Whose Report Is It, Anyway?

"Q He said this in the last press conference, on Thursday.

"MS. PERINO: At the press conference? Yes, he's talking about diplomacy."

Rove vs. Hillary

---

Has Karl Rove already found his new calling?

Patrick Healy writes in the New York Times: "Karl Rove intensified his attack on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday, saying she lacked the vision to be president while saying she was 'so weak' on national security and support for the armed forces.

"Mr. Rove, President Bush's political adviser, has been criticizing Mrs. Clinton since Monday, when he announced his intention to resign from the White House and coupled it with candid analysis, notably, calling Mrs. Clinton a 'fatally flawed' presidential candidate. . . .

"Mr. Rove gave two high-profile interviews yesterday, on Rush Limbaugh's radio program and to Reuters, essentially delivering the same message: that Mrs. Clinton had opposed Republican efforts to overhaul health care and expand medical benefits to more Americans and that she had opposed the USA Patriot Act, domestic surveillance programs and other antiterrorism measures."

Steve Holland writes for Reuters that Rove argued that Clinton "carries baggage from her husband's White House years in the 1990s.

"'There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has,' Rove said in the telephone interview from Texas.

"'She's not like a fresh and new character. She's someone who has been essentially known to the American people for 16 years. It's going to be hard to change the perceptions that people have had,' he said."

Here's the transcript of Rove's interview with Limbaugh. There were no hardball questions.

"RUSH: I received a bunch of e-mails from people when I said you were going to be on, who wanted me to pass on to you that they love you.

"KARL ROVE: Oh, thanks Rush.

"RUSH: We all do.

"KARL ROVE: Thanks, buddy."

Rove Redux

---

Jay Carney writes for Time: "Even in his heyday, Rove was never as faultless a political mastermind as his reputation suggested. I remember sitting at a picnic table in Florida on the first Monday in November 2000 listening to Rove brashly predict that Bush would thump Al Gore with at least 320 electoral votes the next day. He was wrong, but he pulled off an unlikely win anyway. Not so in 2006, when Rove asserted to the end that Republicans would retain control of Congress. It was never clear -- and still isn't -- whether Rove was practicing extreme message discipline or simply deluding himself."

And why did he resign? Inquiring minds still want to know.

Mike Lupica writes in his New York Daily News column: "[Y]our first thought, considering the way things have gone for him and his President lately, is that there was some bad story on him about to hit or, even better, some sort of indictment.

"Or, considering the wet kiss he got from The [Wall Street] Journal the other day, maybe he is about to take some big job with [Rupert] Murdoch, maybe even with Fox News, our equivalent of state-run television during the seven years of Rove and George Bush and Dick Cheney, in no particular order."

Meet Ed Gillespie

---

Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post that "with the departure of Karl Rove, the president's closest adviser, [Ed] Gillespie, 46, a former lobbyist and Republican National Committee chairman, has once again been asked to help fill the void. . . .

"He is likely to be called on to handle political strategy and message management for the president, becoming the dominant voice in determining where and how often Bush appears and what he says during the final 17 months of his tenure. . . .

"One change prompted by Gillespie is for Bush to offer more specifics when he talks about the biggest issue of his presidency: Iraq. . . .

"A speech that Bush delivered in Charleston, S.C., last month, in which he . . . [argued] that the group al-Qaeda in Iraq was the same as the larger al-Qaeda network, was part of that effort. Broader speeches diluted Bush's message, Gillespie and other aides concluded. By focusing speeches on a single argument, such as al-Qaeda's connections in Iraq, aides hope to sharpen the president's influence on the public debate.

"While Rove wanted the president to appear before the public almost every day, Gillespie wants Bush to deliver speeches less frequently.

"Said Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director: 'Ed wants fewer speeches but speeches that are more impactful.'"

'The King Can Do No Wrong'

---

Karl Vick writes in The Washington Post: "Lawyers for the Bush administration encountered a federal appeals court Wednesday that appeared deeply skeptical of a blanket claim that the government's surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets.

"'The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. No cases . . . The king can do no wrong,' said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.

"Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre was forced to mount a public argument that almost nothing about the substance of the government's conduct could be talked about in court because doing so might expose either the methods used in gathering intelligence or gaps in those methods.

"'This seems to put us in the "trust us" category,' Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government's assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. '"We don't do it. Trust us. And don't ask us about it."'

"At one point, Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that 'other avenues' are available. 'What is that? Impeachment?' Pregerson shot back."

The Rumsfeld Letter

---

Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post: "Donald H. Rumsfeld, who came to symbolize the Bush administration's problems in the war in Iraq, resigned as secretary of defense one day before last fall's elections, although President Bush did not announce the move until the day after the elections.

"The White House confirmed on Wednesday that Rumsfeld's letter of resignation was dated Nov. 6, 2006, the day before voters -- many of them furious about the war in Iraq -- evicted Republicans from the leadership of the House and Senate.

"Bush said that the decision to oust Rumsfeld had come after a series of conversations with the then-defense secretary. That revelation angered many Republicans who thought GOP electoral losses would have been reduced if Rumsfeld had been removed earlier. . . .

"Not only did Bush not telegraph his intention to replace Rumsfeld, but he also publicly stated in the days before the elections that he envisioned Rumsfeld serving in his administration for the foreseeable future."

The Leahy Letter

---

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy yesterday sent Bush a letter, suggesting that they get together face to face and work out an agreement for the testimony of key officials in the investigation into the firings of federal prosecutors and the politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice.

Opinion Watch

---

Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta writes in a Washington Post op-ed that Bush can still accomplish a lot -- if he adopts a positive agenda and reaches out to Democrats.

"Karl Rove exited the White House saying that he had been a 'witness to history.' Like most Democrats, I fantasize that Rove is more likely headed to witness protection, but my advice to those left behind at the White House, serving the president and the country, is that there is plenty of history yet to be made."

And Podesta criticizes current White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for saying that anyone still working by Labor Day was expected to stay until the end of Bush's term. "That's an edict I did not and would not issue, because I assumed that the people who gave 110 percent every day wanted to be there to make a difference, not because of obligation."

Crawford Watch

---

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press from Crawford, where 40 White House staffers, members of the military and Secret Service went for a three-mile run in 104-degree weather yesterday.

"A member of the Marine One presidential helicopter team came in first with a time of about 18 minutes, 50 seconds. David Sherzer was the first White House staffer to cross the finish line.

"'We gave him a hard time because he ran with his Blackberry,' Perino said. 'I think it was by accident that he had it in his pocket, but he said in case 'the boss' needed anything, he was going to have his Blackberry ready.'"

Bush shook hands with every runner and presented each with a light blue T-shirt emblazoned with: 'The President's 100 Degree Club.'"

Jon Stewart Watch

---

Jon Stewart last night got angry about that Dick Cheney video from 1994 -- the one in which Cheney outlines all the very good reasons for not invading Iraq. Then he took it out on Cheney hagiographer Stephen Hayes.

"The clip from 1994, where he says we were right not to go to Baghdad because it would be chaos -- that seemed right," Stewart said. "But then when he came out later saying we'll be greeted as liberators, I don't see this thing lasting more than a few weeks -- that was wrong. Explain that to me."

Hayes said things changed after 9/11.

Stewart responded: "But even given the unacceptable threat -- let's say he decides there's an unacceptable threat, we have to go in. Clearly 1994 Dick Cheney foresaw all kinds of crazy complications of that. But 2002-2003 Dick Cheney didn't apparently plan for those complications. . . .

"Their argument is always 9/11 changed everything. But it didn't change that, did it? "Why didn't 2002-2003 Dick Cheney come out and say to the American people: This is going to be chaotic. . . .

"He made that case in 1994. He knew those were the problems. And they never brought it up in the run-up to the war."