I’m not sure why no one brings this up. The president keeps saying that the Democrats are substituting their judgment for that of the generals on the ground. But this is an easily rebutted statement. The entire story here is that the president substituted his judgement for that of the generals on the ground. Remember, they didn’t think the surge was a good idea. So what happened? He fired them. That’s why Gen. Petraeus is there. The president looked around until he could find a general willing to agree with him. And when he did he put him in charge. This isn’t about the ‘generals on the ground’. It’s about President Bush, whose judgment has been catastrophically abysmal from the start. Who can deny that?

The president just refused to answer the question of what role Bush ‘loyalty’ should play in hiring and firing US Attorneys. He didn’t allow follow up. No answer.

The Democrats need a more frontal response to the lies the president is now telling about Iraq funding. The president, of course, wants to force this into a discussion about funding for soldiers — readiness, health care, armaments, etc. That’s funny given the president’s atrocious record on these issues. But whatever. He’s a liar. What’s new? But here’s the key. The public overwhelmingly supports a timeline for leaving Iraq. Overwhelmingly. Every poll shows this. For the first time the Congress has passed a law to do just that — to put a time limit on our presence in Iraq. So the Democrats are on the side of a timeline for withdrawal (very popular) and the president is for staying in Iraq forever (not popular). And the president says he’s going to veto that bill. The president is vetoing the Iraq timeline bill. Why? Because he supports staying there forever. Public wants a timeline. Democrats pass the law. President vetoes the law. Any Democrat is a fool who doesn’t start every comment on this story with, “The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq.” They have to say it over and over and over. It’s accurate. It cuts politically. And to overcome the president’s ability to spread lies about this it has to be said over and over and over. So who’s going to say this more clearly?

Late Update: TPM Reader JC responds …

Josh,

You said “Any Democrat is a fool who doesn’t start every comment on this story with, ‘The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq.'” I disagree. I would say that any democrate is a fool who doesn’t start every comment on the story with, “The president is vetoing the bill to provide money for soldiers — readiness, health care, armaments, etc and a timeline to get out of Iraq.”

Thanks,

JC

I don’t disagree with this. I’d say the two points can be made in unison since they are two sides of one coin. The president is vetoing this money bill because it sets a timeline. And he wants to stay in Iraq forever which almost no one left in America agrees with. The point is, don’t hang back and let the president’s lies hold the stage. At the moment that’s what I’m seeing.

Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos tries to get the case against (alleged) Duke Cunningham briber, Brent Wilkes, tossed by attacking Carol Lam.

Let’s remember on this one — Duke and Mitchell Wade have already been sent to jail or pled guilty. The big fish, Wilkes, is still out free. And his lawyer may use the White House’s interference in the Lam investigation as the wedge to help his guy beat the rap entirely.

And what about those pictures of Wilkes hanging out with the Vice President?

Here’s the key passage in the piece (emphasis added) …

Geragos contended that Lam wanted the indictments to happen before she was forced from office by the Bush administration. But Lam was meeting resistance from bosses in the Justice Department, who had rejected drafts of indictments against Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, saying they needed revisions.

Lam, Geragos theorized, wanted to force reluctant officials to go along with her plans by leaking details of the indictments before they were officially released. Geragos has said he learned about indictments from reporters.

“These indictments as to my client were returned hours before Ms. Lam was to exit. . . . If it did come back to Carol Lam, it would strike me as the most compelling reason for dismissal,” Geragos told the court.

From separate reporting, I know this to be true: the DOJ was holding up the indictments. Why was that? And in that context what does her subsequent dismissal tell us? Let’s not be fooled on this one. The White House and the politicals at the DOJ were and are doing everything it can to spring Wilkes and Foggo.

Remember, Mitchell Wade really only gets you to Duke Cunningham, the little-lamented hapless federal inmate. Wilkes was tied in with DeLay, Cheney, Doolittle, the whole rotten crew. And he skates.

Kerry: McCain approached me about getting on the 2004 Dem ticket.

“I hope we can take this opportunity to put aside stereotypes and identify some common ground.” DLC Chair Harold Ford, Jr., blogging this week at TPMCafe, calls for a truce. If the comments are any indication, it’ll be an uphill battle.

Bush just keeps on asserting that public opinion is with him on Iraq.

Did Alberto Gonzales lie to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) when he promised to put Karl Rove’s former aide up for Senate confirmation? All indications are that he did.

It’s just one line of questioning that’s sure to make Gonzales’ April 17 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing a memorable one.

Bizarre.

In its coverage of Bush’s presser today The New York Times fails to report Bush’s acknowledgment that Republican House members visited Syria. Instead, the paper only reports Bush’s criticism of Pelosi’s trip.

I knew as a general matter that the White House was just bamboozling the press with this Pelosi-in-Syria malarkey since plenty of Republicans from Congress have recently gone there too. But I didn’t know the precise details. In addition to recent trips by other Congressional Republicans there’s actually a GOP House delegation in Syria right now, according to ThinkProgress. And in March a senior State Department official held talks in Damascus about flow of Iraqi refugees.

So which member of the White House press corps or which cable network host has directly asked an administration official why they’re only concerned when prominent Democrats visit Damascus and not Republicans? Wolf Blitzer, whatever hack they’ve got on the air at the moment on Fox, MSNBC? Whichever. Someone let me know when someone puts a question like this directly to an administration official.

Late Update: Ask and ye shall receive. Sometimes even before you asked. From today’s White House briefing …

Q Thanks. The Speaker said in Beirut today that — first of all, she’s criticizing the White House for what she says is ignoring other Republican lawmakers who have made trips to Syria in recent days. And, also, she said she thinks it’s a good idea to establish facts and to try to build confidence with Syria. Why is that not a good idea? And how is that just a photo op?

MS. PERINO: Let me unpack that a little bit. First of all, last week when I was asked about her specific trip, I said in my comments that, in general, we discourage members from going to the region. And that is true. In fact, I looked back, when Tony Snow was asked at this podium months ago, when Senator Nelson made a similar trip, he said the same, that this was a blanket policy — but I was asked a specific question about Speaker Pelosi, which is why I said that.

Speaker Pelosi is a high-ranking United States official. Nothing changes — nothing has changed in Syria’s behavior over the years when high-ranking U.S. officials go to see them. We sent Secretary Powell early on; the behavior doesn’t change. Syria uses these opportunities to flaunt photo opportunities around its country and around the region and around the world, to say that they aren’t isolated, that they don’t need to change their behavior, and it alleviates the pressure that we are trying to put on them to change their behavior.

And by changing their behavior I mean as in, stop undermining the democratically elected government of Lebanon; stop allowing foreign fighters to flow from Syria into Iraq, in which they are then killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqis and Iraqi soldiers. They are state sponsors of terrorism, of both Hezbollah and Hamas, and they support Palestinian terrorism.

And so that was the reason that we said that we discouraged her from going. But that policy applies to all. So I think that maybe she wasn’t able to see my exact comments, so I won’t judge her on that. But the policy applies everywhere.

…

Q I want to clarify on the — you’re saying it was a bad idea, then, for Speaker Pelosi to go for all these various reasons to Syria. It’s a bad idea, then, for Jim Baker to have gone, a bad idea for Frank Wolf to go as well, right?

MS. PERINO: We think that it is not a good idea for U.S. officials to go and meet with Assad, because it alleviates that pressure, and also because meetings haven’t produced anything. They’ve been meeting just to meet, and he doesn’t change his behavior. In fact, he uses those meetings as a reason to say that he doesn’t need to do anything.

Q When you don’t meet with him, he doesn’t change his behavior either.

MS. PERINO: Well, we’ll see.

Unless I’m a lot more dense than I think, neither of those was an answer. So it stands: Republicans visiting Damascus, Okay. Democrats, visiting, Hurts America.

As Greg notes here, the president said today that he doesn’t like Republicans or Democrats visiting Syria. But he only gets his press office to make a stink when it’s a Democrat.

Enough on this one. A bunch of reporters got played on this one. And now they’re too embarrassed to retrace their steps.