Bush Gets Outraged

On Habeas, Too

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "A Republican filibuster in the Senate yesterday shot down a bipartisan effort to restore the right of terrorism suspects to contest in federal courts their detention and treatment, underscoring the Democratic-led Congress's difficulty with terrorism issues."

Another Cave in the Works?

Maura Reynolds writes in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush plunged directly into the campaign to save his warrantless wiretapping program, arguing Wednesday that telecommunications firms that cooperated with spy agencies should be granted retroactive immunity from possible prosecution.

"Bush also urged Congress to pass a permanent revision of legislation that gave the program a six-month lifespan."

Check out this contorted language in Bush's statement yesterday -- not Bush's doing for once, but that of his lawyers: "It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball write for Newsweek: "The nation's biggest telecommunications companies, working closely with the White House, have mounted a secretive lobbying campaign to get Congress to quickly approve a measure wiping out all private lawsuits against them for assisting the U.S. intelligence community's warrantless surveillance programs. . . .

"[C]ritics say the language proposed by the White House -- drafted in close cooperation with the industry officials -- is so extraordinarily broad that it would provide retroactive immunity for all past telecom actions related to the surveillance program. Its practical effect, they argue, would be to shut down any independent judicial or state inquires into how the companies have assisted the government in eavesdropping on the telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks."

Ostensibly, of course, "Democratic leaders, who say they were stampeded into passing the law last summer, are insisting on having more thorough hearings and forcing the administration to turn over documents on the surveillance program. If the telecoms want immunity, some Democrats say, the White House should at least say what it is they need immunity for."

But Isikoff and Hosenball write that "congressional staffers said this week that some version of the proposal is likely to pass -- in part because of a high-pressure lobbying campaign warning of dire consequences if the lawsuits proceed."

Blackwater Watch

Steve Fainaru writes in The Washington Post about how Blackwater USA, the private security company involved in a Baghdad shootout last weekend, has been able to act with such impunity: "Many U.S. and Iraqi officials and industry representatives said they came to see Blackwater as untouchable, protected by State Department officials who defended the company at every turn. . . .

"In Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised that Blackwater guards would be held accountable for what he called 'a big crime' in the weekend violence. Iraqi officials have threatened to expel Blackwater from Iraq over the incident, in which at least nine Iraqis were killed."

Any chance of that happening? Hardly.

John M. Broder and James Risen write for the New York Times: "Publicly, the Bush administration has not said how it would respond if the Maliki government tries to carry out its threat to evict Blackwater, but administration officials and executives in the security contracting industry both said Wednesday that they believed that the White House and the State Department would seek to block any move by Iraq to force the company out.

"The issue is already leading to sharp tensions between the governments, and any effort by the United States to force Iraq to keep Blackwater could make the Maliki government appear to be a weak puppet."

And here's an astonishing piece of the backstory: Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al Askari told Leila Fadel of McClatchy Newspapers that Blackwater was responsible for "former Iraqi Electricity Minister Ahyam al Samarrai's escape from a Green Zone jail in December. Samarrai had been awaiting sentencing on charges that he had embezzled $2.5 billion that was intended to rebuild Iraq's decrepit electricity grid. . . .

Calling it "a strange and little-publicized incident of the war," Fadel reports: "Until now, Iraqi officials hadn't named the private security company that they believe helped Samarrai, the only Iraqi cabinet official convicted of corruption, to escape from a jail that was overseen jointly by U.S. and Iraqi guards. He subsequently was spirited out of the country and is believed to be living in the United States."

Bush today expressed regret that innocent civilians were killed in the shooting on Sunday.

Mukasey Watch

Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times about the vivid lessons that attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey took away from serving as judge for the 1996 trial of "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman.

When it comes to "the proper balance between security and liberty, between intelligence gathering and criminal prosecution, and between government secrecy and accountability. . . . Judge Mukasey has made clear that, although the issues are difficult ones, he is inclined to favor security, intelligence and secrecy."

Robert D. Novak writes in his syndicated column that Mukasey "appears unqualified and ill-equipped for the daunting task of rehabilitating the Justice Department."

He sees the Mukasey nomination as a result of "[i]nfluential senior aides flinch[ing] at a difficult confirmation, reflecting a disinclination to confront Democrats -- with consequences for the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. . . .

"An unpopular president managing an unpopular war, Bush looks like a lame duck playing out the string."

George F. Will writes in his Washington Post opinion column that senators should ask Mukasey at his confirmation hearing whether he agrees with Bush's "far-reaching claims of presidential powers."

Yoo's View

Meredith Hobbs writes in the Fulton County Daily Report that former Bush administration lawyer John C. Yoo told Georgia members of the Federalist Society "that Bush's aggressive use of power since the Sept. 11 attacks will be proven justified by history because the nation needs a powerful president in times of war. . . .

"'The greatest presidents are those who exercise executive power most aggressively,' he said, contending that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman, like Bush, seized power in wartime and acted without the authorization of Congress."

Yoo, who wrote the famous " torture memos" said "that Bush's abrogations of power from the other branches are for the defense of the U.S. and, thus, good," Hobbs writes.

Bottoms Up

David Ignatius writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The Bush administration has been so enthusiastic in touting its new alliance with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province that it's easy to overlook two basic questions: Why did it take so long to reach an accommodation with the Sunnis? And is Anbar really a good model for stabilizing the rest of Iraq? . . .

"The fact is, Sunni tribal leaders have been queuing up for four years to try to make the kind of alliances that have finally taken root in Anbar. For most of that time, these overtures were rebuffed by U.S. officials who, not inaccurately, regarded the Sunni sheiks as local warlords. . . .

"These local deals may make sense as short-term methods for stabilizing the country. But we shouldn't confuse these tactical alliances with nation-building. Over time, they will break Iraq apart rather than pull it together. Work with tribal and militia leaders, but don't forget who they are."

Wayne White writes for NiemanWatchdog.org (where I am deputy editor) that our new alliances in Anbar may not last. But nonetheless, he sees an enormous value in them that hasn't been sufficiently appreciated: "[E]ven following a withdrawal of U.S. forces, it is unlikely that [al Qaeda in Iraq] will be able to regain a significant foothold in Iraq. Tribal and insurgent elements attacking AQI elements or assisting U.S. forces in doing so now have a price on their heads and have every reason to resist strongly attempts on the part of AQI to return."

What that means, White writes, is that Bush's "principal concern related to post-U.S. withdrawal scenarios -- that substantial portions of Iraq would become havens for terrorists -- is much reduced."

Johanns's Departure

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush on Thursday announced that Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is leaving the Cabinet to return to Nebraska, where he is expected to run for the U.S. Senate."

Rather's Lawsuit

Michelle Nichols writes for Reuters: "Former CBS news anchor Dan Rather sued the network on Wednesday for $70 million, saying CBS violated his contract by depriving him of air time and made him a scapegoat to 'pacify the White House.'"

Blogger Marcy Wheeler adds: "The most interesting thing about the Dan Rather complaint, IMO, is the description it gave of CBS and Administration attempts to spike the Abu Ghraib story." She has excerpts.

Psychologizing the President

Andrew Greeley writes in his Chicago Sun-Times opinion column: "It is a question about which many Americans wonder. Why can't he change his mind? . . .

"[T]he president's endless optimism and refusal to admit errors are, to put it quite bluntly, abnormal behavior. . . .

"Some members of Alcoholics Anonymous will tell you that such behavior is not atypical in men who beat drunkenness by sheer willpower. They no longer drink, but they have not gone through the humility and the transformation of the self that the AA requires of its members. The president proved he could beat alcoholism without sitting around and talking about it (except with Billy Graham). I'm not saying this is the explanation of the president's sunny confidence about Iraq. I am saying, however, that it is a model that fits the data."

Sidney Blumenthal makes Greeley look charitable. Blumenthal writes in his Salon opinion column that for Bush, "[t]here has never been a moment when we were not winning in Iraq. Victory has followed victory, from 'Mission Accomplished' to the purple fingers of the Iraqi election to, most recently, President Bush's meeting at Camp Cupcake in Anbar province with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni leader of the group Anbar Awakening (who was assassinated a week later). . . .

"Bush grasps at the straws of his own disinformation as he casts himself deeper into the abyss. The more profound and compounded his blunders, and the more he redoubles his certainty in ultimate victory, the greater his indifference to failure. He has entered a phase of decadent perversity, where he accelerates his errors to vindicate his folly. As the sands of time run down, he has decided that no matter what he does, history will finally judge him as heroic. . . .

"Bush's ever-inflating self-confidence hides his gaping fear of failure. His obsession with deference demands exercises of humiliation that never satisfy him. His unwavering resolve is maintained by his adamant refusal to wade into the waters of ambiguity."

Krugman's Complaint

Paul Krugman blogs on nytimes.com: "One of my pet peeves about political reporting is the fact that some of my journalistic colleagues seem to want to be in another business -- namely, theater criticism. Instead of telling us what candidates are actually saying -- and whether it's true or false, sensible or silly -- they tell us how it went over, and how they think it affects the horse race. . . .

"[T]his sort of coverage often fails even on its own terms, because the way things look to inside-the-Beltway pundits can be very different from the way they look to real people. . . .

"Which brings me to the Petraeus hearing. . . .

"The whole story about how the hearing had changed everything was a pure figment of the inside-the-Beltway imagination.

"What I found striking about the whole thing was the contempt the pundit consensus showed for the public -- it was, more or less, 'Oh, people just can't resist a man in uniform.' But it turns out that they can; it's the punditocracy that can't."

Cartoon Watch

Joel Pett on the next president's problems; Mike Luckovich on troop rotations; Bill Mitchell on Greenspan's lagging indicator.