some North Korean bank accounts. The agreement leaves until later dealing with such vexing issues as the dismantlement of the facility, North Korea's stash of weapons-grade plutonium and even North Korea's admission of the nuclear program that started the crisis in the first place.

"As a result, the agreement came under attack yesterday, with conservatives labeling it a betrayal and Democrats charging that Bush allowed North Korea to become a nuclear-weapon state without gaining much improvement over a Clinton-era deal that collapsed during Bush's first term."

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "For Mr. Bush, bogged down in Iraq, his authority undercut by the November elections, any chance to show progress in peacefully disarming a country that detonated a nuclear test just four months ago could no longer be passed up. As one senior administration official said over the weekend, the prospect that Mr. Bush might leave Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea more dangerous places than he found them 'can't be very appealing.' . . .

"For years, Mr. Bush's administration has been paralyzed by an ideological war, between those who wanted to bring down North Korea and those who thought it was worth one more try to lure the country out of isolation. In embracing this deal, Mr. Bush sided with those who have counseled engagement, notably his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and her chief negotiator, Christopher R. Hill. Mr. Bush took the leap in the hope that in a few months, he will be able to declare that North Korea can no longer produce fuel for new nuclear weapons, even if it has not yet turned over its old ones. . . .

"Mr. Bush could . . . end up with a diplomatic triumph, one he needs desperately. To get there, he appears to have changed course. Asked in 2004 about North Korea, he said, 'I don't think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants.'

"Now he appears to have concluded that sometimes the United States has to negotiate with dictators and odious rulers, because the other options -- military force, sanctions or watching an unpredictable nation gain a nuclear arsenal -- seem even worse."

Helene Cooper and Jim Yardley write in the New York Times: "From the right, hardliners argued that the United States should have held out until North Korea agreed to fully declare and dismantle its entire nuclear program.

"From the left, Democrats argued that the deal was no better than one they said the United States could have gotten four years ago, before North Korea tested a nuclear bomb. . . .

"Still, the deal represented a bureaucratic victory for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has pushed for a more diplomatic approach with North Korea than more hawkish administration officials would have liked. In the end, it was Ms. Rice who convinced President Bush to sign onto the pact, administration officials said.

"'These talks represent the best opportunity to use diplomacy to address North Korea's nuclear programs,' President Bush said in a statement Tuesday morning. 'They reflect the common commitment of the participants to a Korean Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons.'"

Janine Zacharia writes for Bloomberg: "The accord struck by the U.S. and its partners to limit and eventually dismantle North Korea's nuclear program resembles one signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, a deal President George W. Bush denounced. . . .

"According to Andrei Lankov, an historian at Seoul's Kookmin University who specializes in North Korea, the agreement isn't necessarily faulty but its timing is. 'The Americans have been refusing to sign anything like this for years, but changed their minds as soon as North Korea tested the nuclear device,' he said via email.

"'If this is not a surrender to blackmailers, I do not know what is. In the future when the North Koreans need more aid, they will know how to get it: do something as provocative as they can.'"

Who's Up? Who's Down?

Warren P. Strobel writes for McClatchy Newspapers that the deal "reflects a changed power balance within the Bush administration, with Rice at the forefront and Vice President Dick Cheney's influence diminished, at least on this issue and for now."

Michael Hirsh writes for Newsweek: "More than anything else he has done in his second term, George W. Bush's embrace of a fuel-for-nukes accord with North Korea shows that he is adjusting to the harsh realities of diplomacy -- and straying ever further from the ideology of regime change. The proof: the president has cut a deal that is likely to help a member of his notorious 'Axis of Evil,' Kim Jong Il, stay in power longer, even while it may make the world safer. . . .

"Until this week the administration refused to reward 'bad behavior' -- secret weapons programs -- by promising dictators like Kim goodies in return for giving up nukes. 'There's a little bit of tripping over earlier rhetoric,' says Michael Green, the senior director for Asia on the National Security Council in Bush's first term. . . .

"Former senior administration members say the North Korea deal is evidence of two big changes: one, several key hardliners have left, and the influence of others, including Cheney, is waning; and two, that Bush is now consumed with Iraq, Iran and the Middle East. 'It was so clearly against the approach we had tried to impose,' says a former top Bush nonproliferation official. 'Why now? I can think couple of reasons. One is that he is completely overwhelmed with the Middle East and desperate for a political victory anywhere.'"

North Korea Editorials

The Washington Post: "If the shutdown takes place, North Korean production of plutonium for nuclear weapons will also stop -- a welcome if very limited step forward."

The Los Angeles Times: "The very tentative one-page agreement struck in Beijing on Tuesday is only a shaky first step after years of paralysis."

The New York Times: "The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments? . . .

"There will be a lot of talk in Washington about Mr. Bush salvaging a failing presidency. We don't want to take away from the glow. But there are a lot of other dangers out there. And we hope that Mr. Bush learns the most basic lesson of this week's deal: sometimes you really do have to talk to your enemies, even if you have to grit your teeth."

Trade Gap Watch

Steven R. Weisman writes in the New York Times: "The United States ran a record trade deficit in 2006 for the fifth consecutive year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday in an announcement that quickly reignited the dispute between the Bush administration and Democrats over the value of past and future deals lowering trade barriers."

At Long Last, a Meeting

Ron Harris writes in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "After spurning requests by the Congressional Black Caucus for months, President George W. Bush will meet Thursday with members for the first time in more than two years.

"Led by caucus chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., they plan to discuss changes they would like to see in the president's budget, expediting aid for Hurricane Katrina victims and their opposition to Bush's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The meeting reflects the newfound clout of the 43-member caucus, all Democrats."

Won't You Be Mine?

Barneycam returns today with My Barney Valentine. But, to be honest, Barney looks about as thrilled with the whole project as his human is about, oh, the House debate.

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles on the North Korean agreement; David Horsey wallows in irony; Stuart Carlson on Bush's budget choices; John Sherffius depicts the "Bush/Cheney warometer".