Bush Meets With Democrats on Their Turf

President Bush spoke to House Democrats on Saturday.

By JEFF ZELENY

Published: February 4, 2007
The New York Times

WILLIAMSBURG, Va., Feb. 3 — In a rare appearance before an audience of Democrats, President Bush said Saturday that he did not question the patriotism of those who disagreed with his Iraq strategy. He also asked lawmakers not to let their disagreement over the war stir distrust and prevent them from finding consensus on immigration and other concerns.

“I welcome debate in a time of war, and I hope you know that,” Mr. Bush said. “Nor do I consider a belief that if you don’t happen to agree with me, you don’t share the same sense of patriotism I do. You can get that thought out of your mind if that’s what some believe.”

The president’s words were met with applause from House Democrats, who gathered here at a secluded resort along the James River for their annual issues conference. Newly in control of Congress, Democrats invited Mr. Bush to their retreat, eager to show that they could no longer be overlooked by the White House.

“The choice,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, “is bipartisanship or stalemate.”

So for nearly two hours, Mr. Bush held forth with some of the very Democrats he has spent the better part of six years sparring with. He delivered a speech to members of Congress and their spouses, took questions in a private session and shook hands and posed for pictures.

“I’m looking forward to working with you,” Mr. Bush said, gesturing to those seated in the crowded ballroom. “I know you’ve probably heard that and you doubt whether it’s true — but it’s true. We’re going to do big things together.”

The political reality, of course, requires Mr. Bush to work with Democrats in the final two years of his presidency if he wants his legacy to include legislation like overhauling the nation’s immigration and health care systems, and beginning to curb America’s dependence on foreign oil.

“A great goal is a comprehensive immigration bill,” Mr. Bush said. “In order to get it done, it’s going to require members in the House and the Senate — Republican members, Democratic members — finding common ground, and the White House wants to help.”

The president’s speech, which lasted about 16 minutes, was interrupted by applause 21 times. Occasionally, the clapping seemed tepid, as some legislators looked across the room to see whether fellow Democrats were joining in. At other times, particularly if Mr. Bush delivered a self-deprecating line, the clapping boomed.

He began his remarks with such a moment, saying he meant no ill will at the State of the Union address when he referred to the lawmakers as members of the “Democrat Party.” The remark stirred a mini-dustup among some Democrats, who believed he was being pejorative.

“Look, my diction isn’t all that good,” Mr. Bush said. “I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language, so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.”

The event’s cordiality stood in contrast to the coming days on Capitol Hill, where the Congress is heading toward a confrontation with the White House over the war in Iraq. In a private question-and-answer session, according to lawmakers in the room, Mr. Bush said he intended to stick by his plan to send more troops to Iraq, but he added that he hoped the debate would be civil.

“We share a common goal,” Mr. Bush said in his public remarks, “and that is to keep America safe.”

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush said the top priority of the budget he will submit to Congress on Monday was “keeping America safe and winning the war against extremists who want to destroy our way of life.” He intends to request nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in military spending.

Mr. Bush did not wade deeply into the specifics of his budget proposals in his speech to Democrats, but he warned with a smile, “Some of it you’ll like, some of it you won’t.”

Before Mr. Bush arrived on Saturday, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, conceded that some Democrats were not thrilled about their guest speaker. “There was a little controversy about the president coming,” he said. “Some of our members said, ‘Well, why is he coming down?’ ”

But by the time he left the room, even some of Mr. Bush’s critics were applauding.

“Look, we don’t always agree,” Mr. Bush said. “That’s why we’re in different parties.”

Read full post and comments:
"Bush Meets With Democrats on Their Turf" >>

Democrats no longer fearful of anti-war reputation

By Noam N. Levey
Times Staff Writer
January 13, 2007
6:12 PM PST
The Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON -- Emboldened by President Bush's deeply unpopular proposal to send more troops to Iraq, congressional Democrats are shedding their wariness about tackling the war and embracing positions once held primarily by the party's most liberal fringe.

Fewer than two weeks after taking power, party leaders who had promised just an increase in oversight hearings on the war now are talking openly about cutting off funds for military operations.

Centrist Democrats are lining up beside longtime anti-war liberals, promising to do everything in their power to stop the president's plans to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.

And the war's most passionate opponents in the House, whose last meeting before the elections was relegated to a basement room, met last week in one of the grandest rooms on Capitol Hill and drew scores of supporters, television cameras and journalists.

"Ours is now the mainstream position," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who two years ago saw her resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq crushed on the House floor. Today, the congressional Out of Iraq Caucus co-founded by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., has more than 80 members.

Congressional Democrats, suddenly united in their intent to pass resolutions against the escalation, still face challenges in deciding how far to go in what could become a historic showdown between two branches of government over the course of a war.

Their threat to cut off funds drew a rebuke Saturday from President Bush, who challenged the war critics to offer their own plan for Iraq.

"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success," he said in his weekly radio address. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

The Democrats' rapid embrace of what were once minority positions capped an extraordinary week on Capitol Hill as Congress stirred after years of standing by a wartime president.

More than two dozen members of Congress went to the floor of the House to condemn the war Thursday. Just one Republican rose to challenge them.

Democrats, who campaigned against the war, seized majorities in the House and Senate last fall largely because of unhappiness with the president's policies.

But when the Democrats returned to Capitol Hill this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other senior party leaders had planned to focus on a purely domestic agenda.

They cautiously avoided talk of cutting funding or other measures to compel Bush to change course in Iraq. As recently as Monday, Pelosi had refused to discuss possible legislation to limit an escalation in Iraq.

But the next day, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech laced with references to the mistakes of Vietnam, announced his intention to introduce a bill that would require the president to seek congressional approval for any troop increase in Iraq.

Within hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would introduce a resolution the following week condemning any White House plans to send additional troops. Pelosi's office quickly announced that House Democrats would do the same.

By the time Bush addressed the nation Wednesday night, congressional Democrats across the ideological spectrum were rallying to oppose the president.

"We have to take a stand. ... We have to do everything we can," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., a centrist Democrat who said she wanted to sign on to the House version of Kennedy's bill, which is sponsored by one of her chamber's most liberal members.

Friday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime military supporter, said he would use his position as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee to try to block funding for any troop increase in Iraq. Murtha also said he wanted to force the closure of the controversial military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and put limits on how long military service members could be deployed.

A Pelosi spokesman said the speaker had encouraged Murtha to explore the funding limitations.

The same day, in a mark of how much has changed in Washington, House Republican leaders hosted a sober meeting to air the complaints of members of their caucus about the president's plans.

Read full post and comments:
"Democrats no longer fearful of anti-war reputation" >>

Analysis: Congress presses Bush on Iraq

ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press
The Kansas City Star

Congressional opposition to President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq has opened a new front in an increasingly complex war, setting the stage for political battles whose effects may be felt long after U.S. forces have come home.

The battle could well subvert administration efforts to bolster the power of the presidency, which many Bush supporters believe was undermined in the wake of another unpopular war a generation ago.

As if Sunni nationalists, Islamic extremists, foreign fighters and Shiite militias were not enough, Bush must now battle the Democratic leadership in Congress, as well as influential figures in his own Republican party, who oppose his plan to throw 21,500 more troops into the fray.

The battlelines are reminiscent of the political struggles that occurred during two other unpopular wars - Korea and Vietnam.

Those half-forgotten struggles produced sweeping changes in the U.S. political landscape that persisted long after the guns fell silent.

Democratic leaders of Congress, fresh from victory at the polls in November, hope to force a vote on the Bush plan in the House and Senate, thereby isolating the president politically.

Although those votes will be nonbinding, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on MSNBC he expects them to be followed by measures "that restrict troop funding and all kinds of financial support for the war."

During a visit Saturday to Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton told ABC News that instead of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, it is time to start redeploying American forces out of the country.

A showdown between Congress and the White House could have far-reaching implications not only for Iraq but for American foreign policy as well.

In the best case scenario, the prospect of an American military departure might spur Iraq's ethnic and sectarian factions to reach a political settlement to spare the nation further bloodshed.

But it could also encourage Sunni and Shiite extremists to grab as much power as possible before the Americans leave.

Bush's plan is reminiscent of the furor unleashed by President Nixon's 1970 decision to invade Cambodia during the final stage of the Vietnam War.

The Cambodian incursion, as it was known at the time, occurred at a time when the U.S. public was clamoring for an end to the conflict in Southeast Asia.

In seeking to justify his decision, Nixon said the goal was to destroy North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia and force Hanoi back to negotiations.

Last week, Bush said the reinforcements were necessary to bring stability to Baghdad so that the Iraqis could reach a political agreement.

Military analysts are divided over whether Bush's plan can succeed, and the administration has refrained from a detailed explanation of what it would do if it fails.

But the 1970 invasion simply drove the North Vietnamese deeper into Cambodia. Five years later, both South Vietnam and Cambodia fell under communist rule.

Nevertheless, the showdown over Cambodia cast a long shadow over American politics for a generation.

The invasion enraged Congress, triggering legislative battles that culminated in the War Powers Act of 1973 that sets limits on a president's power to wage war without congressional approval.

Although the act's constitutionality has never been fully tested in court, Congress has invoked it on several occasions, setting conditions and limitations on the use of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Africa, Haiti and the Balkans.

Vice President Dick Cheney and others have cited the 1973 law as a major element in a series of Vietnam-era legislation that have severely undermined presidential authority to this day.

However, wartime showdowns between presidents and Congress occurred long before the Vietnam conflict.

Those political struggles reflect an ambiguity in the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to declare war but includes no language defining such a declaration.

As a result, many of America's conflicts, including the Civil War, have been fought without a declaration approved by Congress.

In the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln proclaimed Southern states in rebellion and ordered a blockade of their ports, triggering four years of war.

Eight months into the conflict, Congress established a joint committee to oversee the war, holding hearings into Union failures on the battlefield at a time when the very survival of the nation was in peril.

Critics complained at the time that the committee used newspaper leaks to discredit some of Lincoln's generals, undermining Northern morale at a time when Union victory was by no means certain.

Similar complaints were raised again during World War II when a little-known senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, chaired a committee investigating military waste and fraud.

Critics accused Truman of undermining the war effort. But his committee was credited with saving billions of dollars by uncovering waste and war-profiteering.

Truman's efforts won him the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 1944 and propelled him into the White House when President Roosevelt died the following year.

But Truman himself came under criticism for failing to seek a congressional declaration of war when he dispatched troops to South Korea to block an invasion from the communist North.

Public support for the war waned after China entered the conflict, which bogged down in a stalemate. The war became so unpopular that Truman decided against seeking re-election in 1952.

Republican war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower won the White House after promising to halt the fighting, which ended with a cease-fire on July 27, 1953.

Read full post and comments:
"Analysis: Congress presses Bush on Iraq" >>