One day after the release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concludes Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program, President Bush held a press conference in which he urged key allies to maintain the current pressure on the Islamic Republic. In fact, the AP reports, Bush said the new intel "contradicting earlier US assessments...would not prompt him to take off the table the possibility of pre-emptive military action against Iran."
Media accounts of the press conference are almost universally negative toward the President. ABC World News, for example, said last night Bush "was instantly and consistently defensive." NBC Nightly News prefaced its report saying, "The 'Washington Post' is running an analysis story on the internet for tomorrow's paper with the headline, 'Neck Snapping Spin' from the President. They're talking about the President's news conference today." (The piece NBC referred to was in fact an online opinion piece not intended for the newspapers' print edition by Dan Froomkin.) NBC also reported Bush was "a president on the defensive."
Print media outlets also suggest the new intel findings and Bush's reaction to them raise questions about the President's "credibility." So much so, says the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, that "several" Democrats "said that Congress should investigate the discrepancy between the Bush administration's recent doomsday rhetoric on Iran and the NIE's judgments."
McClatchy says the NIE "has dealt another blow to Bush's credibility -- which already was low over his false claims about illicit weapons in Iraq -- because he was aware of the findings when he warned on Oct. 17 that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons could ignite World War III." USA Today also notes that it was the President's first press conference "since warning in October that a nuclear Iran could lead to 'World War III.'" The President also "said he learned in August that there was new information on Iran's nuclear program that needed to be analyzed. He said he did not see the specific findings until last week." In similar reporting, the New York Times says Bush "opened himself to new criticism over his credibility."
The Chicago Tribune's Mark Silva also says this morning there are "new questions" about Bush's "credibility on...security issues." In her New York Times column, Maureen Dowd mentions that during the news conference yesterday, Silva told the President , "I can't help but read your body language this morning, Mr. President. ... You seem somehow dispirited, somewhat dispirited." Bush is said to have replied, "This is like, all of a sudden, it's like Psychology 101, you know?"
Another major issue this morning is how and why the reversal on Iran on the part of the US intelligence community came about. The Los Angeles Times says that "as US intelligence officials sought Tuesday to explain the remarkable reversal, they pointed to two factors: the emergence of crucial information over the summer, and a determination to avoid repeating the mistakes that preceded the Iraq war." The New York Times, meanwhile, says the intel "reversal" on Iran "was based on 'a great discovery' by American intelligence agencies, but neither he nor other officials would elaborate." The Washington Post, Detroit News and New York Times trace the impetus for the reversal to the lessons learned from the Iraq WMD fiasco.
Conservatives Don't Buy New Intel And Neither Does IAEA. The Wall Street Journal reports the NIE "has reopened long-simmering tensions between military hard-liners in the Bush administration and the intelligence community. A number of American hawks, both inside and outside the administration, charged that intelligence services were playing down the Iranian nuclear threat in an excess of caution after their 2002 reports on Iraq proved to overestimate Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. ... 'Make no mistake: This national intelligence estimate has been written by people who've been reading about Iraq for years,' said a US official working on Iran." He "criticized the report as lacking enough data on Iran to draw meaningful judgments," and "said a number of officials working on the Iranian sanctions were blindsided by the report, only having gotten wind of it Monday afternoon. 'There are a lot of conservatives in this administration who don't believe this report,' the official said."
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board, meanwhile, says that its "confidence" in the report "is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials,' according to an intelligence source." They are "Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
Surprisingly, the New York Times reports the International Atomic Energy Agency "on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran's nuclear program." A "senior official close to the agency" said, "To be frank, we are more skeptical. ... We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran."
Push For Tougher Sanctions Going Nowhere? Efforts to toughen sanctions on Iran appear to be already fraying. McClatchy reports a "State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity," said, "A new [UN] resolution is going to be very hard to get, if not impossible." Meanwhile, "two other US officials indicated that the administration could be forced to adopt a less confrontational policy to maintain a semblance of international unity on Iran. That shift could entail the United States joining European powers in talks with Tehran." The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, reports China "indicated it would oppose a new round of economic sanctions against Tehran in light of the new national intelligence estimate," and "even Arab countries, historically fearful of Iran, are showing reluctance to back an aggressive US strategy to challenge Iran." The Washington Post, AP, New York Times and Christian Science Monitor run similar stories.
The Washington Post reports this morning that "facing increasing evidence of military progress in Iraq," Democratic congressional leaders "are eyeing a shift in legislative strategy that would abandon a link between $50 billion in additional war funding sought by President Bush to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops. Instead they would tie the measure to political advances by the Iraqi government." House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel "is examining a new approach, releasing war funds in small increments, with further installments tied to specific performance measures for Iraq's politicians." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "remains skeptical."
According to Roll Call reports Democrats have begun "creating some rhetorical flexibility for themselves as they gear up for long-awaited negotiations with the White House over funding both the government and the Iraq War." Senate Democratic leaders are "tacitly acknowledging that in order to get the entire federal government funded for 2008 they may have to give some ground." The Hill meanwhile, reports Emanuel told reporters, "The country needs more cooperation and compromise from the president, less confrontation and complaints." Speaker Pelosi "called on Bush to 'tone down his rhetoric, put down his veto pen and work with Congress.'" On the other hand, according to another article from The Hill, Congressional Republican leaders "are split over how much backing they will give to President Bush in his fiscal fight with the Democrats." The House GOP, "keen to reconnect with what many regard as lost Republican principles of fiscal restraint and small government, has supported the president's attack on Democratic spending plans." But Senate GOP leaders "have mixed feelings."
Can Democrats Take Credit For The Surge? Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon, in USA Today, writes, "Without a Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, there is little chance that President Bush would have acknowledged his Iraq policy to be failing, and that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would have been accorded the resources and the policy latitude needed to radically improve the situation on the ground." While Democrats "were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it...without their pressure, it probably never would have happened."
Iraq Progress May Be Short-Lived The New York Times reports on its front page that the reduced violence in Iraq "stems from three significant developments, but the clock is running on all of them, Iraqi officials and analysts warn." Iraqi officials "attribute the relative calm to a huge increase in the number of Sunni Arab rebels who have turned their guns on jihadists instead of American troops; a six-month halt to military action by the militia of a top Shiite leader, Moktada al-Sadr; and the increased number of American troops on the streets here." However, they "stress that all of these changes can be reversed, and on relatively short notice."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The AP reports that yesterday the Senate "failed to come up with a plan for blocking an unpopular tax that could affect millions of taxpayers and already is causing disruptions in preparations for the upcoming tax filing season." Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, "while agreeing that Congress must act immediately to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting some 25 million taxpayers in 2007, up from 4 million in 2006, mutually rejected plans from the other side on how to proceed." The Washington Post says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "will try to force a vote on the issue as early as tomorrow," but "both parties expressed doubt...that enough votes could be mustered to approve tax increases sizable enough to replace the revenue lost from the patch." According to the Post, "A growing number of Democrats have been echoing Bush's preference for the AMT to be altered without offsetting tax increases." The Hill quotes Sen. Jon Kyl, the chairman of the GOP Senate conference: "It makes no sense to use a permanent tax increase to offset a temporary extension [of tax relief]."
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Senate, by a vote of 77-18, "gave a boost to President Bush's trade agenda, approving a free-trade agreement with Peru, following passage by the House last month." The AP notes that this is the first bilateral trade deal approved by Congress "under a new Democratic formula that requires negotiators to put labor rights and environmental standards on a par with tariff reductions, investor protections and other key elements of the accord." The New York Times adds, "As it had in the House, the Peru deal exposed a rift among Democrats, with 29 Senate Democrats voting yes and 17 voting no." In the House, "where the vote last month was 285 to 132, 109 Democrats were in favor and 116 opposed."
According to The Hill, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats "are pushing forward with a resolution holding the White House in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with their subpoenas for information and testimony related to the firings of several US attorneys." Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy yesterday "put the contempt resolutions on the committee's agenda for Thursday's meeting."
The Politico reports the contempt resolutions will target White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Karl Rove for failing to respond to subpoenas. The Politico notes that Rove and Bolten "were subpoenaed earlier in the year by the Senate panel as part of the investigation into the sacking of nine US attorneys," but "President Bush, citing executive privilege, refused to make the two senior aides available for questioning by the committee." Roll Call notes the House Judiciary Committee "passed its own contempt citation on July 25 for documents and testimony from Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers."
The Politico reports, "Having made a five-day congressional workweek de rigueur for much of the year," House Democrats "are planning an easier schedule for next year." A 2008 calendar distributed Monday "shows the House holding five-day weeks only three times next year, exposing Democrats to charges that they are backing away from a pledge to work harder than Republicans did when they ruled the House."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Seven of the Democratic presidential candidates gathered at the Iowa State Historical Museum for a debate sponsored by National Public Radio and Iowa Public Radio. The event was only broadcast on NPR, and the candidates primarily exchanged mild jabs on Iran and discussed China trade and immigration. Although President Bush was the focus of the candidates' criticism for saying a new intelligence report that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 did not change the threat from the regime, Hillary Clinton took fire for her vote on the Senate resolution that characterized the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. The AP reports, "Democratic rivals assailed" Clinton for her vote on the resolution, which "they portrayed as misguided and dangerous in light of a new intelligence report that says the Iranians stopped pursuing a nuclear weapon years ago."
The Des Moines Register reports the Democrats said "America should get tougher on China, tone down threats to Iran and find a humane way to control immigration." Sen. Chris Dodd "predicted that Republicans would try to trash Democrats over immigration." Dodd said, "They're going to use this as a wedge issue here, to inflame the passions and the fears of too many Americans. We've seen it before in our country. It's dangerous politics." The Register adds the "leading Democrats agreed that American citizens should not be asked to turn in immigrants whom they believe are in the country illegally." Obama said, "We do not deputize the American people to do the job that the federal government is supposed to do."
NPR led its report with the candidates' discussion of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, adding Clinton "said she is relieved by the intelligence findings, and called on President Bush to pursue diplomacy with Iran. Clinton has come under criticism from fellow Democrats for her September vote in favor of a Senate Resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama - who skipped the vote while campaigning in New Hampshire - has said it gave President Bush a 'blank check' to go to war against Iran."
The CBS Evening News reported, "Clinton's rivals attacked her for voting to label Iran's revolutionary guards a terrorist organization. Clinton said her vote in the Senate was meant to encourage diplomacy but John Edwards called it a pretext for war." Edwards said, "That's supposed to be diplomacy? What possible conclusion can you reach other than that we are at war?" Senator Hillary Clinton: "I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far."
Clinton, Obama "Pull Punches" In an analysis for the AP, Beth Fouhy contrasts the event's calm with the "intensifying effort" to win in Iowa, noting that the candidates "politely discussed" the three issues addressed. "But the focus for most political observers remained on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have stepped up a bitter war of words as polling has showed Obama opening up a slight lead in Iowa. In this format, the two chose to put aside their tough talk and generally found common ground on most topics. ... 'They largely pulled their punches because they realize that escalating a tit-for-tat mudfest presents risks all around,' Democratic strategist Dan Newman said." Similarly, the New York Daily News reports, "Democratic debate showdown: Hillary versus Barack. Let's get ready to...snooze. The first faceoff between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama since she launched a scorched-earth campaign to take him down was no wrestling-cage match. Instead, they had a soothing, civilized chat about policy."
USA Today reports Clinton "portrayed herself as a full member of her husband's foreign-policy team and defended her approach to Iran in a genteel radio debate Tuesday dominated by international issues." The "tenor was mild compared to the crossfire between the Clinton and Barack Obama camps in recent days over experience, character and policy. Tuesday's skirmish: abortion."
Edwards, Biden, Dodd Called Winners, Clinton, Gravel Losers. On his 'The Fix' blog on the website of the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza lists the debate's winners as Edwards, Biden and Dodd. Edwards effectively parlayed his populism and "politely highlighted what he called real divides between himself and" Clinton, while Biden and Dodd "were given considerably more time to make their points" than in past debates, "and they did so effectively." Clinton is labeled a loser since despite her dwindling lead, she is still attacked as though she were the clear frontrunner, and because "she has taken considerable flack for her positions" on Iran and illegal immigration, while "her strongest issue, health care, was left out of the mix." Mike Gravel is also listed as a loser because "his role in these gatherings is to serve as the resident crank."
ABC News (12/4, Ross, Schecter) reported on its "The Blotter" blog that Wayne Dumond "was initially sentenced to life plus 25 years for raping a 17-year-old Arkansas high school cheerleader. In 1999, a parole board voted to free Dumond, after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee announced his desire to see him released. A former parole board member tells ABC News that Huckabee exerted strong pressure on the board to release Dumond. During the campaign, Huckabee has insisted he played only a minor role in Dumond's release and had concerns that Dumond had been wrongly convicted. Huckabee recently told CNN, 'None of us could've predicted what Dumond could've done when he got out.'"
McClatchy (12/5, Helling) reports Mike Huckabee "said Tuesday that he is 'heartbroken' over the pain suffered by the families of two women murdered in Kansas City more than six years ago." Authorities say "the two victims, Carol Shields and Sara Andrasek, were killed by the same man - Wayne DuMond, who was released from an Arkansas prison in 1999, a year before Shields' murder." Their mothers "say Huckabee is responsible, at least in part, for DuMond's release." Shields' mother, Lois Davidson, said, "What a fool. Thinking he could rule the country when he couldn't even do a good job as governor of Arkansas." McClatchy added that in an interview with the Kansas City Star, Huckabee said, "I'm deeply sorry for what they've been through. Nothing I can do or say can reduce their level of grief." McClatchy adds Huckabee "said he hoped the families - and the public - would fully understand his role in DuMond's controversial release from custody." Huckabee said, "I should be held responsible for the things I did. The one thing I didn't do is let him go."
The Washington Post reports Mitt Romney "holds a wide lead over his Republican rivals in New Hampshire, where he is seen as the strongest leader and most electable presidential candidate in the field, but the GOP race there remains unsettled a month before the nation's first primary, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." The survey shows 37% of likely Republican primary voters would vote for Romney; 20% would vote for John McCain; 16% would vote for Rudy Giuliani; 9% would vote for Mike Huckabee; 8% would vote for Ron Paul; and 4% would vote for Fred Thompson.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The AP reports, "In-depth polling by The Associated Press and the nonpartisan Pew Research Center shows that in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, no one is a shoo-in" for the Republican nomination. Across the three states, "tight battles are being waged for voters' trust on Iraq, immigration and other key Republican issues and for control of pivotal groups including conservatives, white evangelicals and men." In Iowa, "Romney has 25 percent support among Republicans, Huckabee 24 percent, Giuliani 14 percent and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 12 percent." In New Hampshire, Romney "has 37 percent, Giuliani 19 percent and McCain 15 percent." And South Carolina, "where the poll shows voters are less focused on the race, Romney and Giuliani have 19 percent each, Thompson 18 percent, McCain 13 percent and Huckabee 10 percent. Republicans there vote Jan. 19." The AP provides brief individual reports on the IA, NH and SC polls.
A set of Quinnipiac University polls in three key swing states Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio shows Hillary Clinton besting Rudy Giuliani in two, with the parties' frontrunners tied in the third.
In Florida, Clinton leads Giuliani 48%-41%, reversing a 46%-43% Giuliani lead in a similar poll taken in late October. Clinton also leads all other top Republicans John McCain, 47%-40%; Fred Thompson, 52%-36%; Mitt Romney, 50%-36%; and Mike Huckabee, 50%-35%. However, Giuliani tops Barack Obama, 45%-37%, and John Edwards, 43%-39%. Clinton holds a wide lead in the Democratic primary, taking 53%, followed by Obama with 17% and Edwards with 7%. On the GOP side, Giuliani leads with 30%, followed by Romney, 12%; Huckabee, 11%; Thompson, 10%; and McCain, 9%.
In Ohio, Clinton tops Giuliani 45%-41%, up from a 45%-43% lead in late October. Clinton also tops the rest of the top Republicans, beating McCain 44%-42%; Thompson, 47%-38%; Romney, 47%-37%; and Huckabee, 45%-38%. Giuliani also trails Obama, 42%-38%, and Edwards, 45%-38%. In the Democratic primary, Clinton leads with 45%, followed by Obama, 19%, and Edwards, 9%. On the Republican side, Giuliani leads with 29%, followed by McCain, 13%; Huckabee, 10%; Romney, 6%; and Thompson, 6%.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton and Giuliani are tied at 44% apiece. Clinton led 45%-43% in the late October survey. Clinton also tied McCain, at 43% apiece, but leads Romney, 49%-37%; Thompson, 49%-37%; and Huckabee, 48%-37%. Giuliani is also tied with Obama at 41% apiece, but leads Edwards, 44%-40%. In the Democratic primary, Clinton leads with 43%, followed by Obama with 15% and Edwards with 9%. On the GOP side, Giuliani leads with 27%, followed by Huckabee and McCain at 13% apiece. Romney and Thompson are tied for 4th with 6% apiece.
Quinnipiac surveyed 1,124 Florida voters, 1,178 Ohio voters, and 1,092 Pennsylvania voters from November 26-December 3.
Clinton Remains Dominant On Democratic Side A new Los Angeles Times /Bloomberg poll shows Mike Huckabee moving into second place nationally, and closing on Rudy Giuliani for the lead, the second such poll in as many days. Giuliani leads the GOP field with 23%, followed by Huckabee, 17%; Fred Thompson, 14%; John McCain, 11%; Mitt Romney, 9%; and Ron Paul, 5%. The LA Times says Huckabee, "the ascendant Republican presidential candidate in Iowa, is enjoying a surge of support across the country -- and Rudolph W. Giuliani seems to be paying the biggest price," and adds that the poll shows Huckabee "is catching fire beyond Iowa." Bloomberg reports that while Giuliani saw his support slip in the current survey, "he still wins when voters are asked who has the best chance of beating a Democrat next year, with 38 percent. Huckabee gets 6 percent. 'That's pragmatism setting in,'" said Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director.
On the Democratic side, 45% would vote for Hillary Clinton; 21% would vote for Barack Obama; 11% would vote for John Edwards; 3% would vote for Joe Biden; and 3% would vote for Bill Richardson. Bloomberg reports, "Likely Democratic voters say they consider Clinton sufficiently prepared to be president; she tops Obama on that question by a margin of almost 2-to-1. At the same time, Obama is making inroads with independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary, posing a potential problem for Clinton in states such as New Hampshire with high proportions of such voters, Pinkus says. Clinton has 29 percent support among those voters, while Obama has 23 percent."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The late night shows continue to be in reruns due to the ongoing writers' strike.
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.
