History > 2007 > USA > Politics > White House

George W. Bush (II)

Bush, Democrats blast each other

over Iraq spending bill

31.3.2007
AP
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, seeking to one-up Congress' Democratic majority in a showdown over the Iraq war, suggested Saturday that lawmakers should be ashamed that they added non-war items to an Iraq spending bill.

"I like peanuts as much as the next guy, but I believe the security of our troops should come before the security of our peanut crop," Bush said in his weekly radio address, referring to a provision in the war funding legislation that earmarks $74 million for secure peanut storage.

The Senate has passed a bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, while the House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal. In both houses, the timelines are attached to legislation providing money to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

Bush repeated his promise to veto the bills if the timelines stay in — and if the unrelated earmarks stay in as well — because they "undercut our troops in the field."

"Each bill would impose restrictive conditions on our military commanders," the president said. "Each bill would also set an arbitrary deadline for surrender and withdrawal in Iraq, and I believe that would have disastrous consequences for our safety here at home."

House and Senate negotiators will have to reconcile the different versions, and lawmakers left town for a two-week spring break without doing so. Earlier Friday, the White House, claiming that money for troops is already beginning to run out, complained that the House should have at least named its negotiators before leaving.

But Democrats have said that any blame for shorting troops and their families of what they need will fall at Bush's feet if he vetoes a spending bill Congress sends him. "It's his responsibility," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, a veteran of the Iraq war asked Bush to resist the urge to veto the legislation.

"Both houses of Congress have done their jobs and will soon finish a bill that will provide for the troops," retired Marine Lt. Col. Andrew Horne said Saturday. "When they're done, the only person who could keep funds from reaching troops would be the president."

Horne, who ran unsuccessfully for a Kentucky congressional seat in 2006, added: "If the president vetoes this bill because he doesn't want to formally demonstrate progress in Iraq, never in the history of war would there be a more blatant example of a commander in chief undermining the troops. There is absolutely no excuse for the president to withhold funding for the troops, and if he does exercise a veto, Congress must side with the troops and override it."

In his radio address, Bush took aim at budget blueprints approved recently by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

The House plan promises a big surplus in five years by allowing tax cuts passed in the president's first term to expire. It awards spending increases next year to both the Pentagon and domestic programs, but it defers difficult decisions about unsustainable growth in federal benefit programs such as Medicare.

The Senate blueprint is similar but would not generate surpluses since it assumes lawmakers will renew the most popular of the tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.

Bush equates letting the cuts expire to a tax increase. He said Saturday the blow would amount to nearly $400 billion over five years — what he said would be "the largest tax increase in our nation's history."

"Whether you have a family, work for a living, own a business or are simply struggling to get by on a low income, the Democrats want to raise your taxes," the president said. "With their budgets, the Democrats have revealed their true intentions."

    Bush, Democrats blast each other over Iraq spending bill, UT, 31.3.2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-31-weekly-address_N.htm

Bush Vows to Fix Problems at Walter Reed

March 31, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:22 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush apologized to troops face to face on Friday for shoddy conditions they have endured at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He shook the artificial hand of a lieutenant and cradled a newborn whose daddy is nursing his remaining, severely injured leg back to health.

''The problems at Walter Reed were caused by bureaucratic and administrative failures,'' Bush said during a nearly three-hour visit to the medical center -- his first since reports surfaced of shabby conditions for veterans in outpatient housing. ''The system failed you and it failed our troops, and we're going to fix it.''

News that war veterans were not getting adequate care stunned the public, outraged Capitol Hill and forced three high-level Pentagon officials to step down. Bush met with soldiers once housed in Building 18, who endured moldy walls, rodents and other problems that went unchecked until reported by the media.

''I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong,'' Bush said. ''It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear our uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem.''

He did not visit Building 18, which is now closed.

Bush critics questioned the timing of the president's visit -- six weeks after the problems were exposed and in the middle of the White House's battle with Congress over funding for troops in Iraq.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, among retired military officers who took part in a conference call before Bush's visit, said the president needs to make sure the problems are corrected.

''We have been shortchanging these returning soldiers ever since the conflict began,'' Gard said. ''Look at the inadequate funding in the Veterans Administration. That's caused by the fact that there has been a deliberate underestimate of the number of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who will need care. We've got to make this a seamless web between military facilities and the Veterans Administration so the soldiers are not hung out to dry.''

Bush has set up three commissions to look into the problems facing military personnel who come off of active duty and are moving into veteran status.

The Defense Department's independent review group is to report back by the middle of next month with recommendations on how to improve conditions at Walter Reed. Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is leading an interagency task force to find gaps in federal services received by wounded troops. A bipartisan commission, chaired by former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Donna Shalala, President Clinton's secretary of health and human services, will complete its report this summer.

This week, the House voted to create a coterie of case managers, advocates and counselors for injured troops. The bill also establishes a hot line for medical patients to report problems in their treatment.

Bobby Muller, president of Veterans for America, said Bush didn't see areas of the hospital most in need of change. He cited Ward 54, where soldiers are suffering from acute mental health conditions, and outpatient holding facilities where soldiers see long waits to get processed out of the Army.

''Walter Reed is not a photo-op,'' Muller said. ''Walter Reed is still broken. The DOD health care system is still broken. ... Our troops need their commander in chief to start working harder for them.''

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called it ''an unfortunate characterization'' to say Bush was using Walter Reed as a picture-taking opportunity. She said it took some time to clear enough room on the president's schedule so he could spend time with patients and staff at Walter Reed, which he praised for providing ''extraordinary health care.''

The president awarded 10 Purple Hearts during his visit to Walter Reed, his 12th as president.

Bush went to a building that houses troops who once stayed in Building 18. Afterward, he visited a physical therapy room where a soldier with an artificial limb from one knee down was using an elliptical machine, and the president ran his hand over the buzz-cut head of Sgt. Mark Ecker Jr. of East Longmeadow, Mass.

''I'm doing great,'' said Ecker, a double-amputee who was wounded by an improvised explosive device in Iraq.

Bush noticed a large tattoo of a scantily clad woman decorating his left arm.

''Make sure you get a picture of the tattoo,'' Bush said, eyeing photographers. ''The man's proud of it.''

Bush walked up to Army Sgt. David Gardner, who lost a leg and sustained serious injuries to his other leg when a small bulldozer, being used to fill a hole caused by an explosion, ran over him in Iraq.

''I was run over by a Bobcat while there was sniper fire going on,'' Gardner said as he did leg presses on a machine to exercise his wounded limb and get used to the other one now fitted with a prothesis.

''It kinda hurts,'' said Gardner, an engineer stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C. ''It hurts to put pressure on it.''

Gardner's wife, Beverly, who was pregnant when her husband was injured and gave birth to their daughter, Hailey, just days after he came out of a three-week coma, had no complaints about her husband's care at Walter Reed.

''They've been great,'' she said.

But Steve Robinson with Veterans for America tells a different story.

''I was at Walter Reed yesterday. Within 10 minutes I was encircled by about 15 soldiers having problems with their medical discharge, telling me they needed to get in touch with their congressman or their senator,'' Robinson said.

''The system is broke,'' he said. ''We need him (Bush) to be personally affected by it.''

------

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

    Bush Vows to Fix Problems at Walter Reed, NYT, 31.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html

Bush apologizes for poor health care of veterans

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:52PM EDT
Reuters
By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush apologized to wounded U.S. troops who endured dilapidated conditions and bureaucratic delays as he toured Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the flagship military hospital.

Bush, in his first visit to Walter Reed since a scandal over health care there erupted in February, met with some patients who had previously been at the outpatient building where the worst conditions were found.

"I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," Bush said. "I apologize for what they went through and we're going to fix the problem."

A Washington Post article that found soldiers wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were living in a run-down building that was infested with mice, mold and cockroaches. Many soldiers also struggled with red tape in trying to get treatment.

"The problems at Walter Reed were caused by bureaucratic and administrative failures," Bush said.

The dilapidated building has since been closed and the patients have been moved to other facilities at Walter Reed.

The reports on Walter Reed provoked an outcry on Capitol Hill. Three senior military officers have lost their jobs and Bush has ordered a wide-ranging review of all U.S. veterans facilities. More than 24,000 soldiers have been wounded and more than 3,600 killed in the two wars.

Bush toured a physical therapy unit where soldiers, many of whom had lost limbs, were exercising on elliptical machines and weight presses.

Bush has often visited wounded soldiers and their families at Walter Reed and at other military hospitals but those meetings were almost always private.

Democrats called Bush's visit a "photo op" and urged him to back off his threat to veto a war-spending bill that has $4.3 billion in health aid for returning soldiers.

Bush plans to reject the Democratic-crafted measure because it includes timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq. He has cited the need to support the troops in calling on Congress to urgently send him a clean bill.

Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is also seeking his party's 2008 presidential nomination, accused Bush of being slow to tackle problems with veterans health care.

"The problems plaguing our military hospital system will not be solved with a photo op," Obama said in a statement. "Our military hospital system is in a state of crisis. Delays and rhetorical band-aids will not move us closer to a solution."

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

    Bush apologizes for poor health care of veterans, R, 30.3.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3027777420070331

E-Mail Shows Rove’s Role in Fate of Prosecutors

March 29, 2007
The New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Almost every Wednesday afternoon, advisers to President Bush gather to strategize about putting his stamp on the federal courts and the United States attorneys’ offices.

The group meets in the Roosevelt Room and includes aides to the White House counsel, the chief of staff, the attorney general and Karl Rove, who also sometimes attends himself. Each of them signs off on every nomination.

Mr. Rove, a top adviser to the president, takes charge of the politics. As caretaker to the administration’s conservative allies, Mr. Rove relays their concerns, according to several participants in the Wednesday meetings. And especially for appointments of United States attorneys, he manages the horse trading.

“What Karl would say is, ‘Look, if this senator who has been working with the president on the following things really wants this person and we think they are acceptable, why don’t we give the senator what he wants?’ ” said one former administration official. “ ‘You know, we stiffed him on that bill back there.’ ”

Mr. Rove’s role has put him in the center of a Senate inquiry into the dismissal of eight United States attorneys. Democrats and a few Republicans have raised questions about whether the prosecutors were being replaced to impede or jump-start investigations for partisan goals.

Political advisers have had a hand in picking judges and prosecutors for decades, but Mr. Rove exercises unusually broad influence over political, policy and personnel decisions because of his closeness to the president, tenure in the administration and longstanding interest in turning the judiciary to the right.

In Illinois, Mr. Rove once reprimanded a Republican senator for recommending the appointment of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a star prosecutor from outside the state, to investigate the state’s then-governor, a Republican. In New Jersey, Mr. Rove helped arrange the nomination of a major Bush campaign fund-raiser who had little prosecutorial experience. In Louisiana, he first supported and then helped scuttle a similar appointment.

In the months before the United States attorneys in New Mexico and Washington State were ousted, Mr. Rove joined a chorus of complaints from state Republicans that the federal prosecutors had failed to press charges in Democratic voter fraud cases. While planning a June 21, 2006, White House session to discuss the prosecutors, for example, a Rove deputy arranged for top Justice Department officials to meet with an important Bush supporter who was critical of New Mexico’s federal prosecutor about voter fraud.

And in Arkansas, newly released Justice Department e-mail messages show, Mr. Rove’s staff repeatedly prodded the department’s staff to install one of his protégés as a United States attorney by ousting a previous Bush appointee who was in good standing.

Senate Democrats and a few Republicans have called for Mr. Rove to testify publicly about the dismissals.

“There is an issue of intrigue, and for better or worse, that surrounds Karl Rove,” said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It is in the president’s interest and the country’s interest to have it dispelled or verified, but let’s hear it from him.”

The White House, however, is offering only a private interview without a sworn oath.

Congressional Democrats said they were focusing on Mr. Rove in part because the administration appeared to have tried to hide his fingerprints. In a February 23 letter to Senate Democratic leaders that was approved by the White House counsel’s office, for example, the Justice Department said that no one in the White House had “lobbied” for any of the eight dismissals, and specifically denied that Mr. Rove had “any role” in the appointment of the protégé, J. Timothy Griffin, a former Bush campaign operative.

But the Justice Department officials who drafted the letter had corresponded with Mr. Rove’s staff just weeks earlier about how to get the nomination done. On Wednesday night, a department official apologized for inaccuracies in the letter.

White House officials said Mr. Rove was just one voice in the approval of federal prosecutors, whose selection is traditionally guided by the recommendations of senior members of the president’s party in their states.

“Our job is to find qualified nominees who can win confirmation and be good public servants,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. After the United States attorneys are confirmed, she said, Mr. Rove and others at the White House show “wide deference” to the Justice Department about specific cases.

Some Republicans say they always understood that Mr. Rove had a say in prosecutor appointments. “I basically felt when I was talking to Karl I was talking to the president,” said former Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald, an Illinois Republican.

Early in the Bush administration, Mr. Fitzgerald said, he sought to recruit a prosecutor who could investigate Gov. George Ryan of Illinois without fear of influence by the state’s political powers. But Governor Ryan and his political ally Speaker J. Dennis Hastert argued to the White House that they should have a voice in the decision and insisted that someone from Illinois get the post. Mr. Fitzgerald, who had hired Mr. Rove as a consultant , called him to settle the question.

“Peter, it is your pick,” Mr. Rove told Mr. Fitzgerald, the former senator recalled. “But we don’t want you to pick anybody from out of state. For your Chicago guy, it has to be from Chicago.”

Undeterred, Mr. Fitzgerald sidestepped the White House. He made only one recommendation — Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a New York prosecutor — announced it publicly, and drew public acclaim that made it unstoppable. Some time after the appointment, the former Senator Fitzgerald said, Mr. Rove “kind of yelled at me,” telling him, “The appointment got great headlines for you but it ticked off the base”— a phrase that the senator took to refer to the state’s Republican establishment.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Rove was simply pushing a general administration goal to appoint home-state prosecutors.

Democrats have seized on a connection to Mr. Rove to attack a prosecutor’s credibility. In New Jersey, William Palatucci, a Republican political consultant and Bush supporter, boasted of selecting a United States attorney by forwarding Mr. Rove the résumé of his partner, Christopher J. Christie, a corporate lawyer and Bush fund-raiser with little prosecutorial experience.

Mr. Christie has brought public corruption charges against prominent members of both parties, but his most notable investigations have stung two Democrats, former Gov. James E. McGreevey and Senator Robert Menendez. When word of the latter inquiry leaked to the press during the 2006 campaign, Mr. Menendez sought to dismiss it by tying Mr. Christie to Mr. Rove, calling the investigation “straight out of the Bush-Rove playbook.” (Mr. McGreevey resigned after admitting to having an affair with a male aide and the Menendez investigation has not been resolved.)

Mr. Rove initially supported the 2002 nomination of Fred Heebe, a lawyer turned developer and a major Bush donor, for United States attorney in Louisiana. But after former romantic partners of Mr. Heebe raised accusations of abuse, which he denied, the White House backed off. Gov. Mike Foster publicly blamed Mr. Rove for the reversal. Local Republican women sent Mr. Rove’s fax machine letters supporting Mr. Heebe, to no avail.

Mr. Rove acts as a conduit to the White House for complaints from Republican officials around the country, including gripes about federal prosecutors. During the tight 2004 governor’s race in Washington State, for example, Chris Vance, then chairman of the state’s Republican party, complained to a member of Mr. Rove’s staff about what he considered Democratic voter fraud.

“When you are a state party chairman, the White House regional political director is just part of your life,” Mr. Vance recalled. Mr. Vance said he never complained specifically about the United States attorney John McKay, who has been dismissed. Mr. Vance said he did not know if Mr. McKay had started an investigation.

But in New Mexico, Mr. Vance’s counterpart as well as the state’s senior Republican, Senator Pete V. Domenici, both complained to Mr. Rove that the United States attorney David C. Iglesias was not prosecuting Democratic voter fraud.

Mr. Rove readily took up their alarms. In an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, he detailed accusations about Democratic abuses in several locations, including New Mexico and “the spectacle of Washington State.” He also relayed the complaints to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and possibly Mr. Bush, the administration has recently acknowledged. The prosecutors in those two states, who have said they could not prove accusations of voter fraud, were among those ousted last year.

In Arkansas, Representative John Boozman, the state’s highest ranking Republican in Congress, said he recommended Mr. Rove’s protégé, Mr. Griffin, for a United States attorney vacancy in 2004, in part because of his ties to Mr. Rove.

A prosecutor in the Army Reserves, Mr. Griffin worked for Mr. Rove as an opposition researcher attacking Democratic presidential candidates in 2000. In between, for six months, the Justice Department had dispatched him to Arkansas to get experience as a prosecutor.

“I have been in situations through the years where Tim and Karl were at,” Mr. Boozman recalled. “I could tell that Karl thought highly of him.” -

Mr. Griffin dropped out of the running in 2004 when he accepted a campaign job for Mr. Rove, then became his deputy in the White House. But last summer, the department asked United States Attorney H. E. Cummins III to resign to make room and Mr. Rove’s staff began talking with department officials about how to install Mr. Griffin despite Senate opposition, internal e-mail shows.

Republican defenders of the Griffin appointment said it is hardly unheard of for a prominent official like Mr. Rove to call in such a favor.

Ultimately, United States attorneys know they are political appointees, said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, who is close to Mr. Rove.

“To suggest that these folks do not know or understand the process by which they are appointed, confirmed and retained,” Mr. Cornyn said, “is to suggest that they are naïve.”

    E-Mail Shows Rove’s Role in Fate of Prosecutors, NYT, 29.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29rove.html

President Bush Discusses Economy, War on Terror
During Remarks to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association

March 28, 2007
Office of the Press Secretary
Holiday Inn on the Hill
Washington, D.C.

10:13 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for having me. (Applause.) Thank you, please be seated. Not a bad introduction by a cowboy. (Laughter.) Thanks for having me. Welcome to Washington. I'm glad to be with you. I was telling Laura this morning, I'm really looking forward to going over to talk to the nation's cattlemen. I appreciate being with people who understand the importance of faith, family, hard work, good values. I like to remind people, every day is Earth Day if you make a living off the land. (Applause.) It's good to be with fellow conservationists.

I'm going to talk a little bit about two big priorities: one, how to keep this economy strong so people can make a living; and secondly, how this country needs to stay resolved and firm in protecting the security of our country. (Applause.) And I appreciate you giving me a chance to come over and visit.

I do want to thank John Queen. I want to thank the Board of Directors. Thanks for being here and making your voices heard. You can influence the debate in Washington. And this is a town where people do listen to other people's voices. I've got a few suggestions for you when you go up to Capitol Hill. (Laughter.) But before I give them, I do want to recognize Senator Craig Thomas from the state of Wyoming, and Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado. Appreciate you both being here. (Applause.)

Let me talk about how to keep this economy growing. You know, one of the main jobs of government is to create the conditions for economic growth. A main job of government is not to try to create wealth. The fundamental question we've got to ask here in Washington is, what do we need to do to encourage investment and risk-takers, and to encourage entrepreneurship? And I believe the heart of good economic policy is keeping people's taxes low. (Applause.)

The reason I say that is there's a fundamental debate in Washington, when you really get down to it, and the debate is who best to spend your money. And I believe a cattleman can spend their money better than the government can. Now, obviously, we need some amount of money here, and that's called setting priorities. But beyond that, the best way to keep this economy growing is to let you keep more of your own tax money. The tax cuts we passed are working.

You know, when you cut the individual tax rates, you affect farmers and ranchers. Many farmers and ranchers are Sub-chapter S corporations, or limited partnerships, or sole proprietorships, which means you pay tax at the individual income tax level. And if you're worried about a vibrant agricultural economy, it makes sense to let those who work the land keep more of their own money so they can invest, so they can make the necessary changes so that their businesses can remain vibrant.

I say the tax cuts work. Since we enacted major tax reform in 2003, in response to recession and a terrorist attack, this economy of ours has created more than 7 million jobs, new jobs, and it's expanded 13 percent. The tax cuts are working, and the United States Congress needs to make those tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)

One of the taxes that concerns you a lot, I know, is the death tax. It should. You get taxed while you're living and then you get taxed after you die. It's double taxation at its worst. We put the death tax on the road to extinction. Notice I didn't say it is going to be extinct. Under current law, it will come back into effect in 2011, which puts people in an awkward position in 2010. (Laughter.)

I really believe Congress needs to pay attention to the effects of the death tax on our farmers and ranchers. If people are concerned about keeping land in the hands of the family rancher, the best way to do so is to get rid of the death tax for those who ranch the land, once and for all. (Applause.)

When you're working the halls of Congress, I hope you work hard on the death tax issue. There's no excuse not to get rid of it. Now, you'll hear people say, we don't want to give tax relief to the billionaires. Okay, fine. But let's put a bill on the President's desk that respects the ranchers of the United States of America, and the farmers, and the small business owners, and I'll sign it. (Applause.)

To keep the economy growing, we've got to be wise about our budgets. Now, what you'll hear here in Washington is, we've got to raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. That's not the way Washington, D.C. works. They will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money. All I do is ask you to look at the budget that the Senate just recently passed. You know, we changed hands here in Washington in the Senate and the House, and the new leadership there in the Senate passed a new budget which raises taxes so they can increase spending, and the House is looking at the same type of approach.

I have a different view. My attitude is, keep the taxes low so the economy grows to generate more tax revenues, and don't overspend; to set priorities with the people's money, not try to be all things to all people. And so I submitted a budget to the House and the Senate that balances the budget in five years without raising one dime on the working people of the United States of America. (Applause.)

I'm looking forward to working with you on a farm bill that's good and decent and fair. I just put up a -- submitted some ideas through our Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns. I want to remind you in the bill we submitted to Congress we asked for a $17-billion increase in conservation spending over a 10-year period. That's an increase over the last farm bill. That includes money for CRP, and a 30-percent increase for equip. (Applause.) Plus $1.75 billion on water conservation programs. I think this is a wise use of our money.

I'm interested in a farm bill that enhances conservation, that recognizes the contribution our ranchers make, that is fair, that is reform oriented, and helps us compete in the global marketplace. I appreciate your efforts to work on a good farm bill. I'm looking forward to working with you on it.

Finally, to keep the economy growing, we ought to open up markets for U.S. goods and services. If you're interested in economic vitality and growth, the way to encourage that growth is to find new markets for U.S. products. And I want to spend a little time talking about trade today.

Last year, the United States exported $1.4 trillion worth of goods and services. That makes us the largest exporter in the world. To me, that says, is that when we have opportunities that are fair, we produce the kinds of goods and services people want to buy. Every time we break down a barrier to trade, it makes it more likely somebody who's raising a cow will have an opportunity to sell that cow into a better market.

Free trade lowers consumer prices. In other words, when you open up trade, it's good for consumers. Trade is good for people working. I don't know if you realize this or not, but jobs exported by -- supported by exports pay wages that are 13 to 18 percent higher than the average. If you manufacture a good that is sold overseas, you're making more money that somebody who's not exporting. Isn't that an interesting fact?

I happen to believe competition is good. I believe competition brings out the best in everybody. So I don't mind competition, so long as the playing rules are fair. My attitude on trade is, you treat us the way we treat you, and then let's compete. America is 5 percent of the world's population, which means 95 percent of the rest of the world are potential customers for things that we grow or manufacture.

I think it's good business to open up trade agreements. When I came into office we only had trade agreements with three nations; now we have 11 of them in force, and more on the way. The countries that America has free trade agreements with represent 7 percent of the world's GDP, yet they account for 43 percent of our exports. The reason I bring this up to you is there's a lot of room for expansion when it comes to trade. There's a lot of opportunity.

And so this administration is committed to open up markets. And there's a vital vote getting ready to come up in front of the -- up to the Congress, and that is agreements that we have cut with Peru, Colombia and Panama. I believe these are important markets for you, and important markets for U.S. goods and services. Congress needs to make sure that they send an affirmative message when it comes to trade on these three agreements.

Now, trade obviously creates issues. We end up with disputes and opportunities for people to make mischief when it comes to trade, people to use excuses for not opening up markets. And we went through one of those periods with you all, and that is with the BSE issue. BSE was discovered in 2003, and we worked with our cattle folks aggressively to address the issue, to prevent further introduction and spread of the disease. In other words, there was a proactive effort by government and the cattle raisers to address the issue.

In the last three years, we've conducted over 800,000 tests to assess the health of our cattle herds. Thanks to these and other science-based measures, we've helped the farmers and ranchers manage any possible BSE risk in the cattle population. And today, because of our collaborative efforts and a strong scientific approach to deal with BSE, we can say to global consumers with complete assurance, American beef is safe and it is good to eat. (Applause.)

And the word is getting out. In 2006, exports of beef and beef products totaled more than $2 billion. That's nearly a 50-percent increase from 2005. It's not at the levels we want, but there has been some improvement in sales. And that's important for you. The more markets there are that are open for your product, the easier it's going to be for you to make a living. And I understand that, and it's important for Congress to understand that, as well.

Today, more than 100 countries have fully or partially opened their markets to U.S. beef. The objective of this administration, however, is to make sure that they're better than partially opened, they're fully opened, including the countries like Japan and Korea. We're also working to open up markets that have still got a ban on our imports. In other words, this is an important part of our foreign policy. When I'm talking to leaders and they've got an issue with American beef, it's on the agenda. I say, if you want to get the attention of the American people in a positive way, you open up your markets to U.S. beef. People understand that when it comes to being treated fairly in the world marketplace. (Applause.)

We got an opportunity to expand further -- open up further markets by expanding trade through the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization. It gives us a chance to level the playing field. It gives us a chance so that I can say to our cattle raisers and others that, you'll be treated fairly. Now, you got to compete; you got to grow some product that somebody wants. But you should be treated fairly. The rules will treat you fairly. That's all you can expect.

And so I want you to know that we're going to work hard to bring Doha to a successful conclusion. It's hard work. This weekend the President of Brazil is coming to see me, and we'll be talking about how we can work together to open up markets, and at the same time, address their concerns about our farm issues.

The only way that we can complete Doha and make headway on other trade agreements, however, is for Congress to extend trade promotion authority. This authority allows the President to negotiate complicated trade deals, and then send them to the United States Congress for an up or down vote on the whole agreement. Presidents of both parties have considered this a incredibly important tool for completing trade agreements. In other words, our trade partners have got to say, if that's the deal we negotiate, that's the one that somebody is going to have to vote up or down on. You can't negotiate a deal in fairness with the United States if you think it's going to be changed on the floor of the Congress. So the up or down vote is important to get, and that's what you get when you get trade promotion authority.

And yet, this authority will expire on July the 1st unless Congress acts. And I want to thank the National Cattlemen's Beef Association for joining with the administration and other organizations in urging the Congress to renew trade promotion authority. (Applause.)

There's going to be a vigorous debate about trade in Congress, and I thank you for engaging in that debate. And you know, trashing trade will make a good sound byte on the evening news. But walling off America from the rest of the world would harm this economy, and it would harm our cattle raisers. The road to protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline. So I urge Congress to reject protectionism and to keep this economy open to tremendous opportunities that the world has to offer for our ranchers and farmers and entrepreneurs.

Just as our prosperity depends on rejecting economic isolationism, so, too, our security depends on rejecting calls for America to abandon its leadership in this world.

September the 11th is an important moment in this country's history. It's a sad moment. But it should serve as a wake-up call to the realities of the world in which we live. On September the 11th, we saw problems originating in a failed state some 7,000 miles away that affected how we live. See, September the 11th was not only a day we were attacked, it is a day that our country must never forget, and the lessons of that day must never be forgot, that what happens overseas matters here at home. It may be tempting to say, oh, just let it run its natural course. But for me, allowing the world to run its natural course, which could lead to more violence and hatred, would end up reducing the security of the United States, not enhancing the security. And our biggest job in America, the biggest job of this government, is to protect you from harm.

I think about it every day, and so do a lot of other good, decent citizens of this country. The best way to protect this country is to defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. (Applause.) And for the long-term peace and security of this country, we must advance an ideology that stands in stark contrast to the ideology of the killers. The best way to secure this homeland is to stay on the offense, and in the meantime, encourage the spread of liberty as an alternative to tyranny.

And it's hard work, but it is necessary work. We went into Afghanistan, and we did so to remove a vicious tyranny that had harbored terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks on our country. Our message was, if you provide safe haven, if you provide comfort to an enemy, you're just as guilty as the enemy. And so, along with allies, we captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters; we closed down their training camps; we helped the people of Afghanistan replace the Taliban regime with a democratic government. And it's in our nation's long-term interests that we help the people of Afghanistan survive the threats and onslaughts by people who want to reinstate tyranny.

And then we went into Iraq. And we removed the dictator who was a threat to the United States and to the world. And now we're undertaking the difficult and dangerous work of helping the Iraqi people establish a functioning democracy that can protect their own people and serve as an ally in this global war against those who would do America harm.

In 2005 -- I want you to remember -- in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections. Oh, it seems like a decade ago, doesn't it? And yet in the march of history, it's not all that long ago that the Iraqi people showed up at the election box, after having lived under the thumb of a brutal and murderous tyrant, to express their will about the future of their country. They chose a transitional government. They adopted the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world. And then they elected a government underneath that constitution. Despite the endless threats from killers, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote, in a show of hope and solidarity that the United States should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all this. See, there are some who can't stand the thought of a free society emerging in their midst. And this enemy escalated attacks. Al Qaeda is very active in Iraq. And they and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam, the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Why did they do that? They did that to provoke retaliation. They did that to cause people to take up -- arm themselves. And they succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom have received support from Iran, increased their support of death squads, and then the situation began to escalate.

And so I had a choice to make. Last fall, I looked at the facts, I consulted with a lot of folks in Congress, and our military commanders. And my choice really boiled down to this: Do we withdraw our troops and let violence spiral out of control, let this young democracy fail, or do I send reinforcements to help the Iraqis quell the violence and secure their capital? In other words, do we give them breathing space to get on the path of reconciliation so that this young democracy could survive?

Well, I weighed the options, and the military commanders and I concluded that the consequences of withdrawal would be disastrous for the United States of America. And let me tell you why. If we were to step back from Baghdad before it was more secure, before the government could secure its own capital, it would leave a security vacuum. And into that vacuum could quickly come Sunni and Shia extremists, bolstered by outside forces. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country, and in time, the violence of these emboldened extremists could affect the entire region. The terrorists could emerge from chaos -- see, they benefit when the situation is chaotic -- with new safe havens to replace the one they had lost in Afghanistan.

There's no doubt in my mind that their intention is to try to strike us again, and they need the resources and the safe haven to do so. If we were to abandon this young democracy to chaos, it would embolden these extremists. It would enable them to be able to recruit more. It would give them new resources from which to plot and plan. I believe the consequences of failure in Iraq affect the security of the United States of America, and that's why I made the decision I made. (Applause.)

And so instead of retreating, we reinforced -- troops led by a capable commander named General David Petraeus. The Iraqi government saw our firm support, and they're now beginning to carry out an aggressive plan to secure their nation's capital. And the plan is still in the beginning stages. I mean, General Petraeus had been on the ground just for about two months. Only half of the reinforcements that he needs have arrived. And he says it's going to be early June before all the troops that are dedicated to the operation are even in place. In other words, I've sent reinforcements into Baghdad with a new commander, with a plan to help the Iraqis secure the plan, a plan that we believe will be successful. He's been there for about two months. Half the troops that he needs have arrived.

And, look, I recognize it's going to require a sustained, determined effort to succeed; I know that. And there are some early signs that are encouraging. For example, the Iraqi leader has appointed a commander for Baghdad who is working closely with our generals. The last of the nine Iraqi surge battalions arrived in the Iraqi capital. In other words, they said, we're going to commit troops to this plan to secure the capital, and they're delivering. Iraqis are showing up. Iraqi leaders have lifted restrictions that once prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into areas like Sadr City. You've been reading about Sadr City; well, my attitude is, murderers are murderers, and they ought to be brought to justice. And so any political restrictions preventing our people are being lifted. Iraqis are in the lead, we're helping them.

We're now setting up checkpoints across Baghdad. When I say "we," that is the Iraqis, with American help. They're hardening perimeters around markets and areas that have been targets for these spectacular attacks, all aimed at shaking the confidence of the American people and shaking the confidence of the Iraqi people. We've got joint security stations throughout the Iraqi capital. In the past, we would clear an area, and then we'd go home, and then the insurgents or killers would move back in. Now we've got a strategy of clear, hold -- that's what that means -- and then using money to help reconstruct Iraq. By the way, most of the money is coming from the Iraqis -- he's put out a $10 billion reconstruction budget. That's what we expect. A government of and by the people should be spending the people's money to help rebuild their country.

American forces are now deployed 24 hours in these neighborhoods, and guess what's happening. The Iraqi people are beginning to gain confidence. Support from the Iraqi people can be measured by the tips our people get. In other words, people saying, so-and-so is over here; a cache of weapons over there. And we're using the tips to aggressively pursue. We've launched successful operations against Shia extremists. We've captured hundreds of fighters that are spreading sectarian violence. In other words, we're after killers. We're after -- we don't say, this religious group, or this religious group. We're saying, if you're trying to destabilize this young democracy, the Iraqis, with coalition help, are coming after you.

Last week, we captured a Shia extremist leader and his associates who were implicated in the kidnaping and murder of five U.S. soldiers in Karbala. Last month, American and Iraqi forces uncovered more than 400 weapons caches. We're conducting dozens and dozens of operations on a daily basis throughout that country, with the Iraqi forces.

See, ultimately, the Iraqis are going to have to defend themselves. Ultimately, it is their responsibility. That's what the 12 million people who voted want. We just need to give them some breathing space so they can gain their confidence and have the capabilities necessary to protect this country.

We're destroying bomb factories. Just last week, we captured the head of the al Qaeda bomb network, responsible for some of the most horrific bombings in Baghdad. It's interesting, I mentioned al Qaeda; al Qaeda wants us to fail in Iraq. This is what their leaders have clearly said, and they're willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objectives.

The missions I described are only the opening salvos in what is going to be a sustained effort. Yet, the Iraqi people are beginning to say -- see positive changes. I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers -- they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here -- (laughter) -- "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve."

I want to read something that Army Sergeant Major Chris Nadeau says -- the guy is on his second tour in Iraq. He says, "I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a soldier. The facts are the facts. Things are getting better, we're picking up momentum."

These are hopeful signs, and that's positive. Yet at the very moment that General Petraeus's strategy is beginning to show signs of success, the Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed an emergency war spending bill that undercuts him and the troops under his command. This bill would damage our effort in Iraq three ways. First, the House bill would impose restrictions on our commanders in Iraq, as well as rigid conditions and arbitrary deadlines on the Iraqi government. It would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces, if every one of these conditions is not met by a date certain. Even if they are met, the bill would still require that most American forces begin retreating from Iraq by March 1st of next year, regardless of conditions on the ground.

It's unclear what the military significance of this date is. What is clear is that the consequences of imposing such a specific and random date for withdrawal would be disastrous. If the House bill becomes law, our enemies in Iraq would simply have to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead picking how to use their new -- plotting how to use their new safe havens once we were to leave. It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C. to be dictating arbitrary time lines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away. (Applause.)

I want to read to you what a major newspaper editorial page said -- and by the way, this editorial page, like, generally not singing my praises -- (laughter) -- "Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings -- or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy." (Applause.)

Second, the House bill also undermines the Iraqi government, and contradicts the Democrats' claim that they simply want to help the Iraqis solve their own problems. For example, the House bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet arbitrary deadlines.

The Democrats cannot have it both ways. They can't say that the Iraqis must do more, and then take away the funds that will help them do so. Iraq is a young democracy. It is fighting for its survival in a region that is vital to our security. The lesson of September the 11th must not be forgot. To cut off support for the security forces would put our own security at risk.

Third, the House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers. These may be emergencies, they may be problems, but they can be addressed in the normal course of business. They don't need to be added on to a bill that's supporting our troops. There's $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' salaries and expense accounts. I don't know what that is -- (laughter) -- but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America. (Applause.)

This week the Senate is considering a version that is no better. The Senate bill sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal. It also undermines the Iraqi government's ability to take more responsibility for their own country by cutting funds for Iraqi reconstruction and law enforcement. And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending.

The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all these matters may be important matters. They don't need to be loaded on to a bill that is an emergency spending bill for our troops. There's $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works. (Laughter.) I'm not kidding you. (Laughter.)

Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. (Applause.) And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it. (Applause.) It is also clear from the strong opposition in both houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.

Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible. (Applause.) Our troops in Iraq deserve the full support of the Congress and the full support of this nation. (Applause.)

I know when you see somebody in the uniform, you praise them, and I thank you for that. We need to praise those military families, too, that are strong, standing by their loved one in this mighty struggle to defend this country. They risk their lives to fight a brutal and determined enemy, an enemy that has no respect for human life.

We saw that brutality in a recent attack. Just two weeks ago, terrorists in Baghdad put two children in the back of an explosive-laden car, and they used them to get the car past a security checkpoint. And once through, the terrorists fled the vehicle and detonated the car with the children inside. Some call this civil war; others call it emergency [sic] -- I call it pure evil. And that evil that uses children in a terrorist attack in Iraq is the same evil that inspired and rejoiced in the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. And that evil must be defeated overseas, so we don't have to face them here again. (Applause.)

If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq, America will have lost its moral purpose in the world, and we will endanger our citizens, because if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here. Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy. Four years after this war began, the nature of the fight has changed, but this is a fight that can be won. We can have confidence in the outcome, because this nation has done this kind of work before.

You know, following World War II, after we fought bitter enemies, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany and stood with them as they built their representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And the effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. After the Korean War, had you predicted that Korea would have been a major trading partner in the world, or Japan would have been a major trading partner and vibrant economy, or China would be developing an open market, and the Far East would be relatively peaceful, they'd have called you a hopeless idealist. And yet, because of America's presence and influence, the Far East has emerged as I've described it.

The stakes are high in the efforts we're undertaking in Iraq. It's a part of a long ideological struggle against those who spread hatred, and lack of hope, and lack of opportunity. But I believe, with patience and resolve we will succeed. The efforts we're undertaking today will affect a generation of Americans who are coming up in our society.

You know, it's important for you to understand that the Iraqi people want to live in freedom and peace. I believe strongly in the universality of liberty. I believe people want to be free, and if given a chance, they will take the risks necessary to be free. And that's what's happened in Iraq. We see the desire for liberty in Iraqi soldiers who risk their lives every day. We see the desire in the shopkeepers and civic leaders who are working to reform their neighborhoods. We see it in the desire of Iraq moms an dads who want the same thing for their children that we want for our children.

If we stand by the Iraqi people today and help them develop their young Iraqi-style democracy, they're going to be able to take responsibility for their own security. And when that day comes, our forces can come home, and that we will leave behind a stable country that can serve as an example for others, and be an ally in this global struggle against those who would do us harm.

It's tough work, but it's necessary work -- work the United States has done before, and work the United States will complete now.

God bless you. (Applause.)

END 10:56 A.M. EDT

    President Bush Discusses Economy, War on Terror During Remarks to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, White House, Office of the Press Secretary, March 28, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070328-2.html

Bush Rules Out Bid by Congress for Iraq Pullout

March 29, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 28 — With both houses of Congress now firmly on record in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, President Bush vowed Wednesday not to negotiate a timetable with Democrats, and a confrontation appeared inevitable as each side prepared to blame the other for delays in providing money for the war.

“Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely,” Mr. Bush told an audience of cattlemen and ranchers. “That’s not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.”

Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats are already deadlocked over the Democrats’ demands for testimony from top White House officials in an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors. The president’s remarks on Wednesday, a day after the Senate voted for the first time in favor of setting a withdrawal date, set the stage for a second clash.

That puts Mr. Bush in the difficult position of fighting the new Democratic majority on two fronts, both the war spending and the prosecutors. On Wednesday, he seemed in no mood to back down from the war spending fight. As he quoted a newspaper editorial — from The Los Angeles Times, though he did not mention it by name — accusing Democrats of “the worst kind of Congressional meddling in military strategy,” Mr. Bush appeared almost eager for a battle. And Democrats seemed eager to give it to him.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said Mr. Bush should “calm down with the threats,” and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said his impression was that Mr. Bush “doesn’t want anything other than a confrontation.”

The president has been saying for weeks that he will veto any war spending bill that contains a withdrawal date. He reiterated that threat on Wednesday, taking particular aim at Democrats for loading the military spending bills with unrelated special interest projects above the $100 billion he has asked for the war, including $3.5 million for visitors to “tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works,” and $6.4 million for the House of Representatives’ “salaries and expense accounts.”

“I don’t know what that is,” Mr. Bush said wryly, “but it’s not related to the war and protecting the United States of America.”

The House approved its version of the spending bill last week, and the Senate was expected to approve its version on Thursday. Democrats said they were ready to begin House-Senate negotiations quickly to produce a final version to send to the president.

But with Congress scheduled to begin its Easter recess on Friday, it is nearly impossible for lawmakers to produce a final bill before the week of April 16. With Mr. Bush warning that funds will run out on April 15, forcing the Pentagon to draw from other accounts, the two sides seem certain to wind up in a blame game over who is responsible for holding up the money.

The Democratic leaders, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, tried to strike a conciliatory tone, stressing that they would deliver all the money Mr. Bush requested. In a joint letter to the president, they said they stood ready to work with the White House.

“But your threats to veto a bill that has not even been presented to you indicate that you may not be ready to work with us,” the letter said.

While they are hoping to capitalize on Mr. Bush’s unpopularity, Democrats acknowledged privately that they were uncertain how the finger-pointing would play out. Some recalled President Clinton’s success in putting the blame on Republicans for a 1995 government shutdown.

Republicans say Mr. Bush may be unpopular, but his policy of sending additional troops to Iraq may have more support than he does. Despite a recent nationwide telephone poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press in which 59 percent of those who responded said they wanted their lawmakers to vote in favor of a timetable for withdrawal, aides to Mr. Bush say the public is beginning to see improvements on the ground in Iraq and is willing to give Mr. Bush’s troop buildup a chance.

“We hope it doesn’t have to come to this type of brinksmanship, staring down the Congress, but as you saw today the president feels very strongly,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to Mr. Bush. “The feedback we’ve been getting from our allies on the Hill — and we agree with them — is that this is an issue we shouldn’t shirk from.”

Democratic officials say the shape of the measure that will be sent to the president remains unclear, but it is almost certain to have some timeline on Iraq, given the votes in both houses. But Democrats also say they intend to pare down some of the nonwar spending in the bill to quiet Republican accusations of pork-barrel politics.

Democrats also acknowledge that even with the unpopularity of the war, they must move carefully. The House bill passed with just 218 votes, the minimum necessary to guarantee passage, and in the Senate, the provision to set a goal of pulling out by March 31, 2008, also passed narrowly, 50 to 48.

“The president does have leverage on the troops, and given the close votes, we have to be cognizant of that,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic caucus. “But we have leverage on the policy and he has to be cognizant of that.”

Republicans say Mr. Bush must move carefully as well. Charlie Black, a Republican strategist who is close to the White House, said the administration could win the argument with the public “if they handle it right and communicate it well.” Republican leaders say they will back Mr. Bush as he tries to make the case to the public that Congress does not have the power to dictate the management of the war.

“We have a constitutional republic that says the commander in chief of our forces is the president,” said Senator Mel Martinez, the Florida Republican who is also chairman of the Republican National Committee. “It gives the power of the purse to Congress; it doesn’t give the power of moving troops around to Congress.”

    Bush Rules Out Bid by Congress for Iraq Pullout, NYT, 29.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29prexy.html

Bush Sticks to Agenda Amid Conflicts

March 27, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:24 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The attorney general is struggling to keep his job in a standoff with Congress over the purging of U.S. prosecutors. The war spending bill is stuck over whether troops should stay in Iraq, another bit of brinksmanship with lawmakers.

And President Bush is again talking, for two days in a row, about converting switchgrass and wood chips into ethanol.

The president's public schedule has Bush operating in two different worlds of news: the one threatening his administration, and the one he is determined to promote whether anyone is listening or not.

So while Congress challenges Bush on the firings of U.S. attorneys, the president is sticking to energy.

His only planned public event Tuesday was a visit to a U.S. Postal Service plant, where he was to stand near vehicles that run on alternative fuels and hail them as a way to reduce reliance on oil. If it sounds familiar, it's because he did something similar Monday at the White House.

He also touted his energy plan on a Midwestern tour of auto plants last Tuesday, which adds up to three times in about a week.

''We want people to know that we're doing a lot on energy, and we think energy is an issue where there's an interest in getting it done on the Hill,'' said Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director. ''The only way to break through and build some momentum is to do two or three events in a short period of time.''

Without newsy developments, the message gets diminishing attention from networks and major newspapers. That's particularly true when it is up against the stories of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Iraq war and the 2008 presidential race.

From the White House perspective, though, there other ways to measure success.

Bush's visits get strong regional coverage, which can influence members of Congress and help give a boost to his legislation. In that sense, how the president spends his time is a message unto itself, a sign of his commitment to an issue.

Plus, pounding one issue increases the chances that people will hear what Bush is saying -- even if takes several times to do it.

''I don't know whether it works, but I don't think they have any choice,'' said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. ''Sticking to your agenda is just the standard rule of what you do, and you do it even more when you're in trouble.''

It is not surprising that Bush is spending so much time on energy, Bowman said. The issue affects the lives of gas-guzzling Americans. Politically, it also important to Democrats, which creates an opening for Bush to get something done as his term winds down.

Expect Bush to stay active on the four themes of his State of the Union speech: energy, education, health care and immigration.

The events are typically scheduled weeks in advance, which means they are not thrown together to draw attention from the controversy of the day. The White House certainly doesn't mind when that happens, though.

If Bush didn't keep pushing his domestic agenda, his administration says, it would be accused of being paralyzed by distraction.

''You certainly don't want the president just hunkered down in a bunker, besieged with problem after problem,'' said John Podesta, chief of staff to President Clinton during the impeachment scandal.

Clinton was famous for staying focused on one issue while a crisis raged on another one. He called it compartmentalizing. Unlike Clinton, though, Bush's popularity has sunk with the public because of the war in Iraq and other missteps, Podesta said.

''His agenda is relatively thin, and his job approval on the elements of his agenda is bad,'' Podesta said. ''It's very hard to break through and have much to break through with.''

Bush's advisers say his agenda is plenty robust to matter to millions of people, if Congress will work with him.

Energy is one example. Bush wants to reduce U.S gasoline consumption 20 percent over 10 years, so he promotes cars that run on batteries or on alternative fuels such cellulosic ethanol, which can be produced from cornstalks, woodchips and switchgrass.

Bush's theme sounds about the same each time, but his events are subtly different.

After announcing his plan, he first went to a high-tech ethanol lab in Delaware to focus on the science.

Then he toured Ford and General Motors plants in the Kansas City area to show people that hybrid vehicles are becoming sleeker and more common. On Tuesday, he was showcasing how big delivery companies use alternative fuel technology.

The danger of such a singular focus is the risk of appearing tone-deaf if everyone is paying attention to something else.

Sullivan says Bush won't let that happen. On the day Bush toured the auto plants last week, for example, he returned to the White House earlier than expected to give a statement on the Gonzales matter and take questions from reporters.

Iraq remains the dominant issue for the public and for Bush, and it continues to show up on his calendar regularly. He plans to make comments on it Wednesday. As for promoting the rest of the agenda, Sullivan insists: ''We can do more than one thing at a time.''

    Bush Sticks to Agenda Amid Conflicts, NYT, 27.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Two-Worlds.html

Veto Threat Does Not Dissuade Senate Democrats

March 27, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:56 p.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats said Tuesday the White House's latest veto threat would not dissuade them from pushing ahead on legislation calling for combat troops to come home from Iraq within one year.

As the Senate debated the bill Tuesday, the White House issued another stern warning to Congress that the president would reject any legislation setting a timetable on the war.

''That's not surprising from a White House that has stubbornly refused to change course even in the face of dwindling support from American people whose sons and daughters are dying'' said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The administration contends that setting a timetable on the war assumes failure in Iraq.

''This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration's plan to develop the Iraqi economy,'' the White House said in a statement.

The $122 billion bill would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but order Bush to begin bringing some troops home right away, with the goal of ending combat missions by March 31, 2008.

An upcoming vote on whether to uphold the withdrawal language could come down to just one or two votes, testing Democratic unity on a proposal to begin bringing combat troops home.

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson are expected to deliver the critical votes.

The bill is similar to one the House passed last week, but with a tougher deadline. While the Senate identifies March 2008 as a goal -- giving the president leeway to ignore the deadline -- the House voted 218-212 to require all combat troops out as of Aug. 31, 2008.

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., has proposed striking the withdrawal provision, which GOP members say would broadcast the nation's war plans to the enemy and tie the hands of military commanders.

''It's a bad message all the way around,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

Whether Republicans have enough votes to beat the narrow Democratic majority depends upon their ability to entice Democratic defections.

Senate Democrats hold a slim 51-49 majority. And with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat, supportive of the president's Iraq policy and Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota recuperating from a brain hemorrhage, Democrats this year have been unable to push through legislation critical of the war.

On March 15, the Senate rejected by a 50-48 vote a resolution calling for troops to leave by March 2008. Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon sided with Democrats in support of the measure, but Nelson of Nebraska and Pryor of Arkansas opposed announcing a timetable for withdrawal.

Since then, Reid and others have altered the legislation in hopes of persuading the two Democrats. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.

Nelson has since swung behind the bill, contending the benchmarks are necessary to measure progress.

But Republicans hope they can still attract his support because their amendment would eliminate the withdrawal date while retaining the benchmarks Nelson wanted.

Also critical to the upcoming vote is Pryor, who says he would only support a timetable in Iraq if it were classified.

''I think if the public timetable remains, Senator Pryor would likely oppose'' the Democratic proposal, said spokesman Michael Teague.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., predicted Monday he had the votes to strike the withdrawal language. But even if he fails to keep it out of a final bill -- after it is negotiated with the House -- McConnell said Republicans won't block final passage because he knows the president will veto it, the sooner the better.

Unable to override Bush's veto, Democrats would have to redraft the bill without a ''surrender deadline,'' McConnell said.

''We're not interested in letting the political posturing get in the way'' of providing resources to the troops, he said.

The legislation also provides about $20 billion in domestic spending and increasingly looks like a magnet for far-flung issues such as a proposed increase in the minimum wage.

Republicans have demanded tax cuts as a condition for their support of a higher minimum wage, and officials said key senators were drafting a provision for debate that would include both those issues. It calls for tax cuts at least as high as the $8.3 billion package the Senate passed earlier, if not larger. House Democrats have labeled that amount excessive.

    Veto Threat Does Not Dissuade Senate Democrats, NYT, 27.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html?hp

Editorial

The President’s Prison

March 25, 2007
The New York Times

George Bush does not want to be rescued.

The president has been told countless times, by a secretary of state, by members of Congress, by heads of friendly governments — and by the American public — that the Guantánamo Bay detention camp has profoundly damaged this nation’s credibility as a champion of justice and human rights. But Mr. Bush ignored those voices — and now it seems he has done the same to his new defense secretary, Robert Gates, the man Mr. Bush brought in to clean up Donald Rumsfeld’s mess.

Thom Shanker and David Sanger reported in Friday’s Times that in his first weeks on the job, Mr. Gates told Mr. Bush that the world would never consider trials at Guantánamo to be legitimate. He said that the camp should be shut, and that inmates who should stand trial should be brought to the United States and taken to real military courts.

Mr. Bush rejected that sound advice, heeding instead the chief enablers of his worst instincts, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Their opposition was no surprise. The Guantánamo operation was central to Mr. Cheney’s drive to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of Congress and the courts, and Mr. Gonzales was one of the chief architects of the policies underpinning the detainee system. Mr. Bush and his inner circle are clearly afraid that if Guantánamo detainees are tried under the actual rule of law, many of the cases will collapse because they are based on illegal detention, torture and abuse — or that American officials could someday be held criminally liable for their mistreatment of detainees.

It was distressing to see that the president has retreated so far into his alternative reality that he would not listen to Mr. Gates — even when he was backed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who, like her predecessor, Colin Powell, had urged Mr. Bush to close Guantánamo. It seems clear that when he brought in Mr. Gates, Mr. Bush didn’t want to fix Mr. Rumsfeld’s disaster; he just wanted everyone to stop talking about it.

If Mr. Bush would not listen to reason from inside his cabinet, he might at least listen to what Americans are telling him about the damage to this country’s credibility, and its cost. When Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — for all appearances a truly evil and dangerous man — confessed to a long list of heinous crimes, including planning the 9/11 attacks, many Americans reacted with skepticism and even derision. The confession became the butt of editorial cartoons, like one that showed the prisoner confessing to betting on the Cincinnati Reds, and fodder for the late-night comedians.

What stood out the most from the transcript of Mr. Mohammed’s hearing at Guantánamo Bay was how the military detention and court system has been debased for terrorist suspects. The hearing was a combatant status review tribunal — a process that is supposed to determine whether a prisoner is an illegal enemy combatant and thus not entitled in Mr. Bush’s world to rudimentary legal rights. But the tribunals are kangaroo courts, admitting evidence that was coerced or obtained through abuse or outright torture. They are intended to confirm a decision that was already made, and to feed detainees into the military commissions created by Congress last year.

The omissions from the record of Mr. Mohammed’s hearing were chilling. The United States government deleted his claims to have been tortured during years of illegal detention at camps run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Government officials who are opposed to the administration’s lawless policy on prisoners have said in numerous news reports that Mr. Mohammed was indeed tortured, including through waterboarding, which simulates drowning and violates every civilized standard of behavior toward a prisoner, even one as awful as this one. And he is hardly the only prisoner who has made claims of abuse and torture. Some were released after it was proved that they never had any connection at all to terrorism.

Still, the Bush administration says no prisoner should be allowed to take torture claims to court, including the innocents who were tortured and released. The administration’s argument is that how prisoners are treated is a state secret and cannot be discussed openly. If that sounds nonsensical, it is. It’s also not the real reason behind the administration’s denying these prisoners the most basic rights of due process.

The Bush administration has so badly subverted American norms of justice in handling these cases that they would not stand up to scrutiny in a real court of law. It is a clear case of justice denied.

    The President’s Prison, NYT, 25.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25sun1.html

Dems Challenge Bush With Iraq Timetable

March 24, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:03 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.

The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.

He dismissed their action as ''political theater'' and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.

The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 -- or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

''The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war,'' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. ''The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.''

Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is needed next month by troops.

''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. This is not going to happen,'' he said.

Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own war spending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal -- and also has drawn a Bush veto threat.

The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.

These bills ''offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people asked for in November -- redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing him to sign such legislation.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail -- a tall order because that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.

And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override his veto -- margins that neither seems likely to muster.

Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans -- Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservative members, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis and Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor, who say they do not want to tie the hands of military commanders.

The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus who routinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bring troops home immediately.

Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcing a new course in Iraq -- an argument that was aided when the Democrats added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even though they would oppose it themselves.

The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husband watched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.

Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a good thing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members to oppose the bill.

''This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war,'' said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.

The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.

''We're going to make a difference with this bill,'' bellowed Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.

''We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the direction of this great nation,'' he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugs from his colleagues.

Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.

''The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,'' said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said they planned to try to strip the withdrawal language from the Senate bill -- which would probably require a difficult-to-achieve 60 votes.

''We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'hang on, we'll give you a date when we are leaving,' said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

    Dems Challenge Bush With Iraq Timetable, NYT, 24.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html

House Approves Timetable to Bring Troops Home From Iraq

March 23, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:10 p.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Just over an hour later, Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of troops to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater that delays the delivery of resources to soliders fighting in Iraq.

''A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resoures they need to do their job,'' the president said.

    House Approves Timetable to Bring Troops Home From Iraq, NYT, 23.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html

In Utah, an Opponent of the ‘Culture of Obedience’

March 22, 2007
The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON

SALT LAKE CITY — Rocky Anderson may not be the most liberal mayor in America. But here in the most conservative state, he might as well be.

Just being himself is enough to galvanize, divide or enrage people who have followed his career as Salt Lake City’s mayor, and who are now watching him become, in the twilight of his final term, a national spokesman for the excoriation and impeachment of President Bush.

[“President Bush is a war criminal,” Mr. Anderson, a Democrat, said at a rally here on Monday marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq. “Let impeachment be the first step toward national reconciliation — and toward penance for the outrages committed in our nation’s name.”]

Mr. Anderson, a 55-year-old lapsed Mormon and former civil litigator with a rich baritone and a mane of patrician-silver hair, is no stranger to strong talk and political stances that leave his audiences breathless with exasperation, admiration or sometimes a mixture of both.

He has presented his densely footnoted constitutional argument against Mr. Bush’s presidency in speeches from the Washington Legislature to peace rallies in Washington, D.C., making him a favorite punching bag of conservative talk show hosts and bloggers well beyond his home state. [He went on Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News on Tuesday, for example, and Mr. O’Reilly promptly called him “a kook.”]

Mr. Anderson cheerfully conceded in an interview in his office that he had no hope whatsoever of a statewide political future in Utah because people outside Salt Lake City — who are far more likely to be conservative, Republican and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — are likely to hate him. But in what has been a trademark of his seven years in office, he can seem equally disdainful of those who disdain him.

“There’s a real resistance to change and an almost pathological devotion to leaders simply because they’re leaders,” he said, in describing fellow Utahans who do not share his views and who in large numbers support the president (and gave him 72 percent of their vote in 2004). “There’s a dangerous culture of obedience throughout much of this country that’s worse in Utah than anywhere.”

Critics and supporters alike agree that Mr. Anderson — whose given name is Ross but who is known by almost everyone here as Rocky, with no last name necessary — is genuinely passionate and devoted to the causes he has brought to the mayor’s office, including global warming, genocide in Darfur, gay and lesbian rights and the war in Iraq.

But those efforts, many people say, have sometimes made him seem like more of a mayor to the world than a fix-the-potholes, sweep-the-sidewalks business-booster for this city of 180,000 people.

And in pursuing those political interests with the same confrontational style that he has brought to the fight for impeachment in recent months, Mr. Anderson has left burned bridges behind him the way other people leave fingerprints.

“What he’s doing lets people know that free speech is alive and well in Salt Lake City,” said K. Eric Jergensen, a member of the City Council, which, like the mayor’s office, is formally nonpartisan, though Mr. Jergensen described himself as a Republican.

“But it seems we’ve lost our ability to sit down amicably and discuss things,” Mr. Jergensen added. “When we step to the rhetorical sidelines and all we do is spit venom and fire, it isn’t effective.”

Mr. Anderson, who described himself as an exacting boss — others say workaholic micromanager — has gone through City Hall employees with blazing regularity, including at least five chiefs of staff.

In 2001, he alienated the Republican-controlled Legislature by joining with environmentalists and mass-transit advocates in a lawsuit to block a major north-south highway project that Mr. Anderson said would harm air quality and wetlands near the Great Salt Lake.

He rarely went to the Capitol after that to lobby on the city’s behalf, City Council members and former staff members said, because everybody knew it would be counterproductive.

Even some fellow Democrats say the city probably suffered from the anti-Rocky backlash.

“He is one of those politicians who people love to hate, and sometimes he gave the Legislature a great excuse not to do their jobs where Salt Lake City was concerned,” said Nancy Saxton, a Democrat and City Council member who is running for mayor in the November election.

Mr. Anderson announced last July that he would not seek a third term, saying he wanted to devote the rest of his life to grass-roots organizing involving human rights and global warming. He said in the interview that he had not made specific plans.

One of the mayor’s former chiefs of staff, Deeda Seed, who was fired in 2005, described her former boss this way: “I used to be good friends with him. He’s incredibly intelligent. He is delightful to talk to. He can be a really, really good friend. He could just benefit from a little therapy.”

(Ms. Seed said Mr. Anderson fired her after they disagreed on policy issues, including how to handle the news media. He said she was “almost a complete disaster as an employee and I had no choice but to fire her.”)

Supporters say Mr. Anderson has made Utah more interesting, at the very least, by highlighting the political diversity that exists at the state’s heart, in the state’s capital and largest city. He first won office in 1999, and re-election in 2003, essentially by winning the votes of non-Mormons, who constitute about 55 percent of the city’s population. (Statewide, Mormons constitute about two-thirds of the population.) In his last election, he got 54 percent of the vote, even though about 80 percent of Mormons voted against him, he said.

Those election patterns — non-Mormons mostly for Mr. Anderson, Mormons mostly against — set the rhythm for a mayoral administration that many people say has isolated Salt Lake City even more by emphasizing that the city’s political and cultural distinctiveness is also about religion and that being non-Mormon is synonymous with being liberal and urban and different.

“It’s embarrassing for the rest of us; Mayor Anderson is so over the top, nobody wants to be associated with him,” said Matthew R. Godfrey, mayor of the nearby city of Ogden. Mr. Godfrey said Mr. Anderson had not worked well with other mayors across the state and that he was out of step with fellow Utahans.

Mr. Anderson, who has been married and divorced twice, with a son now in college, said he believed that divisiveness could be a virtue. For too long, he said, Democrats have run toward the center, away from confrontation. And in a conservative place like Utah, he said, he just has to push harder.

“If you take a principled point of view and people fall down on one side or the other, you can either be characterized as being principled or being tough,” he said. “Or you can be dismissed as being divisive, and I think if that’s the definition of divisive, we need more people in politics who are divisive.”

Dan Frosch contributed reporting from Denver.

    In Utah, an Opponent of the ‘Culture of Obedience’, NYT, 22.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/22rocky.html?hp

Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors

March 21, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 20 — President Bush and Congress clashed Tuesday over an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors and appeared headed toward a constitutional showdown over demands from Capitol Hill for internal White House documents and testimony from top advisers to the president.

Under growing political pressure, the White House offered to allow members of Congressional committees to hold private interviews with Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.

“I don’t accept his offer,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “It is not constructive, and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation or to prejudge its outcome.”

Responding defiantly on a day in which tension over the affair played out on multiple fronts, Mr. Bush said he would resist any effort to put his top aides under “the klieg lights” in “show trials” on Capitol Hill, and he reiterated his support for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose backing among Republicans on Capitol Hill ebbed further on Tuesday.

“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,” the president told reporters in a brief and hastily convened appearance in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.

The pointed exchange was set off by a Democratic inquiry into whether the White House let politics interfere with law enforcement by dismissing eight of the nation’s 93 United States attorneys. The dismissals and the way the Justice Department informed Congress about them have created an uproar in both parties, as Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have demanded explanations.

Tuesday’s confrontation was the sharpest yet between the Bush White House and the new Democratic majority in Congress on a matter of oversight, and it set the stage for a legal showdown over executive privilege. Democrats threatened to subpoena Mr. Rove and the others unless they testified publicly and under oath, while the White House vowed to fight subpoenas in court.

The fallout from the dismissals continued to ripple across the capital.

In the Senate, lawmakers responded to the furor over the firings by voting overwhelmingly to revoke the authority they had granted the administration last year under the USA Patriot Act to install federal prosecutors indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

Lawmakers also spent the day poring over 3,000 pages of newly released e-mail messages that provided a glimpse inside the Justice Department as officials planned the dismissals and then reacted to the issue as it ignited into a political crisis.

The administration has voluntarily released e-mail messages from inside the Justice Department but has drawn the line at releasing communications among members of the White House staff, citing the tradition that a president is entitled to advice from his aides that does not have to be couched out of concern that it will become public.

The e-mail messages showed that the agency only gradually appreciated how seriously it had miscalculated the response the firings would provoke. As late as early February, D. Kyle Sampson, who stepped down last week as Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, suggested the uproar would blow over, writing, “The issue has basically run its course.”

With many Democrats and a growing number of Republicans calling for Mr. Gonzales to step down, Mr. Bush placed an early morning telephone call to his beleaguered attorney general, to offer him “a very strong vote of confidence,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary. Still, Mr. Gonzales’s support among Republicans appeared increasingly thin.

“His ability to effectively serve the president and lead the Justice Department is greatly compromised,” Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said during a lunchtime interview with reporters. “I think he himself should evaluate his ability to serve as an effective attorney general.”

Against that backdrop, the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, went to Capitol Hill to make what Mr. Bush called a “reasonable proposal” to permit members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to conduct private interviews with Mr. Rove; Ms. Miers; William Kelley, the deputy White House counsel; and Scott Jennings, a deputy to Mr. Rove.

In a carefully worded letter to the committees, Mr. Fielding said the White House was prepared to give Congress “a virtually unprecedented window into personnel decision-making within the executive branch.”

One of two Republican lawmakers who attended the meeting, Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, said in an interview afterward that he had pressed Mr. Fielding on whether he “understood that a lie would be prosecutable,” even if the interview was not conducted under oath. “He said, ‘Yes, we understand that,’ ” Mr. Cannon said. Lying to Congress can be a crime even if the false statements are not made under oath.

But Democrats dismissed Mr. Fielding’s offer as window dressing. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, suggested that the administration had misled him, and released a Justice Department letter that said it was not aware that Mr. Rove had played any role in the decision to appoint one of his former deputies as United States attorney in Arkansas.

“I want to hear Karl Rove testify under oath about the role he played in this whole affair,” Mr. Reid said.

As the war of words escalated, people on both sides acknowledged a legal fight carried political risks. Beth Nolan, who was counsel to President Bill Clinton and twice testified to Congress under subpoena, said she suspected the clash would lead to more negotiations, and not a court fight. “There’s the legal path to the fight and the political path,” she said. “It’s much more likely that you’ll see a political path.”

The Bush administration has been a fierce defender of presidential powers but has solved most of the issues without going to court. For instance, the president and Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to be interviewed by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, although they did so behind closed doors and not under oath. Nevertheless Mr. Bush said Tuesday that he would “oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.” Asked if he would be willing to go to court over the matter, Mr. Bush said, “Absolutely.”

Mr. Bush once again defended the dismissals, and he said it was “natural and appropriate” for members of the White House staff to discuss them with the Justice Department. At the same time, he offered an apology to the dismissed United States attorneys, saying, “I regret that these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.”

The motivation for the dismissals is still not fully understood. Democrats, including Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who is leading the inquiry in the Senate, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, have said they want to know whether prosecutors were dismissed to thwart public corruption investigations.

“The time for slippery explanations is over,” Mrs. Feinstein said Tuesday, after the Senate voted 94 to 2 to repeal the Patriot Act provision. “We don’t intend to stop now. We intend to flesh out who did what, when and why.”

The Justice Department e-mail messages did little to flesh that out. They contain no mention that the firings were motivated by any particular prosecutors’ action or inaction in any public corruption cases. Nor do the messages show that the Bush administration had a batch of replacement candidates in place in seven of the eight United States attorney’s offices.

But the documents do show how unprepared the Justice Department was early this year for the response. On Dec. 7, 2006, the day the prosecutors were told they were being removed, Gerald Parksy, a prominent California Republican fund-raiser and friend of the president’s, “put in an outraged call” to the White House protesting the dismissal of the United States attorney in San Francisco, Kevin Ryan, according to an e-mail message from a White House official to the Justice Department.

Mr. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel, asked one Justice Department official to provide more details of the firings to White House political aides so that they could help Mr. Rove answer calls about the action. As the uproar mounted, officials at the department headquarters scrambled to prepare a list of reasons for removing the prosecutors, struggling at times to find substantial causes, particularly for Daniel Bogden in Nevada, Margaret Chiara in Michigan and David C. Iglesias of New Mexico.

Reporting for this article was contributed by John M. Broder, Carl Hulse, David Johnston, Eric Lipton and Jim Rutenberg.

    Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors, NYT, 21.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21attorneys.html?hp

Text

President Bush’s Comments on the Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys

March 20, 2007
The New York Times

Following is the text of President Bush's remarks on the dismissal of United States attorneys, delivered on March 20, as provided by the White House.

THE PRESIDENT: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms.

The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We're determined to correct the problem.

Today I'm also announcing the following steps my administration is taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons. Second, we're giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.

In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department has provided the Congress more than 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department documents, including those reflecting direct communications with White House staff. This, in itself, is an extraordinary level of disclosure of an internal agency in White House communications.

Third, I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White House played in the resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.

Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having — the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. In addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and emails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff, related to this issue. These extraordinary steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it's important to maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term. The start of a second term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the idea was rejected and was not pursued.

Second, it is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.

I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who resigned. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.

It's now my hope that the United States Congress will act appropriately. My administration has made a very reasonable proposal. It's not too late for Democrats to drop the partisanship and work together. Democrats now have to choose whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business. There are too many important issues, from funding our troops to comprehensive immigration reform, to balancing the budget, for us to accomplish on behalf of the American people.

Thank you for your time. Now I'll answer a couple of questions.

Deb.

Q: Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?

THE PRESIDENT: Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've put forth a reasonable proposal for people to be comfortable with the decisions and how they were made. Al Gonzales and his team will be testifying. We have made available people on my staff to be interviewed. And we've made an unprecedented number of documents available.

Q: Sir, are you convinced, personally?

THE PRESIDENT: There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by the White House staff, that anybody did anything improper.

Michael.

Q: If today's offer from Mr. Fielding is your best and final offer on this, are you going to go to the mat in protecting the principle that you talked about? And why not, since you say nothing wrong was done by your staff, why not just clear the air and let Karl Rove and other senior aides testify in public, under oath? There's been a precedent for previous administrations doing that.

THE PRESIDENT: Some have, some haven't. My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.

Michael, I'm worried about precedents that would make it difficult for somebody to walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here's what's on my mind. And if you haul somebody up in front of Congress and put them in oath and all the klieg lights and all the questioning, to me, it makes it very difficult for a President to get good advice. On the other hand, I understand there is a need for information sharing on this. And I put forth what I thought was a rational proposal, and the proposal I put forward is the proposal.

Q: And then you'll go to the mat, you'll take this to court —

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. If they truly are interested in information — in other words, if they want to find out what went on between the White House and the Justice Department, they need to read all the emails we released. If they're truly interested in finding out what took place, I have proposed a way for them to find out what took place. My concern is, they would rather be involved with partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points.

And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one. There really is a way for people to get information. We'll just fine out what's on their mind.

Kelly O'.

Q: Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were actively investigating Republicans — in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly impeded or stopped those investigations? And, sir, if I may also ask about the Attorney General. He does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he's got support with me. I support the Attorney General. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him; I still do. He's going to go up to Capitol Hill and he's going to explain the very questions you asked. I've heard all these allegations and rumors. And people just need to hear the truth, and they're going to go up and explain the truth.

Q: In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't — it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to — it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

Listen, first of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. I named them all. And the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted, that eight of the 93 would no longer serve. And they will go up and make the explanations as to why — I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are — I put them in there in the first place; they're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they're being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it's just — what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.

And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see.

If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there — which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael — is — I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.

And if information is the desire, here's a great way forward. If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see.

Listen, thank you all for your interest.

    President Bush’s Comments on the Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys, NYT, 21.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20bush-text.html

Don’t ‘Pack Up,’ Bush Says After 4 Years of War

March 20, 2007
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, March 19 — President Bush marked the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on Monday with a plea for patience and a stark warning against the temptation "to pack up and go home."

Mr. Bush's brief speech came in the midst of an increasingly tense showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress over the constitutional balance of power during war. The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a Democratic proposal to attach conditions to the president's $100 billion war financing package that would require American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq next year, a timetable Mr. Bush has said would undercut the troops and aid the insurgents.

Mr. Bush's commemoration of the anniversary, delivered beneath a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt as a Rough Rider, was notable for the sharp change in tone from his speeches in the heady, early days of the war — when it still appeared possible that a quick victory in Baghdad could be followed by a relatively swift withdrawal. In those first few months, Mr. Bush argued that he was on the way to spreading democracy throughout the Middle East through the euphoria that would surely follow the unseating of Saddam Hussein.

But on Monday Mr. Bush made no reference to democracy. In his only reference to the regional effects of the war, he cautioned, "If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could engulf the entire country; in time, this violence could engulf the region."

In an echo of the initial case for war, Mr. Bush warned that Iraq could become a staging ground for terrorists to plan devastating attacks on the order of 9/11.

Anniversaries of the invasion have become more politically fraught in the years since the invasion. Mr. Bush used his statement on Monday to argue that it was the responsibility of Congress to support the troops already there, and that he alone had the authority to decide the strategy and the timetable for adding or withdrawing troops.

"They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay," Mr. Bush said of the war financing package.

Also on Monday, the administration released a statement calling the House bill "unconscionable" and saying that the president would veto it if it was passed.

But where Democrats once feared they were vulnerable to charges that they were undercutting the troops by defying the commander in chief, they expressed no such concern on Monday. Reflecting Mr. Bush's low approval ratings and the widespread discontent with continuing American casualties, they used the anniversary on Monday to go on the attack.

"After four years of failure in Iraq, the president's only answer is to do more of the same," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a statement. Referring to Republican efforts to defeat a resolution in the Senate calling for a 2008 troop withdrawal, Mr. Reid added, "With the blessing of Senate Republicans, he's committing more U.S. troops to an open-ended civil war."

Democrats are hardly unified on the war: some are concerned that Democrats could be blamed for whatever happens in Iraq if Congress specified dates for withdrawal.

In the mid-1990s, President Clinton regularly clashed with Republicans in Congress as they sought to limit United States involvement in United Nations peacekeeping missions, leading to charges from Mr. Clinton that Congress was infringing on presidential war powers.

The Iran-contra affair during President Reagan's term was itself a reaction to Congressional restrictions on the United States involvement in Nicaragua's civil war.

But the most direct parallel might be Vietnam, when Congress tried to limit presidential maneuvering room as protests over the war increased in volume — including the 1970 repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that was an important part of Congressional assent for the United States involvement in the war.

It remains unclear whether the House Democrats will have the votes to approve the bill tying funding of the war to benchmarks and the goal of a 2008 withdrawal. "We're in the hunt," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democratic conference chairman.

Mr. Bush's explicit reference to the temptation to leave Iraq was in sharp contrast to other moments when he has commemorated milestones in the war. His well-known statement aboard the aircraft carrier Lincoln in the late spring of 2003 — declaring an end to active combat — was a celebration of what initially looked like a quick military victory. But that was before the rise of the insurgency and counterattacks by Shiite militias.

In 2003, both White House and Pentagon officials said that any American presence in Iraq four years later would most likely be relatively small. On Monday, the White House was instead pressing anew its claims that withdrawal would result in defeat.

"It is a withdraw-the-troops bill, not a fund-the-troops bill," Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said of the Congressional legislation during a news briefing that followed Mr. Bush's remarks. "It would also force failure of the mission in Iraq and forfeit the sacrifices made by our troops."

In keeping with the political jockeying of the day, Mr. Snow attacked the bill for also including several items of political pork, presumably inserted to secure votes of the faint of heart.

But Mr. Snow faced skepticism from reporters on Monday, fencing with them over a new poll of Iraqis showing that they hold a gloomy view of the future. At one point Mr. Snow snapped, "Zip it" during an argument with a CNN reporter over whether the administration could provide a "recipe for success" at a time when it was portraying the Democrats as putting forward a recipe for failure.

White House officials on Monday said the political pressure to leave Iraq would abate when conditions on the ground appeared more positive.

But officials acknowledge that they are in a race between better results in Iraq and a Democratic Congress beginning to insert itself in decisions about war and peace.

    Don’t ‘Pack Up,’ Bush Says After 4 Years of War, NYT, 20.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20prexy.html

White House Voices Support for Gonzales

March 20, 2007
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 20 — The White House reaffirmed President Bush’s support for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today as the Senate prepared to vote on whether to revoke the authority it granted the administration last year to name federal prosecutors.

“The president spoke to the attorney general around 7:15 a.m. from the Oval Office,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. “They had a good conversation about the status of the United States attorney issue. The president also reaffirmed his strong backing and support for the attorney general.”

Mr. Bush’s call to Mr. Gonzales, an old friend from Texas, could dampen speculation that the attorney general’s job is at stake, at least in the immediate future.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, were moving to overturn a formerly obscure provision of the USA Patriot Act that allowed the attorney general to appoint federal prosecutors for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation. A vote is expected early this afternoon.

President Bush has said he has confidence in Mr. Gonzales, but as recently as Monday the White House seemed to offer only tepid support for him.

“Nobody is prophetic enough to know what the next 21 months hold,” the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said when asked if Mr. Gonzales would remain until the end of Mr. Bush’s term. Mr. Bush has said Mr. Gonzales needs to repair his relations with Capitol Hill; asked if the attorney general had done so, Mr. Snow said, “I don’t know.”

At the Justice Department, neither Mr. Gonzales nor his staff have engaged in a major effort to reverse the erosion of his support among Republicans in Congress, associates said. Mr. Gonzales read budget briefing books over the weekend and on Monday he phoned one or two lawmakers, said one aide, who declined to identify them.

Mr. Gonzales, who publicly apologized last week for his department’s handling of the dismissals of eight United States attorneys, also acknowledged mistakes in a conference call with United States attorneys over the weekend.

Despite the attorney general’s apologies, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, joined a chorus of lawmakers who are calling for Mr. Gonzales to leave the administration.

“I believe we need a new attorney general,” Ms. Pelosi told the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune.

The new chief counsel to President Bush, Fred F. Fielding, spent Monday preparing a response for Democrats who are demanding testimony from Karl Rove and other top aides to Mr. Bush, including the former counsel, Harriet E. Miers.

Mr. Fielding was heading to Capitol Hill today to meet with the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The Senate committee chairman, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, has said he wants Mr. Rove and the others to testify publicly and under oath, but the White House has said that is unlikely to happen, setting up a possible clash between the two branches.

Republicans close to the White House say they expect Mr. Fielding to offer some sort of compromise rather than rule out testimony entirely.

“I think that he will extend an olive branch, but with some important caveats,” said David B. Rivkin, a lawyer for the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. “And then we shall see what the Democrats will do.”

Mr. Snow would not characterize the kind of offer Mr. Fielding might make, saying only that the counsel intended to have a “constructive conversation” with the lawmakers. But the White House is facing the prospect of subpoenas if Mr. Rove and the others do not talk voluntarily; Mr. Leahy has scheduled a vote for Thursday on whether to grant him the power to issue the subpoenas.

“I know there’s been an expectation of brinksmanship,” Mr. Snow said, adding that it was “important for both sides to behave responsibly.”

On Capitol Hill, members of both parties expressed support for repealing the Patriot Act provision. Lawmakers said the provision amounted to an end run around senators, who have long had influence in the appointment of home-state prosecutors. Some senators said the provision was used to clear the way for firing prosecutors and replacing them with candidates considered more in line with the administration.

“We can’t trust this administration to use that authority in a fair and constructive manner,” said Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas, who helped begin an inquiry into the dismissals by objecting to the administration’s choice for his state. “They have proven it to us.”

Mr. Pryor and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said that the way the Patriot Act revision, which was written by the Justice Department, was introduced last year with little or no consultation with senators suggested that the administration had intended all along to use it to avoid a showdown with the Senate over new prosecutors.

“Now it is becoming clear why they stuck that provision in there,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. “This was a plan they had had for a long time.”

In a Sept. 13, 2006, e-mail message recently disclosed by the Justice Department, D. Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Mr. Gonzales, strongly recommended that the administration use the new authority when making appointments. He said it would allow the agency to “give far less deference to home-state senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.”

Despite that message, Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said Monday that Mr. Sampson’s plan “does not and did not represent the views or final actions of the Justice Department.”

Mr. Roehrkasse said the provision changing the appointment practices was introduced because of concerns about federal courts filling openings as well as fears that the vacancies would remain too long, given the time required for confirmation.

He said that Will Moschella, then assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, proposed the idea in 2003.

“At that time, Will Moschella did not have any knowledge of plans to remove U.S. attorneys,” Mr. Roehrkasse said in a statement.

The legislation the Senate is considering would restore the previous system for naming federal prosecutors, allowing the attorney general to name an interim attorney for up to 120 days while the administration submits a nomination. If a nominee is not confirmed in that period, the federal district court could then name a replacement.

The Justice Department said that approach had presented problems over the years, including the unusual situation in which one branch of government — the judiciary — appoints a representative of another branch. Mr. Roehrkasse said some courts had refused to appoint prosecutors for that reason while others have appointed unqualified attorneys. In addition, 120 days is a short period to win Senate confirmation.

But as the impact of the change in the handling of vacancies became clearer to senators, lawmakers in both parties expressed dismay since they consider the ability to recommend and confirm candidates for federal prosecutor a senatorial privilege they are eager to retain.

“The president can pick anyone he wants to serve on his White House staff, and he does,” Mr. Leahy said. “But when it comes to the United States Department of Justice and our home states, U.S. senators have a say in ensuring fairness and independence to prevent the federal law enforcement function from untoward political influence.”

Eric Lipton contributed reporting.

    White House Voices Support for Gonzales, NYT, 20.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20cnd-attorney.html?hp

Democrats’ Measure for Iraq Pullout in 2008 Nears Senate Vote;
White House Threatens Veto

March 15, 2007
The New York Times
By ROBIN TONER and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, March 14 — In the face of determined opposition from the Bush administration, the Senate on Wednesday began an impassioned debate over an exit strategy from Iraq, headed toward a vote on a Democratic resolution aimed at a pullout of American combat troops in 2008.

Underscoring the mounting tensions between the Democratic Congress and the White House, administration officials immediately issued a veto threat, even though the measure is considered unlikely to win final passage. The administration’s statement denounced the Democratic plan in forceful terms, declaring that it would “embolden our enemies” and “hobble American commanders in the field.”

In the House, Democratic leaders scrambled on the eve of a critical test vote for their own Iraq legislation — a huge emergency spending bill that also includes a timetable for withdrawal in 2008. It is to go before the Appropriations Committee on Thursday and to the floor of the House next week. The White House has vowed to veto that measure as well.

The Senate’s long-awaited debate over Iraq, twice blocked last month by Republicans, opened along bitterly partisan lines. But it was also filled with sadness and dismay in both parties about the course of the war.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, acknowledged that “the situation is, indeed, dire,” while arguing that it was too important for partisanship. “Political parties don’t lose wars,” he said. “Nations lose wars, and nations suffer the consequences, and those consequences are far graver than a lost election.”

What is at issue is a Democratic resolution that would set a goal of removing most combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, and declare that the United States mission must be redefined to find a political — not a military — solution. Despite the measure’s slim prospects for final passage, Democratic strategists hope that it will step up pressure on the administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill to shift course on a war that, many noted, will pass the four-year mark next week.

Republicans described the resolution as an exercise in micromanagement. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, called it “unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to the Congress in a time of war.”

Democrats countered that the resolution provided something the Republicans lacked — an exit strategy. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said, “To those who say we would micromanage the war I say, isn’t it time for somebody to manage the war?”

So far, support for the resolution in the Senate appears confined to the Democrats. Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican, hopes to offer an alternative plan aimed at drawing support from senators critical of the Iraq strategy but uneasy with a timetable for troop withdrawal.

His proposal would require the top military commander in Iraq to report to Congress every 60 days to determine whether “satisfactory progress” was being made. If it was not, the president would be asked to justify whether keeping forces there was in the national interest. The plan also would call for hiring an outside group to study whether progress was being made in Iraq.

Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said he has been trying with little success “to convey to the White House” the need to institute recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. “We need to take it down off the shelf and use it as something other than a bookend,” he said.

The timing of a final vote is still unclear, subject to negotiations between the parties’ leaders, who left Wednesday evening without reaching agreement. Debate began only when Republicans withdrew a parliamentary roadblock and joined Democrats, in a vote of 89 to 9, to proceed. The sudden shift in Republican strategy was intended in large part to blunt the charge that the party had been blocking debate on the top issue in the country.

In the House, Democratic leaders convened a series of behind-the-scenes meetings, hoping to hold their caucus together in support of the nearly $125 billion spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure includes a plan to withdraw most troops no later than Aug. 31, 2008, in addition to placing conditions on financing of the war.

Passage of the bill, even in committee, will not be easy, given strong Republican opposition and the panel’s contingent of antiwar Democrats who say it does not go far enough.

“I’m still ambivalent,” said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat who serves on the committee. “On issues of war and peace, members have to vote their conscience, not only listen to their leaders.”

Mr. Jackson and several other Democrats interviewed on Wednesday said they were concerned about a number of issues involving the legislation, including the elimination of a proposal to require Congressional approval before the United States engaged in military action against Iran. That provision was dropped because of objections from conservatives in the party, but Democratic leaders have promised to deal with it in other legislation.

Representative James Moran, a Virginia Democrat who also serves on the committee, said he was not delighted with all of the measure’s components but said the compromise was worthwhile.

“For those of us who want to get out of Iraq,” he said, “this is the only way to go.”

    Democrats’ Measure for Iraq Pullout in 2008 Nears Senate Vote; White House Threatens Veto, NYT, 15.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15cong.html

Bush Defends Gonzales in Firing of Prosecutors

March 14, 2007
The New York Times
By DAVID STOUT and CHRISTINE HAUSER

WASHINGTON, March 14 — President Bush defended Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today amid the furor over the firing of federal prosecutors, but he said he was troubled over the clumsy handling of the dismissals.

“I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales,” Mr. Bush said of his old friend from Texas. But he said the dismissals had been bungled, “and frankly I’m not happy about it.”

Mr. Bush, speaking at a news conference in Mérida, Mexico, with President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, said that he was pleased that Mr. Gonzales had acknowledged mistakes surrounding the dismissals, but that “Al’s got work to do up on the Hill,” a reference to the Capitol, where many Democrats and several Republicans have expressed anger and dismay over the firings.

Mr. Bush said that he was confident that political factors were not behind the dismissals, that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and so can be let go at any time, and that poor communication with Congress was behind the uproar.

But the president’s anger was clear. “This issue was mishandled to the point that you’re asking me about it now in Mexico,” Mr. Bush said. The president, who said he had spoken to Mr. Gonzales this morning, is to arrive later this afternoon in Washington, where lawmakers of both parties continued to criticize Mr. Gonzales.

Mr. Gonzales insisted today that the dismissals of federal prosecutors were not politically motivated and said he would not resign but would continue to focus on what went wrong and trying to correct it. But he found few defenders on Capitol Hill, even among Republicans.

As Mr. Gonzales tried to weather the criticism from lawmakers of both parties, he also acknowledged again today that mistakes in handling the matter were made. He said his department was providing documents and making officials available to Congress.

Congressional Democrats say they want to determine whether the White House was meddling in Justice Department affairs for political reasons and have demanded that President Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, explain their roles in the dismissals. Perhaps more ominously for Mr. Gonzales, more Republicans joined in the criticism today.

Mr. Gonzales defended himself in a round of appearances on morning television news programs, saying that in a department as large as the Justice Department, “mistakes are going to happen.”

But asked on the NBC program “Today” whether he would consider stepping down, Mr. Gonzales replied: “I am responsible for what happened ultimately at the Department of Justice. Ultimately, I serve the president of the United States. That will be a decision for the president to make.”

With Mr. Bush traveling in Mexico, the White House insisted that the president’s role had been minimal and laid the blame primarily on Harriet E. Miers, who was White House counsel when the prosecutors lost their jobs and who stepped down in January.

“The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,” said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s counselor, referring to a Justice Department roster of those to be dismissed. But he said the White House, through Ms. Miers’s office, ultimately “signed off on the list.”

Asked on the ABC program “Good Morning America” whether the decision to dismiss the eight prosecutors was influenced by five of them having been involved in high-profile political corruption cases, four of them going after Republicans accused of corruption, , Mr. Gonzales replied:

“I would never retaliate, nor would I ever expect a decision with respect to the removal of a United States attorney that would interfere with an ongoing investigation.”

Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, defended Mr. Gonzalez, telling Bloomberg News that he had “over all done a good job.” But other Republicans differed. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told Bloomberg his confidence in the attorney general had been “shaken” and was “waning,” while Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon said, “I think I share the feeling of many Republican senators of profound disappointment.”

And Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, declined to say whether Mr. Gonzales should stay. “That’s the president’s decision,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg News.

With Democrats vowing to get to the bottom of who ordered the dismissals and why, the White House scrambled to explain the matter by releasing a stream of e-mail messages detailing how Ms. Miers had corresponded with D. Kyle Sampson, the top aide to Mr. Gonzales who drafted the list of those to be dismissed.

Mr. Sampson resigned Monday. On Tuesday afternoon, at a news conference, Mr. Gonzales promised to “find out what went wrong here,” even as he insisted he had had no direct knowledge of how his staff had decided on the dismissals.

He said he had rejected an earlier idea, which the White House attributed to Ms. Miers, to replace all 93 United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their regions. “I felt that was a bad idea,” Mr. Gonzales said, “and it was disruptive.”

He said today that he had been aware of the early communication between Ms. Miers and his chief of staff and that he had been working to ensure that “appropriate, responsible” people were doing their jobs.

“These firings were not politically motivated,” he told NBC. “They were not done in retaliation. They were not done to interfere with the public corruption case.”

Questions about whether the dismissals were politically motivated have been swirling since January. But they reached a fever pitch on Tuesday with disclosures by the White House that Mr. Bush had spoken directly with Mr. Gonzales to pass on concerns from Republican lawmakers, among them Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, about the way certain prosecutors were handling cases of voter fraud.

The White House took the unusual step of having Mr. Bartlett conduct a hurried briefing with reporters in Mérida, Mexico. He said the president had “all the confidence in the world” in Mr. Gonzales and traced the idea for the dismissals to Ms. Miers, saying she had raised the question of whether the Justice Department should clean house in Mr. Bush’s second term, as is common when a new president takes office.

With Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, insisting that Mr. Gonzales step down, his appearances underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said.

Already, Democrats are pressing the case for revoking the president’s authority, which he gained with the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year, to appoint interim federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation. The administration has argued that such appointments are necessary to speed the prosecution of terrorism cases. After the dismissals became a big political issue last week, Mr. Gonzales signaled that the administration would not oppose the changes sought by Democrats.

White House officials repeated Tuesday that Mr. Bush had not called for the removal of any particular United States attorney and said there was no evidence the president had been aware that the Justice Department had initiated a process to generate a list of which prosecutors should lose their jobs.

While Democrats voiced the loudest criticism, several leading Republicans said Tuesday that they also had concerns. Among them were Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and George V. Voinovich of Ohio.

Mr. Ensign, ordinarily a strong supporter of the White House, said he was “very angry” at how the administration had handled the dismissal of the prosecutors, particularly Dan Bogden, the United States attorney in Nevada. Mr. Ensign said he had been misled or lied to last year when he asked the Justice Department about the dismissal of Mr. Bogden and was told that it had been connected to his job performance.

“I’m not a person who raises his voice very often,” said Mr. Ensign, who is also the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans to the Senate.

Of his decision to speak out, he said, “I think there are times where you just have to do what you feel is right, and this is one of those times.”

Mr. Coburn called the dismissals “idiocy on the part of the administration.”

Mr. Specter, in a speech on the Senate floor, referred to another of the dismissed prosecutors, Carol C. Lam, who prosecuted Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman now serving an eight-year sentence in a corruption case.

Mr. Specter raised the question of whether Ms. Lam had been dismissed because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful,” and he questioned the Justice Department’s initial explanation that those who had lost their jobs had received poor performance evaluations.

“Well,” he said, “I think we may need to do more by way of inquiry to examine what her performance ratings were to see if there was a basis for her being asked to resign.”

David Stout reported from Washington, and Christine Hauser from New York. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Washington.

    Bush Defends Gonzales in Firing of Prosecutors, NYT, 14.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-attorneys.html?hp

Bush approves 4,400 more troops for Iraq

Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:21AM EDT
Reuters
By Steve Holland

MONTEVIDEO (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has approved adding 4,400 more U.S. troops to a force buildup already ordered to try to bring security to Iraq, the White House said on Saturday.

Bush formally requested about $3.2 billion to pay for the additional deployment, even as he and Democratic lawmakers battle over his Iraq strategy.

In January, Bush said he would deploy 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq to try to stabilize Baghdad and restive Anbar province.

The new U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has since said more troops will be needed in support of that troop buildup.

Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said the extra troops would include up to 2,400 military police to handle an anticipated increase in Iraqi detainees.

In addition, about 2,000 more combat support troops will be needed to bolster the 21,500. Also, 129 temporary Defense Department positions are needed to help in provincial Iraqi reconstruction.

Bush sent House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, a letter revising a $100 billion request for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to take account of the $3 billion needed for the extra troops.

"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush said in his letter.

He signed it on Friday night and released it on Saturday while on a Latin America tour.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders of Congress have already raised questions about the $100 billion request and the 21,500-troop buildup.

Pelosi, in a statement, complained about Bush's vow to veto a proposal by some Democrats to withdraw all American combat troops from Iraq by mid-2008.

"With his veto threat, the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders ... that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily," she said.

Johndroe said the overall $100 billion budget request has not changed.

He said about $3 billion in lower-priority items will be subtracted from the original proposal made in February to offset the new request.

U.S. military commanders in Iraq have said in recent days that the number of additional U.S. troops needed to carry out Bush's security plan for Iraq could approach 30,000, taking into account units needed to support the 21,500 extra combat troops. The United States now has some 140,000 troops in the country.

"This formalizes the request that people have been talking about over the last few days," Johndroe said.

    Bush approves 4,400 more troops for Iraq, R, 11.3.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1028359320070311

Vermont towns seek to impeach Bush

Wed Mar 7, 2007 7:18AM EST
Reuters
By Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach President Bush, while at least 16 towns in the tiny New England state called on Washington to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Known for picturesque autumn foliage, colonial inns, maple sugar and old-fashion dairy farms, Vermont is in the vanguard of a grass-roots protest movement to impeach Bush over his handling of the unpopular Iraq war.

"We're putting impeachment on the table," said James Leas, a Vermont lawyer who helped to draft the resolutions and is tracking the votes. "The people in all these towns are voting to get this process started and bring the troops home now."

The resolutions passed on Vermont's annual town meeting day -- a colonial era tradition where citizens debate issues of the day big and small -- are symbolic and cannot force Congress to impeach Bush, but they "may help instigate further discussions in the legislature," said state Rep. David Zuckerman.

"The president must be held accountable," said Zuckerman, a politician from Burlington, Vermont's largest city.

After casting votes on budgets and other routine items, citizens of 32 towns in Vermont backed a measure calling on the U.S. Congress to file articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.

Five Vermont towns passed similar resolutions last year.

The idea of impeaching Bush resides firmly outside the political mainstream.

The new Democratic-controlled Congress has steered clear of the subject, and Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's call last year to censure Bush -- a step short of an impeachment -- found scant support on Capitol Hill, even among fellow Democrats.

Vermont's congressional delegation has shown no serious interest in the idea.

'SOLDIERS HOME NOW'

Sixteen Vermont towns passed a separate "soldiers home now" resolution calling on the White House, the U.S. Congress and Vermont's elected officials to withdraw troops from Iraq.

"The best way to support them is to bring each and every one of them home now and take good care of them when they get home," the resolution said.

It was unclear how many towns had put the resolutions to a vote, and the results of all the town meetings in the state of about 609,000 people may not be known for days.

Residents of Burlington were voting on a separate question calling for a new investigation into the September 11 attacks.

Voters were asked to circle "yes" or "no" to the question: "Shall Vermont's Congressional Delegation be advised to demand a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation that fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001?"

Doug Dunbebin, who gathered signatures to get the issue on the ballot, said questions linger about September 11, when hijacked plane attacks killed nearly 3,000 people at New York's World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.

A group known as Scholars for 9/11 Truth believes the events of that day were part of a conspiracy engineered by the U.S. government and that it took more than two planes to bring down the Twin Towers in New York.

Vermont's new U.S. representative, Peter Welch, a Democrat, said there was no need for a further investigation.

(Additional reporting by Julie Masis)

    Vermont towns seek to impeach Bush, R, 7.3.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0644242420070307

Political Memo

White House Already on the Defensive

Takes Another Hit With Guilty Verdict

March 7, 2007
By JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 6 — At midday on Tuesday, President Bush ushered two top aides into the Oval Office to watch an unhappy moment for his administration play out on live television: the first felony conviction of a member of his inner circle.

Deep into his second term, Mr. Bush faces an array of political and policy problems that seem to be growing by the day. His once-powerful standing with the public has been leached away by the war in Iraq. His party, dogged by corruption charges, has lost power on Capitol Hill, leaving him exposed to a Democratic opposition that is now armed with subpoena power and the energy that comes from a good shot at recapturing the White House in 2008. His domestic agenda is stalled, and his foreign policy is constrained.

The conviction on Tuesday of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and assistant to the president, came in a week when Mr. Bush was already dealing with Congressional hearings into the administration’s handling of health care for members of the military injured in the war and its removal of federal prosecutors from their jobs under circumstances that Democrats suggest could be politically motivated.

Once again, Mr. Bush was put on the defensive about the underlying issue in the case, the administration’s use of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. And suddenly the White House was parrying questions about the possibility of a pardon for Mr. Libby.

Current and former officials said in interviews that the trial was primarily a Washington fascination that had left the public confused as the investigation veered from accusations that officials had leaked the name of a confidential C.I.A. operative to rebut a war critic — her husband — to charges that Mr. Libby had lied to officials investigating them.

But several acknowledged that the word “guilty” could greatly change the dynamic.

“It does change things in the public’s perception to some extent when a former high-level administration official is found guilty of a crime,” said Scott McClellan, the former Bush press secretary. “It raises more questions in people’s minds and increases their suspicions.”

Mr. McClellan said he would advise the White House to address the verdict directly, but Dana Perino, the deputy press secretary, said it would not, adding that the president was “saddened” for Mr. Libby and his family and that Mr. Bush had watched the verdict’s announcement with his chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor. And another official said it seemed the president had been relatively isolated from the case, with testimony largely focusing on Mr. Cheney’s office.

Yet while the case never quite got into the Oval Office, it seemed to go right to the door.

In his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby said the president had secretly declassified crucial intelligence on Iraq for Mr. Libby’s use, at the request of the vice president and without the knowledge of other ranking officials. White House officials have said Mr. Bush never knew exactly how Mr. Libby planned to use the information.

The testimony also detailed how Karl Rove, the president’s top political strategist, also discussed the C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, with reporters, though the initial leak was tracked to Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state.

Much of the White House staff at the time was questioned by investigators in the case or testified to the grand jury or both. Mr. Bush was himself interviewed.

And several of Mr. Bush’s associates, including former Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans and former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, served on the advisory committee of Mr. Libby’s legal defense fund. That group said Tuesday that it was planning another fund-raising event for Mr. Libby.

The trial has also pointed up divisions within Mr. Bush’s administration, with Mr. Libby testifying how he on more than one occasion had not clued in other officials to what he was doing. Among the latter was Stephen J. Hadley, then the top deputy to Condoleezza Rice when she was national security adviser, the title he now holds.

Sympathy for Mr. Libby among those with deep ties to the White House is widespread. “This is sickening” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s longtime counselor. “The system is broken.”

John R. Bolton, until two months ago the United States ambassador to the United Nations and a close associate of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, said in an interview, “This is just not the way justice should be followed.”

The verdict contributed to the sense of a White House under siege, with good news scarce and Mr. Bush struggling to wield the presidential megaphone with the same success he did in his first term. Mr. Bush has just over 22 months left in office to regain his political footing.

Kenneth M. Duberstein, a former chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan in his second term, said: “This is a day consumed by nine G.I.’s killed in Iraq, 100 Iraqis dying, the continuing Walter Reed investigation into the mistreatment of our returning heroes, and the Libby verdict — four out of five counts guilty. No matter how you spin it, this was a bad, bad, bad news day for this White House.”

    White House Already on the Defensive Takes Another Hit With Guilty Verdict, NYT, 7.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07bush.html

Bush Consoles Victims of Tornadoes

in the South

March 4, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

AMERICUS, Ga., March 3 — President Bush picked his way through the rubble of the tornado-stricken South on Saturday, promising federal aid for some Alabamians and turning up unexpectedly in a largely African-American neighborhood here in Georgia, where startled residents rushed out of their damaged houses, cell phone cameras in hand, to greet him.

The hastily arranged trip, following a massive storm system that produced at least 31 tornadoes from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico, was intended to send an image of a compassionate president leading a competent government response, in sharp contrast with the lingering images of federal indifference and ineptitude after Hurricane Katrina.

The president’s day began in Enterprise, Ala., where eight students were killed as a tornado on Thursday ripped apart Enterprise High School. Mr. Bush, accompanied by Mayor Kenneth Boswell and several student leaders, made his way through a destroyed wing of the school, stopping in the hallway, where raining chunks of metal and concrete cost the students their lives.

“Out of this rubble will emerge a better tomorrow,” the president said afterward, his hands resting gently on the shoulders of the 17-year-old student government president, Megan Parks. He called the scene one of “devastation that’s hard to believe,” adding, “The biggest effect of the storm is the shattered lives.”

Ms. Parks, clearly shaken, bit her lip and wiped away tears as Mr. Bush spoke. She had left school 30 minutes before the storm hit, stopping along the way to pick up her little brother from elementary school to take him home. Saturday was her first time back.

“It’s so hard to see our school like this,” she said.

The president declared Coffee County, which encompasses Enterprise, a federal disaster area. The designation allows affected households to receive up to $28,200 in aid, according to R. David Paulison, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who accompanied Mr. Bush on the trip.

Mr. Paulison said he had worked through the night preparing paperwork for the disaster declaration, which Mr. Bush approved aboard Air Force One on Saturday morning. White House officials said a similar declaration for Georgia was being considered.

After the Enterprise visit, Mr. Bush took an hour-long helicopter ride to hard-hit Americus, south of Atlanta, where his published schedule listed only a briefing here by local officials in the parking lot of a damaged hospital. Instead, the president’s motorcade drove straight to a modest neighborhood of faded clapboard homes, stopping at a duplex where two people had died seeking shelter from the storm.

As Mr. Bush made his way from house to house to shake hands, giddy residents thrust their cell phones at him, imploring him to stop for pictures and, in some cases, to talk to boyfriends or girlfriends on the other end of the line. Laughing, he obliged.

It was a striking post-Katrina image for a president whose standing among black voters — never very high to begin with — fell even lower after the hurricane.

“He’s lifting spirits in a very difficult situation,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, who accompanied Mr. Bush.

One person whose spirits appeared lifted was Felicia Stafford, who said the tornado had blown the roof off her house and ruined its wood floors. “He’s very nice, loving and warm,” she said after meeting Mr. Bush. “He’s got very soft hands.”

Bush Consoles Victims of Tornadoes in the South, NYT, 4.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/04tornado.html