Iraq
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:12 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:
White House, Congress, Security
The Washington Post: “The House last night pushed through its second plan to fund the Iraq war and reshape war policy, approving legislation that would provide partial funding for the conflict but hold back most of the money until President Bush reports on the war's progress in July. Coming only a week after the Democrats' first war funding bill was vetoed, the House's 221 to 205 vote defied a fresh veto threat and even opposition from Democrats in the Senate.”
More: “The final tally came just an hour after antiwar Democrats mustered 171 votes for far tougher legislation that would all but end U.S. military involvement in Iraq within nine months. The 255 to 171 vote against that measure meant that nowhere close to a majority backed it, but the fact that 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted for it surprised opponents and proponents alike.”
The New York Times focuses on Bush’s support for benchmarks. “Bush offered his first public concession to try to resolve the impasse on war spending, acknowledging rising pressure from his own party and the public… ‘It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward,’ Mr. Bush said.”
In his latest National Journal column, NBC political analyst Charlie Cook says there’s no doubt that the Iraq war has become a drag on Republican candidates. “Looking ahead to the 2008 election, it’s not hard to imagine independents favoring Democratic candidates in numbers similar to 2006. Indeed, the far bigger challenge is coming up with a plausible scenario in which Iraq is no longer a problem for the GOP and the political playing field is not tilted in favor of Democrats.”
NBC’s Mike Viqueira notes that people in cab zone one in DC (which on includes both the White House and Capitol Hill) were angry yesterday about the reports on the GOP moderates’ Tuesday meeting on the war. They don't dispute that it was a significant and dramatic meeting. Rather, the White House and some of the 11 are angry that it was leaked -- since it was agreed all around that it would be confidential. The White House let them all know of their displeasure yesterday, and one of the group says he’s upset that it is being characterized as a group of weak-knees trying to save themselves from electoral defeat. He says it's all about what is best for the country.
Rep. Tom Davis (R), one of the Gang of 11, told NBC that the group told the president, "If the surge is unsuccessful ...what is plan B?" While crediting the president for being gracious and agreeing to a sit-down knowing "it would not be an ‘atta-boy’ meeting," Davis says they told Bush that "we are all concerned" and informed him that "public support" is "dwindling."
There is no dispute that Republicans are concerned. A top GOP leadership aide told Viq that it goes well beyond the moderates, and that the rank and file is "disgusted" by the way the Administration has conducted the war. He says that after Labor Day, all bets are off in terms of continuing Republican support for the Administration on the war. This has been building for a while, as several members have said privately for weeks that the president lacks credibility on this issue. "We told him that we would stick with him into September," said one attendee. "The Petraeus report is the biggest benchmark of all," he said of the report on the surge due in September.
The Democratic House campaign committee, trying to take advantage of the fact that half of the House Republicans that met with Bush this week represent swing districts, sent out press releases attacking those members for being "all talk" on Iraq. As we pointed out yesterday, nearly half of the 11 GOPers who met with Bush hold seats carried by Kerry and Gore in the last two presidential elections.
Cheney spoke out for the first time about George Tenet's assertion in his new book that there was no serious debate about whether to invade Iraq. Cheney, in a Fox News interview: "That's just not true. I haven't read George's book, but to state that somehow the president didn't spend a lot of time thinking about this or talking about it -- we had extensive conversations. Maybe George wasn't included in those, but the fact of the matter is this decision was weighed as heavily and given as careful consideration as any I've ever been involved in, and I've worked for four presidents."
