Bush's Gas Pain

For more about Bush's decision, see my July 3 column, Obstruction of Justice, Continued.

Parallel Universe Watch

You'll never guess who's complaining about subsidies for millionaires -- and who's defending them.

Believe it or not, it's Bush who's fighting for income caps in the pending Farm Bill -- and Democratic leaders who are balking.

David Rogers writes for Politico: "The White House mounted a last push for more reforms in a pending Farm Bill Tuesday, with President Bush accusing lawmakers of continuing subsidies to 'multimillionaire' producers at a time of rising prices at the grocery store.

"Thus far, House-Senate negotiators have been willing to exclude only wealthy individuals who earn $500,000 or more in nonfarm income. But there were signs of new movement Tuesday night, and the administration is pressing for a 'hard cap' that would deny commodity payments to even full time farmers whose average adjusted gross income over three years exceeded $500,000. . . .

"For the White House, the income cap remains a signature issue after first wanting a still lower $200,000 ceiling. And for this Republican president, Tuesday's press conference was a rare example of using the class card to full political effect at a time of rising food prices."

What he heck is going on here? I asked Ken Cook, president of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group and close observer of the Farm Bill. "It's a parallel universe," he said. "You would think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be the ones demanding reform. . . and George Bush would be the one defending the wealthy individuals in this game, but it's been the exact opposite."

Cook, who has a blog called Mulch, isn't sure what's motivating Bush. "I don't know why this issue of paying subsidies to wealthy people got under his skin," Cook said, "But it did."

As for the Democrats? "I think it's pretty much been a craven political calculation," Cook said.

Syrian Reactor Watch

Steven Lee Myers writes in the New York Times: "President Bush said Tuesday that last week's disclosure of what senior American officials called evidence of a nearly completed nuclear reactor in Syria was intended to warn North Korea and Iran about the dangers of spreading nuclear weapons. . . .

"Making the first remarks in public about the Israeli attack by any American official, Mr. Bush said that his administration maintained a cloak of secrecy to avoid the risk of further military conflict in the region, including possible Syrian retaliation against Israel. He said that risk of conflict 'was reduced' now.

"Mr. Bush did not explain why exactly the administration disclosed the information at this point, but the timing coincided with renewed efforts to persuade North Korea to abide by last year's agreement to acknowledge all of its nuclear activities."

Iran Drumbeat Watch

David Martin reported on the CBS Evening News last night: "A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf today as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. The planning is being driven by what one officer called the 'increasingly hostile role' Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops. . . .

"Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force, which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

"And if that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum which would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else."

David Morgan writes for Reuters that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday that the second carrier was a "reminder" to Iran. . . .

"Gates flatly denied a suggestion that the presence of two U.S. carriers in the Gulf could be a precursor to military action against Tehran.

"'This deployment has been planned for a long time,' Gates said. 'I don't think we'll have two carriers there for a protracted period of time. So I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder.'

"He declined to elaborate on his remarks and provided no details about the deployment."

GSA Watch

Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham write for The Washington Post: "At the request of the White House, General Services Administration chief Lurita Alexis Doan resigned last night as head of the government's premier contracting agency, ending a tumultuous tenure in which she was accused of trying to award work to a friend and misusing her authority for political ends."

Cheney and the Whales

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman has just released a series of internal administration documents, which he describes in a letter to Susan E. Dudley, who oversees federal regulatory policy for the White House's Office of Management and Budget: "The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most critically endangered species on Earth, with only about 300 individual whales alive today. Yet for over a year, [your] Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has blocked the National Marine Fisheries Service from issuing a rule to protect these whales from being killed by ships. According to documents obtained by the Committee, the rule's delay appears to be due to baseless objections raised by White House officials, including officials in the Office of the Vice President."

The White House Way

Zachary Coile writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "A Congressional watchdog agency has found that White House officials repeatedly intervened in the government's scientific process for assessing the health risks of toxic chemicals, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer to threaten giving Congress control of the program.

"The Government Accountability Office reported today that the White House's budget office, the Pentagon and other agencies had delayed or blocked efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to list chemicals as carcinogens by requesting more research or more time to review the risks. . . .

"GAO officials also faulted the administration for setting new rules that keep secret any involvement by the White House or a federal agency in a decision about the risks of a chemical.

"'In the risk assessment program, you don't want anyone but the scientists involved,' John Stephenson, GAO's chief investigator for environmental programs, told lawmakers. 'That is our major problem - the lack of transparency.'. . .

"A top EPA official, who was grilled at a hearing before Boxer's committee today, responded that it was helpful to have more input from the White House and other agencies."

H. Josef Hebert writes for the Associated Press: "John Stephenson, GAO's director of natural resource programs, told the Senate Environment Committee that the White House Office of Management and Budget not only is closely involved in the chemical assessments but 'actually dictating which assessments that the EPA can undertake.' . . .

"Many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals 'occur in what amounts to a black box' of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations, the report said."

Torture Watch

Pamela Hess writes for the Associated Press: "The Senate Intelligence Committee voted Tuesday to limit CIA interrogators to techniques approved by the military, which would effectively bar them from waterboarding prisoners, congressional officials said.

"The vote on an amendment by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., taken behind closed doors as the committee debated legislation to authorize money for intelligence operations in 2009, marks at least the second attempt by intelligence overseers in Congress to regulate CIA questioning of detainees. . . .

"President Bush vetoed the 2008 intelligence authorization bill in March because it included the same curbs on questioning techniques. This interrogation provision, if passed by the full Senate and House, would likely face the same fate."

Neil C. Livingstone, who runs a crisis-management company, writes in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed: "Even if one believes that waterboarding should not be practiced by the United States, does that mean under all circumstances? . . .

"[W]hat if there is solid intelligence that a chemical, biological or radiological weapon has been smuggled into one of our great cities and set to detonate in an hour? The probable consequences are dire: thousands dead, the U.S. economy severely damaged, the public and policy-makers so traumatized that they are likely to take precipitous action, perhaps even a nuclear strike, against the nation that harbored the perpetrators. Is that really what we want, or should the president have the authority to use extraordinary means to try to prevent such a catastrophe before it occurs? . . .

"We entrust the president with nuclear weapons; surely we can trust the president to authorize the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in times of national emergency."

Dinner Redux

Al Kamen writes in The Washington Post: "The New York Times has been taking hits of late for its new policy of boycotting the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. The Times apparently has decided that the media-politician chumminess is unseemly and maybe even borderline unethical."

First, dinner headliner Craig Ferguson on Saturday had this to say: "Shut the hell up, New York Times, you sanctimonious, whining jerks!"

Then at yesterday's news conference, as Kamen writes: "President Bush took another pop at the Times. After Bush called on Times White House reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, she said: 'I'm still waiting for my exclusive at the ranch,' referring to ABC News White House reporter Martha Raddatz's private interview with Bush in Crawford.

"'I'm at a loss for words,' Bush said. 'If only you'd have been at the White House correspondents' dinner, I would have invited you.'"

No Escape

Vinny Ditrani writes for The Record in New Jersey: "James Butler said he has a question to ask President Bush when he meets him today at the White House.

"'What about these gas prices?' the Giants' safety said is the one thing he'd like to know from the commander-in-chief, who will greet the Super Bowl XLII champs."

Live Online

I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET. Come join the conversation.

Cartoon Watch

Pat Oliphant on the rebate checks; Clay Bennett on Bush's preoccupation.