Karl Rove's Coaching Session

"In a two-page letter sent to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that 'allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.'"

Iraq Watch

Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) took the Senate floor to join Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) in offering a bill that would sunset the 2002 authorization of military operations in Iraq. It would take away the president's authority to wage war in Iraq five years to the day after it was granted, meaning Bush would be required to convince Congress to reapprove it in October.

"Meanwhile, White House negotiators tasked with hashing out a compromise spending bill are considering a plan that would tie U.S. financial aid to the Baghdad government's progress in meeting certain political goals. But they ruled out linking U.S. troop deployments to such benchmarks, administration officials said. . . .

"House Democratic leaders last night mulled a new proposal, floated by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), that would fund the war effort for three months, through the end of August. Further funding would come only after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, briefed Congress on military progress and the progress of the Iraqi government in achieving a set of benchmarks, such as quelling sectarian violence, disarming militias and adopting changes to the Iraqi constitution to guarantee equality among ethnic and religious groups."

Kathy Kiely write in USA Today: "'We're going to force a debate on the whole war,' [Clinton] told reporters outside the Senate chamber. 'We want to force the Congress to look at whether the president's authority, which comes from Congress, should be rescinded.'

"The Bush administration accused Clinton of playing presidential politics.

"'Here we go again. The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar,' said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. 'Welcome to politics, '08 style.'"

'Mission Accomplished' Watch

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post on the latest twist regarding Bush's four-years-past " Mission Accomplished" moment.

"Bush never actually used the words 'mission accomplished' that day, and the White House has long argued that although it created the banner, it did so only in response to a request by the ship to indicate that its long deployment was over and not to indicate that the mission in Iraq was complete. But that explanation has been undermined by none other than [former secretary of defense Donald] Rumsfeld, who was in charge of the Pentagon at the time.

"In a little-noticed interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward published last year in Woodward's book 'State of Denial,' Rumsfeld said the phrase 'mission accomplished' was not about the ship's deployment but in fact was a White House message originally included in Bush's speech. 'I took 'Mission Accomplished' out,' Rumsfeld said. 'I was in Baghdad and I was given a draft of that thing and I just died. And I said, it's too inclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. They fixed the speech but not the sign.'

"This week, for the first time, the White House publicly disagreed. 'It's not true,' said Dan Bartlett, the president's counselor, who helped organize the Abraham Lincoln event. 'I think he's gotten confused. There was discussion about how to phrase the end of major combat operations' but not whether to say 'mission accomplished.'

"After Woodward's book came out, Bartlett said, he went back to the files. 'I looked at every draft of the speech, every draft that was sent to the principals, the Cabinet secretaries,' he said. 'There was never 'mission accomplished' in any draft of the speech.' Rumsfeld could not be reached for comment yesterday."

Crouch Leaving . . . in a Crouch

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "J.D. Crouch, who is stepping down from his national security post at the White House, is confident history will prove that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

"Crouch, who has been President Bush's deputy national security adviser for more than two years, said the president never will be swayed by opposition to the war. Instead, Crouch said, Bush will use his resolve to help convince a broad section of Americans that it's important to be in Iraq."

Bush issued a statement on Crouch's departure this morning: "He was at the forefront in devising and implementing the new strategy to help build a peaceful, stable, and secure Iraq."

Opinion Watch

Eugene Robinson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Is George W. Bush even trying to make sense anymore? . . .

"Okay, I know that most of the president's off-the-wall locutions are dangerous only to the English language. But to the extent that carelessness of speech reflects carelessness of mind, much more is at stake. The Commander Guy's rationale for sending more U.S. troops to fight and die in Iraq is as elusive as his reason for starting the war in the first place. He says his goal is victory, but he can't explain coherently what victory would look like, much less how to get there."

Jay Bookman writes in his Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion column: "Any claim that President Bush is committed to victory in Iraq is contradicted by the facts. He is instead committing us to slow defeat, a defeat timed to come after he leaves office, on another president's watch so another president takes blame.

"And if the current president has to purchase another 20 months in Iraq with the lives and limbs of our soldiers, and with the continued degradation of a military that we may need again in the not-so-distant future -- well, he is apparently willing to make that deal."

Oversight Watch

Is oversight partisan? I would argue that the lack of oversight is partisan; oversight is simply Congress doing its job.

But according to Yochi J. Dreazen, writing in the news section of the Wall Street Journal, Democratic investigations of the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq 'are part of the party's attempt to capitalize on the growing public opposition to the Iraq war and further weaken President Bush's hand in his current showdown with Congress.'

The heart of his story? The echoing of what has become an essential Republican talking point. Dreazen warns that 'the probes could prove politically perilous for the Democrats . . . if people were to view the inquiries as partisan fishing expeditions or attempts to simply embarrass White House officials.'

For some political journalists, used to splitting the difference on any story that has two sides, there's a temptation to treat the issue of oversight the same way. But as journalists, it is entirely appropriate for us to be biased in favor of oversight -- until or unless it becomes pretty clearly gratuitous.

To warn darkly of overreach just as the Democrats are restoring a modicum of investigatory muscle to the legislative branch -- after a long period during which a Republican Congress refused to fulfill one of its most basic duties -- does a tremendous disservice to a public that deserves answers to questions that have gone unasked for much too long.

Getting Physical

Here's an AP photo montage of some of press secretary Tony Snow's wild gestures during yesterday's press briefing.

Snow was trying to bat away questions about the Iraqi Parliament's controversial plan to take a two-month summer vacation.

"I just think at this particular juncture, trying to draw broad conclusions about something that is rumored possibly to happen in two months is a great parlor exercise, but it is not a particularly useful diplomatic exercise," Snow said, before launching into a very physical parody of an overwrought press corps: "Oh, I know -- 'Everybody , everybody is talking about it!' -- ' Surely you all will talk about this'? No," he said.

Dog Watch

Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin writes in the Examiner about White House spokeswoman Dana Perino's husband -- and his brush with the law.

"Perino's husband, British businessman Peter McMahon, was walking their dog Henry -- leashless -- in Lincoln Park just east of the Capitol.

"According to the original complaint, obtained by Yeas & Nays, Officer Stephen Smith of the Park Police asked him to 'gain control of' Henry, an 8-year-old Vizsla breed, and 'put him on a leash.'

"McMahon replied that he didn't have a leash, so Smith issued him a violation notice, complete with a $25 fine. 'Why don't you go chase down some squirrels,' McMahon then suggested to the officer."

McMahon was given a ticket, which he apparently tried but failed to pay. "Early last month, McMahon returned from business overseas to discover that Smith had requested a warrant for his arrest, which a judge issued.

"So on April 12, off McMahon went to the Park Police headquarters to pay the fine in person, when he was thrown in jail for the whole day."

As for Henry the dog, he has other tricks beside getting his master arrested. As Mark Silva wrote in the Chicago Tribune in March: "When Perino says, 'Tell us what you really think about John Kerry,' Henry fetches one of her flip-flops."

Why Bush Didn't Make the List

Why was Bush dropped from Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world?

AFP reports: "'I think Bush by this point in his presidency probably has less influence than the position should grant him automatically,' Time's Deputy Managing Editor Adi Ignatius told AFP, explaining the decision to ditch Bush.

"'He's a lame duck . . . but his influence is below that of a normal lame duck figure. We just thought Bush was at a low ebb in terms of his influence.'"