Bush's Olympic Hurdle

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:29 PM

George W. Bush the sports fan just wants to go to the Olympics and have a good time.

But being president of the United States means he needs to deal with a few other matters along the way. Like the fact that China considers the Beijing games an international celebration of its rise to major world power status -- on its own terms. And the fact that those terms include a distinct lack of concern for human rights and personal liberty.

So yesterday, Bush began an obligatory message-I-care show, in an attempt to stave off growing criticism that his passion for sports has blinded him to Chinese backsliding that makes a mockery of his so called "Freedom Agenda."

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush met privately with five Chinese activists at the White House on Tuesday . . . promising to 'carry the message of freedom' to the Summer Olympics in Beijing next week.

"Bush has repeatedly said he views the Beijing Games as being about athletics rather than politics, and he has resisted calls to boycott the opening ceremonies on Aug. 8. But last week, he referred to U.S. athletes as 'ambassadors of [liberty],' and he told the group of dissidents Tuesday that he will continue to press China's leadership for reforms even during the Olympics, White House officials said.

"'He told the activists that engagement with Chinese leaders gives him an opportunity to make the United States' position clear -- human rights and religious freedom should not be denied to anyone,' White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement. . . .

"Bush also dropped in on a meeting between China's foreign minister and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. Bush told Yang Jiechi that hosting the Olympics 'presents the Chinese with an opportunity to demonstrate compassion on human rights and freedom,' the statement said."

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times that the private talk with dissidents was "part of an intensifying White House effort to put pressure on Beijing before Mr. Bush travels there in a little over a week for the summer Olympic Games. . . .

"In a report issued this week, Amnesty International accused China of breaking its promise to open up freedoms in exchange for permission from the International Olympic Committee to host the 2008 Games. A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss delicate diplomatic matters, said Mr. Bush shared that concern. . . .

"Michael Green, an Asia expert and former adviser to Mr. Bush, said the White House must now contemplate how Mr. Bush should express his concerns while he is in Beijing. During a trip in 2005, the president attended a state-controlled church there and then held a press conference about it, a tactic that Mr. Green said got the attention of China's leaders.

"Mr. Green said Mr. Bush's meeting with the dissidents had been aimed at both addressing his critics and sending a pointed message to the Chinese."

But as Laurent Lozano reports for AFP: "The meeting was held at the White House residence instead of the Oval Office, out of sight of cameras and the White House only revealed the meeting in a statement after it was over."

Michael Abramowitz wrote in Monday's Washington Post: "White House aides said it is likely that Bush, who has focused considerable attention to the cause of Chinese religious freedom, will worship at a church in Beijing during his trip, but they say the rest of his schedule remains in flux. What the president will do or say in Beijing is the subject of considerable debate within the administration, several officials said, but they expressed doubt that Bush would do much to embarrass the Chinese leadership during an event it considers something of a coming-out party for China as a world power.

"Bush has repeatedly made clear his view that he is going to China as a sports fan and does not see the Olympics as a good opportunity to make political points. He is likely to spend much of his four days in Beijing attending various sporting events -- as well as the opening ceremonies Aug. 8 -- although he plans to meet with President Hu Jintao and other senior leaders, according to White House officials. . . .

"Bush's position has disappointed many human rights activists and some of his strongest supporters, who say the White House has been relatively silent in the face of what they consider stepped-up Chinese repression as the Games draw near. Bush delivered a lengthy address Thursday on his 'Freedom Agenda' around the world, but he devoted only one line to China."

And how did Bush's decision to attend come about? Abramowitz explains: "Bush short-circuited the bureaucratic debate over his attendance at the Games by simply saying he wanted to go, according to several administration officials."

The New York Times editorial board writes: "Emboldened by the complicity of Mr. Bush and other leaders, China is harassing or locking up critics, threatening journalists and selectively denying visas. . . .

"Mr. Bush has sought to portray himself as just another sports fan eager to cheer on his nation's team; one who is unwilling to use the Olympics to make political points. It's ludicrous for a president to pretend to be just another fan -- and no one has sought to gain more political advantage from the Games than China."

And an Amnesty International report concludes that China's "crackdown on human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers has intensified because Beijing is hosting the Olympics. The authorities have stepped up repression of dissident voices in their efforts to present an image of 'stability' and 'harmony' to the outside world. This has resulted in the detention and imprisonment of those who wish to draw attention to the other side of the picture, which includes human rights violations perpetrated in preparation for the Games."

Meanwhile, Karl Malakunas writes for the AFP: "China plunged into another Olympic controversy on Wednesday as it announced that the thousands of foreign reporters covering the Games would have to endure Internet censorship."

And Klaus Marre writes for the Hill: "Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on Tuesday alleged that China is preparing a spy attack on visitors of the Olympic Games, which will begin in less than two weeks."

Justice Watch

In yesterday's column, Culture of Corruption, I wrote about the results of the latest investigation into the overt politicization of the Department of Justice.

Peter Grier and Uri Friedman write in the Christian Science Monitor: "Politics plays a part in hiring decisions throughout Washington. But by law, internal rules, and tradition, the selection of career officials at the Justice Department is supposed to be blind to matters of party.

"That's because the application of federal justice is intended to be nonpartisan. Citizens have a right to expect equal treatment under the law, without regard to their political beliefs, registration, or yard signs."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board writes: "If all this seems inconsequential, rest assured, it is not. It is, in fact, illegal and devastating to the cause of justice in our country. Installing political lackeys in positions that ought to be free from the fetters of party politics virtually guarantees a miscarriage of justice."

The Roanoke Times editorial board writes: "The Bush administration illegally turned the Justice Department into a farm system for conservative Christian attorneys. For the last eight years, political hacks ruined the reputation of the one executive department that absolutely must stand above partisanship."

The Waco Tribune editorial board writes: "The department is supposed to be a check on the partisan impulses of politicians in power, not their tool."

The Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger editorial board writes: "The Bush administration's attempt to transform the Justice Department by using a rigid political litmus test to fill nonpolitical jobs was tawdry. It was illegal. And, unfortunately, it was successful."

The Des Moines Register editorial board writes: "These findings are not entirely surprising given the politicization of the Justice Department under Gonzales, and it would be easy to let this pass given the short time left for the Bush administration. But that would be a mistake: Evidence of the department's infection with politics is a disservice to the many career lawyers who take seriously their duty to seek equal justice for all, not just for one political party."

The San Jose Mercury News editorial board writes: "Politicizing the Justice Department will be a noxious legacy of President Bush."

The USA Today editorial board writes: "If any more proof were needed that the Justice Department became just another political arm of the White House under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it came Monday in a devastating report by the agency's own independent investigators."

So what to do?

The Miami Herald editorial board writes: "The most damning part of the report on political hiring within the Justice Department is the evidence of a systematic, deliberate effort to break down the walls between law enforcement and politics that was fully encouraged by President Bush's White House.

"It defies belief to think that zealous mid-level operatives like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson could engage in outrageous, clearly improper political vetting of candidates for Justice Department jobs without the explicit consent, if not direction, of higher-ups. . . .

"The question is who was giving the orders and whether any laws were broken in the process. . . .

"The individuals responsible for ordering these and similar actions should be held accountable.

"The best way to do that is to open a full-fledged investigation. Impanel a grand jury to follow the trail that bears the footprints of Ms. Goodling and Mr. Sampson and find out where it leads. If Mr. Mukasey wants to restore the department's reputation for unbiased justice, he must pursue the truth without fear of the political consequences."

The Florida Today editorial board writes that the Justice Department's integrity will "remain shattered unless Attorney General Michael Mukasey holds those who corrupted the department accountable, including perjury charges against top aides who lied before Congress last year.

"And putting White House officials who appear to have been involved in the wrongdoing under oath to testify -- as far up the chain as former Bush political advisor Karl Rove.

"We have no confidence he'll do so, which is why the House Judiciary Committee should continue digging into this swamp to ensure justice is served."

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board writes: "Breaking the law at the U.S. Justice Department, of all places, should carry serious consequences."

And consider the bigger picture.

Ruth Marcus writes in her Washington Post opinion column: "The ousted Goodling and the lingering deficit are twin manifestations of the Bush administration's overarching contempt for government and blind adherence to ideology.

"This administration will leave office having trashed the place. . . .

"I'm referring to the myriad ways in which this administration, dismissive of the role of government, abused the enterprise it was entrusted with overseeing."

Tim Rutten writes in his Los Angeles Times opinion column: "At some point, the American people will demand a precise accounting of how and why their government and its officials behaved in this reckless, appalling fashion. That will require following the chain of command into the White House. When it happens, you can bet that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington et al will demand every protection of the law and insist on every comma of the due process they've derided as mere inconvenience."

Finally, ThinkProgress notes that the White House press corps failed to ask White House press secretary Dana Perino a single question about the Justice Department report at yesterday's gaggle.

War on Terror All Wrong

Joby Warrick writes in The Washington Post: "The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.

"The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a 'war on terrorism.' The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said.

"'Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors,' authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write in ' How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda,' a 200-page volume released yesterday. . . .

"The authors call for a strategy that includes a greater reliance on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in disrupting the group's networks and in arresting its leaders. They say that when military forces are needed, the emphasis should be on local troops, which understand the terrain and culture and tend to have greater legitimacy.

"In Muslim countries in particular, there should be a 'light U.S. military footprint or none at all,' the report contends.

"'The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity,' it said, 'but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.'"

An excerpt from the report: "A key part of [a successful] strategy should include ending the notion of a war on terrorism and replacing it with such concepts as counterterrorism, which most governments with significant terrorist threats use. The British government, among others, has already taken this step and abjured the phrase war on terror. The phrase raises public expectations -- both in the United States and elsewhere -- that there is a battlefield solution to the problem of terrorism. It also encourages others abroad to respond by conducting a jihad (or holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. . . .

"Our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism. Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended: It is often overused, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and provides a window of opportunity for terrorist-group recruitment."

Iran Watch

Paul Richter and Julian E. Barnes write in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush administration officials reassured Israel's defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.

"In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.

"At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis emphasizing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb."

Iraq Watch

Gina Chon writes for the Wall Street Journal: "The Bush administration's embrace of a flexible timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq has accelerated negotiations between Washington and Baghdad over a long-term security pact, officials from both sides said.

"The optimism marks a turnaround from just a month ago, when big differences seemed to have deadlocked talks over the terms of a continued American military presence in the country. In June, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the talks were at a 'dead end,' dimming hopes of reaching a deal by July 31 -- a goal the Bush administration has pushed hard to meet."

Afghanistan Watch

Jonathan Landay blogs for McClatchy Newspapers: "As the Bush administration and its NATO allies struggle to contain the worst violence in Afghanistan since 2001, a U.S. Institute for Peace report suggests that a key reason for the Taliban comeback is popular anger over civilian casualties caused by a staggering surge in the foreign forces' use of air power.

"Consider the numbers: the amount of munitions dropped or fired by U.S. and other NATO aircraft in Afghanistan has climbed from an average of 5,000 pounds per month in 2005 to some 80,000 pounds the following year to an average of 168,000 pounds in December 2007, according to the report entitled ' Killing Friends, Making Enemies.'"

Housing Watch

Dan Eggen writes for The Washington Post: "President Bush this morning signed into law the most sweeping housing legislation in decades, aimed at calming rocky financial markets and giving mortgage relief to up to 400,000 homeowners.

"In an unannounced White House ceremony attended by senior administration aides shortly after 7 a.m., Bush gave his imprimatur to a law he had long vowed to veto because of objections to some aspects of the legislation."

AIDS Watch

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The bipartisan expansion of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) -- along with the President's Malaria Initiative -- is significant in a number of ways. . . .

"[I]t is the congressional affirmation of a major legacy of George W. Bush -- a grand, aggressive international compassion that dwarfs the Peace Corps and is unequaled since the Marshall Plan. . . .

"Bush has more than quadrupled aid to sub-Saharan Africa. Americans are only dimly aware of this fact. Men and women in the remotest African villages are better informed. Historians will find it undeniable."

John Lauerman writes for Bloomberg: "President George W. Bush, whose international program has given $15 billion to combat AIDS in poor countries, is ignoring the growing epidemic in U.S. blacks, an advocacy group says.

"More than 500,000 U.S. blacks carry HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, according to the report today from the Black AIDS Institute, based in Los Angeles. Seven of 15 poor countries served by Bush's $15-billion international treatment and prevention program have fewer infected people, the group said. . . .

"While Bush requires that countries have a national AIDS plan to get funds for HIV treatment, the U.S. has no plan of its own, [Phill Wilson, the institute's chief executive officer,] said.

"'The lack of a comprehensive AIDS strategy is devastating,' Wilson said in a telephone interview yesterday."

Karl Rove Watch

Laurie Kellman writes for the Associated Press: "A House panel Wednesday voted to cite former top White House aide Karl Rove for contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena to answer questions about the dismissals of several federal prosecutors as its Senate counterpart explored punishments for an array of alleged past and present Bush administration misdeeds.

"Voting along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee said that Rove had broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. . . .

"Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, had urged the panel in a Tuesday letter not to cite his client, calling it a 'gratuitously punitive' action that would serve no purpose because the question of executive privilege is already pending in two other cases in federal court."

The Associated Press reported earlier: "Bush administration critics hand-delivered a petition to a Democratic lawmaker Tuesday containing more than 127,000 signatures calling for former White House adviser Karl Rove to be held in contempt of Congress and jailed."

Oversight Watch

Laurie Kellman writes for the Associated Press: "Across Capitol Hill, Democratic-led committees are considering punishments for past and present Bush administration officials for a range of alleged misdeeds. . . .

"But three months out from Election Day, a lame-duck Congress conducting oversight of a lame-duck White House produces mostly talk. There's little time and less willingness to spend the remaining five weeks of the congressional session doing more than holding televised hearings to try to convince voters that President Bush has abused the powers of his office."

Bush in Ohio

Mark Naymik and Stephen Koff write for the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "In Cleveland to raise money for Republican congressional candidates, Bush made a stop at Lincoln Electric, which designs and manufactures welding equipment, including products used to assemble gas pipelines and wind towers. . . .

"He used the bulk of the 25-minute speech. . . to call on Congress to support oil exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. . . .

"Near the end of his speech, Bush said that he would take questions, joking that after 7½ years in office, 'I've figured out how to dodge them.' Several workers raised their hands - but Bush never did take their questions."

Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "It wasn't clear if Bush simply didn't see them, or if that after seeing the shy response, he simply barreled ahead with Plan B -- telling stories. He's always got some in his pocket.

"He chose one of his favorites, the famous rainbow tale.

"It happened in Bucharest, Romania, in 2002, when Bush was addressing thousands of people. A steady rain that day gave way to a soaring rainbow."

Julie Mason blogs for the Houston Chronicle: "It seemed his mind was elsewhere for most of it -- at least, he sounded like he was speaking at times extemporaneously, which always produces the inscrutable text."

My favorite example was Bush on conservation: "You're making the choices about whether you want to drive a little extra more or not drive extra more."

Albatross Watch

John Dickerson, writing for Slate, asks what John McCain should do with Bush at the upcoming Republican National Convention:"Conventions are usually a place to finesse a candidate's liabilities. And yet McCain has to give kryptonite a prime-time speaking spot. When I asked GOP veterans whether there was any way to minimize the damage for McCain, their first reaction was to laugh. Since the convention starts on a Monday, one member of the McCain campaign joked that Bush could speak on Sunday night. Another veteran Republican suggested putting up an onstage dunking booth for the president. McCain could break tradition by arriving at the convention early in the week so he can take a few throws at the target."

McClellan Watch

Johanna Neuman blogs for the Los Angeles Times about how "Scott McClellan, the former Bush press secretary whose kiss-and-tell book banished him from any friendly GOP circles, is embroiled in a snit with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly for suggesting that the conservative broadcaster was a shill for the White House."

Live Online

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

Late Night Humor

Stephen Colbert last night discussed the recently released 2002 Justice Department memo that said an interrogator cannot be prosecuted for torture when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain and suffering. (See my Friday column, How to Get Away With Torture.)

Said Colbert: "This memo protects [interrogators] by saying torture is all in the eye of the beholder. . . . See, it ends torture by helping people believe they've never done it."

And Colbert had some advice for interrogators: "Do not worry if it's unreasonable to honestly believe you're not inflicting severe pain. Because the Bush Administration memo says, quote, your 'honest belief need not be reasonable.'

"Now, if you still think you're torturing, well, truth is, enhanced interrogation is not a job for everyone. Luckily, there are plenty of people willing to save America by honestly believing the unreasonable. And some of them will be looking for jobs come January 20th."

Cartoon Watch

Dwane Powell on Mukasey's obstruction; Lee Judge on good Americans; Ann Telnaes, Scott Stantis, Jimmy Margulies and Victor Harville on the deficit; Pat Oliphant, Jeff Danziger and Tony Auth on the Bush legacy.