Chalk it up as one last big win for Vice President Dick Cheney and his secretive -- OK, that's redundent when talking about a Cheney guy -- chief of staff, David Addington.
Remember when the president said in August 2007, "it should be a goal of the nation to shut down Guantanamo?" (Of course, he added, closing it is easier said than done.)
Never mind -- at least for now or anytime in the near future.
The State Department reportedly prepared memos on transferring the prisoners; so did the Pentagon. Bush considered none of them.
That's according to a report in today's New York Times, which said that after the Supreme Court ruling, Bush "adopted the view of his most hawkish advisors that closing Guantanamo would involve too many legal and political risks to be acceptable, now or any time soon."
Steven Lee Myers, writing in The Times, says that despite the president's stated desire to close Gitmo, and the pressure that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have applied to accomplishing that, they have "acquiesced to the arguments of more hawkish advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney."
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said of the Guantanamo decision: "It's very complex. It's complicated. It's difficult."
She said the admininistration was working to reduce the population at the prison -- and had brought it down from about 600 to 270.
"It's not as easy as snapping your fingers" and closing the prison, she said, adding, "unless you don't care."
That was a reference to the 7% of released detainees who, she said, have returned to the battlefield.
"It's slow work," Perino said at the daily White House news briefing this morning. "The president has made a decision to close Guantanamo Bay. That has not changed."
As for Cheney, his spokeswoman, Megan Mitchell, said by e-mail seconds after Perino spoke: "You heard from Dana in the briefing. I don't have anything to add beyond that."
As President Bush meets today with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the head of the European Commission, he might keep in mind the view of the United States from Europe, Japan and elsewhere.
It isn't pretty -- and has grown notably ugly during his presidency.
A poll conducted by eight major newspapers found that opinions of the United States had dropped sharply over the past eight years.
According to a report in the Guardian, of Britain, among the French, 75% said their view of the United States had gotten worse or much worse since Bush became president. In Canada, 77% made a similar statement.
And in Switzerland -- notwithstanding die anmut,la douceur, la dolcezza (OK, for those of you not conversant in three of Switzerland's four languages, the sweetness) of Heidi and its chocolates, and its appreciation of Bush-like efficiency -- the percentage of those with an increasingly negative view of America under Bush topped out at 86%.
The credit-banking-financial maelstrom will be the central topic of Bush's meeting this afternoon with Sarkozy at Camp David, Md. Maybe the Swissies are thinking of late about the banking crisis?
In its report, the Guardian noted:
Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the U.S. are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.
Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of U.S. intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the U.S. are friendly and 14% tense.
The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and -- in the six countries questioned on the issue -- majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Indeed, it found that in each country polled, with the exception of Britain and Poland, a majority opposed military intervention in Iran.
As for views of the U.S. presidential election, John McCain and Barack Obama, the blue and red in the chart above says it all.
There's a healthy Internet buzz today on a Washington Post story saying the CIA endorsed such harsh interrogation techniques as waterboarding against Al Qaeda suspects in 2003 and 2004 -- and eventually got a written endorsement from Bush administration higher-ups.
What we find interesting about the story is the prospect that as the Bush administration fades, there remains the likelihood that its wall of secrecy will slowly turn into shards. The result: The pieces will continue to reveal details of how President Bush conducted the campaign against terrorism.
As for the latest shard:
The Post reported that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet requested the memos "more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations," to create a paper trail leading to the White House.
The paper reported:
The repeated requests for a paper trail reflected growing worries within the CIA that the administration might later distance itself from key decisions about the handling of captured Al Qaeda leaders, former intelligence officials said.
And those concerns only grew after the revelations of prisoner abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.
Sometime soon, seven years after it invaded Afghanistan, the Bush administration is expected to settle on a new policy to stabilize that still-fragile country. As Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander there, said:
I think we are in a very tough fight -- a tough counter-insurgency fight. We're [at] a higher level of violence than we were this time last year. We are seeing a greater amount of insecurity in certain areas. The idea that it might get worse before it gets better is certainly a possibility.
McKiernan made news last week when he suggested that the now-famous "surge strategy" that Gen. David Petraeus fashioned for Iraq -- working with tribal leaders -- might not work in Afghanistan because of "a degree of complexity in the tribal system which is greater than what I found in Iraq years ago." Of the 400 major tribal networks in Afghanistan, he said, "a lot of that traditional tribal structure has broken down."
The fact is our aid that is given is extraordinarily ineffective for many years, and they've done nothing about it. So now they're talking about it, but there's nothing they can accomplish in the last days of the administration.
-- Johanna Neuman
Photo: Gen. David McKiernan meets with President Bush in the Oval Office to discuss the Afghanistan policy on Oct. 1. Credit: Alex Wong / Getty Images
If you were watching only the polls, Wall Street or Afghanistan over the last several months, you could be forgiven for thinking President Bush had been having a rough go of it, what with a job-approval rating rivaling that of Richard M. Nixon at his lowest, the tumbling Dow and the resurgent Taliban.
But you'd be wrong. It really hasn't been an entirely bad closing act for Bush. Indeed, he's on a roll. At least that's how the White House sees it.
Consider:
Last Monday, he suffered a legislative wipeout when the House rejected the $700-billion plan Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. hatched to deal with the credit crisis. By Friday, the president had signed an only slightly revised package into law. No other legislative issue carries greater importance for the president as his time in office wanes.
On Wednesday, he will sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India that won congressional approval last week. Apart from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has been one of the most important -- and troublesome -- foreign policy issues on Bush's agenda for several years.
Remember the chant "drill, baby, drill" at the Republican National Convention last month? Congress heard it. After balking for years -- decades, really -- at relaxing rules against offshore exploration for oil and gas, it went along with the president's own initiative to ease government obstacles. The measure doesn't open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to be sure, but it is nonetheless one of Bush's top energy priorities.
Not bad for a lame-duck president and one of the least popular at that.
But wait, there may be more.
Speaking with reporters after a closed-door forum with small-business people at the Olmos Pharmacy in San Antonio, the president said he was looking forward to moving back to Texas, "but in the meantime, it looks like I'm going to have a lot of work to do, between today and when the new president takes office."
As Dan Eggen, writing in the Washington Post, noted today, White House officials see such victories as underscoring "a year in which Bush has repeatedly pushed through major legislation on Capitol Hill regardless of troubles in the polls or the overwhelming focus on the presidential race."
For the White House transcript of the president's remarks to reporters this morning, click on "Read full story" ...
Roughly 75 years ago, a Canadian colonel drew up what was known as Defense Scheme No. 1, a bizarre plan intended to rebuff a U.S. invasion from the south by seizing Albany, N.Y., and Minot, N.D.
Now, of course, the United States and Canada maintain what they happily refer to as the longest undefended international border in the world, and President Bush couldn't have a better friend on the international scene than Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Trade issues between the two are at a minimum, and Canada couldn't be more supportive of the war in Afghanistan, regularly supplying troops to the mission under the NATO umbrella.
But Bush may not be feeling too kindly toward Harper this weekend.
The Conservative leader, in a national political debate Thursday evening, declared in no uncertain terms that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake.
"It was absolutely an error," he said under pressure from debate opponents. "It's obviously clear the evaluation of weapons of mass destruction proved not to be correct. That's absolutely true and that's why we're not sending anybody to Iraq."
-- James Gerstenzang
Photo: Tom Hanson / Associated Press/The Canadian Press
With all eyes, or anyway the political ones, trained on tonight's vice presidential debate between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, we got to wondering how the current vice president fared in his.
So we took a look at Dick Cheney's debates -- in 2000 against then-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (now a connected-at-the-hip buddy of Republican John McCain), and in 2004 against that fresh face on the national scene, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. 'Nuff said.
Turns out that Cheney, since dubbed Darth Vader for his dark vision and passion for secrecy, forecast a lot of the Bush administration's key initiatives.
In 2000, asked by moderator Bernard Shaw of CNN about whether a Bush-Cheney White House would move against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Cheney basically said yes. Check it out.
And in 2004, asked by moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS, about the Iraq war, Cheney basically used his "spin" option to counter Edwards' claim that the United States, having alienated traditional allies, was having to shoulder the burden alone. Here's the clip.
This year, said spokeswoman Megan Mitchell, Cheney "looks forward to watching the debate" from the vice presidential home at the Naval Observatory. Maybe even with his feet up.
Twenty-four hours after they climbed over the fence at the National Archives and hoisted a banner that said “DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. ARREST BUSH /CHENEY: WAR CRIMINALS!” five veterans today stood down.
"We're always told to 'write your congressman,' and we have," said Tarak Kauff, a 67-year-old former Army Airborne soldier and painting contractor who gave ground support to the five protesters from Veterans for Peace during their 24-hour fast. "Only this time we brought a letter they couldn't miss."
In an interview, Kauff said:
We've made our point writ large that Bush and Cheney are war criminals and must be arrested and prosecuted. Impeach them if we can, but we're not holding our breath for Congress to act. The kingpins of this criminal administration will be brought to justice, along with many of their lieutenants.
The protesters:
* Elliott Adams: 61, New York, VFP president and a former Army paratrooper in Vietnam.
* Ellen Barfield: 52, Maryland, former Army sergeant, full-time peace and justice advocate.
* Kim Carlyle: 61, North Carolina, mountain homesteader, former Army specialist.
* Diane Wilson: 59, Texas, shrimp boat captain, former Army medic.
* Doug Zachary: 58, Texas, VFP staff member, former Maine lance corporal discharged as a conscientious objector.
Authorities did not make a move to interfere with the protest. See Countdown to Crawford's Tuesday post for a video.
The setting was familiar--the rostrum backed by the massive green marble. So, too, the message.
President Bush was speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, giving his valedictory address. And in tenor and content, it could have been the introductory speech he delivered in a meeting delayed as New York, and the world, recovered from the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Delivering a message of preemption, Bush told the U.N. today:
But, if one sentence in his address--delivered with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran looking on--summarized Bush's message after eight years of occasionally rocky relations with the world body, it was this:
The United Nations and other multilateral organizations are needed more urgently than ever.
Was this the same President Bush, then, who made it clear in his 2002 address that the United States was headed toward a showdown with Saddam Hussein. And that while Washington would appreciate U.N. support, the mission would go forward regardless?
At 7:30 a.m. this morning, they climbed a nine-foot fence to occupy a 35-foot-high ledge at the National Archives.
And five members of the Veterans for Peace organization have been there ever since. They say they're veterans of Vietnam and Iraq, anti-war activists, and soldiers for a cause who plan to fast for 24 hours in protest of the Bush administration.
Seeking the criminal prosecution of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the organization distributed "Citizens' Arrest Warrants" to tourists waiting in line to enter the archives, which houses the key documents of U.S. history: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Bush and Cheney’s serial abuse of the law of the land clearly marks them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. They have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure, authorized torture, and unlawfully detained prisoners. These actions clearly mark them as war criminals. Accountability extends beyond impeachment to prosecution for war crimes even after their terms of office expire....
We are not conducting ourselves in a disorderly manner; our action is well-ordered and well-considered. We are not trespassing; we have come to the home of our Constitution to honor our oath to defend it.
So far, authorities have not interfered with the peaceful protest or the sign.
Yes, there's a sign. A 22-foot-by-x8-foot banner draped across the Constitution Avenue side of the archives says, “DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. ARREST BUSH AND CHENEY: WAR CRIMINALS!”
James Gerstenzang and Johanna Neuman are reporters in The Times' Washington bureau. Between the two of them, they have covered the White House, diplomacy, military affairs, the environment, international economics, trade and Congress. They have both spent time in Crawford, Texas.
