General knowledge By Trudy Rubin

Retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, a three-star Marine who was the top Pentagon operations officer before the invasion, wrote last week that the decision to invade Iraq “was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results.”

[mjh: “swagger” is what folks in Texas call “walking like a jackass”]

Bush rejects calls to replace secretary
By Tom Raum, Associated Press

Pulling rank, President Bush yesterday rebuffed recommendations from a growing number of retired generals that he replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “He has my full support,” said the commander in chief.

I like David Brooks’ interpretation that Bush will never fire Rumsfeld because Bush has been involved in every misstep and can’t blame or punish Rumsfeld for mistakes Bush supported completely. mjh

Bush Speaks Out for Rumsfeld By Peter Baker and Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writers

Bush and his advisers [believe] that attacks on Rumsfeld by prominent former military commanders strike at the heart of his presidency. As Bush’s choice to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld serves as his proxy, and most of the judgments that have come under fire were shared by the president and Vice President Cheney as well. …

The defense of Rumsfeld in effect was the first act of new White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, who took over as Andrew H. Card Jr. left the West Wing yesterday afternoon for the final time as Bush’s top aide. …

A poll of 944 troops serving in Iraq released by Zogby International and LeMoyne College did not ask about Rumsfeld but found that 72 percent think the United States should withdraw within a year and more than a quarter think it should leave immediately.

Poll Finds Bush Job Rating at New Low By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, Washington Post Staff Writers

Political reversals at home and continued bad news from Iraq have dragged President Bush’s standing with the public to a new low, at the same time that Republican fortunes on Capitol Hill also are deteriorating, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapprove of his performance.

With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush’s political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job — the lowest level of support in nine years. …

Bush’s job approval rating has remained below 50 percent for nearly a year. Perhaps more ominous for the president, 47 percent in the latest poll say they “strongly” disapprove of Bush’s handling of the presidency — more than double the 20 percent who strongly approve. It marked the second straight month that the proportion of Americans intensely critical of the president was larger than his overall job approval rating. In comparison, the percentage who strongly disapproved of President Bill Clinton on that measure never exceeded 33 percent in Post-ABC News polls. …

[M]ore than four in 10 Americans — 45 percent — favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found.

All the President’s Leaks By E. J. Dionne Jr.

What’s amazing about the defenses offered for President Bush in the Valerie Plame leak investigation is that they deal with absolutely everything except the central issue: Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections? …

In its issue of Oct. 13, 2003, Time magazine quoted Bush as saying: “Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.” Then the magazine’s writers made an observation that turns out to be prescient: “Bush,” they wrote, “seemed to emphasize those last two words as if hanging on to a legal life preserver in choppy seas.”

The key words here are classified information. Did Bush at the time he made that statement know perfectly well that Cheney and Libby were involved with the leak, but that it didn’t involve “classified information” because the president himself had authorized them to act? Talk about a legalistic defense.

Could it be that Bush — heading into what he knew would be a difficult election — was creating the impression of wanting the full story out when he already knew what most of the story was?

Which leads to another question: What exactly did Attorney General John Ashcroft know when he recused himself from the leak investigation? Did he know the investigation was getting dangerously close to Bush, Cheney, Libby and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove?

Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S. By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States — a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.