White House Wiki Watch

"[L]egal critics said the verdicts show that terrorism suspects can be tried in criminal courts and that there was no reason for the Bush administration to have declared Padilla an 'enemy combatant' and to hold him for years without formal charges.

"'This trial clearly undermines the Bush administration's unfounded fear that terrorists cannot -- in their view -- be tried in our criminal courts,' said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. The verdict proves, he said, 'that the Bush administration should close Guantanamo and pursue terrorists in the criminal justice system, not outside the confines of the rule of law.'"

Gonzales welcomed the verdict: "The conviction of Jose Padilla -- an American who provided material support to terrorists and trained for violent jihad -- is a significant victory in our efforts to fight the threat posed by terrorists and their supporters," he said.

So did the White House: "We commend the jury for its work in this trial and thank it for upholding a core American principle of impartial justice for all," said spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "Jose Padilla received a fair trial and a just verdict."

Abby Goodnough and Scott Shane, writing on the front page of the New York Times, call it "a significant victory for the Bush administration."

But the New York Times editorial board writes that "it would be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administration's serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism.

"On the way to this verdict, the government repeatedly trampled on the Constitution, and its prosecution of Mr. Padilla was so cynical and inept that the crime he was convicted of -- conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas -- bears no relation to the ambitious plot to wreak mass destruction inside the United States, which the Justice Department first loudly proclaimed. Even with the guilty verdict, this conviction remains a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases."

The Washington Post editorial board writes: "What was extraordinary, and reprehensible, was how long Mr. Padilla had to wait for the kind of due process most Americans take for granted."

Former Padilla attorney Jenny S. Martinez writes in a Washington Post op-ed that when Padilla was arrested in Chicago in May 2002, "[t]hen-Attorney General John Ashcroft held a news conference to announce that the government had thwarted a plot by Padilla to set off a radiological 'dirty bomb' in an American city."

But by late 2005, "the administration had begun soft-pedaling the 'dirty bomb' story, which it described as 'loose talk' rather than an imminent plot. It put forward a new theory: Padilla was planning to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas. The government also argued that he could be detained as an 'enemy combatant' because, it alleged, he had been in Afghanistan during the U.S. bombing campaign in late 2001.

"Two business days before the government's brief was due in the Supreme Court, the administration switched tactics again. Fearful that the court would rule that a U.S. citizen arrested in the United States could not constitutionally be detained forever without criminal trial, the government announced that Padilla would be tried in a federal court in Miami. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit noted, the government's actions made it appear that it was trying to evade Supreme Court review.

"The charges brought in Miami contained none of the allegations about the dirty-bomb plot, the apartment buildings or even Padilla's presence in Afghanistan in late 2001."

First Amendment Rights

The Associated Press reports: "A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.

"Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston.

"'This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment,' said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia. 'As a result of the Ranks' courageous stand, public officials will think twice before they eject peaceful protesters from public events for exercising their right to dissent.'

"White House spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.

"'The parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct,' Jones said."

Andrew Clevenger writes in the Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette: "Jeff and Nicole Rank said Thursday they never intended to be a big First Amendment case.

"They came to West Virginia in 2004 because Nicole Rank was working as an environmental liaison officer with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When they learned that the president was scheduled to speak in Charleston, they decided to get tickets to the event.

"'We'd noticed that whenever you see Bush on television, he's always surrounded by fervent supporters,' Jeff Rank said via telephone from Houston. . . .

"'We decided that we wanted to go, no doubt about it, but we didn't want to be added to the throngs of supporters,' he said."

Petraeus Watch

Kenneth R. Bazinet writes in the New York Daily News: "Under fire from Democrats, the White House insisted yesterday that it planned all along for Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to testify publicly next month about whether the Iraq troop surge is working.

"'I think everyone expects Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus to offer a very candid assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq. . . . I don't think there will be any constraints in their testimony whatsoever,' said White House national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe."

See yesterday's column, Whose Report Is It, Anyway?, for background.

Iran Watch

Mark Kukis writes for Time: "U.S. military commanders in Baghdad have aired their strongest accusations yet against Tehran's leadership in recent weeks, saying Iranian forces are guilty of nothing less than training, arming and controlling a shadow army of Shi'ite militants in Iraq."

But they can't prove it.

"The veracity of these claims is unknowable, however, since the Americans have offered no solid proof to support their allegations."

Cheney Video Redux

So where did that mesmerizing (and infuriating) YouTube video of 1994 Dick Cheney come from? (You know, the one in which he explains that occupying Iraq would be a "quagmire," and which has 600,000 views and counting?)

Mary Ann Akers blogs for washingtonpost.com that it was a clip from the "Life and Career of Dick Cheney," produced for C-SPAN's "American Profile" series in 1994 -- and recently rebroadcast as part of a 12-hour Cheney marathon for C-SPAN 3.

Rove Redux

Joseph L. Galloway writes for McClatchy Newspapers about the resignation of Karl Rove, who he calls "the biggest rat yet to skitter down the hawser of the SS Bush Titanic."

Writes Galloway: "There was a time when politicians of both major parties could beat each other around the head and shoulders all day long in the halls of Congress and then when the sun went down head off together to a friendly bar to sit and drink and talk and laugh together like the old friends they were. . . .

"Who outside the inner circle of the Bush White House or the Cro-Magnon Wing of the Grand Old Party or a few journalist hacks bartering their souls for 'access' would want to sit down and have a drink with Karl Rove?"

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column that "in several years as a colleague, I found Rove to be the most unusual political operative I have ever known; so exceptional he doesn't belong in the category. . . .

"Rove's main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments. In this way, Rove is the opposite of a cynical political operator. . . .

"Rove argues that Republicans win as activist reformers, in the tradition of Lincoln, McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. 'We were founded as a reformist party,' he said in our conversation this week, 'not to be against something, but to help the little guy get ahead.'"

Jenna Gets Engaged

Kenneth R. Bazinet writes in the New York Daily News: "Wild Jenna Bush is getting married -- to a former Karl Rove intern!"

Here's the White House announcement.

Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts write in The Washington Post: "Back in February 2005, Laura Bush was asked about the guy her daughter Jenna was seeing. 'This is not a serious boyfriend -- I hate to have to be the one to say it on television,' said the first lady. 'But he's a very nice young man.'

"And one not easily dissuaded. Henry Hager proposed marriage to Jenna on Wednesday in Maine. She said yes."

Hager's mom says he first asked the president for permission to marry his daughter.

Argetsinger and Roberts write: "Henry, a student at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, has a sterling Republican pedigree. His dad, John, is a former lieutenant governor of Virginia and now heads the state's Republican Party. Henry met the blond first twin while working on the president's 2004 reelection campaign, and the two have been dating ever since. . . .

"The courtship was serious enough that in May 2006, Jenna apparently thought he was ready to tie the knot. The two were dining at Asia Nora when waiters brought champagne to the table -- with a mysterious note taped to her glass. Jenna read it and burst out laughing. 'I thought you were proposing!' she hollered loud enough for everyone to hear. 'I nearly [soiled] my pants!'"

Andrew Romano blogs for Newsweek about the good old days, shortly after Bush took office: "Within a month, the then 19-year-old UT-Austin student coerced a Secret Service agent into springing a buddy from a Texas slammer after he was arrested for public drunkenness. Then she landed on the cover of the National Enquirer, smoking a cigarette and falling to the floor atop a giggling gal-pal. Then she was cited, in Austin, for underage drinking. Then she tried to sweet-talk a bartender into serving her liquor and, when he refused, fled from her security detail down a back alley, yelling that her father would 'have your ass.' Then she was arrested after slipping another bartender a fake ID. Then she partied with Diddy. And Chris Cornell of Audioslave. And Ashton Kutcher, who claimed that he witnessed a friend 'smoking [pot with] the Bush twins on his hookah.'"

A Dressing Down

Argetsinger and Roberts write in The Post: "Last week, Marques Harper of the Austin American-Statesman wrote a short piece about the president's sartorial style on his Texas ranch, where Bush is spending a two-week vacation. The article was reprinted Tuesday in a Waco, Tex., paper, and the leader of the free world was not pleased.

"Harper received a phone call that morning from White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino, who, Harper told friends, said the president read the article and was unhappy about the way he was portrayed. . . .

"Harper wrote: 'The president has two distinct looks when he's in Texas: the ranch-hand man and the crisp appearance of a ranch owner. In recent months, with his sliding popularity, he's opted to look more like 'Walker, Texas Ranger' than a sweaty, tough ranch hand.' In the piece, an image consultant offered that Bush needed to 'step it up' to keep his 'bravado image' on the ranch. . . .

"No laughing matter for the president, who apparently was offended that anyone would think he just dresses like a real rancher. After clearing all that brush? Never!"

Cartoon Watch

Mike Luckovich on the lonely president.