The White House and former Vice President Dick Cheney are at war again – this time over the real war in Afghanistan.

The White House Thursday shot back at Cheney assertion that Obama is “dithering” while debating a quest for more troops in Afghanistan, countering that the Bush-Cheney administration sat on a similar request for 8 months without acting.

"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public,” Gibbs said.

“I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously," he added in a veiled reference to the Bush administrations decision to go to war in Iraq on the false assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Moreover, Gibbs said, it was really Former President George W. Bush and Cheney who dithered, sitting on a request for more troops for more than 8 months without granting it.

"I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan, even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months, a resource request filled by President Obama in March,” Gibbs said.

“I find it interesting that he's blaming us for something that he didn't see fit to do over, best I can tell, seven years of a war in Afghanistan," he added.

Gibbs was reacting to Cheney’s charge in a Wednesday night speech that Obama is dragging his feet in weighing a new strategy for Afghanistan.

"The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger," Cheney said. “It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."

"Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries," Cheney said.

The former vice president also disputed the suggestion from Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the new administration had to start from scratch on Afghanistan policy. Cheney said the outgoing administration briefed the Obama team during the transition.

“They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt," Cheney said.

Gibbs noted that it was Obama, not Bush or Cheney, who ecided to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama ordered 21,000 more troops in March. Obama now is weighing a request for more troops.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., will remain chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and though he's staying put, his decision Wednesday set in motion several changes.

Dodd could have succeeded his close friend, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who died last month, as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions panel. Dodd had presided in Kennedy's absence this year, shepherding a health care overhaul plan through the committee.

But he chose to remain at banking, explaining he was eager to work on a financial industry reform bill. "We've done already a lot of work on that committee, but obviously the major reform efforts of financial regulation are in front of us. I want to get that job done," he told reporters.

Dodd faces a tough re-election in 2010, and opponents have criticized his work on the committee, saying he did not aggressively challenge the financial industry as the economy teetered.

Dodd responded Thursday. He noted he took over the committee in 2007, and "these issues didn't spring up magically in 2007," but were created by years of Bush administration policies.

Replacing Kennedy at the health committee will be Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. Because Harkin chairs the agriculture committee, he'll give up that post to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

Jenna Bush Hager, one of former President George W. Bush’s daughters, is joing NBC’s Today program as a contributing correspondent.

The release from NBC:

“Jenna Bush Hager has been named Contributing Correspondent for NBC News' "Today."  The announcement was made by "Today" Executive Producer, Jim Bell and is effective September 14.  Hager will be based in Washington, DC and will cover a variety of human interest and feature stories for America's number-one morning news program. 
 
"Jenna is a terrific addition to the 'Today' team," said Bell. "In previous appearances, she displayed a natural ability to communicate and connect. She has great passion about important subjects, especially education and literacy, and we look forward to having her bring her unique perspective to 'Today.'"
 
Hager is a two-time New York Times bestselling author, and she serves as the Young Leadership Ambassador & Chair for UNICEF's Next Generation committee, which aims to save, protect and improve the lives of children around the world.  Hager is currently a reading resource teacher at a public school in Baltimore, Maryland, where she will continue to work while at the "Today" show. 
 
Hager began her career as an elementary school teacher in 2005 in Washington, D.C.  Then, from September 2006 to May 2007, she embarked on an internship with UNICEF, which took her through Latin America and the Caribbean documenting the lives of children in need. 
 
Based on her work with UNICEF, Hager's first book, ANA'S STORY: A Journey of Hope, is both the true story of a 17-year-old single mother living with HIV in Latin America, and a call to action for kids of all ages to make a difference in the fight against poverty, abuse, and HIV/AIDS.  Since the book's publication, Hager has given over 50 speeches at libraries, schools and bookstores across the country to share the inspirational story of Ana and raise awareness about programs that benefit children in need. 
 
Hager's second book, READ ALL ABOUT IT!, is a picture book co-written with her mother, Mrs. Laura Bush.  The educational children's book was inspired by Hager and her mother's mutual love of reading and teaching.  Hager has also written articles for The New York Times and CosmoGIRL!
 
Hager graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 2004 with a degree in English.”

A couple of weeks ago, the United States, without explanation, released five Iranian diplomats that the U.S. military had been holding in Iraq for more than two years. The official statement offered nothing about why. What U.S. officials would say privately is that the U.S. military really didn't want to let the Iranians go.

That leaves you with the suggestion that there was good reason to hold the Iranians in the first place, but the new Status of Forces Agreement required that we turn them over to the Iraqis, who let them go. Now, from an unexpected source, comes word that in fact there wasn't any good reason for holding them in the first place.

Barbara Slavin of The Washington Times, the capital's conservative news organ, reported last week that the U.S. actually had no evidence that the Iranians had been involved in attacks on U.S. forces. The Iranians were essentially hostages, she wrote, held as potential "leverage."

Slavin, who used to cover the State Department for USA Today and wrote a book on Iran (Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation), cited two unnamed sources in her report, one a current official and the other a former official. Slavin's report focused on the three Iranians who American officials had said were member the Quds Force. She quoted a current White House official as sticking up for the original version of why they were held but also acknowledging that he didn't know of any specific anti-U.S. actions the three had been involved in.

Actually, her story sounded a lot like what Iraqi officials were saying at the time. To quote then and now Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the U.S. raids that led to the detentions were "very, very embarrassing."

But Slavin's account really ticked off Gen. David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. forces in Iraq when the Iranians were arrested and happened to be in Washington the morning Slavin's piece appeared.

 Petraeus and Slavin were both at a conference on Iran sponsored by the U.S. Central Command, which Petraeus now heads, and the Brookings Institution. According to The Washington Post's Al Kamen, Petraeus was livid and gave Slavin a very public dressing down, even accusing her of "irresponsible journalism." Kamen described her as "unflappable."

Today, it was Slavin's turn. In a followup that the Times didn't exactly trumpet (Page A9 in print) Slavin quotes former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker as saying he knows of no evidence that links the three Iranian Quds Force officials to specific acts against U.S.forces. "I was not aware of any specific information linking (the three Iranians) to specific acts against coalition personnel," was the precise quote.

That is an amazing statement coming from Crocker. Petraeus and Crocker were the yin and yang of Bush administration Iraq policy, the Abbott and Costello, the Bogart and Bacall, or, for the younger set, Harold and Kumar, so tightly spooned that an assessment of embassy operations released today made a special point of noting that "the relationship between the embassy and the military is remarkably good. Ambassador Crocker and the military commanders insisted on 'one team, one mission,'and their subordinates followed suit." (Another part of that report was the finding that the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad is way overstaffed.)

The two jogged together every Sunday, according to this story by McClatchy's Leila Fadel, and met at least five other times a week to mull over events in the country.

Such tight cooperation surely meant Crocker and Petraeus shared information on why the Iranians had been picked up — especially since Crocker actually met with the Iranian ambassador five months after the three had been seized.

But maybe there wasn't all that much to share. As Foreign Minister Zebari told Slavin for today's story: "Really, they were doing some consular work."

As in Mother England. Thursday morning, Bermuda's premier, Ewart Brown, made the surprising announcement that four Uighur detainees from the American prison camp at Guantanamo had been resettled in the tourist mecca in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

The problem, reports Bermuda's only newspaper, the Royal Gazette, is that Brown forgot to tell the island's governor, the royally appointed official who is London's authority on the island. Bermuda isn't really an independent state, but a self-governoring overseas territory of the United Kingdom. And while Bermudans are at pains to point out that they approve their own laws and UK laws don't apply, the UK is supposed to decide Bermuda's foreign policy.

Which is why the island's governor, Sir Richard Gozney, thinks he should have been told before Bermuda agreed to take in the Uighurs, who'd been ordered freed last year by a U.S. district court judge and had grown tired of Guantanamo.

"The Government of Bermuda should have consulted with us because it carries with it foreign policy ground areas and security issues," Gozney is quoted as saying in the Gazette.

Brown disagrees, telling CNN Thursday afternoon that the matter is strictly an immigration one, which falls within local Bermuda officials' authority. He called the decision a "humanitarian one."

Brown acknowledged that he let Gozney know what was going on "rather late" -- apparently after the four Uighurs were already aboard a chartered flight from Guantanamo.

Why exactly wasn't clear. Brown told the Gazette the Uighur asylum had been in the works for a month.

As for the Obama administration, it expressed gratitude for the Bermudan hospitality and didn't address the issue of whether maybe some kind of headsup was owed to London.

And the Uighurs, who've been in Guantanamo for seven years? Their mental health appears fine, reports the Gazette, and they could barely contain their enthusiasm for moving to Bermuda during the flight from Guantanamo.

Still awaited is word that the 13 remaining Guantanamo Uighurs have made it to the Pacific island of Palau, which announced Wednesday it was taking all 17.

Apparently, no headsup for Palau, either.

Well this is interesting.

A new Gallup poll finds that former Vice President Dick Cheney is marginally more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The survey found that 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Cheney, who has launched a high profile media blitz to defend the Bush-Cheney administration and rip the Obama administration.

That's a bit better than the 34 percent who have a favorable opinion of Pelosi, who's been caught in a mess trying to explain what she knew about harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists, and why she didn't object.

But Cheney's edge is hardly a bragging point, as both have pretty low favorable ratings.

Moreover, Cheney also has a higher unfavorable rating, as 54 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of him while 50 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Pelosi.

The reason Cheney has more of both: he's better known and more people have an opinion of him than of Pelosi.

Overall, the net negative rating is similar - 17 percentage points and 16 for the Speaker.

This video by a Stanford student has been around for a couple of days, but if you haven't watched it's well worth the trouble.

Hear Rice's pitch rise as she defends the harsh interrogation authorized under Bush. Hear her assert that, "with all due respect," Nazi Germany was less of a threat than al Qaida (start at 3 minutes 30 seconds).

Her student interrogator does pretty well pointing out the irrelevancy of some of what she says (4'10"). And she does a great job of treating us to a topsy-turvy view of who deprived the Guantanamo detainees of their due process rights (from about 4'50" to 5'26"). OK, no suspense, it was the Supreme Court. No wonder the student can't answer.

But the best line is her assertion that whatever happened at Guantanamo couldn't have been torture because President Bush authorized it: "By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture" (5'36" to 6'26").

Maybe she should see the movie Frost/Nixon: "When the president does it, it's not illegal."

Here're some related links:

Red Cross Report

Document: Cheney, Rice signed off on interrogation techniques

Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link

CIA official: No proof harsh techniques stopped terror attacks on America

That's the finding of a new Gallup poll.

Fifty-one percent of Americans favor an investigation into the use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects during the Bush administration. Forty-two percent oppose an investigation.

But that's balanced out by the finding that 55 percent believe in retrospect that the harsh interrogation techniques were justified, while only 36 percent say they were not.

Gallup noted that the 51 percent is a fairly low percentage, given that levels of support for other probes of government malfeasance have been in the 60s and 70s. Republicans, of course, oppose an investigation, Democrats favor one and independents are evenly divided.

One other finding: if there's an investigation, the vast majority believe the last group to conduct it should be Congress.

Read the poll results

Just hours after saying he would never prosecute CIA officers for harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists, President Barack Obama opened the door Tuesday to prosecuting the Bush administration officials who OK’d the techniques.

Obama said it’s up to Attorney General Eric Holder – who works for him – to decide whether Bush administration lawyers should be charged with war crimes or any other offense for writing the memo’s approving of such techniques as water boarding.

"I do worry that this gets so politicized that it hampers our ability to function effectively," he said when asked about a possible independent investigation.

“If and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period,” he added about a possible Congressional inquiry, “it could be done in a bipartisan fashion outside of the typical process that would break down along party lines."

He stressed that “I’m not suggesting that it should be done." But he added that if there were an investigation, it would be "very important” for the American people to see it as an effort to find the truth and not political benefit for one party.

Obama spoke as the liberal group moveon.org launched a campaign to gather signatures on petitions urging Holder to appoint a special prosecutor.

“On Thursday, President Obama released memos that describe, in horrific detail, the torture techniques authorized by the Bush administration. The memos make clear that top Bush officials didn't just condone torture, they encouraged it,” the group said in an email to supporters.

“So far there's been no accountability for the architects of Bush's torture program — the top officials who justified keeping detainees awake for 11 days straight, water boarding them repeatedly, and forcing prisoners into coffin-like boxes with insects.

“We need real consequences for those responsible — it's the only way to keep this from happening again. Attorney General Holder can open an investigation into the torture program — but he most likely won't unless people everywhere speak up and demand it.”

On Monday, former Vice President Dick Cheney argued that the interrogations were productive and necessary to stop terrorist attacks. He urged the Obama administration to declassify and release additional memos that he said document the helpful information drawn out in the interrogations.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says he’s asked the CIA to declassify more documents about the interrogation of suspected terrorists beyond those released by the Obama administration - documents he says will show the Bush administration did get results with its techniques.

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney says in an interview with Fox News to be aired Monday evening.

"I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney says in the interview, taped at his home in McLean, Virginia not far from CIA headquarters.

“I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

The interview will air on the Hannity program at 9 pm EDT.