What's Bush's Big Secret?

Steven Lee Myers and Steven Erlanger write in the New York Times that "Mr. Bush's remarks -- a relatively rare instance of a president flatly declining to comment -- also reflected the extraordinary secrecy here in Washington surrounding the raid. Most details of what was struck, where, and how remain shrouded in official silence."

The Times report is more skeptical of the nuclear angle: "So far, several current and former American officials who have been involved in evaluating the Israeli claims say they are not yet convinced of a nuclear connection. Yet the enormous secrecy around the findings, both here and in Israel, suggests that the activity that prompted the Israeli attack involved 'more than a run-of-the-mill missile transaction,' one official said, noting that the Israelis took considerable risks in carrying out the attack.

"'The Israelis are very proud of what they are doing; they are boasting about it,' said one senior American official who has been dealing with Israeli officials. 'But we don't know enough yet about what they actually hit.'"

Who's the Nuclear Threat?

Charles Krauthammer was among the conservatives invited to the White House Wednesday for a roundtable interview with the president. (See yesterday's column.) Another attendee, The Weekly Standard's William Kristol, wrote afterwards that Bush's "most interesting comments and reflections he put off-the-record."

In today's Washington Post, Krauthammer writes that he sees "ominous implications for the Middle East" in Syria's apparent attempt to build a nuclear facility with North Korea's help. Behind it all, Krauthammer sees the specter of Iran, and its nuclear ambitions.

"This is an extremely high-stakes game," he writes. "The time window is narrow."

And talk about ominous: Krauthammer writes that "rival elites" should stop President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear program "before the volcano explodes," in recognition that "the one certain result of such an eruption is Iran's Islamic republic buried under the ash."

Is Krauthammer echoing Bush? Did the president say something about the possibility of a nuclear attack on Iran? Could the attack on Syria be a precursor to American military action? Is that the reason for all the secrecy?

Some clarification from the White House is in order.

Iran Watch

Scott MacLeod blogs for Time on "the top 10 reasons Bush might take America to war with Iran."

Among them: "Bush's destiny is to defeat terrorism"; "Bush feels an intense obligation to do all he can before he exits office in 2009, using force if necessary, to eliminate threats to American security"; "Bush is prepared to risk and if necessary endure consequences"; and "Bush is not too constrained by opposition to a war with Iran" -- i.e. "The real debate over the attack will start after it has happened, rather than before."

Blackwater Watch

Terence Hunt writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush on Thursday refused to criticize a U.S. security company in Iraq accused in a shooting that left 11 civilians dead, saying investigators need to determine if the guards violated rules governing their operations. . . .