The Limits of 'Linguistic Parsing'

"Gistaro, who was the principal author of a recent national intelligence study on threats to America, noted that Al Qaeda in Iraq -- or 'AQI' as the group is known in U.S. intelligence circles -- has 'expressed an interest' in launching attacks against the United States.

"But he said that 90% of its members are Iraqis who joined Al Qaeda's organization there following the U.S. invasion. He estimated the group's strength at 'several thousand' members and said 'the bulk of AQI's resources are focused on the battle inside of Iraq.'"

Bryan Bender writes in the Boston Globe: "Gistaro testified that Al Qaeda followers in Iraq -- who number in the 'several thousands' -- have little support among the local population. . . .

"Abraham Wagner, a senior researcher at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism at Columbia University, called Bush's speech about the Al Qaeda threat in Iraq a 'spin job.'

"'In the Cold War it was called 'threat lumping,' ' Wagner said."

Poll Watch

Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta write in The Washington Post: "Seven in 10 Americans believe that al-Qaeda is as strong as or stronger than it was before Sept. 11, 2001, and a majority of those with that view blamed President Bush for the terrorist network's continued resilience."

Touching a Nerve

Tuesday's CBS Evening News apparently touched a nerve at the White House press office, sparking another one of its Setting the Record Straight memos.

Here's video of the offending report.

Katie Couric: "President Bush appealed again today for more time for his Iraq strategy to work, but this time with a new rationale."

Jim Axelrod: "With Congress and the public expressing growing skepticism about long-term US troop deployments in Iraq, President Bush's rationale is clearly shifting from policing sectarian violence to targeting al-Qaeda. . . .

"But this is a clear contradiction of [his] January speech setting limits on U.S. involvement."

The White House responded with examples of Bush discussing al-Qaeda in Iraq in that January speech and in more than 40 public appearances since then.

But while it's true that Bush has consistently blamed al-Qaeda for some of the violence in Iraq, he hasn't before done so nearly to the exclusion of all other forces at play, as he did on Tuesday.

The Armchair Generals

Bush frequently claims that he changed his Iraq strategy in Iraq and opted for a troop surge after listening to his commanders. He says this notwithstanding the fact that his commanders in Iraq -- as well as the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff-- opposed the surge.

So where did the idea come from?

Now Rowan Scarborough writes in the Examiner: "A group of military experts at the American Enterprise Institute, concerned that the U.S. was on the verge of a calamitous failure in Iraq, almost single handedly convinced the White House to change its strategy.

"They banded together at AEI headquarters in downtown Washington early last December and hammered out the surge plan during a weekend session. . . . Then came trips to the White House by AEI military historian Frederick Kagan, retired Army Gen. John Keane and other surge proponents.

"More and more officials began attending the sessions. Even Vice President Dick Cheney came. 'We took the results of our planning session immediately to people in the administration,' said AEI analyst Thomas Donnelly, a surge planner. 'It became sort of a magnet for movers and shakers in the White House.' Donnelly said the AEI approach won out over plans from the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command."

Wounded Soldiers Watch

Steve Vogel writes in The Washington Post: "A presidential commission examining the care given to wounded U.S. service members yesterday recommended 'fundamental changes' aimed at simplifying the military's convoluted health-care bureaucracy and overhauling the veterans disability system for the first time in more than half a century.

"The commission, led by former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) and former Health and Human Services secretary Donna E. Shalala, met with President Bush at the White House yesterday morning to brief him on their findings and to press him for quick action. 'We left there feeling the ball's in their court now,' Dole said. . . .

"Bush established the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors in March after disclosures in The Washington Post of poor living conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for some wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The articles also detailed the bureaucratic maze that many soldiers experienced during their long recoveries. . . .

"White House press secretary Tony Snow initially told reporters yesterday that Bush would not act immediately on the panel's advice. 'He's not going to be making recommendations; he's not going to be issuing calls for actions,' Snow said.

"But late yesterday afternoon, after Dole and Shalala's comments and criticism from a veterans group, Bush -- appearing on the White House South Lawn after going running with two soldiers who had lost legs in combat -- announced that he will move quickly."

War Crimes Watch

Two Reagan appointees, P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner, write in a Washington Post op-ed that Bush's new interrogation policy could subject him to prosecution for war crimes.

"It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person. . . .

"[A]s long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not 'done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual' -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in 'willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.' . . .

"[W]e cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come. . . .

"The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously 'interpret' key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are 'war crimes' for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions."

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes that Congress should "insist on a single standard for interrogation that will remove the 'but' from [Bush's] 'we do not torture.'"

Where's the Compassion?

John J. DiIulio Jr., the first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001, writes in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed: "Eight years ago this week, on July 22, 1999, George W. Bush delivered his first presidential campaign speech, titled 'The Duty of Hope.' Speaking in Indianapolis, he rejected as 'destructive' the idea that 'if only government would get out of the way, all our problems would be solved.' Rather, 'from North Central Philadelphia to South Central Los Angeles,' government 'must act in the common good, and that good is not common until it is shared by those in need.' There are 'some things the government should be doing, like Medicaid for poor children.'"

So what's happened since then? "[P]overty rates have risen in many cities. In 2005, Washington fiddled while New Orleans flooded, and the White House has vacillated in its support for the region's recovery and rebuilding process. Most urban religious nonprofit organizations that provide social services in low-income communities still get no public support whatsoever. Several recent administration positions on social policy contradict the compassion vision Bush articulated in 1999."

DiIulio implores Bush not to veto the bipartisan Senate plan that would add $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Impeachment Idea

A conservative and a liberal, Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel, argue over impeachment in their joint USA Today column. Thomas is against it, citing the ongoing "world war." Beckel thinks it's worth holding hearings to determine if the "misrepresentation of the intelligence that got us into this madness is an impeachable offense."

But then they agree on a possible alternative:

Cal: "I would be more comfortable with an investigation if responsible Republicans and Democrats who no longer hold office conducted it. It could be modeled on the Iraq Study Group, or the base closings commission. Such a non-partisan approach might produce results more acceptable to both parties.

"Bob: So they investigate. And then what?

"Cal: The panel would then present its findings to the House of Representatives, which could then proceed with impeachment -- or not -- based on the evidence rather than political posturing. Would you agree?

"Bob: That's reasonable with the understanding that those investigations begin without delay."

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles on Bush's next big idea.

Late Night Humor

Jon Stewart, talking to author Robert Pallitto about presidential secrecy: "You make it seem like they're doing this to hide something. Isn't it possible sir, and I put this to you, that they're just incredibly humble? And don't want everyone talking about how great they're doing?"