E-Mail Saga Gets Fishier

"Q Fifty, 22, handful.

"MS. PERINO: Look -- and I explained that. You have to admit that when I said a handful, I was asked based on something that I didn't know."

The Readers Write

A few observations from White House Watch readers:

David Holtzman (who happens to be the author of a book called Privacy Lost) sent the following message:

"There are ways of retrieving deleted emails from servers and reconstructing from backup tapes. The only time that doesn't work, given sufficient resources, is when a determined and systematic effort has been made to expunge the digital record. This is very hard to do, requires professional oversight and leaves a trail."

Congressional investigators -- and journalists -- "should insist that the RNC hire an outside consultant to look at backup tapes and their internal (or network hosted) servers in an attempt to reconstruct the missing material. . . .

"Not only should they hire a 3rd party to look at the computers, but they should immediately make an 'image' (complete backup copy) of their email servers so that they can't claim that it disappeared again."

John Avignone from Austin writes: "I've been a network engineer and administrator for various corporate networks, including administrating email servers no doubt very similar to those at the RNC...

"Every large network of any kind regularly runs backup routines. This way in case of catastrophic computer failure, everything can be restored to the last backup. This is done weekly, if not daily. Extremely busy, mission critical servers backup continually in real time.

"These backups are usually stored locally and in a very safe off-site location and for perpetuity. . . .

"It's possible the RNC regularly destroys their backups. However, that would be extremely unusual and alone would generate huge suspicion in the mind of any IT or forensics professional. There's simply no good reason to destroy a backup. . . . The only reason to destroy backups is to destroy evidence."

Susan G Wheeler writes: "Has anyone explored the issue of electronic security (encryption, etc.) on the RNC or AOL email accounts that WH personnel are using to conduct the country's business? While the country is focused on the physical ramifications of terrorism, we should also be concerned about what others can ascertain electronically. Besides discussing DOJ lawyers, what other information is being discussed without government-grade electronic security? . . . Isn't this a violation of something more serious than just WH rules of employee conduct?"

And a reader who prefers to remain anonymous writes: "Those Rovian e-mails aren't lost or permanently deleted. They represent huge bucks in the form of notes for his multi-million dollar memoirs and 'job insurance' against anyone who thinks they can dump him overboard. Nope, Karl Rove has a copy of every one of his e-mails on a hard drive or CD disc at home."

Czar Watch

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush's top national security adviser said Thursday that there is an urgent need to name a high-powered White House official to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"'It's something I would like to have done yesterday and if yesterday wasn't available, the day before,' National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters during a briefing at the White House. A day earlier, the White House had said the idea for a so-called war czar was still in its infancy."

Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks write in The Washington Post: "The new 'execution manager,' as the White House termed the position, would be empowered to cut through the bureaucracy and talk directly with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and other key figures to figure out what is needed to make progress on the ground. . . .

"Under the proposal by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, the execution manager would talk daily with the military commanders and U.S. ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The official would then meet with Bush each morning to review developments. The goal to meet requests for support by Petraeus and others would be 'same-day service,' the proposal said.

"So far, the White House has had trouble finding someone to fill the new assignment. At least five retired four-star generals have declined to be considered. Since The Post disclosed the plan this week, many Democrats and former military officers have blasted the idea as a misguided reorganization or as an abrogation of presidential responsibility.

"'Standing up a war czar is just throwing in another layer of bureaucracy,' retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, told reporters yesterday. 'Excuse me -- we have a chain of command already and it's time for our leaders to step up and take charge.'"

Baker notes that Hadley at some point decided to change the title from "execution manager" in order "to avoid unintended double meaning."

Ken Herman blogs for Cox News Service with the details: "Here's how the most important new government job created in a long time got its name changed before it was announced.

"The short version: Reporters chortled at the original choice.

"The job had been unofficially known as 'war czar.' But, as National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told a small group of reporters in his office on Thursday, the official moniker is (or was) 'assistant to the president for Iraq and Afghanistan policy execution.'

"He short-handed it as 'execution manager.' That's what brought the journalists' chortles. Execution, get it?

"Hadley did. And so did Gordon Johndroe, Hadley's top spokesman.

"'Did you say implementation director?' he piped up.

"'Yes,' said Hadley, 'that's what I said. Implementation director.'"

Who Killed the NSC?

David Martin writes for CBSNews.com: "To people who live outside the Washington Beltway, the White House search for a 'war czar' to coordinate strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan may seem like just another bureaucratic shuffle. In reality, it is a confession that in the fifth year of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration still has not figured out how to harness all the agencies of the U.S. government into a unified war effort. . . .

"The National Security Council and the job of National Security Adviser to the President, currently held by Stephen Hadley, was created decades ago for the express purpose of coordinating all of the different agencies that play a role in national security strategy. A search for a 'war czar' is an admission by the Bush administration that the National Security Council has failed to do its job. . . .

"So why can't the National Security Council do its job? The answer, from a retired general who was asked to become the 'war czar,' is that 'Rumsfeld destroyed the NSC.'

"Donald Rumsfeld . . . made clear during his years as Defense Secretary that he regarded the 'interagency process' -- getting all the agencies to participate in the formulation and execution of policy -- as worse than water torture. For him, the 'interagency process' -- read: National Security Council -- was the place where all good ideas went to die. Rumsfeld's gone now, the retired general said, but the habits the NSC learned during those first six years remain."

Editorial Watch

The Austin American-Statesman writes: "While combat troops and their families struggle with longer deployments and escalating violence in Iraq, the Bush administration flails and fails repeatedly to come to grips with a bloody, costly war it chose to prosecute.

"The latest example of the Bush administration's flailing is the notion of appointing a 'war czar.' "

The Seattle Times writes: "The Iraqis want America out. Polls say so. Journalists say so. Iraqis we know in America say so. And if we were in their shoes, we would say so. . . .

"It is said that withdrawal would create chaos. Our reply is that staying in Iraq is creating chaos. . . . "

Rhetoric Undone by Reality

Carl Hulse writes in the New York Times: "On Tuesday, President Bush insisted to members of an American Legion post in Virginia that Democratic political maneuvering over a war spending measure would force troops in Iraq to remain overseas longer.

"'This is unacceptable,' the president said. 'It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.'

"On Wednesday, however, the Pentagon announced that the tours of members of the armed forces serving in Iraq would automatically be extended by three months to accommodate the administration's push to secure Iraq. . . .

"Senate Democrats seized on the troop announcement and the sensational attacks in Baghdad on Thursday as evidence that the president and his inner circle are in denial about what is going on in Iraq."

Intel Watch

Katherine Shrader writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush is threatening to veto a Senate intelligence bill that's laced with provisions that would force the White House and spy agencies to be more responsive to Congress. Among the provisions in the intelligence bill that the Bush administration rejects:

"* Yearly disclosure of the total amount spent on intelligence. The administration has long argued that releasing the figures would be a threat to national security.

"* When lawmakers with jurisdiction ask for intelligence assessments and other information, the bill requires spy chiefs to turn the materials over within 15 days. The measure 'would foster political gamesmanship and elevate routine disagreements to the level of constitutional crises,' the administration says. . . .

"* Required reports on interrogation activities and secret prisons, which the administration says would raise 'grave constitutional issues' and jeopardize sensitive information that should not be widely distributed."

Late Night Humor

Jon Stewart and John Oliver discuss the czar.

Oliver: "The new czar will be working in the exciting field of mea culpa. Also, the position will be retroactive to 2002, so everything that's gone wrong since then will now have been his fault. . . . "

Stewart: "What about war planning?"

Oliver: "No, no, John. That's more the responsibility of the War Monger, a position Dick Cheney will be retaining."

Cartoon Watch

Bill Mitchell and Ann Telnaes on the czar.

Mike Luckovich and Rex Babin on the missing e-mails.

Opinion Watch

David Ignatius writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "As political power ebbs from the Bush presidency, a number of changes are becoming visible around the world -- most of them unwelcome. Simply put, the White House is losing its ability to shape events."

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda -- which is very different from simply being people of faith -- is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It's also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

"But this conspiracy is no theory."

Joseph L. Galloway writes in his opinion column for McClatchy Newspapers: "It will be costly and painful to prolong the war in Iraq for another 21 months so that those who started it can hand off the harder decision of how to end it to the next occupant of the White House.

"President Bush isn't extending and expanding the war in a search for victory. His dream of victory in Iraq cannot be achieved. Not by sending 30,000 more American troops. Not by making parts of Baghdad temporarily safer by billeting American troops in violent neighborhoods and pushing the slaughter into the northern and southern suburbs - or into the Green Zone where U.S. and Iraqi officials live and work.

"Not by letting American soldiers bear the brunt of combat, targeted not only by our enemies, the Sunni Muslim insurgents but also by our supposed allies, the Shiite majority and the murderous militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. In March, more American troops died in Iraq than Iraqi soldiers.

"This is a search for a fig leaf to cover the emperor's nakedness - a way for Bush to go home to Texas with a ringing but hollow declaration that 'Iraq wasn't lost on my watch.' . . .

"While the nation's airwaves this past week were filled with the urgent news of who fathered Anna Nicole Smith's baby and the spectacle of Don Imus waving goodbye to his career in broadcasting over racist and sexist remarks on the air, few seemed to notice that 10 more American troops were killed in Iraq over the weekend.

"Ten young soldiers whose lives of service to the nation were terminated in an instant. Ten military sedans rolling up to the doors of families that were devastated by the news of a death in combat. Fathers, mothers, siblings, spouses, young children, fiancees, friends whose hearts were shattered in an instant. . . .

"It was our preemptive invasion of Iraq that loosed the dogs of war there. It was our negligence that set off sectarian slaughter. It is our continued military presence in Iraq -- where a majority wants us to leave now -- that fans the flames of war.

"What if we left, and our departure forced the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and others to find some way to live in peace with each other, or at least alongside one another? What if our leaving isn't the worst possible outcome but the best?

"Maybe we'll finally find out after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney go home to Texas and Wyoming, and those whom we choose to succeed them decide to try the one thing that Bush and Cheney have never considered."