Obama's First Test

Meanwhile, Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard: "The president was in a relaxed mood last Friday when he talked about books, Lincoln, and a host of other subjects with me and my Weekly Standard and Fox News colleague William Kristol. The occasion was a lunch in the president's private dining room adjacent to the Oval Office. Bush, by the way, ate a grilled cheese sandwich.

"Bush's critics -- and especially the left-wing haters -- are going to be disappointed when they see his demeanor as he leaves his eight-year presidency. In our conversation, he wasn't bitter or downcast or pessimistic, nor was he boastful or disdainful. He appears comfortable with what he expects his legacy will be, including a battle against Islamist terrorists that endure under President Obama. . . .

"Bush is mentally ready to leave Washington, a town he never really liked. He says he has a lot of packing to do. But my guess is he won't look back with regret at what he might have done if he had more time in office. He's proud of what he achieved. And proud he should be."

Bush By the Numbers

From Harper's, ThinkProgress.org, and the Associated Press.

Gaza Watch

In an interview on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, Vice President Cheney said that Israel did not seek U.S. approval before invading Gaza, in the bloodiest Mideast clash in years.

As Scott Shane writes for the New York Times: "For nine days, as European and United Nations officials have called urgently for a cease-fire in Gaza, the Bush administration has squarely blamed the rocket attacks of the Palestinian militant group Hamas for Israel's assault, maintaining to the end its eight-year record of stalwart support for Israel. . . .

"Many Middle East experts say Israel timed its move against Hamas, which began with airstrikes on Dec. 27, 24 days before Mr. Bush leaves office, with the expectation of such backing in Washington. Israeli officials could not be certain that President-elect Barack Obama, despite past statements of sympathy for Israel's right of self-defense, would match the Bush administration's unconditional endorsement."

Matthew Lee writes for the Associated Press: "With time running out on the Bush presidency, the administration seemed increasingly ready Friday to let the crisis in Gaza fall to President-elect Barack Obama. Although aides to President George W. Bush insisted they are still working hard to secure a 'durable and sustainable' cease-fire -- even as their influence wanes with less than three weeks on office -- they all but ruled out a more direct approach."

And Stephen Castle and Katrin Bennhold write in the New York Times that "Europe, seeking to fill a diplomatic vacuum in the Middle East left by the departing Bush administration, is sending two missions to try to broker a cease-fire in Gaza and offering more humanitarian aid."

Exit Interview Watch

Bush and Cheney continued to give "exit interviews" while I was off these past two weeks.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times that "after eight years of a tight partnership that gave Mr. Cheney powerful influence inside the White House, the two are sounding strikingly different notes as they leave office, especially on one of the most fundamental issues of their tenure: their aggressive response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

Indeed, Bush is at least sometimes giving the vague appearance of being repentant -- without actually expressing regret for anything he himself did. Cheney won't even go that far.

In yesterday's Face the Nation interview, Cheney insisted that his prewar claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was partially correct. He blamed the Iraqis for the botched occupation: "I think the thing that we underestimated, at least I underestimated, was the damage that had been done to the Iraqi population by all those years of Saddam's rule, so that there weren't any Iraqis early on who were willing to stand up and take responsibility for their own affairs." And he concluded that the U.S. is now "close to achieving most of our objectives" in Iraq.

As for torture and warrantless surveillance, Cheney didn't just defend them -- he urged Obama to continue on. "I'd say, look, before you go out and start to make policy based on the campaign rhetoric we heard last year, what you need to do is to sit down and find out what we've done, find out how we did it, what the justification was for it, what kind of results were produced, and then make an informed judgment about whether or not you want to keep these things. But I would hope he would avoid doing what others have done in the past, which is letting the campaign rhetoric guide his judgment on this absolutely crucial area. . . .

"We were very careful, we did everything by the book, and in fact, we produced very significant results. And I would hope that for the sake of the nation, that this administration and future administrations will continue those policies."

One can certainly hope that Obama will find out what we've done, how we did it, what the justification was, and what kind of results were produced -- and will then tell the public.

Meanwhile, Harry Shearer writes for Huffingtonpost.com that Cheney's interlocutor exemplified "a return to the respectful or intimidated cringe that typified Washington media during the run-up to the Iraq War.

"Bob Schieffer had the usual stack of papers in front of him as he questioned Vice President Cheney. But, as Cheney trotted out old and new boilerplate -- the intelligence was wrong, all our surveillance and interrogation procedures were done 'by the book' -- Schieffer sat as mute as a chastised third-grader.

"This is not 2003. At least two well-reviewed and meticulously sourced books--'The Dark Side' by Jane Mayer and 'Angler' by Barton Gellman--could supply a week's worth of material with which to challenge and contradict Cheney's bland and ballsy assertions."

And don't miss Cheney's Dec. 19 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, which among other things features another classic Cheney "So?". I don't have time today to do it justice.

Next Sunday, Cheney will be on CNN.

Exit Interviews, Continued

The Washington Post turned over a goodly chunk of its front page on Friday to national security adviser Stephen Hadley and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, for a largely unrebutted attempt to clear up a bunch of "misconceptions" about their boss.

First up was the idea that Bush was clueless during the descent into chaos in Iraq during 2005 and 2006. The Post's Michael Abramowitz relates: "'This notion that somehow the president didn't know what was going on, information was withheld from him in some way, he didn't have a picture of what was going on: He got that picture' -- Hadley smacked his palms together for emphasis -- 'at 7 o'clock every morning.'"

Really. So how to explain Bush's public statements depicting Iraq as increasingly peaceful during this period? Either he didn't know the truth, or he did -- and lied about it. See, for instance, my Sept. 21, 2006, column, Bush vs. Reality, in which Bush is quoted as insisting that press coverage about how bad things are in Iraq is not to be trusted. Or my Mar. 21, 2006, column, Incredibly Optimistic.

Abramowitz writes that Hadley and Bolten "voiced frustration over their inability to improve Bush's popularity and to counter the administration's image of arrogance." They "also rebutted what they consider common misconceptions of the George W. Bush era, such as . . . the view that Vice President Cheney wielded unbridled behind-the-scenes power."

Bush's After-life

Maria Recio writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "President George W. Bush's 'after-life,' as Laura Bush calls the post-presidency, is shaping up to be pretty comfortable, with a Dallas office, staffers, Secret Service protection, a travel budget, medical coverage and a $196,700 annual pension, all at taxpayers' expense.

"The Bushes will move to their new $2 million, 8,500-square-foot Dallas home -- not paid for by taxpayers -- on Jan. 20, and there Bush will be close to his future presidential library at Southern Methodist University."

Before He Leaves

Bruce Fein and Ralph Nader write in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed: "Before Inauguration Day, the 111th Congress should pass a forward-looking resolution censuring President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for executive aggrandizements or abuses that have reduced Congress to vassalage and shredded the rule of law."

Another One?

Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "Another President Bush?

"Perhaps so, says former President George H.W. Bush, who has already seen one son, George W., serve in the Oval Office. The nation's 41st president said Sunday that he would like to see a second son, Jeb, be president one day. . . .

"Asked in a broadcast interview about Jeb Bush's consideration of the Senate seat, Bush 41 said: 'I'd like to see him run. I'd like to see him be president someday.'

"When asked if he was serious, he said: 'Or maybe senator. Whatever. Yes, I would. I mean, right now is probably a bad time, because we've had enough Bushes in there. But no, I would. And I think he's as qualified and able as anyone I know on the political scene. Now, you've got to discount that. He's my son."

Join the Conversation

Last week, although the column was dark, I invited members of my White House Watchers discussion group to help me with one of the issues I'm wrestling with as I prepare to make the transition from Bush to Obama.

I asked (and continue to ask): "After eight years, we've gotten used to having a president whose credibility is shot, whose policy apparatus is utterly politicized, and whose decision-making process is completely opaque. So what do we do with President Obama? Do we treat him with the same skepticism with which we learned to approach Bush? If not, how do we hold him accountable?"

Some right-wing bloggers responded by accusing me of saying the media shouldn't be skeptical of Obama at all. Far from it. As I've written before, it's imperative for the press corps to hold the president accountable. The White House should always be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable -- and it should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny.

But Obama has done nothing so far to deserve anything approaching the level of cynicism and disbelief which Bush is now due. Furthermore, he takes office at a signal moment, with the country in a major financial crisis -- not to mention two wars -- and the hopes of the nation solidly behind him.

The sort of blind faith we gave Bush in the wake of 9/11 is certainly not the answer. We (re)learned that lesson the hard way. We need to question Obama about what he's doing, why he's doing it, and how he's doing it. We should insist on answers to our questions. And we should aggressively examine any assertion that strikes us as questionable.

But given that Obama is a very different president -- for instance, he has repeatedly indicated that his administration will be devoted to transparency -- some sort of change in approach is justified. For one thing, our expectations should be much higher.

RIP Willie the Cat

From the White House this morning: "The President, Mrs. Bush, Barbara, and Jenna are deeply saddened by the passing of their cat India ("Willie"). The 18 year-old female black American Shorthair died Sunday, January 4, 2009 at home at the White House."

They have my sympathy.

Cartoon Watch

Joel Pett and Drew Sheneman on packing up, Tom Toles on riding off into the sunset, Jim Morin on the judgment of history, Rob Rogers and John Sherffius on the legacy, Tony Auth and Steve Sack on a Cheney Christmas, Walt Handelsman, Ann Telnaes and Mike Lane on the new year, and Mike Luckovich on the need for speed.