Bush Can't Make the Sale

As Thom Shanker and David S. Cloud wrote in the New York Times after a Senate hearing last week: "Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, quizzed [ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker about the ambassador's role in any planning under way at the National Security Council, State Department or Pentagon for the revised strategy in Iraq once the troop increase had run its course.

"The ambassador said his efforts were devoted solely to carrying out the current strategy. 'I am not aware of these efforts and my whole focus is involved in the implementation of Plan A,' Mr. Crocker said."

Even more amazingly, despite their avowals that they've given other scenarios no serious thought, Bush and his aides confidently predict that absolutely every other approach but their own would lead to disaster. For instance, Crocker "warned that any decrease of American forces in Iraq not based on improved conditions would invite increased terrorist violence and risk countrywide chaos."

As for Plan A planning, that's going ahead.

Michael R. Gordon writes in the New York Times: "While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

"The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. 'Sustainable security' is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

"The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security."

Gordon, a reliable conduit of administration leaks, goes on to acknowledge briefly some of the challenges involved in achieving success: "The goals in the document appear ambitious, given the immensity of the challenge of dealing with die-hard Sunni insurgents, renegade Shiite militias, Iraqi leaders who have made only fitful progress toward political reconciliation, as well as Iranian and Syrian neighbors who have not hesitated to interfere in Iraq's affairs."

Where are the Generals?

Ralph Peters writes in a USA Today opinion piece: "Our current system of selecting generals produces George Pattons in bulk. But it hasn't produced another George Marshall, the general who had the ethical force to disagree -- respectfully -- with his president when victory was at stake.

"Decades of observation of our generals taught me that battlefield lions turn to jellyfish in Washington. Our elected leaders, ever fewer of whom have served in uniform, do not get frank, direct and routine military advice.

"Sixty years of misguided 'reforms' emplaced multiple buffers between the president and his top generals. Given the number of White House gatekeepers today, the relationship that Gen. Marshall had with FDR would be impossible -- unless the president wanted it, which today's presidents don't. . . .

"The generals' greatest shortcoming, though, is that they failed in their duty to inform decision-makers as to what war means and requires, to give honest advice -- and to keep on giving it, even at the cost of their careers."

And in the column noted above, Krugman includes Gen. David Petraeus among Bush's enablers: "I don't know why the op-ed article that Petraeus published in the Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn't gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don't think it's standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election."

Rhetorical Battles

The high ground in the rhetorical war over the war is supporting the troops. So each side is trying to cast the other as anti-troop.

Here's Bush on Friday in the Rose Garden: "It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed. . . .

"Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our troops fighting there."

Here's the response from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "Democrats and a majority of Americans believe that supporting the troops means rebuilding our overburdened military and redeploying our troops from an Iraqi civil war. . . .

"If our military's well-being were truly a priority for this President, as he indicated this morning, why has his Administration for the past several months opposed military pay raises as too costly and blocked everything we have done to support the troops? I hope, but highly doubt, that President Bush will one day realize that supporting our troops is more than a slogan or a photo op."

The Only Issue

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush and his top Cabinet secretaries are scaling back their personal diplomacy around the world to focus more intently on Iraq and the rest of the Middle East as the administration concentrates its energy on top priorities for the president's last 18 months in office.

"In the past two weeks, Bush canceled a summit with Southeast Asian leaders in Singapore, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice scrapped a trip to Africa and decided to skip a meeting in the Philippines, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates put off a swing through Latin America. . . .

"The decisions underscore how much Iraq and the turmoil in the Middle East have come to consume Bush's presidency and threaten his ability to forge a lasting legacy. The canceled trips have fueled discontent in regions that have long felt snubbed by Bush, and U.S. diplomats and scholars warn of lasting damage. . . .

"While the Bush team has waged war in Iraq, China has expanded its global influence, Russia has been reborn as an increasingly authoritarian and antagonistic power, and anti-Americanism has spread in Latin America."

Politicization Watch

Paul Kane writes for The Washington Post: "White House aides have conducted at least half a dozen political briefings for the Bush administration's top diplomats, including a PowerPoint presentation for ambassadors with senior adviser Karl Rove that named Democratic incumbents targeted for defeat in 2008 and a 'general political briefing' at the Peace Corps headquarters after the 2002 midterm elections.

"The briefings, mostly run by Rove's deputies at the White House political affairs office, began in early 2001 and included detailed analyses for senior officials of the political landscape surrounding critical congressional and gubernatorial races, according to documents obtained by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . .

"In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, asked whether the briefings inappropriately politicized the diplomatic agencies or violated prohibitions against political work by most federal employees.

"'I do not understand why ambassadors, in Washington on official duty, would be briefed by White House officials on which Democratic House members are considered top targets by the Republican party for defeat in 2008. Nor do I understand why department employees would need to be briefed on 'key media markets' in states that are 'competitive' for the president,' Biden wrote."

Subpoena Watch

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "The House Judiciary Committee announced yesterday that it will press toward a constitutional showdown with the Bush administration over the U.S. attorney firings scandal, even as embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales vowed to stay on and 'fix the problems' that have damaged the reputation and morale of the Justice Department.

"John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the committee, said it will vote on Wednesday on contempt citations for the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers. Both refused congressional demands for information on the dismissals after President Bush invoked executive privilege.

"The move puts House Democrats on a legal collision course with the White House, which said last week that it will not allow the Justice Department to prosecute executive branch officials for being in contempt of Congress."

Spending Watch

Robert Pear writes in the New York Times: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have asked for a meeting with President Bush to see if they can work out an agreement on spending bills for the fiscal year that begins in 10 weeks. But lawmakers from both parties said they saw no obvious way to overcome the current stalemate with the White House.

"The House has passed 8 of the 12 regular appropriations bills for 2008, and Mr. Bush threatened to veto 5 of them, on the ground that they called for 'an irresponsible and excessive level of spending.' . . .

"In a letter to the president, Ms. Pelosi of California and Mr. Reid of Nevada said they hoped to reach an agreement with the White House to 'avoid a protracted battle over relatively small differences.' The disagreement, they said, involves less than 1 percent of the federal budget, about $22 billion in a budget of $2.9 trillion."

Continuity of Secrecy

The editorial board of the Register-Guard of Eugene, Ore., writes: "If the Bush administration wanted to fuel conspiracy theories about its classified plan for maintaining governmental control in the wake of an apocalyptic terror attack, it could not have come up with a better strategy than refusing to let Congressman Peter DeFazio examine it. . . .

"Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and history of favoring the steady expansion of presidential powers, some have suggested the policy may be written in such a manner that makes it too easy to invoke presidential powers such as martial law.

"By denying DeFazio's reasonable request to view these documents, the White House has done much to encourage and nothing to quell such speculation. The administration would be wise to reverse its decision and allow DeFazio, or any other member of Congress with the required clearance, full and immediate access.

"If the White House doesn't do so, the American public is left with this unsettling thought from Congressman DeFazio: 'Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right.'"

Colon Watch

Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "Doctors found no cancer in the five small growths removed from President Bush's colon, the White House said Monday."

The 50th State

Evan Lehmann writes in the Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle: 'President Bush has crisscrossed the country. He has biked in Maryland, fished in Maine and, just last week, visited a bun-baking operation in Tennessee.

"Indeed, almost seven years into his presidency, George W. Bush has set foot in all of the nation's states -- well, almost all. Vermont is the exception.

"His itinerary could be influenced by the fact that the state has only three electoral votes -- tied for the lowest -- and that it is home to vigorous political opponents, such as U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy. It also hosts one of the president's lowest approval ratings in the nation.

"Known for choosing friendly audiences, Bush would find no military bases on which to rally pep. . . .

"Professor Garrison Nelson at the University of Vermont in Burlington noted: 'There's no point. He'd show up and get booed and yelled at.'"

Some Roundtable

Christopher Lee writes in The Washington Post: "The entrepreneur who hosted President Bush last week for a roundtable discussion on health care and small business said yesterday that he could barely get a word in as Bush opined on children's health insurance and other health topics.

"If he had, Clifton Broumand would have told the president he disagreed with him on most of it, he said.

"'He answered his own questions,' said Broumand, who gave Bush a tour of Man and Machine Inc., the Landover-based medical computer accessory company he founded 25 years ago. 'I thought the whole concept was to ask us, so I was a little bit frustrated. I would have liked the opportunity to give him my viewpoint, rather than him knowing the answer.'

"Bush used the occasion -- a discussion with three small-business owners -- to denounce efforts in Congress to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion or more over the next five years. . . .

"Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said the fact that Broumand disagrees with the president shows that the administration does not stack Bush's public events with partisans."

Late Night Humor

Jon Stewart explores what Bush is and isn't -- using the president's own words.

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles on Bush's clever plan; Pat Oliphant's colonoscopy fantasy; Tony Auth on our failed wizard; John Sherffius's message from the Founding Fathers.