advertisement
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
advertisement
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, working to come up with an anti-war strategy acceptable to the different factions within her party, is finding that task to be a nearly impossible mission. While the Washington Post reports this morning "senior House Democrats" are altering their original plan in order to "placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts," the DC-insider publication The Politico says the Speaker "is facing a full-blown revolt" from the opposite ideological end of the caucus, "liberal House Democrats." These lawmakers are angry "over the $98 billion Iraq supplemental bill, according to Democratic insiders. Anywhere between 50 to 75 Democrats are now threatening to vote against the bill because it doesn't go far enough toward ending the war, including setting a date certain for withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq, said the sources."
The plan described by the Post, designed to get the support of conservative Democrats, "would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position. Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January." The "legislative jujitsu in the backrooms of Capitol Hill," says the Post, "underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq." The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call offers a more optimistic outlook on the Democratic chances of reaching consensus, reporting "both liberal and conservative Democrats signaled that they might be willing to be team players if leaders accommodate them in small ways." But "as of Monday evening, the chances of committee action" on the Iraq spending bill "this week" were "slipping away and it was unclear whether House Democratic leaders would include language, first proposed by" Rep. John Murtha, "to restrict in some way the president's ability to deploy troops to Iraq."
Further complicating matters, the White House appears to be getting ready to ask for more war funds. The AP reports the additional funds "would pay for support personnel and otherwise update last month's request for the Iraq war. It probably will draw criticism from Democrats who say the Pentagon had low-balled estimates of the costs of Bush's plan for improving security in Baghdad and Anbar province. The latest request could come as early as Tuesday," and "will come to about $2 billion."
Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of the conservative National Review Online, outlines in USA Today his view that Democrats face a political "pickle" that "is exquisitely simple: In the past election, they ran as the anti-war party and promised to bring the war to a close, but, like the dog who finally catches the car fender, they're at a loss about what to do now." If Bush's surge "is successful, odds are Americans will think it was all worth it. If, on the other hand, the Democrats are successful at ending the war in defeat, it's not at all clear Americans will see our loss as the unambiguous triumph Kennedy remembers in Vietnam. Nor is it clear they'll congratulate Democrats for securing a sure defeat rather than chancing a possible victory."
Poll: Only 28% Think US Will Win USA Today this morning runs a story on a new USA Today/Gallup poll that tends to validate much of what Democrats are saying about the Iraq conflict: "Only 28% say the United States will probably or definitely win the war, down from 35% in December and the lowest since the question was first asked in September 2005. The share of people who now call the war a mistake is 59% -- the same as September 2005 and the highest level in the 58 times the question has been asked since the war began." In addition, "six in 10 people said they want Congress to set a timetable to withdraw all US troops by the end of 2008."
Bombings Continue In Iraq A suicide bombing in Baghdad killed at least 20 people yesterday, even as US and Iraqi troops continued to their security push. Moreover, says the AP, "nine US soldiers died in two separate incidents north of Baghdad," the military said this morning. The Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Washington Post portray the violence as indicative of how hard it will be for US forces to get Iraq's security under control. But NBC's Brian Williams, who is in Baghdad, said on NBC Nightly News that "the story here, it is plain to see, is changing. There was violence here in Baghdad today, but the war we found at an outpost to the west of here today was different." The attack in Baghdad "comes during a period of change here. There are now pockets of relative peace where there had been awful ongoing violence."
It was a day of fast-moving developments in the widening controversy over the Administration's dismissal of several US Attorneys. The AP reports the probe "intensified...as lawmakers ordered two more ousted officials to tell their stories and the Justice Department said Republican Sen. Pete Domenici had complained repeatedly to the attorney general about one prosecutor." The Washington Post, in a front-page story, says a second New Mexico lawmaker, GOP Rep. Heather Wilson, also admitted that she had contacted that prosecutor, David Iglesias. Wilson, however, "denied allegations from...Iglesias that she pressured him to speed up a political corruption investigation involving Democrats in the waning days of her tight election campaign last fall." Iglesias "is expected to tell Congress today that Wilson and Domenici were trying to sway the course of his investigation."
The story is generating extensive newspaper coverage. USA Today reports "the House Judiciary Committee announced it would seek subpoenas for two more of the prosecutors. ... The House panel's announcement said it would seek testimony from former U.S. attorneys Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona. Previously scheduled to testify today were former US attorneys H.E. 'Bud' Cummins of Arkansas, David Iglesias of New Mexico, Carol Lam of Southern California and John McKay of Washington state." Stories in the Albuquerque Tribune, Financial Times, North County Times and Washington Times cover similar ground.
McClatchy reports "a high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the US attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers," and the New York Times notes "the former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state's governor, a Republican."
In another development yesterday, the Department of Justice official who notified the US attorneys of their dismissal announced that he is resigning. The New York Times reports Michael A. Battle, director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, "said in a statement that his departure was unrelated to the dismissals." The Hill also reports the story.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, "facing criticism for the firing of eight US attorneys," yesterday "defended the action as appropriate but said the Justice Department handled the situation poorly. ... 'We could have rolled out the decisions more smoothly,' he said in an interview. But he also rejected accusations from Democrats and other critics that the prosecutors were fired for failing to follow the Bush administration's political agenda."
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call notes a possible consequence of the controversy: "Just a week ago," Domenici "looked like a shoo-in for a seventh term." Wilson, "after winning the most bruising race of her life in November by fewer than 900 votes, seemed like she'd have a much easier time in 2008. But in a flash, all that has changed." House Democrats "now vow to put Wilson at the top of their target list again in 2008. And Senate Democratic operatives, whose best hope for winning the New Mexico seat hinged on Domenici making a late decision to retire next year at the age of 76, openly suggest that the state's most venerated officeholder could be vulnerable if he follows through on his plans to seek re-election."
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times run editorials critical of the firings, although the Times comes out against a proposal by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein that would "return to federal judges the power to appoint interim US attorneys." A US attorney, says the Times, "is an officer of the executive branch who under our system of government can be removed by the president at a moment's notice. Congress has no business asking whether such dismissals are wise, but it has every right to determine whether they are intended to thwart or politicize the administration of justice." That question "should be the focus of today's hearings."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Lawmakers yesterday heard testimony, described in media reports as "riveting," and "heart wrenching," from wounded servicemen and family members about poor living conditions and a bureaucratic morass during treatment at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Members of a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee also grilled top Army officials and medical officers about substandard conditions at Walter Reed and throughout the military medical system.
The emotional hearings were the top story on ABC and CBS last night, and garnered significant attention from major daily newspapers and wire services. Inevitably, the hearings took on political overtones. The New York Times reports the Bush Administration "has been thrown on the defensive, and members of Congress have been quick to express outrage." Roll Call says Democrats "suggested that weak Republican oversight contributed to the problems experienced by wounded soldiers there." Speaker Nancy Pelosi "issued a statement proclaiming the beginning of 'long overdue oversight of the Bush administration.'" USA Today reports that at the "emotional House subcommittee hearing," lawmakers "suggested the failings go far beyond the hospital for wounded soldiers in Washington. They demanded action. Military leaders -- and Vice President Cheney -- promised they'd get it." The Los Angeles Times, McClatchy and Washington Post run similar reports. In an editorial, the Washington Post says that "being sorry is only the first step. ... Fixing veterans' outpatient care will take a lot more than putting a new roof on Walter Reed's Building 18. It means revamping buildings and bureaucracies across the country."
ABC News' online blog "The Blotter" is reporting that "armed with fresh intelligence, the CIA is moving additional man power and equipment into Pakistan in the effort to find Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, US officials tell ABC News." One "US official" says, "Reports that the trail has gone stone cold are not correct." ABC also reveals that "although never publicly acknowledged, Pakistan has permitted CIA teams to secretly operate inside Pakistan."
Ever since Democrats won control of Congress, the conventional wisdom in Washington has been that President Bush and congressional Democrats would cut a deal on immigration reform. However, the DC-insider newspaper Roll Call reports this morning, "with Republicans looking to regain control of the Senate and Democrats hoping to pad their majority in 2008, neither party appears inclined to make the political sacrifices necessary to pass a broad immigration bill this year," and all sides "may be content to simply duel to a rhetorical draw." GOP and Democratic "aides contend that both parties may be best served by a political impasse over the issue, since such a scenario would allow Members to show they are standing firm on the hot-button issue while avoiding compromises that may upset base voters."
The jury on the trial of "Scooter" Libby continues to deliberate. The Washington Post the jurors "indicated yesterday they remain focused on whether Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff lied to the FBI about a July 12, 2003, conversation with Matthew Cooper, then a reporter for Time magazine." In a note "to the presiding judge late yesterday afternoon, jurors asked three questions about how they should decide whether Libby is guilty of making a false statement to investigators about his conversation with Cooper." The New York Times says that in the discussions Judge Walton "had with both sides' lawyers, it appeared that the jury was asking whether its members might consider Mr. Libby's testimony to the grand jury in March 2004 to help determine whether he made a false statement in his FBI interview six months earlier."
USA Today reports this morning that "Jenna Bush, in a rare interview, says her forthcoming book for teens -- about a 17-year-old single mother in Panama who is living with HIV -- will end with a 'call to action.'" HarperCollins "announces today that it's publishing Bush's Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope this fall." The president's daughter "says the book is not political. It's aimed at 'getting kids thinking and involved,' Bush said Monday by phone from Panama, where she has worked since September as an unpaid intern for UNICEF."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Pundits yesterday debated whether Sen. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama got a better reception during the civil rights ceremony in Selma, Alabama on Sunday, without really coming to any conclusion, but one thing was clear -- the insertion of Bill Clinton into the race has stirred things up. The CBS Evening News focused on the fact that the Clinton campaign, for the first time, "employed its not-so-secret weapon" -- former President Bill Clinton. CBS says, "The decision to send Bill Clinton to march in Selma alongside his wife was made at the last minute and it was a delicate mission, to prop up Hillary Clinton's standing with African Americans while not overshadowing her." Before Obama entered the race, "there was a sense of inevitability about Hillary Clinton's nomination. But now there's a real political fight and on lots of levels, the big question is this: Will Bill Clinton help her or hurt?" On CNN's Anderson Cooper's 360, CNN national correspondent John King said, "I think President Clinton's presence certainly helped Senator Hillary Clinton. But I think the fact that he needed to be there is the lead of the story, in the sense that she is very much threatened by Senator Obama's continued inroads and advancing inroads in the African- American community."
Following a New York Times interview with his estranged son Andrew run on Sunday, Rudy Giuliani yesterday said he thinks that his relationship with his children is his own private business and not fodder for public consumption. ABC World News showed Giuliani saying in California yesterday about his relationship with his children, "The responsibility is mine. And I believe that these problems with blended families, you know, are challenges. ... And the challenges are best worked on privately." The AP adds that Giuliani said, "The more privacy I can have for my family, the better we are going to be able to deal with all these difficulties." Long Island Newsday reports that Andrew Giuliani's "comments sidetracked his father's campaign swing through California and put the question of the ex-mayor's bitter divorce front-and-center, providing an early test of how he would handle questions about his past that could prove troubling to the GOP's base of family-values voters. Brookings Institution expert Thomas Mann said it marked the start of a lengthy scrutiny of Giuliani's public career and private life by voters outside New York."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The AP reports Sen. Hillary Clinton "told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president." Clinton also "said she opposes the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency." In a keynote speech to the Human Rights Campaign on Friday, Clinton said, "I am proud to stand by your side." The AP adds that neither Clinton's campaign nor her Senate office publicized the speech. Asked yesterday why that was, Clinton brushed off the question, saying, "You'll have to ask my campaign."
The AP reports this morning that John Edwards, in an interview with the web site beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be upset with the attitudes of many in the US. Edwards said, "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually." Edwards also said that he would not be please with the nation's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."
In an interview with Fox News yesterday morning, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R), who it has been speculated might make an independent bid for president, appeared to inch a tiny bit closer to a run. Previously, Bloomberg had emphatically denied any interest in running. However, asked if he would run yesterday, he said, "I don't think so -- and if I was going to do it, I don't think I'd announce it right here." When it was pointed out that he had given a similar response to questions about running for mayor at one point, he added, "you never know."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The late night shows were reruns last night.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
