The Rap on Karl Rove

Justice Watch

Joseph D. Rich writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed: "The scandal unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest. . . .

"Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections."

Rovian Theory Watch

Jon Carroll writes in his San Francisco Chronicle column: "If those eight U.S. attorneys were fired at the behest of Karl Rove for real or imagined disloyalty to the president (and that does seem to be the case), then what were the 85 other prosecutors doing right? . . .

"See, the thing is, there's an election coming up in 2008. There are likely to be disputes about what happened in the voting booths. A pliable federal prosecutor would be a useful thing to have around when legal challenges are starting. Since the plan to fire the attorneys had been in the works for two years, it could be an example of Karl Rove's ability to think long term. Just an idea."

Iraq Watch

I wrote yesterday about the bind Bush is in, now that both houses of Congress have succeeded in attaching a timetable for troop withdrawal to the funding bill he so desperately needs to keep fighting the war in Iraq -- and about Bush's pugnacious reaction.

Maura Reynolds writes in the Los Angeles Times that "the White House and Congress are careening toward their biggest policy confrontation in more than a decade. . . .

"At the moment, neither side has much incentive to compromise, because the war is a signature issue for both. The president has wagered his legacy on the outcome of his decision to invade Iraq, and Democrats owe their control of Congress largely to voters angered by the war's deepening losses. . . .

"When it comes, Bush's veto is expected to leave each side accusing the other of perfidy: The president will accuse Congress of cutting off funds for troops in the middle of the battlefield, and Democratic leaders will accuse Bush of stubbornly ignoring the will of the American people, the true needs of the troops and the raw power of common sense.

"Also likely is a scenario that drags the confrontation out for months, probably through the summer, with each side trying to fix blame for the stalemate on the other."

Here is the text of Bush's speech.

Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post: "In his most combative comments yet, President Bush mocked Democratic lawmakers yesterday for including a deadline for troop withdrawals and 'pork' projects in an Iraq spending bill, declaring that 'the American people will know who to hold responsible' if funding for the war stalls. . . .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shot back: "'Calm down with the threats. There is a new Congress in town,' Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference. 'We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.' . . .