Promises, Promises

"[I]n Israel Bush is probably more popular than elsewhere, and it has generally been seen as good politics in Israel for the prime minister to be close to the American president. Even so, said Yaron Ezrahi, a political scientist at Hebrew University, Olmert is overdoing it.

"'It evokes among Israelis a cynical response; it becomes an object of laughter,' Ezrahi said in an interview. 'I don't think a great statesman would engage in that kind of language.'"

Steven Erlanger and Steven Lee Myers write in the New York Times: "They are both unpopular leaders, scarred by terrorism and zealous in their warnings about the threat of Islamic extremism. And yet they profess grand ambitions to accomplish what other leaders have failed to do for decades: make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. . . .

"In interviews before and during Mr. Bush's visit, officials described the evolution of the deep bond between the leaders, reinforced by their shared views of Israel's security, and their own political problems in selling their approach to their respective constituencies. . . .

"In this case, the men's friendship was cemented during Mr. Olmert's first visit as prime minister to Washington in May 2006. They sat on the Truman balcony at the White House, without aides, and smoked cigars. They talked for more than an hour about family and sports and not, the Israeli official said, about politics."

The Times quotes an anonymous Israeli official saying: "They're the same age. They're both runners. They both feel that most of the world is against them, which, I think, is not far from the truth."

Blogging the Trip

The Post's Abramowitz is blogging the trip. In addition to his poodle post, he writes today about how former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's image literally loomed over Bush at his news conference in Ramallah, and wrote yesterday about how strong an impression Bush's 1998 trip to Israel apparently made on him.

Tribune's Mark Silva and Joel Greenberg are also blogging the trip, providing lots of instant news and analysis.

Sadly, White House press secretary Dana Perino's posts on a new White House "trip notes" blog are arriving late, and boring. Perino seems to have taken her writing cue from pool reports, which are largely unrevealing chronological accounts, long on useless detail and short on analysis.

Iran Watch

Robin Wright writes in The Washington Post: "The United States yesterday slapped sanctions on a top Iranian general and three exiled Iraqis based in Iran and Syria for fomenting violence in Iraq, as President Bush lashed out again at Tehran for last weekend's showdown between U.S. and Iranian naval vessels.

"In a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Bush called Iran a 'threat to world peace' and warned that it would face 'serious consequences' if it tried to attack U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. All options remain on the table, Bush said, a statement that some diplomatic and military officials in Washington said inflated the significance of the brief incident Sunday between five small Iranian speedboats and three U.S. warships."

But Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, at a news conference on the eve of Bush's visit to the kingdom, "appeared to rebuff U.S. efforts to raise the stakes over Iran," Wright reports. "'We're a neighbor to Iran in the Gulf, which is a small area, so we're keen for harmony and peace among countries in the region,' Faisal said. 'We have relations with Iran and we talk with them, and if we felt any danger we have relations that allow us to talk about it.'"

Robert Burns writes for the Associated Press: "The Persian Gulf confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces ended without a shot being fired. But it handed the Bush administration new ammunition in its battle to convince allies that the Tehran government is a threat even without nuclear weapons.

"The motivation for Iranian fastboats to dare to challenge a convoy of three much larger but less maneuverable U.S. Navy warships as they sailed the Strait of Hormuz -- very nearly provoking the Americans to open fire -- is unclear. . . .

"From the point of view of President Bush, who opened a Middle East trip Wednesday with Iran high on the agenda, the episode in the Gulf underscored his assertion that the Iranians are capable of acting recklessly. The unspoken implication: Who knows what they might do if they got nuclear weapons?"

But is this a trumped-up provocation?

Burns writes that the Pentagon video tape conveys the impression "that the Iranians ignored repeated requests by radio from the American ship to identify themselves, to state their intentions and to stay clear of the ship's path."

By contrast, Stuart Williams writes for AFP: "Iran on Thursday aired its own video of an incident in the Strait of Hormuz with US warships, in a bid to counter Pentagon accusations that the Iranians warned they could blow up the American vessels.

"The four-minute video broadcast by Iran's English-language channel Press-TV showed an Iranian commander in a speedboat contacting an American sailor via radio, asking him to identify the US vessels and state their purpose. . . .

"'Coalition warship number 73, this is an Iranian patrol,' the Iranian commander is heard to say in English, asking for the vessel to confirm its number. . . . 'Request your present course and speed!' added the Iranian commander, who was wearing a yellow lifejacket and the kefiyeh scarf often sported by Iranian revolutionary forces."

Flashback to Tonkin

The Federation of American Scientists earlier this week announced that an exhaustive history of American signals intelligence in the Vietnam War that has been declassified and released by the National Security Agency.

Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, blogs: "The most sensational part of the history . . . is the recounting of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident, in which a reported North Vietnamese attack on U.S. forces triggered a major escalation of the war. The author demonstrates that not only is it not true, as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night.'"

Peter Grier has more in the Christian Science Monitor.

Torture Tapes Watch

Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick write in The Washington Post: "A former CIA official at the center of the controversy over destroyed interrogation videotapes has been blocked by Justice Department officials from gaining access to government records about the incident, according to sources familiar with the case.

"The former official, Jose Rodriguez Jr., has also told the House intelligence committee through a letter from his attorney that he will refuse to testify next week about the tapes unless he is granted immunity from prosecution for his statements, the sources said.

"The panel has issued a subpoena for Rodriguez, the former chief of clandestine operations who issued the order to destroy the videotapes in 2005. He and other former CIA officials are also being blocked from gaining access to documents about the incident, sources said."

Meanwhile, Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation."

Warrantless Wiretapping Watch

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball write for Newsweek: "Faced with the growing likelihood that Congress will not meet a looming deadline to approve critical electronic-eavesdropping legislation, the Bush administration is working on a short-term fix--a temporary extension to a law enacted last summer amid Democratic complaints that the White House had muscled the bill through. . . .

"One such fix, which some Senate Democrats and administration officials appear to favor, would involve temporarily extending the existing electronic-surveillance law, known as the Protect America Act, for one month beyond the current Feb. 1 expiration date. . . .

"Some Senate Democrats are discussing another alternative: seeking a temporary extension to the current law for a year. The point of this option, as explained by a congressional official who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive deliberations, would be to postpone the whole process of revising the electronic-surveillance law until after the next president is inaugurated. . . .

"But some Democrats on Capitol Hill question whether the current GOP minority--which, in the Senate, at least, has the power to block legislation--would accept a one-year extension to the current law. These Democrats fear that punting on the issue until after the next Inauguration would lead to GOP charges that Democrats were being unpatriotic and impeding the War on Terror."

Green Budget

Andrew Taylor writes for the Associated Press: "The conventional wisdom around Washington is that President Bush's budget will be dead on arrival when it gets to Capitol Hill.

"But at least it won't be made from a dead tree.

"The White House announced Wednesday that it's going paperless when it submits the fiscal 2009 budget Feb. 4. It's a move aimed at saving a few bucks for taxpayers -- and the lives of a few trees."

Karl Rove Watch

Terence P. Jeffrey writes for Cybercast News Service: "Karl Rove told Cybercast News Service in an interview Wednesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign was helped when she responded in a smiling, self-deprecating manner when asked during Saturday night's televised debate why some voters had an issue with her 'likeability' and that her rival Sen. Barack Obama only enhanced the positive impact for Clinton when he responded like 'a smarmy, prissy little guy taking a slap at her.'"

A toned-down version of Rove's analysis appears on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page today.

Cartoon Watch

Ted Rall on the problem with bipartisanship.