Our guest blogger is Peter Juul, a national security consultant at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

At last night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson seemed confused as to who sets American policy in Iraq. On similar questions poseed to Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Gibson strongly implied that military commanders, not the president, should set American policy in Iraq. Both Clinton and Obama had to remind Gibson that the president sets strategy and policy, and that the military executes it.

But it shouldn’t be surprising that Gibson’s confused about who sets policy in Iraq – both President Bush and Senator John McCain apparently believe the buck stops with General David Petraeus, commander of American forces in Iraq, and not with the commander-in-chief.

In his April 10 speech on Iraq, President Bush portrayed himself as someone who merely accepts the recommendations of General Petraeus. Bush further abdicated his policy-making responsibility by stating Petraeus would “have all the time he needs.” As he made clear in an address to the nation seven months earlier, Bush views his role as one of supporting Petraeus, not acting as commander-in-chief.

John McCain has made clear he would cede his authority as commander-in-chief to Petraeus. At the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked if he would divert troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. His reply: “I would not do that unless General Petraeus said that the situation called for it.” McCain, who has touted his national security credentials on the campaign trail, has preemptively avoided the responsibility for making hard strategic choices about America’s broader national security strategy.

For his part, General Petraeus has not made such far-reaching claims for his own authority. He correctly noted in his Congressional testimony that questions of overall American strategy and policy are outside his bailiwick as commander of American forces in Iraq. As he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I’ve been sort of focused on another task.”

Both President Bush and Senator McCain have sought to hide their unpopular Iraq policy behind the four stars of General Petraeus. They have passed the buck on their real and potential responsibilities to set American strategy as commander-in-chief.

ABC News recently revealed that President Bush’s most senior advisers convened in 2002 and approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics. Days later, Bush told ABC he “approved” of the tactics.

Questions have been raised as to whether senior officials, including Bush, could be prosecuted for approving torture. ThinkProgress discussed the issue with The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau and Jeffrey Rosen, law professor at George Washington University. Lichtblau won the Pullitzer Prize for his December 2005 story breaking the news that Bush was illegally spying on Americans after 9/11. As legal affairs editor of The New Republic, Rosen is considered “the nation’s most widely read and influential legal commentator.”

Discussing the potential for criminal prosecution against senior advisers, Lichtblau argued that a more probable scenario is that low-level officers who executed the interrogation orders face prosecution:

I certainly don’t think it’s likely that you would see international war crimes or, even in a Democratic administration, criminal prosecutions. … I think more likely, if you’re looking at criminal action, the more likely scenario is against the low level case officers who may have actually been carrying out interrogations and using severe interrogation tactics bordering on torture. … If that could be established or of course we have now the destruction of the CIA tapes, and that cover-up could very well lead to, conceivably, I should say, lead to criminal action if it were found that that were done to withhold evidence from the courts or 9/11 Commission.

Rosen came to similar conclusions, but urged Congress to more strongly assert its constitutional oversight role to “haul” Vice President Cheney and chief of Staff David Addington to testify:

Congressional oversight, congressional hearings, censure, political pressure. … The time is ticking away, and they have the ability to haul these people up and ask Cheney and Addington what they were thinking when they endorsed these programs. That’s the appropriate remedy — not some hope of criminal prosecution.

Watch it:

Observing Congress’s aggressive and effective oversight during the U.S. Attorney scandal, Rosen argued that the ongoing debate over FISA and surveillance is lacking similar oversight, as Congress has not firmly drawn the line in the sand:

When it comes to oversight of FISA, both to refining the law in ways that would protect liberty and security and also holding Addington and Cheney accountable for having arguably broken it, they have not done so. … By contrast, Democrats are pretty undecided about exactly where the line should be on FISA and in fact many of them seem inclined to give the Administration far more than many in the civil liberties community think is appropriate.

Lichtblau has published a book, Bush’s Law: The Remaking Of American Justice, which details the development of the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and the White House’s attempts to thwart Lichtblau along the way. Read an excerpt here.

The White House has proposed a $108 billion emergency-spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Frustrated that U.S. taxpayers continue to pay for the wars while domestic needs go unmet, lawmakers have attempted to attach spending for domestic programs to the bill. But Bush has balked, promising to veto any such bills.

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing yesterday, White House budget director Jim Nussle ironically blasted lawmakers for “sky-is-the-limit mind-set” on the spending bill. One of the most combative moments came when Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) chastised Nussle for his “snarky, scolding, dismissive” responses to the senators and the Bush administration’s attitude toward funding the nation’s law enforcement officers:

Your testimony has been disappointing in both tone and substance. I personally take offense at the snarky, scolding, dismissive way that this testimony represents. And I think it’s inappropriate. [...]

This is an ideological commentary, not the testimony of OMB. So since you’re pugnacious, guess what? I’m going to be pretty pugnacious, too, only my pugnaciousness is not going to be directed at the Congress. It’s going to be pugnacious about the people I represent. [...]

Number one, let’s go to safety and security. We have funded the surge of Baghdad, but we have not funded the surge of violent crime in Baltimore, Biloxi, or other places. You have zeroed out the COPS program. You have zeroed out the Byrne grant.

Watch it:

Bush has requested $603 million to train Iraqi police. But at the same time, his FY 2009 budget includes a 61 percent cut for state and local law enforcement programs at the Justice Department.

Transcript: Read more