| Page 2 of 5 < > |
Can Bush Negotiate?
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
It's not entirely clear to me whether Bush was talking about the entire endeavor or just about the current troop surge in Baghdad, but in either case, here's what he had to say about success this morning:
"[S]lowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."
The Veto and the Response
Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker write in The Washington Post: "Democratic congressional leaders cast the veto as willful defiance of the American people. 'The president wants a blank check,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said just minutes after Bush's statement. 'The Congress is not going to give it to him.' Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said that 'if the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he will stop us from trying to change the direction of this war, he is mistaken.'"
As for the GOP, "more Republicans broke with Bush and signaled they want to make a deal," Abramowitz and Baker write.
"'Some kind of compromise has to be worked out between the administration and the Democrats,' said Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. 'That's how it's done. Everybody holds their nose and maybe a couple of times vomits, but you get it done.'
"Bush plans to host congressional leaders from both parties at the White House this afternoon. Discussion yesterday centered on the idea of revised spending legislation that would abandon the Democrats' withdrawal mandate but cut back nonmilitary U.S. aid to the Iraqi government if it does not meet certain benchmarks for political reconciliation, a proposal advanced by House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
"Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) mentioned that idea yesterday as he warned that neither party can go into the next round of talks with absolute demands for what can and cannot be in the bill. 'It's time to stop laying down these guidelines, saying, "It's got to be this, it's got to be that," ' he said."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff Zeleny write in the New York Times that Democrats "are expected to look for ways to preserve the benchmarks for Iraqi progress that were included in the initial bill while eliminating the timetables for troop withdrawal that Mr. Bush has emphatically rejected.
"Several Republican leaders said Tuesday that they were likely to support such benchmarks, and White House aides said Tuesday that Mr. Bush, who has supported goals and benchmarks for the Iraqi government, might back such a measure -- but only if the benchmarks are nonbinding.
"Mr. Bush issued the veto from the Oval Office at about 5:30 p.m., using a pen given to him by the father of a fallen marine. It came just hours after Democrats had themselves staged an unusual signing ceremony in the Capitol, timed to coincide with the four-year anniversary of the so-called Mission Accomplished speech, when Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended."
William Douglas and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers: "A bipartisan consensus appeared to be growing on Capitol Hill that any new bill to support U.S. troops in Iraq must contain benchmarks for political progress by the Iraqi government - with consequences if the Iraqis fail to meet them. But it remained unclear what benchmarks or consequences Republican lawmakers or the White House would accept, or whether congressional Republicans would continue to stand with Bush."
Edward Epstein writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that "the focus will be whether Republicans, who fear their party will pay a steep political price in 2008 if they continue backing an unpopular war, start encouraging the president to give some ground in his standoff with Democrats -- who vowed to continue pushing for an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq."



