| Page 5 of 5 < |
Rove Subpoenaed Again
Farm Bill Watch
|
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.
|
Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "With an overwhelming 82 to 13 vote, the Senate yesterday completed the override of President Bush's veto of a comprehensive farm bill, shrugging off Republican concerns about an embarrassing legislative glitch to make the $307 billion bill the law of the land.
"House GOP leaders continued to grumble that Democrats had violated the Constitution by pressing forward with the veto override after they discovered that a whole section of the bill on trade policy had been inadvertently dropped from the version vetoed Wednesday.
"But Democratic leaders said they had court precedent and constitutional scholars on their side. 'The veto override will have the force of law,' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) . . .
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) were among the 35 Republicans who joined in the most significant legislative rebuff of Bush's presidency.
"'By overturning the president's veto, we are making substantial investments in nutrition programs to help millions of families afford healthy food, in help for farmers hit by disaster and to protect our nation's natural resources,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)."
Several readers e-mailed to complain that in yesterday's column I gave Bush too much credit for his veto by focusing on the bill's crop subsidies and not its desperately needed anti-hunger provisions. So for the record, as Alan Bjerga writes for Bloomberg: "Assistance to poor families takes up about 74 percent of the spending authorized under the measure, according to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. Crop subsidies account for about 16 percent, he said."
Appropriations Watch
Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "The Senate yesterday approved $165 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well into the next presidency, but in a break with President Bush and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, it also approved billions of dollars in domestic spending that includes a generous expansion of veterans' education benefits. . . .
"Senators stripped the package of all language that mandated troop withdrawals and sought to govern the conduct of the Iraq war, which had been in a previous version approved by the House.
"But the separate domestic spending package served notice to the White House that in an election year, lawmakers from both parties will demand coupling Iraq war funds with priorities at home. . . .
"The 75 to 22 vote on the domestic measure surprised even its advocates and showed clearly the impact of the looming November election on Republican unity. Senate Republicans who face reelection abandoned Bush first, followed by other Republicans."
Robert Pear writes in the New York Times: "The size of the vote surprised Republican leaders, provided fresh evidence of the president's lame-duck status and suggested that election-year politics had fractured Republican unity."
Influence Watch
Manu Raju of The Hill notes the Republican defections on two major bills yesterday and writes: "When asked what the votes said about Bush's influence on Capitol Hill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) responded slyly: 'What influence?'"
John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "With his popularity near all-time lows, President Bush is playing a diminished role so far in the 2008 campaigns. . . .
"Mr. Bush plans three fund-raising events for Sen. McCain next week. Even there, though, it is unlikely Mr. Bush will be seen much with the candidate."
Latrine Watch
Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush toured a spic-and-span latrine Thursday that appeared vastly improved from a month ago, when an Internet video showed raw sewage and peeling paint in barracks used to house U.S. troops returning from Afghanistan.
"U.S. Army officials said $3 million has been spent since then on improvements to the Korean War-era barracks, which will eventually be replaced as part of a massive military infrastructure plan. . . .
"Bush's visit to the barracks was added to a previously scheduled memorial ceremony at Fort Bragg for returning troops from the 82nd Airborne Division, most of whom had served extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years.
"With 17,000 paratroopers assembled in formation, Bush gave a speech praising their efforts and declaring that the United States was 'on our way to victory' in Iraq."
Petraeus Watch
Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung write in The Washington Post: "Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said he expects to recommend additional cuts in U.S. troop levels there this fall. Petraeus said he would assess conditions before his departure in September, when he is scheduled to take over the U.S. Central Command.
"'My sense is I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions,' Petraeus said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday on his nomination to the post that would put him in charge of U.S. military operations from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. . . .
"Petraeus also said the Pentagon will not reach its stated objective of turning over security responsibility for all 18 provinces to the Iraqi government by the end of this year. When Bush announced a new strategy and a 'surge' in U.S. forces in Iraq in January 2007, he said the turnover would be completed by the end of that year. So far, nine provinces are under Iraqi control."
Abortion Watch
Stephanie Simon writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "With time running out on the Bush administration, conservative activists are renewing a drive for regulations that would deny federal subsidies to clinics that provide abortions or counsel women about the option.
"In a final push, the activists are preparing a public campaign to pressure President Bush to use his executive authority to order the change. They say they soon will present the White House with a petition signed by tens of thousands of voters and a letter endorsed by at least 70 conservative organizations, including the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America. . . .
"The federal government distributes about $280 million a year among thousands of clinics to subsidize the cost of birth control, cancer screening, HIV testing and other reproductive care for low-income patients. Known as Title X, the program serves five million men and women a year. By law, the money can't be used for abortion procedures.
"But about one-third of Title X patients receive their care at reproductive-health clinics run by Planned Parenthood, which is also the nation's largest abortion provider. Critics say the federal grants indirectly subsidize Planned Parenthood's abortion services by keeping a steady stream of money flowing into the clinics."
Who's Appeasing Whom?
The New York Times editorial board writes: "Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with 'terrorists and radicals' to appeasers of the Nazis. But now we know what Mr. Bush knew then -- that Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush's list of shunned nations -- and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.
"If so, it was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught, and irresponsible to try to restrain this American ally from pursuing a settlement that it judges as possibly being in its best interests. . . .
"Like Mr. Obama (and many others), we strongly encourage diplomacy, including contacts with adversaries. If Mr. Bush cannot use his remaining months in office to do the same, he can at least get out of the way."
Froomkin Watch
I'll be off all next week. The column will resume on June 2.
Cartoon Watch
Pat Oliphant on Bush's groveling; Nick Anderson on Bush's real enemy; Roy Peterson on Bush's encouraging words; Larry Wright on Bush's gas torture; Paul Conrad and Jack Ohman on Bush's sacrifice.



