Bush addresses House Democrats' retreat tomorrow and does a limited Q+A session.

Despite today's big report on the causes of climate change being man-made, tea-leaf readers see few signs of Bush Administration policy changing when it comes to global warming. 

Paulson also tells Bloomberg that "Republicans and Democrats aren't as far apart on overhauling Social Security as their public posturing might suggest, and insisted all options are on the table."  

New Republican National Committee co- chair and Sen. Mel Martinez tells the Washington Times that he wants "Congress to pass an immigration bill this year that will include a guest-worker program with 'earned citizenship' requirements for illegal aliens…  Asked what he would consider the ideal immigration bill, Mr. Martinez said he was working with Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and other conservative Republicans on a compromise that would call for a temporary-worker system along the lines that President Bush has proposed." 

Two more Cuban-American members of Congress from Florida are also urging Congress and Bush to take on immigration reform.  Republican Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart held a newser yesterday to "renew pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation that would include a temporary guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants." 

The Senate voted 94-3 yesterday "to boost the federal minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 an hour over two years, but packaged the increase with small business tax cuts and limits on corporate pay that could complicate its path to become law."  A hike "would be one of the first major legislative successes of the new Democratic-controlled Congress."  Still: "The measure presents a challenge to Democrats who must navigate between the demands of labor and other interest groups and the realities of the Senate, where Republicans hold 49 of 100 votes." 

The San Francisco Chronicle suggests the news that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had an affair with his campaign manager's wife could possibly damage Speaker Nancy Pelosi because it's an indictment of "San Francisco values."  "'The only person who gets hurt more than Gavin Newsom is… Pelosi,' says Dan Schnur, a GOP strategist… As Fox News and other national cable outlets seized on the scandal Thursday, Schnur said the story will resonate among conservative talk outlets precisely because Pelosi 'spent the last 30 days surrounding herself with every child on the Eastern seaboard to put to rest the discussion of "San Francisco values." 

As promised above, here are the candidates' and prospective candidates' positions on the war:

BIDEN: Voted for the war resolution, but has since consistently opposed the management of the war.  Supports the decentralization of Iraq (giving Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds equal stakes) and thinks the United States should involve neighboring countries in rebuilding the country.  Supports a phased redeployment by the end of this year.  Opposes Bush's troop increase, but doesn't support cutting the funding to stop it.

CLARK: Part of his appeal during his 2004 presidential bid was that he opposed the war -- but he strangely told press during the first days of his campaign that he would have voted for the resolution authorizing it.  Opposes Bush's call for sending more troops to Iraq, but also opposes a timetable for withdrawal, saying that it could result in an emboldened Iran and weaken stability in the Middle East.  Wants a dialogue with other countries in the region, especially Iran and Syria.

CLINTON: Voted for the war resolution and says it was not a mistake (although she now says "if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted for it").  Opposes Bush's call for a troop increase, but doesn't support cutting the funding to stop it.  After returning from Iraq and Afghanistan last month, called for capping the number of troops in Iraq, cutting funding to the Iraqis if they don't meet certain benchmarks, and increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan.  But continues to oppose setting a "date certain" to begin bringing troops home from Iraq.

DODD: Voted for the war resolution but has since said he would have voted differently.  Has introduced legislation to cap troop levels at 130,000 and opposes Bush's troop increase.  Doesn't support setting a definitive date for withdrawal, but has argued for a "meaningful de-escalation" of US forces, and says that in the meantime, the military should focus on training Iraqi forces.  Opposes the Warner resolution against Bush's troop increase because it does not include a cut in funding.

EDWARDS: Voted for the Iraq war resolution, and said he didn't regret the vote during his 2004 campaign, then penned a Washington Post op-ed in November 2005 saying his vote was wrong.  Opposes Bush's troop increase and -- unlike Clinton and Obama -- supports cutting off the funding to pay for the increase.  Calls for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 US troops to send the message that the Iraqi people must begin to take responsibility for their country.

GRAVEL: Has questioned the Iraq war since 2002.  Supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and feels the Administration misrepresented its argument for going to war.

KUCINICH: Was against the war from the start, and has maintained that opposition ever since.  Doesn't support Bush's increase in troops and favors cutting off congressional funding to stop it.  Wants to end the war now.  "I'm the only one who not only has voted against authorization, but voted against each and every appropriation that has kept us there."

OBAMA: Has consistently opposed the war and said he would have voted against it had he been in the Senate at the time.  At one point, said he was against a phased withdrawal, arguing it would exacerbate the situation there.  But has modified that position: Advocates capping troop levels and implementing a phased withdrawal starting in May -- with all troops coming home by spring of 2008.  Blasted Bush for his troop increase, but doesn't support cutting off funds to stop it.

RICHARDSON: Wasn't in Congress when the Iraq war was being debated, but supported Bush's military objectives there.  Since then, however, has become much more anti-war.  Opposes Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq and favors using Congress' power of the purse to stop it.  In addition, wants a phased withdrawal from Iraq this year; engagement with Syria, Iran, and other neighbors; and more reconstruction aid to help Iraq and its fledgling government.

VILSACK: Has declined to answer whether he would have voted for the war (he was governor of Iowa at the time), but is anti-war now.  Opposes Bush's troop increase and wants Congress to block funding for it.  Has encouraged state legislatures to denounce Bush's plan, as he did during his farewell speech as governor.  Differs with Clinton and Obama on their call for capping the number of troops in Iraq, saying it's "the continuation of a failed policy."  Instead, is pushing for the removal of troops from Iraq's central and southern regions, while leaving some in the North along the Iranian border.

Biden ran more damage control yesterday afternoon, appearing on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show to do further penance for his comment that Obama is "clean" and "articulate," reports NBC's Carrie Dann.  On the show, Biden genuflected to his host -- whom Obama's carefully crafted response had painted as the victim of a slight on Biden's part.  "The truth of the matter," Biden told Sharpton, "is you're one of the most articulate people in the country."  On the show, the already embattled Senator was regretful about the flap that marred his 2008 debut, but firmly added near the end of the interview, "I am yielding to no one -- black or white, or any other background -- competing for the African-American vote."

Some South Carolina Democrats -- including some African-Americans -- say that Biden's comment about Obama will do little to harm his chances in the state. 

The New York Times is the latest to look at why some African-American voters aren't fully behind Obama.  One reason: Some don't think he's truly a black American.  "'I've got nothing but love for the brother, but we don't have anything in common,' said [the essayist Debra] Dickerson, who wrote recently about Mr. Obama in Salon, the online magazine.  'His father was African.  His mother was a white woman…  He married black.  He acts black.  But there's a lot of distance between black Africans and African-Americans.'"  

The Times also says that Clinton's campaign, as part of its effort to raise $75 million in 2007, is asking donors to raise at least $1 million to make it to the top echelon of fundraisers.  

Vilsack has signed on as a paid consultant on renewable energy for at least two years with one of Iowa's largest utilities, reports the Des Moines Register.  The company, MidAmerican Energy Co., has made several contributions to Vilsack's coffers, but Vilsack says he doesn't see a conflict of interest in that the company will not influence him on any policy decisions. 

In his latest National Journal column, NBC political analyst Charlie Cook looks at the frontrunners in the GOP field, noting that they all have obstacles to overcome in order to win their party's nomination.  "For both McCain and Romney, the biggest hurdle may be convincing their party's conservative base that nothing disqualifies them.  Giuliani ought to realize that's one hurdle he could never clear."

Seemingly on cue, The Politico reports that the co-host of an upcoming fundraiser for Giuliani is a former top aide of his with whom Giuliani's first wife publicly accused him of having an affair.  Giuliani and the aide consistently denied the charge.  "The decision to involve her in the Giuliani campaign is consistent with an apparent decision not to make much effort (which would probably be fruitless anyway) to conceal a personal life that some Republicans think will damage him."  

The New York Post reports that the state GOP has lined up McCain "to star at a major party fund-raiser alongside [Giuliani], a move some see as a diss of the former mayor in his home state.  Some political watchers and supporters of Giuliani … saw it as a strange move, since it gives McCain a platform and forces Giuliani to share the spotlight with his main primary challenger on his home turf." 

The Washington Times says a February 5 California primary -- or more specifically, a partial early primary involving a specified portion of delegates -- could wind up hurting McCain's chances.  McCain "is expected to benefit from the tacit support and perhaps formal endorsement of [Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger.  But many Republican leaders in the state -- who would vote in the February convention... -- oppose Mr. McCain."  

USA Today profiles Rep. Duncan Hunter, who's hoping to sell himself as "the conservative's conservative." 

From NBC's Ken Strickland
The original non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's new Iraq strategy -- crafted by Senator's Biden, Hagel, Levin, and passed by the Foreign Relations Committee -- is now essentially off the table. Today, all three original sponsors have thrown their support behind a revised, less controversial resolution offered last night by Republican Sen. John Warner. 

This melds the two bipartisan camps opposing the troop increase into one, thereby increasing the likelihood that the resolution will have majority bipartisan support when it comes to a vote. But it's still unclear if it can drawn the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster from White House republicans (and Joe Lieberman.)

On the Senate floor this morning, Biden says the "bottom line" of the two measures was the same: don't put US troops in the middle of a civil war. And he left open the possibility of stronger action later. "If the president does not listen to a majority of Congress... we'll have to look to other ways to change his policy."

Republican co-sponsors are Warner, Collins, Smith, Coleman, Hagel, and Snowe. But not all Democrats may support the measure, especially those on the far left who've called for stronger binding bills. Sen. Russ Feingold, who wants troops redeployed in six months, called the measure "weak." "The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another," he said in a written statement.

The debate is expected to start Monday; however, the terms of the debate have not yet been set.

From NBC's Courtney Kube
In an extremely rare public reprimand of a four-star U.S. general, Sen. John McCain expressed "serious concerns" in his opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee about Gen. George Casey's nomination to be Army chief of staff.

"And while I do not in any way question your honor, your patriotism or your service to our country, I do question some of the decisions and judgments you have made over the past two and a half years as commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq," McCain said. "And you'll need to explain why your assessment of the situation in Iraq has differed so radically from that of most observers and why your predictions of future success have been so unrealistically rosy," he later added.

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, and Huma Zaidi
Sen. Joe Biden (D) certainly practiced his presidential campaign announcement enough, repeating his intention to run so often that his actual filing appeared likely to be anticlimactic.  At least at first. 

Despite all the trial runs, Biden still stumbled upon leaving the gate.  His comments to the New York Observer about primary rival and fellow Sen. Barack Obama -- that Obama is "articulate and bright and clean" -- sparked a firestorm on behalf of the Illinois senator, who didn't appear to feel all that slighted yesterday.  "He called me," Obama told reporters when asked about Biden's remarks.  "I told him it wasn't necessary...  I have no problems with Joe Biden."  His shots at Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton for being latecomers to the Iraq war debate also got notice, though not as much.

So, what are the takeaway points from this hubbub?  Of course, some people took genuine offense at Biden's remarks about Obama, perhaps especially his use of the word "articulate," articulateness seeming to be a given for a US senator.  He may get a cool reception when he addresses the Democratic National Committee meeting on Saturday, where the crowd will be packed with African-American and liberal activists. 

Second, given Biden's history of ill-judged comments, including the "borrowed" remarks that sank his last presidential bid and his recent quip about Indian-Americans and 7-Elevens, the Observer interview fulfilled expectations that at some point during this campaign, Biden was going to say something foolish.  That it happened on the day of his announcement only makes it worse for him.  Biden clearly has hoped that his roughness around the edges and blunt talk would be seen as an asset at a time when many national politicians appear too cautious or staged, but he lost the chance to introduce himself that way.

Third, some people, including some members of the press, probably were quick to assume offense on Obama's behalf -- a development that was inevitable in this first presidential campaign featuring a viable African-American contender.  As Obama weighs the politically tricky question of how strongly he needs to target black voters, he has to consider how to respond to comments that some in the black community might find more offensive than he does.  Indeed, later yesterday, Obama revised his original statement: "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate.  African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

It's also a reminder that race remains such a sensitive topic that comments and even inferences about it can easily be turned into political fodder.  Just over one year ago, Republicans got mileage out of pouncing on Clinton's remark that the GOP-controlled House was run "like a plantation," while Democrats and prominent African-American leaders took no offense. 

Meanwhile, there was significant movement yesterday on the Iraq resolution front, NBC's Ken Strickland reports.  GOP Sen. John Warner made some big concessions that won over Armed Services chair Carl Levin, with more likely to follow suit.  Per Strickland, the changes are expected to alleviated the concerns of many in both parties and draw more Republicans to vote against Bush's proposed troop increase.  Majority Leader Harry Reid is so pleased with it that he's now trying to make it the starting point for debate next week, instead of the other resolution crafted by Levin, Biden and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R).

At its core, the non-binding resolution still "disagrees" with Bush's plan, but it eliminates phrasing that many Democrats (especially Levin) felt gave Bush too much leeway on troop size.  The new version also nods to Republicans who strongly opposed any cuts in funding for the troops.  It now says that Congress should take no action that will endanger US forces, "including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops."  And finally, it elaborates more on benchmarks, requiring that they be in writing and agreed to by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and the Bush Administration, Strickland reports. 

It's still unclear how the debate will unfold next week, he says -- but the changes give Warner's measure new momentum. 

And President Bush, top Democratic presidential contenders Clinton and Obama, and a whole host of other lawmakers attend the National Prayer Breakfast this morning.

Gen. George Casey, Bush's nominee for Army chief of staff, has his confirmation hearing, in which he's expected to take heavy bipartisan fire over his performance in Iraq. 

Yesterday in First Read, we reported that "the Administration has failed to adequately supply [Sen. John McCain] with information critical to Bush's new strategy."  We further reported that in a joint statement with Sen. Carl Levin (D), McCain suggested that the Administration "does not intend to attach meaningful consequences for the Iraqis' continuing to fail to meet their commitments."  Well, if McCain's criticism of the Administration sounded too good to be true, it was.

After questioning McCain about it yesterday, he made it explicitly clear that he does not feel that way, NBC's Ken Strickland reports.  He later sought out reporters who questioned him about the joint statement to inform them that he never signed off on the press release written as a "Levin and McCain statement."  Levin's office reissued the statement, taking McCain's name off of it.  A Levin spokesperson says McCain's staffer signed off on the joint statement, but didn't run it by McCain first.  Oops.

Intraparty squabbling over Iraq, "in some cases, has seen Republicans accusing fellow Republicans of undercutting the American effort in Iraq, a charge previously reserved for Democrats," The Politico says.  GOP lawmakers who oppose the troop increase, "several of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from party leaders or the White House, are stunned by the hostility expressed by fellow Republicans.  They are particularly concerned that anyone who raises questions or challenges the Bush plan will be branded a defeatist who wants to see America lose the war." 

In fact, one GOP lawmaker under heavy fire is Sen. John Warner, the New York Times says.  "What some Republicans have said in recent days about Mr. Warner has been particularly harsh.  'It is clearly not an act of leadership,' said Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina…  'To offer nonbinding resolutions which encourage our enemies and undermine our allies and deflate the morale of our troops is, to me, the worst of all possible worlds,' said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas." 

Even as House Democrats plot how to talk about Iraq with Bush when he addresses them at their retreat on Saturday, Roll Call reports that Senate Republicans, who'll be gathering tomorrow, "likely will sidestep the issue."  "Instead, Senate Republicans plan to focus on producing a domestic-heavy agenda, message and game plan for the next two years that positions them to reclaim the Senate majority in 2008." 

The Boston Globe reports on a new audit showing that Iraq's ministries are "struggling to perform basic functions, such as drafting budgets and hiring contractors, and too often depend on their American advisers.  That in turn has led to the Iraqi government's failure to spend $13 billion -- more than a third of its annual budget -- in 2006, a situation that could further destabilize the country."

MoveOn released this statement yesterday on Obama's plan to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by March 2008: "Senator Obama's legislation reflects the consensus of most Americans, the Iraq Study Group, military and diplomatic experts… MoveOn.org applauds Senator Obama for his Iraq proposal."  Also, MoveOn today is sponsoring a "Virtual March on Washington," in which its members will flood Senate offices with phone calls and emails opposing Bush's troop increase. In addition, MoveOn members -- wearing "Iraq Escalation: Wrong Way" stickers -- will hand deliver petitions to individual Senate offices.

The Fed gave Bush a boost yesterday in his effort to convince Americans that the economy is strong. 

The Washington Post notes that Bush's comments about growing income inequality in the United States marked the first time he has addressed "a subject that has long concerned Democrats and liberal economists...  They appeared to be another presidential nod to the evolving political landscape on Capitol Hill, now controlled by Democrats after a campaign that focused in part on their complaints of corporate greed and growing middle-class insecurity." 

The Washington Times: "The markedly populist message, a divergence from the past, in which Mr. Bush has accused critics of practicing class warfare, was all the more noteworthy given his venue -- a speech at Federal Hall in New York, in the middle of Wall Street, the capital of capitalism." 

The New York Times adds that Bush took specific aim at CEO pay, saying that it should be tied to performance.  "Mr. Bush's comments … were met with silence from an otherwise friendly crowd." 

The Wall Street Journal publishes excerpts of the paper's interview with Bush yesterday, and the editorial page shares its impressions of the interview.

"Democratic senators are fighting to halt what they say is a Bush administration campaign to remove forcibly top federal prosecutors, including the US attorneys responsible for key investigations of Congressional corruption and stock options back-dating," reports the Financial Times.  Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy "will hold a hearing next week on whether the justice department is politicising the hiring and firing of top federal prosecutors." 

Conservative columnist Bob Novak has GOP pollster Frank Luntz arguing that GOP leaders are misguided in dismissing the 2006 midterms as a temporary setback.  "'The Republican Party that lost those historic elections was a tired, cranky shell of the articulate reformist, forward-thinking movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Luntz wrote.  The Republicans of 2006 'were an ethical morass, more interested in protecting their jobs than protecting the people they served.  The 1994 Republicans came to "revolutionize" Washington. Washington won.'"   

The New York Times notes that Mary Cheney is back in the news -- this time at a panel discussion at Barnard College, where she said that her decision to have a baby "'is not a political statement'" and that CNN's Wolf Blitzer crossed a line when he recently tried to ask the vice president a question about the baby.  "'He was trying to get a rise out of my father,' she said."  

The Politico reports that "Rep. Loretta Sanchez has quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, accusing the chairman, Rep. Joe Baca, of telling people she's a 'whore.'  Baca denied the charge."  Sanchez "also cited concerns about whether Baca was properly elected Hispanic Caucus chairman in November and about his general attitude toward female lawmakers."  She said "Baca had made the disparaging personal comment about her to California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other legislators last year," adding that Nunez told her about it. 

The Washington Times reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office "is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district...  The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation...  Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession." 

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers is calling for an "aggressive" investigation into Bush's use of signing statements -- and yesterday "vowed to find out whether the administration has followed each law it challenged," the Boston Globe says.

Interviewed at his Operation PUSH office in Chicago yesterday, Jackson said he had just gotten off the phone with Biden, NBC's Patrice Fletcher reporters.  "...[I]t really was a gaffe," Jackson said.  "I know Joe Biden to be a decent guy who overstepped his, who overstepped in his speech, and I hope that we can now early on get on to what he has to offer in such a good way."  More Jackson: "The big issues upon us now is (sic) end the war and end poverty.  But in a campaign, a misstep such as this can be fatal unless you correct it real soon."  Asked if Biden offered an apology or a clarification: "Really more of a clarification.  He need not, this is not …you cannot compare what Joe Biden did in this misstatement with, say, Trent Lott and his embrace of Strom Thurmond...  You cannot compare this gaffe with a statement embracing that kind of philosophy and ideology."

Although overshadowed by the questions on the Observer article, Biden spent the remainder of his conference call with reporters yesterday arguing that his experience is needed to fix the problems the Bush Administration has caused around the world.  "I can stem the tide of this slide and restore America's leadership in the world."  Asked about what he has learned since his last presidential bid, in 1988, he replied: "I've learned to how to take a punch" -- a quality that will come in handy after yesterday.

The Hill notes that Biden's comments about Obama didn't only overshadow Biden's own big announcement yesterday, but they also overshadowed Obama's new bill that would criminalize election fraud.  The paper calls it "his third momentum-building effort in two weeks," since he announced his exploratory committee. 

Roll Call's Rothenberg says yes, Clinton can indeed win the presidency, despite naysayers who point to her higher-than-average negative ratings.  "Clinton isn't the only hopeful with weaknesses to strengthen and questions to answer," he writes.  "Polling released over the past few weeks doesn't support the argument that Clinton is unelectable." 

Clinton has canceled her first appearance in New Hampshire as a presidential candidate, which was to be this weekend.  Her husband's stepfather has passed away. 

And the AP reports that Al Franken (D) has decided to run for Norm Coleman's (R) Senate seat in Minnesota.  "The news was not unexpected.  Franken has been calling members of the Minnesota congressional delegation to get their input on a run, and he announced this week that he would be leaving his show on Air America Radio on Feb. 14.  He told listeners he would be making a decision on a race soon." 

USA Today tackles the question of whether Rudy Giuliani -- "the thrice-married New Yorker," who's "a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control" -- can win the GOP nomination.  "Republicans tend to stick with front-runners. In each of the last nine presidential elections, the GOP contender who led the field the year before the election has won the nomination. Despite Giuliani's edge at the starting line, however, there is widespread skepticism among insiders... whether he'll be there at the finish." 

The Los Angeles Times is the latest to examine Mitt Romney's recent reversals on abortion and gay rights.  "For Romney, 59, the rightward shift on abortion and gay rights poses one of the main challenges of his candidacy: Can he convince social conservatives that he is one of their own and capture his party's nomination?  Or will his late-in-life ideological swerve raise too many doubts about whether he shares their core principles?" 

The AP notes that the year-end reports showed that McCain raised $1.7 million in 2006, while Giuliani took in $1.4 million.  "McCain … had $472,000 on hand while Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, had about $1 million available." 

The Los Angeles Times adds, however, that "they and the rest of the field probably lag far behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.  The Democrat is believed to have amassed in excess of $14 million [in cash on hand], although her report had not become public as of late Wednesday." 

In its examination of the year-end spending reports, the Washington Post notes McCain's big investment in downballot candidates. 

And per the Manchester Union Leader, former New York Gov. George Pataki released key New Hampshire supporters at a Tuesday night dinner and told them to endorse another presidential candidate if they'd like.  Some sources present at the meeting, the paper adds, didn't have the impression that Pataki is 100% out of the presidential race -- but another said the handwriting is definitely on the wall.  

The AP reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "appears to be saving NBC newsman Tim Russert as his last witness."  Previous witnesses "witnesses undercut Libby's claim that he didn't remember learning about [Valerie] Plame through official channels and was surprised to hear about her during a much later conversation with Russert.  Any conversations he had about Plame, Libby said, were just recollections of what he heard from Russert...  Russert says he did not discuss Plame with Libby." 

The New York Times notes that Libby's defense team sparred yesterday with former Times reporter Judy Miller over her "credibility and memory."