'No One Suffers More Than the President'

Here is Rose's best question of the night -- and Bush's lame response:

"Rose: Is there much evidence of that, though, I mean, that in fact, if there is a date certain, what's the proof that it will have that impact?

"Bush: [Looking sort of perplexed] Just logic. I mean, you say 'we start moving troops out,' don't you think an enemy is going to wait and adjust based upon an announced timetable of withdrawal?"

Rose moved on.

On Civil War

Rose: "[I]t's pretty clear sectarian violence is almost a civil war there, in your judgment?

"Bush: I asked David Petraeus that, and he said no.

"Rose: It's not a civil war?

"Bush: He doesn't think so. He thinks it's extremists trying to foment a civil war, but no, he doesn't believe that."

On the Iraqi Prime Minister

"Rose: If he said 'get out now, we don't want you anymore . . . '

"Bush: I don't see how we could stay. It's -- it's his country.

"Rose: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested.

"Bush: That's why he's not going to say it."

On Domestic Issues

Bush admitted he has been stymied on his proposed changes to Social Security. "I'll keep pushing, but I don't think it's going to happen," he said. "It's a little defeatist."

But asked if there is one "bold stroke" left in his presidency, he said: "Immigration bill. I believe that this country needs a comprehensive immigration bill that enforces law and treats people with respect."

War of Words

Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny write in the New York Times: "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively challenged the motives of Congressional Democrats on Tuesday, as the House and Senate prepared to consider a war spending bill that would order troops to be withdrawn from Iraq beginning later this year.

"In separate appearances that served as a prelude to an inevitable veto showdown, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney accused Democrats of political opportunism in forging ahead with a $124 billion measure that sets a timetable for leaving Iraq. . . .

"[Cheney] lashed out at Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who delivered stinging comments of his own on Monday, portraying Mr. Bush as being in denial about the war and saying Mr. Cheney had tarnished his own office.

'What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism,' said Mr. Cheney. 'And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation.' . . .

"Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. 'I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,' Mr. Reid said."

Cheney Watch

Blogging in Time, columnist Joe Klein does a hilarious Cheney translation:

Cheney: "Maybe it's a political calculation. Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party."

Translation: "We have never played politics with Iraq. We didn't schedule the initial authorization vote for just before the 2002 elections. We didn't cook the intel. We had nothing to do with the Mission Accomplished banner. The Navy told Bush to put on the flight suit. We didn't ignore the insurgency and spend vast resources on the Iraq Survey Group to look for non-existent WMD. Karl Rove never told Republicans they could use the war for their benefit. We never questioned the patriotism of people who opposed the war. I'm not questioning Harry Reid's patriotism now. And if you can't get that through your thick heads, you stupid, stupid Americans...you stupid Americans impatient with our master plan for VICTORY in the middle east...you...you... well then, as I once explained to Pat Leahy [expletive deleted]."

David Rogers blogs for the Wall Street Journal: "Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, suggested any Democratic leader's stock rises in the party when attacked by Cheney. In checking liberal votes on the Iraq war funding bill this week, Frank said he is using the expression 'WWCD--What Would Cheney Do?'

"'I say WWCD and do the opposite,' Frank said."

Opposition Watch

Shailagh Murray writes in The Washington Post: "Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) accused President Bush this week of living in a 'state of denial,' of having ignored warnings from military leaders about his Iraq strategy, and of becoming 'isolated' and 'obstinate' as public support for the war dwindled.

"That sharp blast came from an unlikely source. When Democrats took over Congress in January, it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- a staunch antiwar liberal from San Francisco -- who was expected to emerge as the new majority's lead spokesperson on Iraq. Instead, the role is being filled by Reid, a quirky Senate insider who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion in 2002 and backed the 1991 Persian Gulf War. . . .

"Reid's provocations have been carefully calculated, an attempt by Democrats to force Bush to play defense during a week of heated partisan confrontation over Iraq."

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "A senior Democratic leader, in a speech Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, will tie together a long series of Bush administration scandals, controversies and missteps into what he argues is a campaign to turn the government into an appendage of the Republican Party.

"The speech by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) marks an escalation in the party's rhetorical war with President Bush. For much of last year's campaign season, Democrats called the Bush administration incompetent. Now they are preparing a darker case, accusing the administration of harboring malevolent intent."

From the prepared text of Emanuel's speech: "Under this administration, the federal government has become a stepchild of the Republican Party. And in promoting its partisan interests, absolutely nothing is out of bounds -- from our national security to our justice system and everything in between."

Gonzales Watch

Paul Kane writes in The Washington Post: "Despite vocal backing from President Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales faced new doubts yesterday within his own party about whether he should stay on the job amid strong criticism about his handling of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys.

"Several Senate Republicans spoke out against Gonzales for the first time, voicing deep concerns about his performance before the Judiciary Committee last week."

John R. Wilke and Evan Perez write in the Wall Street Journal: "As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.

"The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations."

Special Counsel Watch

Tom Hamburger writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Even as Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch moved forward with plans for a sweeping probe of the Bush administration, several advocacy groups complained that his ties to the administration and to conservative groups, as well as his record on gay rights and whistle-blowers, made him the wrong man for the job.

"'There is a serious question as to whether Bloch will just provide cover for an administration that is covering for him,' said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a Democratic-leaning group."

On CNN, Ed Henry discussed the possible ramifications for Karl Rove and others in the White House.

"HENRY: Well, what's interesting, Scott Bloch acknowledges he can't prosecute any White House aides. He can't really do anything like that. And he can't actually admonish them.

"But what he can do, at the end of his investigation, is formally write a letter to the president urging him to take any kind of corrective action against an employee like Rove. It could be urging the president to fire an employee or to suspend an employee.

"So, though, the bottom line is that this is not going to lead to a prosecution or anything like that, even if wrongdoing is proven. All it really is is another political headache for this White House at a time when it doesn't need another headache. And the fact that it's coming from a Republican appointed by this president, not a Democrat, is a problem."

But moment later, Jack Cafferty had this to say: "One of Bush's guys is going to set out to do what, take down his boys?

"What, are you kidding me? That's like letting Charlie Manson conduct his own murder investigation."

The Washington Post editorial board writes that the White House has more explaining to do about political briefings at federal agencies.

The New York Times editorial board writes: "It is past time to get to the bottom of the administration's sleazy on-the-job politicking. Congress is already investigating Republican Party e-mail ties with Mr. Rove and others involved in the firings of eight United States attorneys. How many government agencies might have been despoiled by the White House's substitution of political machinations for honorable service? Taxpayers deserve answers."

Kucinich's Lonely Quest

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post: "'I do not stand alone,' Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

"The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee."

Here's Kucinich with CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday:

"BLITZER: Lots of questions. Why the vice president, if you're so concerned about the war, as opposed to the commander-in-chief? That would be the president.

"KUCINICH: Well, the vice president had a singular responsibility in whipping up public sentiment to lay the groundwork for a war against Iraq on false pretenses, and the articles of impeachment cover that. And there's another practical reason, Wolf, and that is that if someone was to aim at impeaching the president, then Mr. Cheney would become the president."

The Kucinich Web site has more information.

Bunker Watch

David Ignatius writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "If you want to hear despair in Washington these days, talk to Republicans. The Democrats are exulting in their newfound political power and are eager to profit from Bush's difficulties. But Republicans voice the bitterness and frustration of people chained to the hull of a sinking ship.

"I spoke with a half-dozen prominent GOP operatives this past week, most of them high-level officials in the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administrations, and I heard the same devastating critique: This White House is isolated and ineffective; the country has stopped listening to President Bush, just as it once tuned out the hapless Jimmy Carter; the president's misplaced sense of personal loyalty is hurting his party and the nation.

"'This is the most incompetent White House I've seen since I came to Washington,' said one GOP senator. . . .

"A prominent conservative complains: 'With this White House, there is loyalty not to an idea, but to a person. When Republicans talked about someone in the Reagan administration being 'loyal,' they didn't mean to Ronald Reagan but to the conservative movement.' Bush's stubborn defense of Gonzales offends these Republicans, who see the president defiantly clinging to an official who has lost public confidence, just as he did for too long with former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

Ronald Brownstein writes in his Los Angeles Times opinion column: "George W. Bush's presidency is devolving into an extended holding action. On too many fronts, his top priority now appears to be delaying the inevitable.

"Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former Defense secretary, once described the Iraqi resistance as a few 'dead-enders' who refused to acknowledge that the world around them had changed. Increasingly that phrase applies as a self-portrait for the administration that Rumsfeld served. Forget 'the decider.' Bush has become the dead-ender. . . .

"[O]n stem cells, global warming and Iraq, Bush seems intent on defending the decisions he's made already, even at the price of obstructing a new consensus attempting to form around him. If Bush continues to view standing alone as the highest form of principle, he will never escape the dead end into which he's steered his second term."

Friendly Fire

Josh White writes in The Washington Post: "Members of a congressional oversight panel vowed yesterday to investigate whether the White House and top Pentagon officials played a role in deceiving the public about the 2004 'friendly fire' death of a former NFL player, Cpl. Pat Tillman, and argued that five investigations have failed to answer critical questions about the case. . . .

"Mary Tillman, who has called for high-level investigations since 2004, continued to accuse the government of 'using' her son's death to divert attention from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and high casualties in the Iraq war. . . .

"Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee's chairman, said the government violates its most basic duty when it fails to tell soldiers and their families the truth. He said he is awaiting the Army's top-level review of how to assign responsibility for the lies about Tillman's death but said he will continue investigating.

"'We still don't know how far up this went,' Waxman said. 'We don't know what the secretary of defense knew. We don't know what the White House knew. These are questions the committee seeks answers to.'"

Margaret Talev notes for McClatchy Newspapers: "Jim Wilkinson, a top White House communications official, was present when U.S. news media at the battlefront were summoned from their beds in the pre-dawn hours of April 2, 2003, to a press conference where the fictional version of Lynch's capture and rescue was presented."

Talev writes that the Tillmans said they had specific questions, among them: "When Bush spoke of Tillman in careful terms at a White House correspondents dinner days after his death, did he already know what wasn't revealed for weeks - that friendly fire was likely to blame?"

Oversight Watch

Elizabeth Williamson writes in The Washington Post: "Over the course of only 15 minutes today, three congressional committees will consider subpoenas for half a dozen officials from the White House and the departments of Justice and State. . . .

"Republican leaders call it a 'partisan witch hunt.' But Democratic lawmakers, and even some Republicans, say it is an overdue return to their constitutional role of executive-branch oversight."

The Moyers Indictment

Tom Shales writes in The Washington Post: "Tonight's edition of 'Bill Moyers Journal' on PBS is one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year, but it's as disheartening as it is compelling. . . .

"In this 90-minute report, called 'Buying the War,' Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes use alarming evidence and an array of respected journalists to make the case that, in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead."

Sympathy from Murdoch

Paul Bond writes in the Hollywood Reporter about Rupert Murdoch "telling a large audience of business leaders that the press is routinely unfair to George W. Bush and that the president doesn't seem capable of defending himself. . . .

"The News Corp. chairman and CEO said that, in person, Bush is 'persuasive, strong and articulate' but that 'he seems to freeze whenever a television camera appears.'

"Motioning to Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch said, 'Apart from your newspaper and mine, there's a sort of monolithic attack on him every day of the year.'

"News Corp. is the parent company of Fox News Channel, the New York Post and dozens of other media assets."

Cheney's Clot

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "The blood clot in Vice President Dick Cheney's left leg is slowly getting smaller, according to doctors who checked his leg Tuesday and gave him an upbeat report, a spokeswoman said."

Jon Stewart Watch

Jon Stewart last night used clips of first-term President Bush to "debate" current President Bush.

"So let me see if I have this straight," Stewart said. "Basically, first-term President Bush, you invaded to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein, and you, current President Bush, are there to battle the threat created by the lack of Saddam Hussein."

Cartoon Watch

Rex Babin and Mike Luckovich on Tillman and Bush; Steve Sack on Bush's legacy, Walt Handelsman on Bush's listening ability.

Live Online

I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET. Come join the conversation.