Just a little humor on Beyonce. Dream Girls 10 Stars
Monday, March 26, 2007
Beyon'ce
Gotta give it to Beyon'ce for trying. She still has nothing on vocals versus Jennifer Hudson.
JENNIFER HOLIDAY sings
To get off the political beat. For you music lovers Dream Girls is an awsome movie. 10 starts. Back flash Jennifer Holiday sings "I Am Telling You".
State by State 2008 Presidential Update
2008 Presidential Update - State by State
Checks and Balances Blog is predicting these states electoral votes will most likely go to these candidates bearing no “Dean” incidents. This is a non-partisan analysis.
Clinton: Arkansas, California, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Louisiana
Obama: Illinois
Giuliani: New Jersey
McCain: Arizona
Edwards: (none)
Mitt Romney: (none)
From my research, candidates showing a likely hood of winning 40% + of the vote were awarded that state. States where no candidates currently polling at 40 % or above were not included. I do believe there is a possible Gore factor that could entirely flip these predictions. New York and Connecticut are a toss up between Clinton and Giuliani. I predict the Republican Party would however never nominate R. Giuliani. Their nominee will be a strict conservative or even though a "maverick" a loyal Republican like John McCain. Therefore, predictions for the GOP nominee are less accurate.
-A.T. Brooks
Who Is Hillary Clinton?
Resource: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
U.S. HOUSE MOVES TO END WAR
WILL THE U.S. SENATE RESPOND IN KIND?
President G.W. Bush said "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," he said. "This is not going to happen."
I say "Its time for President G.W. Bush to listen to the American people".
Political
US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -
The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.
In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
"This war is a grotesque mistake," House speaker Nancy Pelosi said, closing a passionate and often acrimonious debate.
"The American people will not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."
But an infuriated Bush quickly vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, accusing Democratic leaders of second guessing the generals running the war and of abdicating their responsibilities to the US armed forces.
"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."
Bush said the bill had no chance of becoming law: "I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the bill would put "handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and everybody else."
Two Republicans broke with their leaders and voted in favor of the bill. Fourteen Democrats voted against their own party's bid to end the war and Bush's surge of more than 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
The legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presented Republican lawmakers with a dilemma: if they opposed the timetable plan, they risked being portrayed as voting against a bill providing funding for American troops locked in fierce combat.
Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home, we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.
"The American people in the last election sent a message, they said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq," he said, in a speech on the House floor greeted by applause and a standing ovation by Democrats.
But Republican Minority leader John Boehner said the bill would send a damning message about the US commitment to fighting global terrorism.
"We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is not just in Iraq, that's all over the world," he said.
The 124-billion-dollar emergency supplemental spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would tie the deployment of combat forces to strict standards for rest, equipment and training of troops.
It also would create benchmarks that would hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress toward self-governance and security.
If the Iraqis fail to meet the objectives, a withdrawal of troops would have to begin within months.
No matter how the Iraqi government performs, the bill calls for the withdrawals to begin in March 2008 and for most US combat forces to be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.
The package passed after the Democrats overcame divisions within their own ranks from lawmakers who had been demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Despite Bush's stand, Democrats saw the bill as part of a concerted political campaign to force the end of US involvement in Iraq and pressure the president's Republican backers.
Separately, a Senate committee on Thursday approved its own draft emergency war funding measure, setting a March 2008 deadline to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq.
The House and Senate versions must be reconciled, then the president must sign the measure for it to become law. To override a presidential veto, each chamber would have to secure a two-thirds majority.
The Democratic-controlled Senate last week rejected a bid to pass a separate binding resolution that would have called for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.
NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9121027
Commentary: Every Senator (Democrat, Independent & Republican) who sponsors or votes for a non-binding resolution specifically in regards to the War in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be re-elected. I believe this because a non-binding resolution has no authority, it is a waist of paper.
President G.W. Bush said "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," he said. "This is not going to happen."I say "Its time for President G.W. Bush to listen to the American people".
Political
US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -
The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.
In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
"This war is a grotesque mistake," House speaker Nancy Pelosi said, closing a passionate and often acrimonious debate.
"The American people will not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."
But an infuriated Bush quickly vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, accusing Democratic leaders of second guessing the generals running the war and of abdicating their responsibilities to the US armed forces.
"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."
Bush said the bill had no chance of becoming law: "I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the bill would put "handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and everybody else."
Two Republicans broke with their leaders and voted in favor of the bill. Fourteen Democrats voted against their own party's bid to end the war and Bush's surge of more than 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
The legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presented Republican lawmakers with a dilemma: if they opposed the timetable plan, they risked being portrayed as voting against a bill providing funding for American troops locked in fierce combat.
Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home, we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.
"The American people in the last election sent a message, they said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq," he said, in a speech on the House floor greeted by applause and a standing ovation by Democrats.
But Republican Minority leader John Boehner said the bill would send a damning message about the US commitment to fighting global terrorism.
"We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is not just in Iraq, that's all over the world," he said.
The 124-billion-dollar emergency supplemental spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would tie the deployment of combat forces to strict standards for rest, equipment and training of troops.
It also would create benchmarks that would hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress toward self-governance and security.
If the Iraqis fail to meet the objectives, a withdrawal of troops would have to begin within months.
No matter how the Iraqi government performs, the bill calls for the withdrawals to begin in March 2008 and for most US combat forces to be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.
The package passed after the Democrats overcame divisions within their own ranks from lawmakers who had been demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Despite Bush's stand, Democrats saw the bill as part of a concerted political campaign to force the end of US involvement in Iraq and pressure the president's Republican backers.
Separately, a Senate committee on Thursday approved its own draft emergency war funding measure, setting a March 2008 deadline to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq.
The House and Senate versions must be reconciled, then the president must sign the measure for it to become law. To override a presidential veto, each chamber would have to secure a two-thirds majority.
The Democratic-controlled Senate last week rejected a bid to pass a separate binding resolution that would have called for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.
NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9121027
Commentary: Every Senator (Democrat, Independent & Republican) who sponsors or votes for a non-binding resolution specifically in regards to the War in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be re-elected. I believe this because a non-binding resolution has no authority, it is a waist of paper.
U.S. political landscape tilting to Democrats
Political
U.S. political landscape tilts to Democrats; A new poll shows that more Americans are rejecting both the Republican Party and many of its broad conservative ideals. PUBLIC OPINION
Source: The Miami Herald 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON
President Bush's dream of leaving an enduring Republican majority as his political legacy is slipping from his grasp.
A new poll released Thursday confirms that the country's underlying political landscape has turned sharply against Bush's party and toward the Democrats on bellwether issues such as the use of military force, religion, affirmative action and homosexuality.
''It's going in the other direction,'' said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center, which released the survey.
It's not going toward a Democratic majority. But there's no more progress toward a Republican majority.''
''But Democrats shouldn't start popping the champagne yet,'' said Steve Schier, a political scientist at Minnesota's Carleton College. ``This group . . . is still very much up for grabs.''
The idea of a durable political majority -- like the one the Republicans enjoyed for decades after the Civil War or that Franklin D. Roosevelt built for the Democrats in the 1930s and '40s -- might be a quaint notion in an era in which a third of the voters refuse to align with either major party for more than one election.
CONSERVATIVE HOPES
But Bush and his political advisor, Karl Rove, thought they had found the keys to securing what began as the so-called Reagan Revolution and seemed to gain strength with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
They called it ''compassionate conservatism,'' a blend of appeals to religious and economic conservatives coupled with a pitch to moderate, suburban independents for education revisions, tax cuts, Medicare expansion.
A solid Republican majority seemed within reach, especially after the country rallied behind Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush's Republicans defied history by gaining seats in the 2002 midterm congressional elections, which usually tilt against the president's party.
That year, the Republicans moved into a tie with the Democrats in terms of voters' self-proclaimed party identification, with 43 percent picking each party.
Now that's all gone.
NEW REALITY
Today, 50 percent of Americans call themselves Democrats or lean that way, while 35 percent favor the Republican Party.
''Over the past five years, the political landscape of the nation has shifted from one of partisan parity to a sizable Democratic advantage,'' the Pew analysis said. ``But the change reflects Republican losses more than Democratic gains.''
''That's due to dissatisfaction with the White House,'' Kohut added in an interview.
That dissatisfaction has grown as Americans have turned against the war in Iraq.
At the same time, the country is becoming more amenable to the Democratic view of such divisive issues as God, war and welfare, the Pew survey found:
The ranks of those who completely agree that prayer is an important part of their daily lives dropped from 55 percent in 1999 to 45 percent.
Those who think military strength is the best way to preserve peace dropped from 62 percent in 2002 to 49 percent.More people support affirmative action, up from 58 percent in 1995 to 70 percent today. The percentage of Americans who think the government should help needy people even if it increases the national debt rose from 41 percent in 1994 to 54 percent today.
Commentary: Promising changes for the Democratic Party. This report however lacks data on what parts of the country these shifts are occuring. Larger numbers nationally do not equate to a certainity of control of Congress or the White House.
BUSH DIGGS HEELS ON TESTIMONY
Political
BUSH DIGGING IN HIS HEELS ON TESTIMONY BY TOP AIDES
Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON
"Ever since Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush has known a fight like this could come.
The battle over the congressional inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors is not one of Bush's choosing. But now that it has been thrust upon him, Bush is defiantly refusing to allow Karl Rove and other top aides to testify publicly in an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors, and standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
In doing so, the president is sending a message to Democrats on Capitol Hill. He may be a lame duck and his poll numbers may be down, but he will protect those closest to him, defend his presidential powers and run his White House the way he sees fit in his remaining 22 months in office.
"George W. Bush will rue the day if he lets Al Gonzales go," said Ari Fleischer, Bush's former press secretary, "because that will be the first scalp that the Democrats on the Hill will gather and collect, and then the door will then be opened to show that if you can put enough pressure on President Bush, anybody can go. This is a crucial first test."
Bush is also waging what he views as an even bigger war over presidential prerogatives. He has moved aggressively to expand presidential powers -- asserting authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants and try suspected terrorists before military tribunals. To avoid divulging the membership of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, the administration even went to the Supreme Court. One Republican friend of Bush's said the president is trying to "take back control," adding, "he's pretty angry."
That was evident Tuesday evening in a news conference. It was held in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, but there was little diplomacy about it. A defiant Bush made clear that he was not going to allow Democrats on Capitol Hill to spend the rest of his term "dragging White House members up there to score political points, or put the klieg lights on."
Bush has offered to let Rove and three other officials, including Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, be interviewed by lawmakers, but only in private, without transcripts, and not under oath -- conditions that are not acceptable to Democrats. A Senate committee on Thursday approved three subpoenas to top administration officials, including Rove.
Bush says he's willing to go to court. Fleischer said Bush is convinced that presidential powers have eroded since Watergate, and that it is his duty to restore them for his successors.
"This is the White House that, under his leadership, didn't give up the energy records and took a beating for it," he said. "He's willing to lose the politics of these things, because he does have a longer view of the powers of the presidency and what it takes to protect them."
The president is all the more passionate about this particular fight because of the men at the center of it: Rove and Gonzales. Both have been part of the president's inner circle since his days as the governor of Texas. When Bush recently had a rare dinner out, he went to Rove's house, where the man who has been dubbed "Bush's Brain" served game from a recent hunting trip. "
BUSH DIGGING IN HIS HEELS ON TESTIMONY BY TOP AIDES
Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON
"Ever since Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush has known a fight like this could come.
The battle over the congressional inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors is not one of Bush's choosing. But now that it has been thrust upon him, Bush is defiantly refusing to allow Karl Rove and other top aides to testify publicly in an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors, and standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
In doing so, the president is sending a message to Democrats on Capitol Hill. He may be a lame duck and his poll numbers may be down, but he will protect those closest to him, defend his presidential powers and run his White House the way he sees fit in his remaining 22 months in office.
"George W. Bush will rue the day if he lets Al Gonzales go," said Ari Fleischer, Bush's former press secretary, "because that will be the first scalp that the Democrats on the Hill will gather and collect, and then the door will then be opened to show that if you can put enough pressure on President Bush, anybody can go. This is a crucial first test."
Bush is also waging what he views as an even bigger war over presidential prerogatives. He has moved aggressively to expand presidential powers -- asserting authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants and try suspected terrorists before military tribunals. To avoid divulging the membership of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, the administration even went to the Supreme Court. One Republican friend of Bush's said the president is trying to "take back control," adding, "he's pretty angry."
That was evident Tuesday evening in a news conference. It was held in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, but there was little diplomacy about it. A defiant Bush made clear that he was not going to allow Democrats on Capitol Hill to spend the rest of his term "dragging White House members up there to score political points, or put the klieg lights on."
Bush has offered to let Rove and three other officials, including Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, be interviewed by lawmakers, but only in private, without transcripts, and not under oath -- conditions that are not acceptable to Democrats. A Senate committee on Thursday approved three subpoenas to top administration officials, including Rove.
Bush says he's willing to go to court. Fleischer said Bush is convinced that presidential powers have eroded since Watergate, and that it is his duty to restore them for his successors.
"This is the White House that, under his leadership, didn't give up the energy records and took a beating for it," he said. "He's willing to lose the politics of these things, because he does have a longer view of the powers of the presidency and what it takes to protect them."
The president is all the more passionate about this particular fight because of the men at the center of it: Rove and Gonzales. Both have been part of the president's inner circle since his days as the governor of Texas. When Bush recently had a rare dinner out, he went to Rove's house, where the man who has been dubbed "Bush's Brain" served game from a recent hunting trip. "
Friday, March 23, 2007
Attorney fired to make room for Rove protege
New documents show officials prepared for Bush approval before Griffin took job
Dan Eggen, Amy Goldstein, Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2007
(03-23) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Two months before Bud Cummins was fired as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, a protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove was maneuvering with the Justice Department to take his place.
Last April, Tim Griffin, a Rove aide and longtime GOP operative, sent the attorney general's chief of staff a flattering letter about himself written by Cummins, the prosecutor he was trying to replace, internal e-mails released this week show. Rove and Harriet Miers, then the White House counsel, were keenly interested in putting him in the position, the e-mails reveal.
New documents also show that Justice and White House officials were preparing for President Bush's approval of the appointment as early as last summer, five months before Griffin took the job.
The unusual appointment of Griffin, now serving as the interim U.S. attorney in Little Rock, has been one of the central issues in the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys, which led to this week's constitutional showdown between Congress and the White House. The Senate Judiciary Committee's decision Thursday to approve subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and deputy White House Counsel William Kelley to testify about the firings follows similar action by a House panel. The committees' chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., so far appear in no rush to issue the subpoenas, and private negotiations with the White House continue.
Some of the thousands of pages of e-mails released this week underscore the extraordinary planning and effort, at the highest levels of the Justice Department and White House, to secure Griffin a job running one of the smaller U.S. attorney's offices in the country.
The e-mails show how Kyle Sampson, then the attorney general's chief of staff, and other Justice officials prepared to use a change in federal law to bypass input from Arkansas' two Democratic senators, who had expressed doubts about placing a former Republican National Committee operative in charge of a U.S. attorney's office. The evidence runs contrary to assurances from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that no such move had been planned.
"This was a very loyal soldier to the Republicans and the Bush administration, and they wanted to reward him," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. "They had every right to do this, but it's the way they handled it, and the way they tried to cover their tracks and mislead Congress, that has turned this into a fiasco for them."
Griffin declined to comment Thursday but said in a previous interview that he was being unfairly maligned by Democrats. He has announced that he will not seek Senate confirmation to become Little Rock's chief federal prosecutor but will remain until a replacement is found.
In political circles, Griffin is widely considered an aggressive and accomplished Republican political operative. He was research director at the Republican National Committee during Bush's 2004 campaign, and he went to work for Rove at the White House in 2005.
Administration officials and many Republicans say that regardless of politics, Griffin has the credentials to be U.S. attorney.
"He's more qualified to hold that position than most of the people who came to that job in the first term," said Mark Corallo, who worked as the Justice Department's communication director when John Ashcroft was attorney general. Cummins' dismissal differs from the firings of the seven other ousted federal prosecutors in several respects. Cummins was told he was being removed last June, and the rest were told on Dec. 7. Justice Department officials also have not publicly said Cummins' departure was related to his performance in office, as they have with the others. They acknowledged last month that he was fired simply to make room for Griffin.
But documents show that Cummins was clearly a target of Sampson's two-year effort to fire a group of U.S. attorneys who did not qualify as what he called "loyal Bushies." He was recommended for removal as early as March 2005.
Cummins said he had no idea of those plans until he was notified of his firing last June. Sometime in the next couple of months, he said, it became clear that Griffin was going to get the job, and Cummins stepped aside in December.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/23/MNGE3OQI1N1.DTL
Dan Eggen, Amy Goldstein, Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2007
(03-23) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Two months before Bud Cummins was fired as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, a protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove was maneuvering with the Justice Department to take his place.
Last April, Tim Griffin, a Rove aide and longtime GOP operative, sent the attorney general's chief of staff a flattering letter about himself written by Cummins, the prosecutor he was trying to replace, internal e-mails released this week show. Rove and Harriet Miers, then the White House counsel, were keenly interested in putting him in the position, the e-mails reveal.
New documents also show that Justice and White House officials were preparing for President Bush's approval of the appointment as early as last summer, five months before Griffin took the job.
The unusual appointment of Griffin, now serving as the interim U.S. attorney in Little Rock, has been one of the central issues in the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys, which led to this week's constitutional showdown between Congress and the White House. The Senate Judiciary Committee's decision Thursday to approve subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and deputy White House Counsel William Kelley to testify about the firings follows similar action by a House panel. The committees' chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., so far appear in no rush to issue the subpoenas, and private negotiations with the White House continue.
Some of the thousands of pages of e-mails released this week underscore the extraordinary planning and effort, at the highest levels of the Justice Department and White House, to secure Griffin a job running one of the smaller U.S. attorney's offices in the country.
The e-mails show how Kyle Sampson, then the attorney general's chief of staff, and other Justice officials prepared to use a change in federal law to bypass input from Arkansas' two Democratic senators, who had expressed doubts about placing a former Republican National Committee operative in charge of a U.S. attorney's office. The evidence runs contrary to assurances from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that no such move had been planned.
"This was a very loyal soldier to the Republicans and the Bush administration, and they wanted to reward him," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. "They had every right to do this, but it's the way they handled it, and the way they tried to cover their tracks and mislead Congress, that has turned this into a fiasco for them."
Griffin declined to comment Thursday but said in a previous interview that he was being unfairly maligned by Democrats. He has announced that he will not seek Senate confirmation to become Little Rock's chief federal prosecutor but will remain until a replacement is found.
In political circles, Griffin is widely considered an aggressive and accomplished Republican political operative. He was research director at the Republican National Committee during Bush's 2004 campaign, and he went to work for Rove at the White House in 2005.
Administration officials and many Republicans say that regardless of politics, Griffin has the credentials to be U.S. attorney.
"He's more qualified to hold that position than most of the people who came to that job in the first term," said Mark Corallo, who worked as the Justice Department's communication director when John Ashcroft was attorney general. Cummins' dismissal differs from the firings of the seven other ousted federal prosecutors in several respects. Cummins was told he was being removed last June, and the rest were told on Dec. 7. Justice Department officials also have not publicly said Cummins' departure was related to his performance in office, as they have with the others. They acknowledged last month that he was fired simply to make room for Griffin.
But documents show that Cummins was clearly a target of Sampson's two-year effort to fire a group of U.S. attorneys who did not qualify as what he called "loyal Bushies." He was recommended for removal as early as March 2005.
Cummins said he had no idea of those plans until he was notified of his firing last June. Sometime in the next couple of months, he said, it became clear that Griffin was going to get the job, and Cummins stepped aside in December.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/23/MNGE3OQI1N1.DTL
Thursday, March 22, 2007
DEMS stand ground on sacked prosecutors
Nothing, Nothing, Nothing is what the American public will get if G.W. Bush's proposal is accepted.
Political
US Democrats throw down gauntlet over sacked prosecutors
Source: Agence France Presse 03/22/2007
WASHINGTON, March 22, 2007 (AFP) -
Pressure mounted on US President George W. Bush Thursday as for the second time in two days US lawmakers authorized subpoenas of White House aides in a controversy over purged prosecutors.
The Senate Judiciary Affairs Committee allowed its chairman, Patrick Leahy, to issue the subpoenas in its probe into whether the eight attorneys were dismissed for political reasons late last year.
The vote came after a House of Representatives panel on Wednesday agreed that five senior administration officials including President George W. Bush's top political advisor, Karl Rove, should be summoned for questioning.
Bush, whose ties with the Democratic-controlled Congress have been strained over the war in Iraq, has vowed to fight any subpoenas, accusing the Democrats of a "partisan fishing expedition."
He did agree on Tuesday that White House officials could be interviewed privately by legislators, but not under oath, and without written transcripts.
But Democratic lawmakers say that is not enough, and the issue may now have to go before the Supreme Court if the White House refuses to bend.
"We have the right of inquiry and this is a very important inquiry. I think there could be much more to it than meets the eye right now and we need to persevere," Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fow News.
Leahy agreed, saying: "After a while, you begin to wonder, do we have an independent judicial system, do we have an independent prosecutorial system?
"And a lot of Republicans and Democrats have questioned what's going on. And I think we ought to -- all I want to do is know what the truth is."
The White House however has accused the Democrats of wanting to turn the investigation into a primetime spectacle.
"What he (Leahy) is talking about is a show trial. That's not designed to get at the truth, it's designed to sort of scold White House officials," said White House spokesman Tony Snow early Thursday.
The White House has already released some 3,000 pages of documents concerning the December sackings, which it says show there was no wrong-doing.
And it has stood by the country's top legal officer, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, facing a clamor of calls for his resignation.
The dispute began when some of the fired attorneys told Congress they were sacked because they resisted pressure from Republican lawmakers over sensitive cases.
While the White House and Justice Department have the right to appoint and remove all 93 US attorneys -- who investigate and prosecute court cases for the government -- replacements are usually only carried out at the beginning of a president's administration.
The issue has managed to divert the focus away from the Democrats' faltering attempts to agree a common congressional stand on the Iraq war and push a timetable to bring the troops home.
And is also providing succor for hardline Republicans, as Bush's ratings plummet to their lowest ever in the opinion polls.
"Why not go to war with Congress?" asked the rightwing New York Post on Thursday.
"Sure, Bush's approval rating is just 35 percent in the latest Gallup poll. But Congress' rating is even worse - 28 percent. Why shouldn't Bush move to take advantage of that?
"Apart from the survival of his own administration, Bush has a duty to fight to preserve the prerogatives of the executive as an institution for future presidents - Republican or Democrat."
Democrats reject Bush's plea
Political
Dems reject Bush's plea for patience on Iraq plan
Source: Orlando Sentinel 03/20/2007
WASHINGTON -- On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, President Bush and Congress' Democratic leaders clashed over whether lawmakers should move to bring U.S. troops home -- and whether they can.
With the House set to vote this week on a war-spending bill that would effectively withdraw U.S. combat troops by fall 2008, Bush made clear that he doesn't think it is lawmakers' place to challenge his battle plan.
"They have a responsibility to ensure that this bill provides the funds and the flexibility that our troops need to accomplish their mission," Bush said in remarks televised from the White House. "They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special-interest spending for their districts. And they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."
Democrats countered that voters had put them in control of Congress to challenge Bush.
"The American people have lost confidence in President Bush's plan for a war without end in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "That failed approach has been rejected by the voters in our nation, and it will be rejected by the Congress."
With the war lumbering into its fifth year, it has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 members of the U.S. military. Predictions about the cost and length of the war have been far surpassed. The public overwhelmingly opposes the war, and Bush's approval rating stands near his all-time low. Trying to halt spiraling sectarian bloodshed, Bush has ordered nearly 30,000 additional combat and support troops to Iraq, mostly to stabilize Baghdad.
The president pleaded for patience to give his strategy more time to work.
"The new strategy will need more time to take effect," he said. "Until Baghdad's citizens feel secure in their own homes and neighborhoods, it will be difficult for Iraqis to make further progress toward political reconciliation or economic rebuilding, steps necessary for Iraq to build a democratic society."
From Capitol Hill, Democrats said patience has run out.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn said Democrats were intent on "ending the blank check for the president's war and setting a timeline for the phased redeployment of our U.S. military."
Added Clyburn, D-S.C., "By August 2008 at the latest, U.S. combat troops will be redeployed from Iraq."
Poll of Iraqis
A new poll reflected the stress and hopelessness that are the result of the unrelenting violence and uncertain political situation. The poll, by ABC News, USA Today, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD German TV, found only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops; 86 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be a victim of violence; and 51 percent say violence against American forces is acceptable.
The joint security crackdown by an influx of U.S. and Iraqi forces to Baghdad and the troubled Al Anbar province began Feb. 14.
"Success will take months, not days or weeks" -- in part because less than half of the U.S. troop reinforcements have yet arrived in the capital, Bush said.
"There will be good days, and there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds," he said.
Some positive signs
Still, he reported positive news, some that had been delivered during a briefing on the war with his National Security Council and a later videoconference call with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from Baghdad.
Bush credited Iraqis with deploying 10 army brigades and nine national-police brigades to the capital, and al-Maliki's Shiite-led government for allowing U.S. troops to go after Shiite militias as well as Sunni insurgents. He said the security push has already uncovered large caches of weapons and destroyed two major car-bomb factories on the outskirts of Baghdad.
He also praised al-Maliki's government for making progress on a law establishing how oil revenue would be shared among the Iraqi people and on a promise of $10 billion in Iraqi money spent on reconstruction.
What he didn't mention was that Iraq missed the Dec. 31 target dates to enact the oil law, as well as laws establishing provincial elections and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because they belonged to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. The U.S. is also pushing for constitutional amendments to remove articles that the Sunnis think discriminate in favor of the Shiites and Kurds.
Democrats challenged Bush's strategy.
"By diverting attention from al-Qaeda and stretching our troops to the breaking point, the Iraq war has made America less safe, not more," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. "The war can only be won politically and by forcing Iraq's political factions to resolve their differences."
To this end, Democrats are pushing a war-spending bill that includes a troop-withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. That timeline would speed up if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is meeting its own benchmarks for providing security, allocating the oil revenues and making the constitutional amendments.
The House spending bill has little chance of getting to Bush's desk, where he has promised a veto, because Democrats have a much slimmer majority in the Senate. But the White House has worked aggressively anyway against the House bill, fearing it could create momentum in the Senate and send an unwanted message globally.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
