Congress Goes Belly Up

Walter Pincus writes in The Washington Post: "One question still to be explored is whether records of the interrogations exist."

In a letter to the archivist of the United States, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is asking whether the CIA violated the Federal Records Act when it destroyed the videotapes.

Adam Zagorin writes in Time that Congress has no appetite for probing too deeply into torture: "Clearly, there are rich seams of evidence to mine for any legislators wishing to test the CIA's oft-repeated assertion that it never tortures captives and that all of its secret interrogations and other activities have been conducted in full compliance with the law. But so far, there have been few takers. Absent a political change of heart on Capitol Hill, the congressional inquiry into the destroyed videos may limit itself to matters of bureaucratic accountability."

Scott Shane writes in the New York Times: "For six years, Central Intelligence Agency officers have worried that someday the tide of post-Sept. 11 opinion would turn, and their harsh treatment of prisoners from Al Qaeda would be subjected to hostile scrutiny and possible criminal prosecution.

"Now that day may have arrived, after years of shifting legal advice, searing criticism from rights groups -- and no new terrorist attacks on American soil."

The danger of domestic prosecution is minimal.

Shand writes: "Most legal scholars say that even under a future administration, the Justice Department would not seek charges against C.I.A. officers for actions the department itself had approved.

"Another obstacle to such prosecutions would be the laws passed by Congress in 2005 and 2006 granting extensive legal protection for authorized conduct. But the videotape destruction may not have such protection; the episode recalls the adage of Washington scandals -- that it's not the crime, it's the cover-up that leads to trouble."

But then there's the possibility of legal action outside our borders.

Shane writes: "The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which unsuccessfully sought charges against former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a recent visit to France, has pledged to pursue criminal torture charges against former Bush administration officials when they travel abroad.

"'The only way to restore the moral authority of our country,' said Michael Ratner, the group's president, 'is accountability.'"

Rosa Brooks writes in her Los Angeles Times opinion column: "If I had to guess, the tapes were destroyed because obstruction-of-justice charges are no big deal compared to war crimes charges."

Climate Change Watch

Juliet Eilperin writes in The Washington Post: "U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon conceded Wednesday that the United States had succeeded in achieving one of its key objectives at the climate conference here, blocking a proposal that called on industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. . . .

"The Bush administration's victory, which came even as a succession of foreign ministers took the podium to call for bolder action to fight global warming, sparked criticism from developing countries that are predicted to feel the greatest effects from a changing climate. . . .

"Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said Thursday that European Union members would continue pressing to include a range of emissions targets as part of a final framework document.

"'We all came here with the expectation that something has changed in American politics, which to some extent would be reflected here in Bali. It's still sort of strange to see the American delegation is not particularly engaged a lot in the debate, to put it diplomatically,' Hedegaard said in an interview."

The Associated Press reports: "Al Gore said Thursday the United States is 'principally responsible' for blocking progress at the U.N. climate conference, and European nations threatened to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington compromises on emissions reductions."

Middle East Watch

Susan Page and Richard Wolf write in USA Today about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's roundtable interview with reporters and editors there yesterday.

"The White House is in the midst of preparations for Bush's first trip as president to Israel next month. Rice called it an opportunity for him to push 'in a hands-on way' for a Mideast breakthrough in the final year of his tenure."

From the transcript: "[T]he President has an extraordinary way of sitting with people and eliciting from them where the enablement might be to get something done. Where are the sticking points? And not in a way that says all right I'm going to go ahead and fix this for you, but just talking to the parties. And I think actually talking to them individually by that time will be very helpful because he'll be able to get a strong sense of where the points of convergence are that maybe they won't see, and where the points are divergence are as well.

"I watched the President the morning of Annapolis and when the parties were having a little trouble seeing that there really was a joint statement that they were very close to making, and I watched him just elicit from them why they were having difficulty realizing how close they really were. And I think you'll probably see him do quite a lot of that the next trip."

But could we please get another example of Bush's great diplomatic skills? Bush's last-minute intercession in Annapolis resulted less in a meeting of the minds than a joint decision to punt.

As Glenn Kessler wrote in The Washington Post, the deadlock was resolved "mainly by the watering down or elimination of phrases that troubled each side."

Revisionism Watch

Bush's most controversial contribution to foreign policy has been his doctrine of preventive, preemptive war. According to the Bush Doctrine, the United States must deal with threats before they fully materialize.

But in the years following the doctrine's first application in Iraq -- where, of course, it turned out the threat wasn't there -- it's been unclear whether the Bush administration still considered the doctrine to be in effect. In fact the widespread assumption has been that the Bush Doctrine was dead, dead, dead.

But not until yesterday, to my knowledge, had any senior administration official endorsed the Bush Doctrine by arguing that the invasion of Iraq was not actually an application of it. From the transcript of Rice's interview with USA Today:

Q: "After 9/11, the President declared a policy of preempting threats to the nation before they fully manifested themselves. Yet we've seen some of the intelligence about those threats is often flawed, significantly. Can the preemption policy coexist with imperfect intelligence?"

Rice: "Well, I would argue with you there. I don't mean argue with you, I would argue that I don't think we have yet employed preemption. We could have a discussion about Iraq, a continuing state of war since '91, shooting at our airplanes, almost a half dozen or more resolutions on this issue. I think this was a long, long buildup. And I think it was a case in which you implement it or you had pretty much exhausted diplomatic options with Iraq."

And then later in the interview:

Q: "It's striking to me that you say that Iraq is not an example of preemption. Certainly there was the Persian Gulf War agreement --"

Rice: "Yes."

Q: "But that wasn't cited very broadly at the time. It was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction."

Rice: "Yes."

Q: "And refused our various requests and if they did not comply, we were going to go to war to preempt."

Rice: "No, we were going to go to war to carry out what had been a -- first of all, a long history of demands against Iraq for its weapons program, weapons programs, resolution after resolution after resolution. . . .

Q: "And how do you define preemption in the sense of going to war to deter a threat?"

Rice: "Well, I tend to think that you don't have a long diplomatic buildup of the kind that we experienced. And, in fact -- look, if by preemption you mean -- and there are many definitions of it. I used to teach this. There are many definitions of preemption. But if by preemption you're asking does it mean that you have to be attacked first, I don't think that every definition of preemption would suggest that if you aren't attacked first then you're preemptive."

So now it's only preemptive if there's no warning? Preposterous.

Please, Ma'am, May I Have Another?

As I wrote in Monday's column, Moment of Reckoning, Dana Perino on June 5 said she would say more about the CIA leak investigation if and when convicted vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby dropped his appeal.

Q: "And if Scooter Libby says, 'I'm not going to appeal'?"

Perino: "Well, then we'd have to take that into consideration and I'd have to come back with more reaction."

Sounds like a promise to me.

But on Tuesday, after Libby dropped his appeal, Perino said she'd forgotten about the civil suit filed by outed CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband -- a suit that's been dismissed, although Plame is appealing. Perino said she still couldn't comment.

So, did reporters at yesterday's briefing express outrage at her about-face and demand answers? No. The leak case was brought up exactly once, and here's the exchange in its entirety:

Q: "Can you assure us that once the Wilsons' civil suit is resolved, the President will speak out about the Libby affair?"

Perino: "I would assume that once everything -- once that is settled, yes, I would hope that we could be able to comment further."

Karen Hughes Watch

The Associated Press reports: "President Bush made an impromptu appearance at the State Department to bid farewell to one of his closest advisers, Karen Hughes, who left a top diplomatic position on Wednesday to return to Texas and private life.

"'I wouldn't be standing here without Karen Hughes,' Bush said at a lively going-away party. . . .

"'One of her jobs was to teach me how to speak English,' Bush joked in a reference to his sometimes inept command of the language, prompting loud laughter and a rejoinder from Hughes.

"'How'd I do?' Hughes asked, drawing a look of mock indignation from Bush.

"'I'll deliver the punch lines,' the president said sternly, adding: 'She never was that good at writing jokes.'"

Todd J. Gillman writes for the Dallas Morning News that Bush also had warm words about Hughes's latest gig, saying: "She is a consequential person. And I am confident that she has begun a cultural change throughout our State Department that will stand in good stead; it'll help the country."

But keep in mind that Hughes wasn't hired to create cultural change inside the State Department; she was hired to improve America's image abroad. And she failed miserably at that task, at least in part because she failed to use her close relationship with Bush to get him to stop doing the things that made her job so impossible.

Kissinger Watch

Henry Kissinger weighs in on the Iranian national intelligence estimate in a nearly 1,600-word Washington Post op-ed this morning.

"In short," he writes, "if my analysis is correct, we could be witnessing not a halt of the Iranian weapons program -- as the NIE asserts -- but a subtle, ultimately more dangerous, version of it that will phase in the warhead when fissile material production has matured."

He adds: "I am extremely concerned about the tendency of the intelligence community to turn itself into a kind of check on, instead of a part of, the executive branch."

Bush and Barney

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush may call the shots around the White House. But now there is video proof that his dog Barney doesn't listen to him."

Stolberg notes that at the end of the latest BarneyCam movie, released on the White House Web site yesterday: "The credits roll and then the movie cuts, Hollywood style, to an outtake of Mr. Bush trying to shoot the first scene, in which he informs Barney that the White House grounds are themselves a national park.

"Barney, apparently unimpressed, runs away, ignoring presidential orders to come back."

Fun With Dick and Dave

Mary Ann Akers and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post: "After being grilled by the Senate intelligence committee for more than an hour Tuesday, CIA Director Michael Hayden went to Vice President Cheney's annual holiday party, where he endured more interrogation for a full 20 minutes from the Fourth Estate.

"Ensnared in a scandal over the destruction of waterboarding videotapes, Hayden fielded questions -- off the record -- from eggnog-lubed reporters. He withstood the friendly Q and A with smiles and a relaxed air (aided by a nice, cold beer) until he spotted someone who could stop the torture: Cheney chief of staff David Addington. 'David, save me!' Hayden jokingly shouted.

"Addington obliged and physically pulled the Air Force general from the scrum of reporters."

Cartoon Watch

John Sherffius on the Black House; Dwane Powell on Bush's climate-change plan; Kal on Bush's priorities; Patrick Corrigan on Bush's holiday card from Iran.