April 1: White House rebuffs Congress on Iraq, attorneys
White House counselor Dan Bartlett today rebuffed a call from the Democratic leadership in Congress to work together on Iraq legislation, reiterating that President Bush would veto a war spending bill that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
Bartlett also rejected a new congressional proposal for senior White House officials to testify on Capitol Hill regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys in appearances on CBS's "Face the Nation" and ABC's "This Week."
On the war, House and Senate Democrats acknowledged that, while they want U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq, they will ultimately pass spending bills without timetables if the president refuses to negotiate.
On the attorneys issue, Senate Democrats voiced their opposition to several White House demands, including moving up the date of testimony by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
Iraq
Both houses of Congress have passed supplemental spending bills that establish timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. The House version would require most combat troops to be out by September 2008, while the Senate version would set the goal of most troops leaving by March. The Senate bill also asks that troops begin to leave within 120 days. The differences are expected to be reconciled in a conference committee in coming weeks.
Bartlett said the president would veto the legislation as currently envisioned.
"He will veto the bill if they bring it to him, and then, hopefully, we can set aside the politics and get a bill that funds our troops," he said on ABC.
"What we haven't seen from the Democratic leadership is a willingness to drop this very restrictive language that's basically substituting the judgment of politicians here in Washington with the judgment of our commanders on the ground," Bartlett said.
He warned that the Pentagon would have to substantially readjust its budget if a funding bill is not signed in a timely fashion.
"By mid-May, troops in Iraq, serving Iraq, would potentially have to have their deployments extended because they're not getting their job done right here," Bartlett said .
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he is not certain Bush will veto the bill. But he acknowledged that if he does, the Democrats will ultimately not withhold funding for the war.
"The bottom line is still the same, and that is, are the troops going to get everything they need. And we have voted for every penny the president has asked for, plus additional money that he didn't ask for for the troops," Biden said on "Fox News Sunday." "You're going to see a little political dance coming up here that relates to a showdown, and the showdown relates not to the money for the troops, because everybody's there, but relates to whether or not the mission should be changed in Iraq in terms of how the troops are used."
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Ways and Means Commmittee, echoed that sentiment, saying that the House will fund the war even if the first bill sent to the president is vetoed.
"Ultimately, politically, we have to give him money. But we will constantly remind him that no president in these great United States can continue a war that the people do not support. It's not going to happen," Rangel said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued on Fox that the bills currently being proposed are tantamount to "sending a memo to the enemy giving them the date that you're going to give up."
Bartlett also criticized up to $20 billion in non-defense related spending in the bills that cover issues from support for peanut farmers to a visitors center in the Capitol. Bartlett said that showed the Democratic Party "was more focused on cobbling together a political compromise than it was to have a coherent military strategy."
Democratic lawmakers replied with a range of justifications for the "pork."
Rangel emphasized the need to get the votes of people who thought the legislation went too far, or not far enough. "A lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there," he said. "But the real question was, were we doing something to stop this immoral war and what could we do instead of doing nothing except do what the president asked us to do?"
Rep. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, said the non-military spending was a matter of supporting U.S. farms. 'Throughout history presidents of both parties have provided funds to our farmers when they faced agricultural disasters," he said on ABC. "Now what we're asking for is about $2 billion a year for agricultural disasters."
Biden said the funds answered a range of key priorities: "to provide money for the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, ... to provide money for the 9/11 report."
Debating the attorneys
Gonzales continued to receive the support of Republican lawmakers, albeit noticeably more tepid support, while Democratic lawmakers stopped short only of calling him a liar.
Asked if he is still confident in the attorney general, McConnell, the GOP Senate leader, said, "I can honestly say the president does" have confidence in him.
"What I can tell you at the moment is that he enjoys the support of the president, for whom he works," he said. "I think most Republican senators are willing to give the attorney general a chance to come up before the Judiciary Committee and give his side of the story."
Regarding that appearance, Bartlett said the administration would like to see Gonzales testify as soon as possible, the week after Easter, a view echoed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chair of the Judiciary Committee, insisted on NBC that Gonzales had initially picked April 17 - and that is the date it would remain.
"We offered a number of dates they flatly turned down, and they picked the date of April 17th. As a result, we went ahead and planned our other hearings," Leahy said. "It's a date the attorney general originally picked, it's the date the hearing will take place."
"I believe he has not been accurate, and I believe he has not been truthful," Leahy said.
Specter and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) seemed to strike a deal - on-air, at least - about the best way for White House officials to testify in the attorneys matter. On CBS, the senators called for testimony in private, with a joint committee from both chambers, not under oath, but transcribed. The White House has suggested the same, but without the transcript.
"I believe that the transcript is indispensable, because if you don't have a transcript, you will walk out of the meeting and senators will, in perfectly good faith, have disagreements," Specter said.
But Bartlett refused to budge.
"If you look at the formal request they've made to the White House, they are asking for documents that we feel that go to executive privilege. They're asking for to have an open-ended commitment," the White House counselor said.
He continued, "If they wanted to get to the bottom of it, they would accept the proposal the president's put forward. They would have the attorney general up there next week, having the testimony in open hearing, on the record, for everybody to see."
In a lighter moment, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee, whether he would accept the post of attorney general.
"I've irritated the chairman of the committee just this morning. It would be really tough for me to get confirmed, I'm sure," Hatch said. "The fact is, of course, anybody would serve this country. I would serve this country in any way I could, but they're not going to pick me, but the point is, you know, it's up to the president."
Campaign 2008: Thompson announces, Rangel skeptical about Obama qualifications
Former health and human services secretary Tommy Thompson, a four-term Republican governor from Wisconsin, said he was running for president on ABC's "This Week." See story here.
During a lively 20-minute appearance on "Meet the Press," Rangel said he doesn't think Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), whom he encouraged to run, is qualified to be president.
Or at least as qualified as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Or at least, not yet.
"You're supporting Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Why?" host Tim Russert asked.
"She's an exciting, qualified candidate with eight years' experience in the White House, she's my junior senator from New York, and she's our favorite daughter," Rangel said. "I don't think anyone comes near to her qualifications to be a great president."
Russert inquired, "You don't think Senator Obama is as qualified as Hillary Clinton?"
Rangel replied, "You don't mean qualified, of course not, but he's exciting, and he's catching on in terms of popularity. But in terms of qualification and background, I don't think anyone says that he has it now. But it doesn't mean that bright people can't acquire the talents that are necessary. But at this point in time, I think it's fair to say he's eloquent, he's bright, and not as qualified as Hillary Clinton is."
Then why encourage him to run? Russert wondered.
"Because he was a young, attractive minority candidate that had so much wind under his wings, that I told him if he didn't run, he would spend the rest of his life regretting it. I don't think that he will be there for the final rounds, but he's a young candidate, and he's got a bright future in the Senate, and he gets another chance at it in eight years," Rangel said.
Rangel was also touting his new book, "And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since."
In the book, he describes how he was one of the first people to encourage Hillary Clinton to run for the Senate. But he said he had no idea she would be running for president a few years later. She might have had an idea, he conceded.
"I think it would be hard living with Bill Clinton and not connect the dots. "
By Zachary Goldfarb |
April 1, 2007; 3:52 PM ET
Previous: April 1 Preview: Panelists to Discuss Iraq War and U.S. Attorney Firings |
Next: April 8th Preview: Iraq, U.S. Attorneys and 2008
Posted by: RCD | April 2, 2007 8:34 AM
``House and Senate Democrats acknowledged that, while they want U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq, they will ultimately pass spending bills without timetables if the president refuses to negotiate.`` What kind of horsesh*t is that? Congress needs to stick to their guns if they want to curb the excess of the moron-in-chief. If they back down on this, they might as well pack their briefcases and go home. This is not what they were elected for: to kowtow to the temper tantrums of a brain-fried spoiled rich kid, to whom no one has ever said no. What gives?
Posted by: PJWhite530 | April 2, 2007 8:53 AM
How come it's "pork" when the Dems do it, but "earmarks" when the Repubs do it?
Posted by: Fairfax | April 2, 2007 9:29 AM
The Dems used to be the leaders in Testicular Fortitide, that is until George Junior invited America's Spiritual Leader, Pastor Ted Haggard into the White House and Jeb got cozy talking about protecting children with Senator Mark Foley, Republican, Florida while John Asscroft sat in his taxpayer-funded office looking at porn all day at taxpayer's expense. He even planted a copy of Playboy in Mel Carnahan's closet! Memo to the enemy: Just because America's leader is an incompetent, plutocratic, crony-kissing crook who forces America's troops to scrounge around landfills for scrap metal to bolt or glue onto their unarmored Humvees, don't go and get all emboldened!
Posted by: Bush's Boehner | April 2, 2007 10:05 AM
The White House is insisting that its people will appear before Congress only if they are not under oath, in private and no transcripts. What are they afraid of?? Not telling the truth? Not having their words heard by the country and all Americans? Not having their words put on paper so that we can know exactly what they said?
The sorry appearances of Gonzales et al in previous appearances before Congress clearly indicates why we need to have testimony under oath, in public and transcribed. Otherwise, they will say whatever they want, without consequences, and it will come down to "misspoke" or "you misunderstood" or "you got it wrong."
The White House and Bush should get with it and realize that the House and Senate are no longer their lackeys and do whatever Bush et al tells them to do. People with a backbone, the Democrats, are now in control. And they are tired of it and no longer going to put up with it anymore!
Posted by: David2007 | April 2, 2007 10:26 AM
Is it possible for the Republicans to succeed with a NIXONIAN- like TAKEOVER?. While CHAOS GRINS. Week after week we will hear of Democratic sins. Nothing too sordid, even for the news, we will all start to wonder IS THERE NO WAY FOR US TO NOT LOSE? All weary, and very confused. I am not amused. Is this a nightmare, or an Orwellian ruse?
Posted by: sonja | April 14, 2007 5:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Dems need to show their testicular fortitude and cut off funding for the war. Bush keeps saying if you set a timetable, you'll be letting the enemy know how long they need to hold on to outlast us. The question is, who will we be letting know, Al-Qeada, what the 2 or 3% of the insurgency. Or is it Moqtoda al-Sadr, who is part of the government. Maybe its the Sunni insurgency and ex-Baathists, oh wait, they will be there even after we leave, unless we stay there forever. Our leaving will either tell the many competing sides in this civil war that it is either time to fight each other straight up, without one side having the greatest military in the world backing it up, or its time to deal. Either way, the Iraqis will determine their own future, and we can get rid of this farce that we can stop people who want to fight each other from fighting each other.