advertisement
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
advertisement
The US Senate debated an Iraq withdrawal measure all night long. Democrats argued they were forced to take the step to call attention to what they see as the GOP's obstructionist tactics on the issue and Republicans dismissed the unusual overnight session as "political theater." Both sides made their case forcefully but judging from the faintly mocking tone in today's newspapers reports, the media reports may have favored the GOP's case. TV stories and major newspapers (including the front page of today's New York Times) ran photographs of cots, pillows and blankets lined up for senators, an image that added to the faintly mocking tone in their stories.
Some reports quip that Democratic Leader Harry Reid was going "to the mattresses" on Iraq, as UPI put it; holding a "pajama party," as USA Today terms the debate in its headline; or a "slumber party," as the Washington Post calls it in a story sub-headlined, "The Democrats Take the Iraq War Strategy to the Mattresses." The Los Angeles Times reports, "The cots were strategically placed near the Senate chamber. Plenty of coffee was ordered." It was "a carefully choreographed event" by "the 'world's greatest deliberative body.'"
The Washington Post says this morning "Democrats rolled out cots and ordered pizzas as they settled in for a marathon Senate debate on Iraq last night" that "featured numerous speeches but little chance of getting any closer to resolving the stalemate." Under a similar piece headlined "Metal Cots, Takeout Pizza And A Long Night Of Recriminations," the New York Times notes there were "two prearranged photo sessions: the first outside the Capitol as the cots were unloaded from the trucks that brought them...and the second, in the Lyndon B. Johnson room, where the crowd of reporters and camera crews grew so unwieldy that it had to be dispersed and the room sealed off so the nine cots could be set up. (Once the sheets and Egyptian cotton pillows were in place, the cameras were allowed back in.)"
Moreover, most stories point out that both sides are aware that the Democratic measure will in fact fail with our without an all-nighter. Most GOP senators critical of President Bush's "surge" last night made it clear they would not back the Democratic plan, says the New York Times. Only three Republicans, notes AP, have said they will support it. They are Sens. Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel. Democratic "officials conceded they were likely to get 52 or 53 votes at most. That's well short of the 60 needed to force a final vote on the measure." In fact, The Politico reports "the Republican establishment is rallying to the defense of President Bush and his controversial war strategy," adding, "Republicans are increasingly playing the 'Al Qaeda card' to delay, at least for two more months, any major Senate vote on changing war policy." The Minneapolis Star Tribune runs a similar report, noting "many Republicans said Democrats were crossing the line between debate and theatrics, and dismissed the all-nighter as a cheap stunt."
While will happen after the all-nighter, after the pullout measure fails? Congressional Quarterly reports "the next steps were unclear, as the Senate's Democratic leadership considered the options of continuing the debate, bringing to the floor several other Iraq policy amendments or moving on to less controversial amendments to the underlying defense bill."
Coburn Takes The Stage In an early morning broadcast, NPR noted "a test of wills over Iraq war policy" continued in the US Senate chamber. GOP Sen. Tom Coburn "says Democrats want the nation to change its character by abandoning its responsibility." Audio was played of Sen. Coburn saying, "We don't walk away if we have a mess and allow millions of people to die and millions of other people to be displaced without having a strategy that will solve that." A late-breaking AP report also takes note of Coburn's participation in the debate, saying he commented that he "can stay up longer" than the Democrats. And "so he did, speaking on the floor after even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had retired, a little after midnight, to a cot set up in a parlor adjacent to his office. Reid had pushed through a motion minutes earlier, on a 41-37 roll-call vote, instructing the Senate Sergeant-at-arms to 'request the attendance of absent senators' in an effort to keep members near the chamber. Having made his point, Reid than announced there would be no further votes before 5 a.m. EDT."
A new National Intelligence Estimate, warning of a resurgent al Qaeda, is being portrayed in the media as an implicit indictment of the Administration's anti-terror efforts. NBC Nightly News, for example, said the "bottom line seems to be that six years and billions of dollars into this so-called war on terror, the al Qaeda network is gaining strength and remains intent on attacking this country." Like several other news reports last night and this morning, ABC World News said this year's report is "a stark contrast" to the 2006 estimate which claimed US efforts "had seriously damaged the leadership of al Qaeda and disrupted its operations -- a point made frequently by the Administration."
In an analysis piece headlined "Bush To Blame For Stronger Al-Qaeda, His Critics Say," the Washington Post notes that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush "has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to US interests." But "this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday." Along the same lines, the New York Times runs a front-page story titled "Six Years Later, the Same Threat," while the Chicago Tribune runs a similar story headlined "Intel Estimates: Attack On US Likely."
Democrats were quick to make the case that the Iraq war has empowered al Qaeda and made Americans less safe. Fox News' Special Report notes the President challenged that notion yesterday. Bush was shown saying, "al Qaeda would have been a heck of a lot stronger today had we not stayed on the offense."
McClatchy says the report claims al Qaeda is "still plotting a major attack on the United States and will 'probably' use its Iraqi affiliate" to do so. The Financial Times reports Democrats said Tuesday's report "proved that the war in Iraq had made the US more vulnerable by giving al Qaeda a new training and recruiting ground and by diverting attention and resources from pursuing terrorists elsewhere." The Los Angeles Times quotes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said the report confirms that the "unnecessary, ill-conceived and ill-planned war in Iraq has made America less secure by turning our nation's full attention away from fighting terrorism.'" On NBC Nightly News, Rep. Jane Harman, widely regarded as something of a "hawk" among Congressional Democrats, said, "there was no al Qaeda in Iraq pre-US invasion. It is not true, categorically not true, that there was al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded." Sen. Chris Dodd said on CNN's Situation Room that he is "not terribly surprised...that al Qaeda is resurgent again" after we "turned Iraq into an incubator." The New York Times' Maureen Dowd provides a concise variation of the liberal take on the report: "After spending hundreds of billions and losing all those lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're more vulnerable to terrorists than ever."
Timing Of NIE's Release Questioned In an editorial, the New York Times writes, "It had to happen. President Bush's bungling of the war in Iraq has been the talk of the summer. On Capitol Hill, some of the more reliable Republicans are writing proposals to force Mr. Bush to change course. A showdown vote is looming in the Senate. Enter, stage right, the fear of terrorism." The Times notes the release of the report, with the "politically helpful title of 'The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland,'" had the same message "as always: Be very afraid. And don't question the president." In a news story this morning, the Chicago Tribune contends the unveiling of the report "follows a pattern of White House releases of select intelligence findings at critical junctures in the war debate."
White House Cites Areas Of Progress White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend defended the Administration's handling of the war on terror in a press conference and media appearances. On CNN's Situation Room she maintained that the US has "made tremendous progress destroying al Qaeda. Two-thirds of al Qaeda that existed on September 11th is dead or captured." Townsend also dismissed claims that the US' continued involvement in Iraq is making us less secure at home and abroad as "absolutely untrue. And in fact, what we know from our experience, including pre-9/11, is if we don't challenge al Qaeda where they seek safe haven, then they will use that as a place from which to plan plot attacks just like they did in Afghanistan." USA Today notes Townsend also "said capturing Osama bin Laden remains a high priority for the Bush, but bin Laden "doesn't make it easy. ... If it were easy, he'd be dead.'"
Likewise, Fox News Special Report reported that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "drew a distinction between al Qaeda's intent and its capabilities." McConnell was shown saying, "They have attempted to rebuild. It's significant rebuilding, but are they as capable as 2001? I don't think so. ... They are planning, but they're not as resilient or as robust or as capable as they were in 2001."
Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, laid out the case that even the most critical coverage of the NIE report is unlikely to boost Democrats. O'Reilly claimed "the threat from al Qaeda is a strong Republican issue. And...Bush knows it. ... The left understands that if al Qaeda does strike America it will be in deep trouble. Liberal stands against Guantanamo and anti-terror measures will come back to haunt the left."
Pakistan Provides Al Qaeda Safe Haven. The Washington Post reports US intelligence officials attributed the al Qaeda gains "primarily to its establishment of a safe haven in ungoverned areas of northwestern Pakistan." In fact, the New York Times reports that Bush's top counterterrorism advisers "acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed." The intelligence estimate, meanwhile, has "forced" the administration "to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan" after concluding that the "main reasons" for al Qaeda's resurgence is Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's "hands-off approach toward the tribal areas." According to the Wall Street Journal, US counterterrorism officials are "under pressure to eradicate this haven with or without the cooperation of Islamabad." However, "any major unilateral effort by the Pentagon inside Pakistan, say US officials, could spark a local backlash strong enough to topple" Musharraf. AFP is reporting that US officials have "prodded Pakistan to launch a military offensive against fighters hiding in tribal areas" after the release of the National Intelligence Estimate. The Washington Times runs a similar report titled "US Calls For Force In Tribal Pakistan."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The Washington Post, in a front-page article titled, "Papers Detail Industry's Role In Cheney's Energy Report," reports that a "confidential list prepared by the Bush administration" shows that a task force headed by Vice President Cheney reviewing US energy policy "held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries." The list was provided to the Post by "a former White House official." The Post notes that "one of the first visitors" was James Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and "a major donor to the Bush inauguration." Soon after that "longtime Bush supporter" Kenneth Lay, then Chairman of Enron Corp., "came by for the first of two meetings." The Post adds that the list "provides a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups," but "it does not entirely explain why the Bush administration fought so hard to keep...[the] as-yet-unreleased internal memos secret."
USA Today reports that according to documents released by Rep. Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee, White House "drug czar" John Walters "made at least 20 trips at taxpayer expense to appear with Republicans congressional candidates before the 2006 elections." Waxman "said his committee is investigating whether the trips violated a ban on using government resources for politics." According to the New York Times, Waxman said administration documents "suggested" that Karl Rove and former White House political affairs director Sara Taylor "had helped direct the campaign-season travel plans of officials from the drug office." Waxman "has asked Ms. Taylor to testify about the issue before his committee on July 30." The Washington Post quotes White House spokesman Scott Stanzel: "The information that Representative Waxman's committee posted today did not give any evidence that these anti-drug events were used to urge the election of any candidate." The Los Angeles Times runs a similar report under the headline "Drug Czar Deployed For GOP, Papers Show."
The Washington Post reveals that top CIA officials at odds with former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld assisted a Council of Europe probe "uncover details of secret CIA prisons in Europe." Challenging allegations that his conclusions were based on unverifiable evidence, Swiss Sen. Dick Marty, author of the report on the jails, said his CIA sources "disapproved of Rumsfeld's methods in hunting down terrorism suspects and that they had agreed to talk to him on condition of anonymity."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Elizabeth Edwards, the high-profile wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, is shaking up the presidential race in a way her husband has not in recent months. In a line of attack first launched in an interview with the online political magazine Salon a few days ago, Elizabeth Edwards is arguing that her husband would be a more pro-woman president that Sen. Hillary Clinton. The New York Post reports, "John Edwards' wife flashed her fangs yesterday in a catty attack on" Clinton, "declaring the former first lady wouldn't be the best 'advocate' for women. A feisty Elizabeth Edwards, who shredded Clinton last year for being less 'joyful' than she is, told Salon.com that 'sometimes you feel like you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues.' 'She wants to be commander-in-chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is,' Edwards added. She also smacked Clinton for allegedly expecting the support of female Democrats simply because she's a woman. 'She says, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman,"' Edwards scoffed."
The New York Times reports Elizabeth Edwards "is again making sharper comments on the presidential campaign trail than any of the actual candidates, giving a particularly pointed critique...of" Clinton. Edwards "said Mrs. Clinton was not as vocal an advocate for women's issues as she wished she were and lanced what she said was a suggestion by the Clinton campaign that people vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman." According to the Times, "Her comments to Salon were her most overtly critical to date of Mrs. Clinton and seemed intended to puncture the Clinton campaign's support among Democratic women."
Long Island Newsday (7/18, Thrush, 402K) reports also reports on Edwards's "unusually blunt" comments that "Clinton is 'not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see.' She went on to question Clinton's commitment to defending abortion rights, making a veiled reference to the former first lady's recent claim that abortions are tragedies."
The AP said Elizabeth "said she sympathized with Clinton, who is running to be the first female president. She recalled the challenges she faced early in her career as a female lawyer and said she understood the pressures Clinton must feel."
Elizabeth Edwards continued this line of attack on the campaign trail in Iowa yesterday. The Quad-City Times reports, "On a daylong campaign swing in Iowa, Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday her husband is the stronger advocate for women than rival Hillary Clinton. ... Edwards was accompanied by Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who endorsed Edwards." Similarly, the Des Moines Register reports that "Hillary Clinton is not talking much about issues that affect women as she pursues a position many Americans still consider a 'guy's job,' said Elizabeth Edwards. ... 'Maybe she's staying away from some of those issues described as female issues,' Elizabeth Edwards said of Clinton, after speaking to a crowd of about 150 people -- most of them women -- in Iowa City."
The AP reports talk show host Oprah Winfrey "plans to hold a Sept. 8 fundraiser for" Sen. Barack Obama at her estate in Santa Barbara, California. The Los Angeles Times' Tina Daunt says "the high-powered event revives the Illinois Democrat's campaign in the entertainment industry, which has been forking over tons of money in recent months to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton." The Los Angeles Times added on its website that Winfrey's fundraiser "promises to be a must-attend event for much of California's Democratic elite, particularly those in the entertainment industry." This piece characterizes Winfrey's fundraiser as an attempt to counter Clinton's standing in the entertainment industry, "bolstered by Steven Spielberg's decision to endorse her." Variety says that while the Winfrey fundraiser "may translate into a donor windfall for Obama, it's uncertain whether her much sought after seal of approval will lead to actual votes; Winfrey has never backed a presidential candidate before."
In her column in the Chicago Sun-Times, Lynn Sweet writes that "Winfrey is taking a personal interest in lining up the entertainment. Calls are going out to Oscar-winning actor Jamie Foxx and songstress Beyonce. To get in on the party, the maximum $2,300-per-individual contribution for the primary is being asked. Special VIP access will be given to people who raise $25,000 (they will be called co-hosts), with top bundlers of $50,000 or more to be listed as 'hosts' of the event."
The Hill reports Rep. Zach Wamp (R), a close confidant of former Sen. Fred Thompson, says that he expects his friend will soon announce his candidacy for president. Wamp is quoted saying, "My view is that he'll enter the race at some point just in the coming days." The Hill notes Thompson "will take part in a large fundraising event in Washington on July 29, but Wamp did not say when a formal announcement might come. He said, however, that 'a couple dozen members' of the House would publicly offer support to Thompson at the event."
A University of New Hampshire Survey Center telephone survey of 307 likely New Hampshire GOP primary voters and 333 likely Democratic primary voters conducted July 9-17 for CNN and WMUR-TV shows Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential field with 33%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama with 25%, Gov. Bill Richardson with 10% and John Edwards with 8%. On the GOP side, Mitt Romney leads with 34%, followed by Rudy Giuliani with 20%, Fred Thompson with 13% and Sen. John McCain with 12%.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "At his press conference yesterday where he admitted he had been involved with prostitutes, Louisiana Senator David Vitter...apologized to his longtime supporters, the working men and the working girls of Louisiana."
Jay Leno: "In other political news, John McCain's communications director has quit. McCain had no immediate comment because his communications director just quit."
Jay Leno: "Well, according to the latest report, al Qaeda is increasing efforts to sneak into the United States, and they're getting pretty serious about it. I understand now they're learning Spanish."
David Letterman: "Are you aware of this fact? Tonight in Washington, D.C. Congress is working around the clock to try to solve the problem in Iraq. And I was thinking, well, geez, maybe they should have done that before we went in!"
Conan O'Brien: "Presidential race heating up. According to a new AP poll, the most popular presidential candidate among registered Republicans is 'none of the above.' It's true. ... Yeah. At the moment, Rudy Giuliani is running third, just behind 'Good Lord, not him!'"
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.
