The Associated Press reports today that, as part of its long-fought campaign to gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bush administration is pushing a last-minute regulatory change that would significantly weaken the ESA:

The rules would eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, [by allowing] the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself whether a project would be likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants.

At today’s White House press conference, a reporter asked if the Associated Press had accurately described the proposed regulatory change. Perino responded first by saying she didn’t have the documentation with her, but suggested that the rule change would have little effect because the ESA doesn’t help protect “any species, including ours” anyway:

PERINO: I don’t have [the documentation] with me. I know conceptually what we support. And I know that the Endangered Species Act is a tangled web that doesn’t actually help support any species, including our own. …

Q: (Laughter) So you’re proposing eliminating it?

PERINO: No.

Watch it:

Perino’s wholesale dismissal of the ESA could not be more inaccurate. Indeed, the law is responsible for saving, among other species, the Grey Wolf, the Grizzly Bear, and perhaps most notably our national bird, the American Bald Eagle. While Perino dismissed the rule change as insignificant, a spokesperson for the National Wildlife Federation explained, “These changes take unbiased, professional wildlife biologists out of the equation and put decisions in the hands of political appointees.”

More disturbing, however, is how widespread the last-minute assault on the federal government’s environmental regulatory structure has become. The White House’s other last minute initiatives include:

– Eliminating environmental reviews of fishing regulations. A rule change proposed by National Marine Fisheries Service would repeal a requirement that “environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions.” Instead, the government would “give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.”

– Allowing more emissions from power plants. Over the objections of half of its 10 regional administrators, the Environmental Protection Agency is “finalizing new air-quality rules that would make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other major polluters near national parks and wilderness areas” by weakening the Clean Air Act.

– Opening protected wilderness areas to energy development. Despite being blocked by “federal court and administrative rulings,” the Bureau of Land Management is “reviving plans to sell oil and gas leases in pristine wilderness areas in eastern Utah that have long been protected from development.”

As Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, told the Wall Street Journal, “This administration will stop at nothing to jam through as many reckless proposals as they can before the clock runs out.”

Ever since Iraq’s cabinet “overwhelmingly approved” a proposed security agreement that mandates the full withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, the White House has been engaged in a rhetorical dance — in large part due to President Bush’s long-held opposition to “artificial timetables.”

On Monday, White House press secretary Dana Perino tried to mold the agreement to fit her boss’s view, saying that the withdrawal timeline contained within is only “aspirational” and tied to conditions on the ground remaining favorable. (It’s not). Today, Perino went further, claiming that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) represents a celebration of victory in Iraq:

Q: Can you remind us again why this agreement is not the timetable that the president fought so hard against? [...]

PERINO: This is a mutually agreed to agreement. And that’s what one of the things that is different about an arbitrary date for withdrawal when you say you’re going to leave win or lose. We believe that the conditions are such now that we are able to celebrate the victory that we’ve had so far and establish…a strategic framework agreement.

Watch it:

The firm redeployment deadline is less a declaration of victory and more a reflection of Iraqis’ long-held dissatisfaction with the occupation. For months, Iraqis have been pushing the Bush administration to set a final date. Part of the reason that the final SOFA has such a deadline is not because of “victory,” but because the Iraqis were able to leverage Obama’s election “to pressure the Bush administration to make last-minute concessions.”

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) completed last month suggests that Perino shouldn’t be bringing out the champagne bottles just yet either. The new NIE reportedly warns that “unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year.”

In fact, even CentCom commander Gen. David Petraeus will not use the term “victory” or “winning” regarding Iraq. But more importantly, as the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has noted, there will never be any “victory” there. “Let’s understand,” Duss writes, “there is no plausible scenario in which the decision to invade Iraq can or will ever be vindicated. In the best case, we will have simply averted disaster.”

The Washington Post reported this morning that between March and November, the Bush administration has “burrowed” at least 20 political appointees into career civil service posts, initially depriving President-elect Obama of the chance to install his own appointees in key jobs.

In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino defended the “burrowing,” saying that Obama’s administration should want experienced Bush political appointees in his administration:

PERINO: But there are people in the federal government who — and you should want people who have worked in the administration who think that they might want to make their careers in government. We have a lot of smart people all across the government with a lot of expertise — in the financial sector, in the energy sector, in the environmental sector, the Labor Department, etc.

Watch it:

These people are political ideologues, who likely cannot be counted on to implement Obama’s agenda. Matthew McKeown of Bush’s Interior Department promoted private owners “over the public interest on issues such as grazing and logging” and sued to allow road-building in national forests. Interior’s Robert Comer used “pressure and intimidation” to produce a grazing settlement “with total disregard for the concerns raised by career field personnel.”

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has made similar efforts, replacing political appointees with hand-picked career staff. The Wall Street Journal noted that the effort may be perceived as an attempt by Chertoff “to overextend his influence” into the next administration.

In 2006, the House Oversight Committee found that the executive branch had increased the number of political appointees by 33 percent since the Clinton administration, a move that had ramifications across the federal government.

In today’s White House press briefing, spokesperson Dana Perino struggled to name the President’s major accomplishments in light of tomorrow’s election. “We have learned from mistakes. … So a lot of things have improved,” she said. Perino complained about Bush’s abysmal approval ratings, claiming they are like a high school popularity contest:

And this President was tested by a lot of different issues and I think he’s taken those issues head on, and we can be proud of how we’ve addressed them. Everybody would like to be popular. You can all remember that back in high school, everyone really wanted to be popular. Some of us just weren’t. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have principles and values that you stay true to. And that’s what this President has done, and it’s what he’s taught a lot of us, including me.

Watch it:

During the White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Dana Perino said that “President Bush remains hopeful that John McCain will pull it out tomorrow night and win the election.” Perino added that Bush thinks McCain and other Republicans “have the right ideas when it comes to the economy and national security.” Watch it:

A little over a week ago, McCain told NBC’s Tom Brokaw that he and President Bush “share a common philosophy.”

In today’s White House press briefing, Dana Perino said the White House would “decline to comment” on the recent conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and whether he should resign:

Q: Sen. McCain today said Sen. Stevens should resign. Does the President believe Sen. Stevens should resign?

PERINO: Well given that Sen. Stevens has said that he’s going to fight his conviction and that he’s going to appeal, and that is his right to do, since it’s going to be a matter of ongoing litigation, we’ll decline to comment for now.

Watch it:

After Stevens was indicted, Bush attended an event in Alaska alongside Stevens. “The United States military has had no better support and stronger friend than Sen. Ted Stevens. Thank you for coming, Senator,” Bush said in August.

During yesterday’s House Oversight Committee Hearing on the Financial Crisis, former Treasury Secretary John Snow suggested that the push to expand homeownership was “overdone.” Today, a reporter tried to ask White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about Snow’s comments. Perino, however, had no idea that Snow even testified:

Q: Yesterday, the President’s former Treasury Secretary said that the push for homeownership, the bipartisanship push for homeownership simply went too far. And he went beyond saying that unqualified people –

PERINO: Are you talking about Greenspan, or –

Q: I’m talking about John Snow.

PERINO: John Snow, okay. Was he testifying?

Q: Yes, he testified to the House committee.

PERINO: Okay. I didn’t see his remarks. So hopefully, I’ll be able to answer your question.

Q: Well, maybe you won’t. (Laughter.)

Watch it:

This morning, the McCain campaign released a new ad blasting Joe Biden for suggesting that our enemies will “test the mettle” of the new President. With ominous music, dark overtones, and images of potential conflict, the ad overtly states another potential attack “doesn’t have to happen” if McCain is elected. But McCain’s own allies – Joe Lieberman and the Bush White House – have asserted that it is likely to happen:

Lieberman: “Our enemies will test the new president early.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino: “I think Senator Lieberman, unfortunately, could be right.”

Watch a compilation:

Yesterday on CNN’s late edition, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers Edward Lazear told host Wolf Blitzer, “We are seeing what I think anyone would characterize as a recession in certain parts of the country.” Watch it:

Today, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke echoed Lazear’s sentiments, saying that the nation is facing “a serious slowdown in the economy with serious consequences for the public,” but stopped short of labeling the downturn a recession.

But during a press briefing on Air Force One today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino dismissed Lazear’s and Bernanke’s concerns. She argued instead that there are always “some regions” of the nation that are “hurting”:

PERINO: I think what [Lazear] was saying is that there are parts of our country that are hurting right now. … Economic cycles always have — someone is on the up and someone is on the down, even when you have a country that experienced, as we did, 52 consecutive months of job growth, you end up with some regions of the country not doing as well as others.

Earlier this month, Perino claimed, “I don’t think anybody could tell you right now if we’re in a recession or not.” But former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker said last week, “[T]he economy, I believe, is in recession” and Steve Forbes said similarly that “we’re in a recession, a very serious recession.” Furthermore, a recent poll by the Wall Street Journal found that a majority of American economists believe the U.S. economy is currently in a recession.

Explaining how to stave off further decline, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote bluntly last week, “[W]e need major stimulus programs.” Bernanke said today that planning for such stimulus is “appropriate,” while Perino said only that the president is “open” to the idea.