Spinning the Bloodshed in Basra

And Cheney's various pronouncements during his recent trip to the Middle East continue to reverberate.

Helen Thomas writes in her Hearst Newspapers column: "Back in President Lyndon B. Johnson's worst days when he was grappling with the Vietnam quagmire and raucous anti-war protests at home, he said that in the big decisions about war and peace: 'The people should be in on the take offs as well as the landings.'

"Tell that to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who apparently couldn't care less what Americans think - except every four years at election time."

Marie Cocco writes in her syndicated opinion column: "Many startling comments tumbled from the vice president's lips. His verbal jousting with ABC's Martha Raddatz over the recent National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran had stopped trying to build a nuclear weapon around 2003 is one scary discussion. Examining this back-and-forth, you cannot help but conclude that Cheney does not put much stock in the NIE, and considers there to be little, if any, difference between the ongoing Iranian uranium enrichment program and a weapons program. It is all eerily reminiscent of the lack of distinction Cheney made between Saddam Hussein's regime and the band of Afghanistan-based terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Of course, Cheney uses the interview to deliver the obligatory shake of his saber in Iran's direction: 'The president has made it clear that our objective is to make certain they do not acquire the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.'

"Cheney also declared that it didn't really matter that two-thirds of Americans think the Iraq war wasn't worth fighting--'So?' the vice president responded. After all, real leaders in a democracy don't give a hoot about what the people think and don't follow those cursed opinion polls. Given a second chance a few days later to elaborate on his point, Cheney likened President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq with Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon."

Cocco calls that a "jarring, even contemptible analogy . . . The Nixon pardon was an entirely political decision, made for purely political reasons, and which cost Ford nothing but political support. No geopolitical catastrophe was set in motion when Ford decided that in order to govern, he had to remove the stain of Watergate from the front pages and the television screens.

"No historical hindsight is needed to see that, unlike in Iraq, no lives were lost or bodies shattered by the Watergate pardon. No families were ruined emotionally and financially. No civilians were forced to flee their own country, or to become refugees within it. No thousands of prisoners were incarcerated without hope of charge or trial, and none were tortured.

"Ford unquestionably had the power, as president, to pardon Nixon. No such right exists for Bush's unconstitutional overreaching in Iraq and in the larger war on terror."

The White House and the New York Times

In a fascinating excerpt on Slate from his upcoming book, "Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice," New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau writes about a December 2005 meeting with senior Bush aides who were adamant that the Times not break the story of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program.

"[T]he message was unmistakable: If the New York Times went ahead and published this story, we would share the blame for the next terrorist attack."

Lichtblau writes that the decision to publish the story anyway reflected "the media's shifting attitudes toward matters of national security--from believing the government to believing it less."

For quite a while after 9/11, he writes, the media was, well, terrified.

"After all, the fear and trauma that gripped the country in the months and years after 9/11 gripped the media, too; the country's outrage was our outrage. Coverage of 9/11 and its aftermath consumed all else for reporters in Washington. As federal officials scrambled to avert the much-feared 'second wave' of attacks, reporters likewise scrambled to follow any hint of the next possible attack and to put it on the front page--from scuba divers off the coast of Southern California to hazmat trucks in the Midwest and tourist helicopters in New York City. One example of the shift: On Sept. 12, 2001, another major newspaper was set to run a story on the extraordinary diplomatic maneuverings the U.S. Secret Service had arranged with their Mexican counterparts to allow Jenna Bush, then 19, to make a barhopping trip south of the border. (She had just been charged with underage drinking in Texas.) A few days earlier, a scoop about a presidential daughter's barhopping trip getting special dispensation from the Secret Service and a foreign government might have gotten heavy treatment. But the story never ran, and the Secret Service's maneuverings remained a secret until now."

Over time, things changed -- somewhat.

"By 2004, I had gained a reputation, deservedly or not, as one of the administration's toughest critics in the Justice Department press corps; the department even confiscated my press pass briefly after I wrote an unpopular story about the FBI's interest in collecting intelligence on anti-Iraq war demonstrations in the United States. To John Ashcroft and his aides, my coverage reflected a bias. To me, it reflected a healthy, essential skepticism--the kind that was missing from much of the media's early reporting after 9/11, both at home in the administration's war on terror and abroad in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

"That shared skepticism would prove essential in the Times' decision to run the story about Bush's NSA wiretapping program. On that December afternoon in the White House, the gathered officials attacked on several fronts. There was never any serious legal debate within the administration about the legality of the program, Bush's advisers insisted. The Justice Department had always signed off on its legality, as required by the president. The few lawmakers who were briefed on the program never voiced any concerns. From the beginning, there were tight controls in place to guard against abuse. The program would be rendered so ineffective if disclosed that it would have to be shut down immediately.

"All these assertions," Lichtblau writes, were "largely untrue."

But recall that in the fall of 2004 -- during Bush's re-election campaign! -- administration officials had succeeded in persuading the Times not to run the story. The Times only changed its mind after Lichtblau's colleague James Risen decided he would write about it in a book. Lichtblau also notes that additional reporting "brought into sharper focus what had already started to become clear a year earlier: The concerns about the program -- in both its legal underpinnings and its operations -- reached the highest levels of the Bush administration. There were deep concerns within the administration that the president had authorized what amounted to an illegal usurpation of power. The image of a united front we'd been presented a year earlier in meetings with the administration--with unflinching support for the program and its legality--was largely a fa¿ade. The administration, it seemed clear to me, had lied to us."

Lichtblau writes that word that the White House "had considered seeking a Pentagon Papers-type injunction to block publication of the story" led editors to "post it on the Internet the night before. . . . The administration might be able to stop the presses with an injunction, but they couldn't stop the Internet."

Tibet Watch

Terence Hunt writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush sharply confronted China's President Hu Jintao on Wednesday about Beijing's harsh crackdown in Tibet, joining an international chorus of alarm just months before the U.S. and the rest of the world parade to China for the Olympics."

Steven Lee Myers and Katrin Bennhold write in the New York Times: "In a statement, the White House said that Mr. Bush, in his telephone conversation with Mr. Hu, had urged that diplomats and journalists be allowed access to the region. . . .

"Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, later said that the president had 'pushed very hard' on Tibet, urging restraint and a renewed effort to address Tibetan grievances."

Karl Malakunas reports for AFP from Beijing: ""No talks were possible until the Dalai Lama gave up his independence push for Tibet and stopped 'fanning and masterminding' the ongoing Tibetan unrest, Hu told Bush, according to a Chinese foreign ministry statement.

"'Especially (the Dalai Lama) must stop . . . activities to sabotage the Beijing Olympic Games,' Hu said."

Barry Schweid writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush is using the prestige of his office on behalf of Tibetan protesters, but his direct appeal to Chinese President Hu Jintao lacks a trump card.

"Through a White House spokeswoman last week, Bush made plain he would attend the Olympic Games in August in Beijing, the crackdown on Tibetan protesters aside."

A Visit With Putin

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush announced yesterday that he will make an unexpected trip to Russia after a NATO summit next week to meet with President Vladimir Putin in hopes of repairing relations that have grown strained over missile defense, Kosovo independence and NATO expansion.

"The decision surprised even some key U.S. officials and set both governments scrambling to accommodate the last-minute visit and put together an agreement to justify it. . . .

"'I'm optimistic we can reach accord on very important matters,' Bush told a group of foreign journalists at the White House. 'I think a lot of people in Europe would have a deep sigh of relief if we're able to reach an accord on missile defense. And hopefully we can.'

"Wary White House advisers later tried to douse expectations that such an accord will necessarily be reached during the trip but expressed cautious optimism that the two sides can defuse the tension that has divided them for months. . . .

"The visit may also smooth what could otherwise be a tense moment next week when Bush travels to Bucharest, Romania, for a NATO summit. The alliance is poised to admit three new members -- Croatia, Albania and Macedonia -- but Bush wants it also to offer road maps to eventual membership for two former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia. . . .

"The idea has infuriated Moscow, which sees Ukraine and Georgia as historically in its orbit, and Putin threatened to aim missiles at them if they join NATO."

Cheerleading Watch

Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush said Wednesday the sagging economy will 'come out stronger than ever before' with the help of tax rebates from the recently enacted economic stimulus package. . . .

"The administration says that although the economy has slowed, it will be revived when millions of Americans begin receiving tax rebate checks in the second week of May.

"'A lot of folks are going to be getting a sizable check,' the president said. 'I'm looking forward to that day and I know they are as well.'"

Gerson on Obama

Hannah Strange writes in the Times of London: "A former senior aide to President Bush today hailed Barack Obama is an 'extraordinary political talent' who would make a tougher opponent for John McCain than Hillary Clinton.

"In a remarkably frank interview with Daniel Finkelstein, Comment Editor of The Times, Michael Gerson said Obama's ascent to the White House would be 'one of the great culminating moments in American history'."

Cartoon Watch

Bill Mitchell on filling Bush's shoes; Ann Telnaes on mission accomplished; Jim Morin on Cheney's "So?"