What's Bush's Big Secret?

Among them: "MYTH: [Army Gen. David] Petraeus does not believe the war in Iraq will make Americans safer.

"FACT: Gen. Petraeus believes the war in Iraq is critical to U.S. security and has said so many times. As he put it on September 12: 'Achieving our national interests in Iraq is very important, and those national interests do, obviously, link to the overall strategy for our country, or an important component in it, and therefore do, yes, make our country safer because that is what our national security strategy is intended to do.'"

Yes, but that's a far cry from endorsing Bush's top-tier talking point that the terrorists will follow us home if we leave.

Of course Petraeus thinks there's a "national interest" at stake in Iraq -- or he'd have no excuse to be there. Saying our country is "safer" because that's what our national security strategy is all about is pretty abstract.

Someone should directly ask Petraeus if he thinks the people killing troops in Iraq would "follow us home" if we left. Because U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts don't think they would.

Olbermann Watch

I wrote in yesterday's column about Bush's outraged attack on Democrats whose misplaced allegiances, he said, prevented them from sufficiently denouncing a MoveOn.org ad that criticized Gen. David Petraeus.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann blasted Bush's "pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television" in his "special comment" last night:

"Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman and now you're complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone? . . .

"[I]n pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.

"You did it again today and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed."

Bush as Saddam

Patrick Graham's story for the Canadian news magazine Maclean's is about "How George Bush became the new Saddam." The magazine's cover shows Bush's head on Saddam's body.

Partisan Backfire?

Bush yesterday scathingly attacked Democrats who he said were "putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington." He described "a philosophical divide that exists in Washington over the best approach for health care."

But the divide isn't where he thinks it is -- and some members of his own party were the ones most stung by his rhetoric.

Christopher Lee and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post: "Republicans reacted angrily yesterday to President Bush's promise to veto a bill that would renew and expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, raising the likelihood of significant GOP defections when the package comes to a vote next week. . . .

"[M]embers of both parties countered that it is the president who is putting children's health in jeopardy. They said most Americans, including many GOP governors and groups such as AARP, support the expansion of the program's enrollment to about 10 million children from 6.6 million now. . . .

"'I'm disappointed by the president's comments,' said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who urged Bush, in an early-morning telephone conversation yesterday, to support the emerging bipartisan compromise. 'Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn't constructive. . . . I wish he would engage Congress in a bill that he could sign instead of threatening a veto.'...

"Asked whether he would vote to override a veto, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a staunch conservative, said: 'You bet your sweet bippy I will.'"

Elana Schor writes in The Hill that "after Bush incorrectly described the children's health bill as providing coverage for families earning up to $80,000 a year, Grassley fired back.

"'The president's understanding of our bill is wrong,' Grassley said, his voice rising with anger. 'I urge him to reconsider his veto message based on a bill we might pass, not something someone on his staff told him wrongly is in my bill.'"

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times that "it is unlikely" that congressional approval "will come with a veto-proof margin. The bill Mr. Grassley backed in the Senate passed 68 to 31, with one vote more than the 67 necessary to override a presidential veto if all 100 senators are voting. The House version passed 225 to 204, well short of the two-thirds majority necessary for an override.

"That means Democrats and the White House will almost certainly have to work together on some kind of extension if Mr. Bush issues his veto, because neither side wants to take the blame for letting the children's health program lapse."

Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune that Bush's rhetoric reflected the White House's recognition of "a newly potent health-care debate that is beginning to shake up Congress and resonate through the 2008 presidential campaign. . . .

"More than a decade after President Bill Clinton's health reforms died amid concerns that they would limit patients' choices, some analysts believe the public is now willing to consider significant changes to the system."

And the U.S. News Political Bulletin reports: "All three network newscasts reported on the SCHIP debate, with coverage that tended to reflect poorly on the President's position. The CBS Evening News, for example, focused on Christina Brassi, who 'is taking her baby daughter to a doctor at Harlem's Milbank Health Center in New York. The 10-month-old is one of more than 6 million poor kids nationwide covered by the state children's health insurance program, or SCHIP.' Speaker Pelosi was shown saying, 'The President is alone in his opposition to this legislation. . . . The President is saying, I forbid 10 million children in America to have health care.' In a similar report, ABC World News profiled Susan Dick, who 'depends on the so-called SCHIP program for her two sons, both of whom have asthma. The family income is too low for private insurance too high for Medicaid.'"

A Philadelphia Daily News editorial today is headlined: "BUSH TO KIDS: DON'T GET SICK." The editorial states: "Yesterday, President Bush tightened the ropes on the millions of children he has tied to the train tracks when he said he will veto a bill that would expand children's health insurance."

The Washington Post editorial board writes that "with the popular and important program set to expire at the end of the month, and congressional negotiators having retreated from the more aggressive and expensive House measure, Mr. Bush had an opportunity also to offer compromise."

Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Kimberly A. Strassel, fresh from Wednesday's roundtable with Bush, writes that the real drama will come after Bush's veto -- when Congress votes on whether to override it.

"What happens next will demonstrate whether the beleaguered Mr. Bush has any hope of getting his party to toe the fiscal line in upcoming spending battles, and by consequence whether Republicans have any hope of restoring their fiscal credibility with voters."

And Strassel warns Bush against compromise: "If the president rolls on Schip, he'll be rolled on every spending question from now until he packs the china."

Mukasey's Pledge

Lara Jakes Jordan writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush's pick for attorney general has promised to fire any Justice Department employee who discusses sensitive cases with the White House without his approval, a leading Democratic senator said Thursday.

"Earlier this week, retired federal judge Michael Mukasey told another senator he also would fire employees who failed to report being asked about cases by politicians, such as elected lawmakers. . . .

"At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Thursday, Chairman Patrick Leahy recounted asking Mukasey during a private meeting about White House meddling in criminal and civil cases.

"'And he said, "I'll tell you right now, if anybody calls any member of the Justice Department, if I'm attorney general they'll be given two numbers: It'll be the telephone number of the attorney general and the telephone number of the deputy attorney general. And they'll be told that if they want to talk to anybody, these are the only two people who can talk about this case. And we may well not talk about it,"' Leahy, D-Vt., quoted Mukasey as saying."

White House Intimidation

Why didn't Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, just out with a highly critical book, express any of his doubts about Bush's economic policy when it could make a difference?

Peggy Noonan, writing in her Wall Street Journal opinion column, has a theory: "Early and brutal examples were made of those who did not echo the party line. Perhaps Mr. Greenspan was watching, or rather observing certain trends.

"The deeper story is not that those who've been silenced have often come forward to speak in harsh terms. The deeper story is that the Bush White House hurt itself by using muscle to squelch alternative thinking -- creative thinking, independent judgments -- that would, in retrospect, have benefited them. Big spending became a scandal. So did not enough troops, and the financial cost of the war. It was this tendency that led to the administration's gym-rat reputation, all muscle and no brains."

Rather Critical

Samantha Gross writes for the Associated Press: "Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company."

Howard Kurtz writes in The Washington Post that Rather still believes in the accuracy of the story that led to his downfall as anchor " -- that George W. Bush received favorable treatment from the National Guard -- even though CBS concluded it could not authenticate the 30-year-old documents involved.

"'I'm surprised someone in government hasn't said, "We have a wartime president whose military records are missing, can't be found. Let's use the power of government to find out exactly what happened," ' Rather said."

Message Control Watch

Al Kamen writes in his Washingon Post column: "The Bush White House may be edging toward the door, but its legendary message control seems as good as ever."

Kamen reprints "internal e-mails between message manager and White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto and Sean Kevelighan, press secretary to Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle-- an exchange that, for reasons most unclear, was copied to our colleague Peter Baker."

Then watch as Fratto's talking points ended up being repeated almost verbatim both by Nussle -- and Bush.

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles and Dwane Powell on Congress; Stuart Carlson and Joel Pett on the way forward; Steve Sack on Bush's goalposts.

Five Pages

My column used to be available in a five-page version and a one-page version. But after a washingtonpost.com page redesign, it is now available only in a five-page version. (If you want all of me on a single page -- although without the links to previous columns and related content -- you can always click on "Print This" in the "Toolbox" near the top of each page.) And if you experience any technical problems related to the new pages, please fill out this customer care form, and provide as much detail as possible.