Reply With QuoteBush's political career is over but the rest of republicans its not, they are just doing what they need to, to survive.
GOP Moderates Warn Bush on Iraq
Moderates in G.O.P. Warn Bush on Iraq
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY
Published: May 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.
The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.
“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”
Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.
Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.
Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting — including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley — appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.
“It was very healthy,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who attended but let the moderates do most of the talking.
“I walked away from it feeling I got a chance to make my points,” Mr. Davis said.
The delegation included Representatives Mark Kirk of Illinois, another leader of the moderate coalition; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; James T. Walsh of New York; and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Emerson declined to discuss the meeting.
White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. “The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a “persistent push” by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President **** Cheney.
The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said White House officials, led by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, would try to reach a compromise with Congress. Mr. Bolten met Wednesday with Senate leaders.
While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, “if we pulled out all the stops.”
Mr. Gates, who also attended the White House meeting on Tuesday, told lawmakers that the Pentagon would evaluate the violence in Iraq and the progress of the administration’s troop buildup plan by early September to determine the next phase of the military strategy.
“I think if we see some very positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the right direction,” Mr. Gates said, “then that’s the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of these forces.”
Senators vigorously questioned Mr. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Pentagon’s announcement on Tuesday of potentially mobilizing 35,000 more troops by December. Mr. Gates said the decision to send those forces to Iraq was not “foreordained,” adding that a decision would be made after the September review.
“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.
“I think people want to hear what the general says,” said Representative Gerlach, of Pennsylvania. “We will all go from there.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/wa...10cong.html?hp
Bush's political career is over but the rest of republicans its not, they are just doing what they need to, to survive.
With Bush's approval rating in some polls dipping to below 30%, it seems as if the Republican Party is finally realizing that they are in real trouble with the American people about how the Iraqi War is playing out. It's too bad they didn't come to that conclusion months ago. It will also be interesting to see if the right wing conservative Republican echo chamber will lash out at these moderates like they do with anyone who disagrees with Bush's failed policy.
Very interesting read! Thanks.
Somebody sound the beige alert! It's the moderate coalition! Why if Bush doesn't do what they've politely asked, they'll not do anything right now. Or, maybe later, if it's not too soon. In addition, they will not take steps to act unilaterally nor issue a pleasantly worded memo on off-white recycled paper.
Feh, just going through the motions in an effort to provide political cover. We all know how this will work out - all the players will put on their costumes and make the speeches that are expected of them - and then the country will continue to do what we all agreed to do to begin with.
And what did we all agree to do?Originally Posted by 2Sheds_Jackson
Sorry, the term 'moderate Republican' is incorrect. A more accurate label is vulnerable Republicans. And they're not going to get the least bit of respect from the Bush. Not until we start seing large numbers of Rs start voting against the White House. Until then Bush is just going to wipe their concerns on his ass like he did the ISG report.
Incidentally, this little tidbit from their conversation didn't make it into this story:
The Republican Congressmen then went on to say: "The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There's no longer any credibility. It has to come from General Petraeus."
Well let it be said than , the final word comes from Gen. Patraeus that is fine. I don't think he has mentioned the democrat strategy yet as the only option right? If so let the man run the counter-insurgency operation and give him what he needs until such time that he says lets punch out of that toilet.
Yesterday (May 10), Bush blinked and offered his first public concession by accepting benchmarks for the war. Maybe the meeting with the moderate Republicans finally got him to accept the reality that even members of his own party aren't going to continue to give him a blank check to wage war without an planned end game.
That would be House Joint Resolution 114, which, having been overwhelmingly passed by both the House and the Senate, and signed by the President, became Public Law 107-243, 116, statute 1497-1502. Otherwise known as the "Iraq War Resolution". It's how the country works...or at least how it's supposed to work. Or doesn't "united we stand" and E pluribus unum and all that stuff count any more?
Too bad for America.
The GOP is in deep dodo thanks to Rummy and the boys F.U . the Iraq War.
The Dems. have been taken over by the Berkeley wing of the party.
The so called rightwing of the Rep. Party is lost in space right now as it cannot find an across the board viable candidate.
This right wing Republican was complaining on this board last summer about Rummy's fairy tale plan pertaining to the Phase IV of OIF.
Either way I'm not that impressed with the leadership of either party as this point in time. Too bad for America.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
Done and done. Now, where's the part about using the armed forces to babysit the Sunnis and the Shia? Was there a different law somewhere about that?
Oddly enough, the bill does not list pistol as the arbiter of Iraq's status. According to the law, the president is the one who gets to take measures "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq".
If anybody can show that the measures we are taking in Iraq are no longer necessary to preserve our security, I'd be all for it leaving Iraq tomorrow. Then congress could impeach the president, and then the vice president, and the Pelosi and Reid could call the shots and get us out of Iraq.
But every republican would vote against that, and the democrats can't even agree on whether or not we should leave Iraq.
Look at you getting all Alberto Gonzales on us. Yea, I sleep better at night knowing The Decider is protecting the "national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". I mean, if Pelosi/Reid/Pistol had their way, Muqtada al-Sadr and his army would probably be landing in Florida by Sunday, and you and I would be learning how to say "We welcome our new Shi'a overlords" in Arabic by Monday.
Let me guess - whoever disgrees with Bush is a 'slack-jawed faggot' right? Tell me, when he's gone, what the heck are his die hard supporters gonna rally behind?
Posting Permissions
