On the second day of Gen. David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's long-awaited appearance before Congress, there was a significant drop in the amount of coverage devoted to the story by major media outlets. With President Bush preparing to address the nation today about Iraq, the networks which the previous evening had led with the story -- last night largely ignored Petraeus and Crocker: ABC did not report the news, while NBC and CBS dedicated a combined total of only three minutes of airtime to the subject. Print media continue to devote considerable attention to the hearings, but the nation's largest circulation newspapers don't run their reports on their front pages. Today's Wall Street Journal runs its main Petraeus story on page A4; the New York Times runs a major analysis of the testimony on page A10; and USA Today runs a only brief AP report on page 4A.
The coverage focuses on the increasing role this fall's presidential election is likely to play in determining the future of the US presence in Iraq, and on how the pause in troop withdrawals would impact the nation's already strained military. Lawmakers from both parties, meanwhile, are generally cast as skeptical of Petraeus' claims. The New York Times reports Petraeus and Crocker "faced a new round of deep congressional skepticism today, not only about progress in the war and the prospects for eventual withdrawal, but also about whether the nation's involvement in Iraq had made it more vulnerable on other fronts." McClatchy says the Administration "had hoped that the testimony of the top two US officials in Baghdad would educate Congress about the situation in Iraq. But by the time Congress gaveled the hearings to a close Wednesday evening," Petraeus and Crocker "had gotten an earful about political conditions at home. After five years of war, the American public is exhausted by pleas for more time and doesn't feel the war is worth the cost, congressional leaders told Crocker and Petraeus." NBC Nightly News said the "most poignant questions today were asked on behalf of those service members who gave their lives in the war." Rep. Robert Wexler was shown saying, "For what did Stuart Walford and the other 4,024 sons and daughters die for?"
According to the New York Times, Petraeus' recommendation "to suspend troop reductions reflects a bleak assessment that Iraqi forces remain unprepared to take over the mission of securing their own nation." USA Today says Petraeus's "refusal...to give Congress a timetable for additional troop withdrawals has escalated an already fierce debate about the rising cost of the conflict to taxpayers -- and to the faltering domestic economy."
The Financial Times reports Rep. Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed concern "that the conflict in Iraq was taking resources away from Afghanistan and other potential conflicts." According to The Hill, Democrats, "emboldened by polls that show the war continues to be unpopular along with the recent uptick in violence, continued to press for a way out of Iraq." The Wall Street Journal adds that for their part, Republicans "used the four hearings...to accuse Democrats of choosing to lose in Iraq by pushing for a far-reaching military withdrawal just as the situation shows clear signs of improving." However, in his Washington Post column Dana Milbank says Petraeus "sat in a House hearing room facing hostile questions from once-loyal Republican lawmakers."
Democrats Accused Of Ignoring Benchmarks Last night Fox News' Special Report said Democrats "made it clear that despite whatever has been accomplished, they remained dissatisfied. ... This time, anti-war Democrats didn't want to hear about lack of progress on political and legislative benchmarks -- the reason they gave last fall why U.S. troops should withdraw. That's because most have now been met by Iraqi lawmakers." However, the New York Times is reporting that an unnamed "senior administration official" said the administration has "abandoned the benchmarks as a strict standard of progress because establishing a secure Iraq would also depend on factors other than political and military progress."
Petraeus' Focus On Iran Threat Noted The Los Angeles Times reports on its front page that "ever since...Petraeus was appointed...the primary enemy for his troops has been shifting. ... This week, things changed again." This week Petraeus "declared Iranian-backed 'special groups' -- hardened fighters who are part of larger Shiite militias -- to be the 'greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.'"
The CBS Evening News reported that President Bush will announce today "that Army troops will serve 12-month tours of duty again starting in August. Tours had been extended to 15 months during the surge." However, the AP reports that the "reduced deployments will not apply -- at least initially -- to any soldiers currently serving in Iraq, unless conditions improve to the point that commanders believe some could go home early." The Washington Times says Bush is expected to make his announcement "in response to military leaders' complaints about stress on soldiers and families." The Washington Post also says on its front page Bush is acting "in response to intense pressure from service commanders who have expressed anxiety about the toll of long deployments on their soldiers and, more broadly, about the US military's ability to confront unanticipated threats." The Washington Post reports Democrats "in particular, believe that Bush's decision to embrace...Petraeus's recommendation to postpone further troop withdrawals this summer could backfire, leaving the next commander in chief with an overstretched military and a more intractable political situation inside Iraq."
The AP reports Petraeus said he is "unlikely to call for another troop buildup in Iraq, even if security deteriorates after some of the extra American servicemembers return home this summer. ... 'That would be a pretty remote thought in my mind,' he said of reinstating last year's influx of troops." The Washington Post notes Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's outgoing vice chief of staff, also testified before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday. He said the Army is "out of balance" and "current demand for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan 'exceeds the sustainable supply.'" Cody added that "soldiers, families, support systems and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time." NBC Nightly News showed Cody saying, in reference to US troops, "We cannot take their resiliency for granted."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
In what's being cast as a further escalation of the partisan war in Washington and a likely guarantee that the pact will not be approved, McClatchy reports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "announced Wednesday that she'll use a rare procedural option to block fast-track consideration of the Colombia free-trade agreement, a draconian step that counters President Bush's push to get Congress to vote on the controversial deal this year." Pelosi "said she'll present to the House of Representatives floor a rule change eliminating the limit of 90 legislative days to pass or reject the Colombia free-trade agreement, just two days after Bush dispatched the text to Congress." The Washington Post notes "Pelosi said the pact would be defeated if she brought it up for a vote, and signaled that Democrats want to focus on US economic woes." Said the Speaker, "We're first and foremost here to look out for the concerns of America's working families. I take this action with deep respect to the people of Colombia and will be sure that any message they receive is one of respect for their country."
Roll Call calls Pelosi's action a "power play" to "gut...Bush's 'fast-track' authority." The "unexpected and bold action by Pelosi," adds Roll Call, "quickly united Democrats on both sides of the issue. Supporters of the trade agreement warned that unless it is delayed, it would fail on the House floor because of Bush's actions." Democrats "charged that the administration never offered meaningful provisions to address labor's concerns about violence against union members in Colombia and to address the loss of jobs in the United States." The Financial Times notes that if Pelosi's strategy "is endorsed by the House on Thursday, it would mark the first time that Congress has stalled the 90-day 'fast-track' timetable under which most significant trade deals have been ratified in the US since the 1970s."
The New York Times reports on its front page, "What Democrats do not want, many of them say, is a vote that would force lawmakers to choose between the labor and working-class opponents of the measure, who say that trade has cost American jobs and led to wage stagnation, and the Wall Street and manufacturing interests that favor the deal." The issue "has spilled over into the presidential campaign. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama voted for a small trade deal with Peru earlier this year, buying into the argument that trade can benefit the economy."
The Hill, however, says Pelosi is "holding the Colombia trade deal hostage to gain leverage on a second economic stimulus package. ... Delaying action on the trade pact, a high priority for the administration, may secure leverage for Democrats as they seek extra federal spending opposed by many Republicans." The Wall Street Journal also sees the move as an indication that Democrats "will seek to frustrate...Bush's agenda on a broad array of issues, including Iraq funding and free trade, as part of a strategy to wrest concessions from a weakened administration. ... That promises to ratchet up tension ahead of November's elections as both parties grapple with the Iraq war and the housing crisis." Pelosi's move is being criticized by editorials in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
In what the New York Times sees, "at least in part," as a move "to pre-empt legislation sought by Congressional Democrats for a much broader expansion of federally insured loans," the Bush Administration yesterday "proposed a new effort to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure by loosening the eligibility criteria for new mortgages insured by the federal government." Federal Housing Administration commissioner Brian D. Montgomery "announced the new proposal at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. He said the expansion of an existing loan insurance program, called FHA Secure, would help as many as 100,000 additional homeowners by the end of 2008." The Times notes Rep. Barney Frank, "chairman of the financial services committee, has put forward a more expansive plan that he has said could help as many as 1.5 million troubled borrowers."
The Washington Post notes the Administration plan "was quickly criticized by consumer groups" but "embraced by...Democrats, who said the White House is acknowledging that more aggressive government action is needed to help the most hard-pressed borrowers who owe banks more than their homes are worth because of plunging prices." The Wall Street Journal, however, says "Congressional Democrats blasted" the "Bush administration initiative," adding that their "aggressive posturing sets up a showdown with Republican lawmakers who are under increased pressure to respond to the growing housing- and credit-market turmoil." The Washington Times reports House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer "said the Bush administration's housing proposal is 'not as strong as we would like' but is 'certainly closer to Democratic proposals to address the nation's housing crisis and help struggling homeowners.'" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, however, was quick to deride it as insufficient.
McConnell: No Veto Threat Against Senate Bill The Hill reports, "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that President Bush's criticism of a Senate housing bill does not amount to a veto threat." McConnell "clarified remarks made Tuesday by administration officials following a rare joint strategy session between Bush and congressional leaders from both parties devoted to the foundering US economy." McConnell said "the president reassured the leaders that he is not immovably opposed to the bill." That "was news to several GOP senators, who voiced objections to what had been perceived as a White House veto threat."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The AP, in an article titled "McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War," reports Sen. John McCain "refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country, although he said one would be very unlikely." Responding to a question, McCain said, "I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces." The Washington Post adds that McCain "took pains to distance himself from President Bush. ... He vowed to confer more with congressional leaders on matters of war and to 'be humble' in his dealings with foreign leaders." The New York Times, meanwhile, runs a piece this morning saying that some GOP foreign policy "pragmatists" "some of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake" -- are concerned that McCain has fallen under the influence of neoconservatives.
With the Petraeus hearings generating massive news coverage, Iraq has reemerged in the Democratic primary race, as Sen. Hillary Clinton sought to change the focus in Pennsylvania to the war. The Washington Post reports that yesterday Clinton said that "she is the only presidential candidate who will end the Iraq war." Clinton "accused" Sen. Barack Obama "of being disingenuous about his promise to end the war." Clinton is quoted as saying Obama "says he'll end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won't necessarily follow the plan he's been talking about during this campaign -- that the plan is 'just words.'" The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports this morning that Clinton also took a swipe at Sen. John McCain, saying in Pennsylvania yesterday, "That's the choice: One candidate will continue the war and keep troops in Iraq indefinitely; one candidate only says he'll end the war."
Obama Focuses On Economy In contrast to Clinton's attempt to change the focus of the campaign to the war, Obama continued to campaign on the economy yesterday. The Bucks County Intelligencer reports that as he campaigned around eastern Pennsylvania yesterday, Obama "focused heavily on the economy." Obama said, "You've never paid more for a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk. Everything's going up 30 percent at a time when wages and salaries haven't gone up 30 percent." The Allentown Morning Call reports, "With the war in Iraq dominating the headlines, Barack Obama reminded a crowd of about 1,500 at a high school in the heart of Republican Chester County that besides costing thousands of American lives, the war has hurt the U.S. economy" and adds that Obama then "spent much more of his time talking about economic issues such as taxes, unemployment and healthcare."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
A TIME Magazine/SRBI poll of 676 registered Pennsylvania Democratic voters taken April 2-6 shows Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Sen. Barack Obama 49%-41%, including leaners. Without leaners, Clinton leads Obama 44%-38%.
Obama's "TV Ad Blitz" Seen As Paying Dividends The Philadelphia Daily News, in a story on Obama's "TV ad blitz" in Pennsylvania, reported, "Political experts say that the cash-rich Obama campaign has shattered records for spending money on TV ads in Pennsylvania, especially on a per-week basis. ... What's more, most pundits agree, the TV ad blitz -- mostly highlighting Obama's unique life story and his economic proposals -- seems to have had the intended impact. Although polls have varied, for the most part Obama trailed Clinton in the double digits when he started running the ads, and now most surveys show him closing to a single-digit gap." The Chicago Tribune reports Clinton's camp "complained Wednesday that" Obama "was trying to buy" the Pennsylvania race "with an extensive television advertising campaign, saying his rising popularity with the state's voters was partly the result of misleading ads."
The New York Times reports this morning that Sir Elton John headlined a fundraising concert for Sen. Hillary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall, which sold 5,000 tickets and raised $2.5 million. The Politico reports John "was a bit edgier" in his remarks than Clinton, saying, "I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist attitude of some of the people in this country. I say to hell with them." Long Island Newsday says a "bitter" Sir Elton John "thinks America's sexism may be sinking his friend" Clinton, and "said that gender discrimination is behind Clinton's problems in the polls."
The AP reports that campaigning in Pennsylvania yesterday, Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed reports that her husband had lobbied on behalf of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which she opposes. Clinton vowed to defeat the measure, and said, "I have a long record of being on a different attitude toward trade than my husband does. I don't think any married couple I know agrees on everything. And we disagree on this." Meanwhile, the New York Post reports that Bill Clinton, in NYC yesterday, refused to comment on the trade conflict with his wife.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
In a 'The TV Watch' column in the New York Times reports that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain "made taped appeals for charity on a special edition of" Fox's "American Idol" that aired last night, but the videos "didn't make the cut," as the show went on too long. The Times adds, "This precedent-setting political primary season, and its showdown between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, has drawn in millions of new voters and prompted spirited debate all across the country, but even the presidential campaign dances to the tune of 'American Idol.'"
In a posting on the 'Texas on the Potomac' blog on the website of the Houston Chronicle, Richard Dunham writes, "As if the latte-drinking liberal crowd didn't have enough reasons to hope for the defeat of" Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Center for Public Integrity, "funded in part by labor interests," has posted "a newly unearthed 1991 video" of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton praising Clinton, and showing Clinton, a former board member, saying, "I'm proud of this company, and everything it represents." The video is available here. CPI "promises (or is it threatens?) to post additional Clinton/Wal-Mart videos in coming weeks."
Fox News' Special Report reported last night that a new Marist poll in New York state shows that Sen. John McCain "has some significant support there in the fall match-ups." The poll shows trailing Sen. Hillary Clinton 48%-46% in her home state, and leading Sen. Barack Obama 48%-46%. The New York Daily News called the poll "stunning," while the New York Post reports Marist Pollster Lee Miringhoff said, "It is quite shocking and it really speaks to how much the Democratic primary battle is spilling over to the electorate."
The Politico reports this morning that "internal polling data" released "privately last week at the Republican National Committee's state chair meeting and provided to Politico, shows John McCain with a solid lead over both his potential general election rivals." The poll shows McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama 48%-42% nationally, and holding a wide 51%-40% lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton. The Politico adds that among independents, McCain "leads Obama 48 percent to 39 percent and Clinton 54 percent to 34 percent."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "According to the insiders, Condoleezza Rice has been actively lobbying to be John McCain's vice presidential candidate. That would be interesting, don't you think? Condoleezza Rice, John McCain. Kind of like Ebony and Ornery."
Jay Leno: "Former presidential candidate John Edwards announced this week he will not accept the nomination for vice president," to "which the cashier at Wendy's said, 'Do you want a Frosty with this?'"
Conan O'Brien: "A new TV commercial for Hillary Clinton says she has...'a spine of steel.' ... Yeah. When he heard this, John McCain said, 'Oh, yeah, well, I've got a titanium hip.'"
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.
