History > 2006 > USA > White House / President (V)

Bush makes phone calls to troops on Sunday.

By Eric Draper, White House/Getty Images

Bush makes Christmas Eve calls to troops

UT        24.12.2006

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-24-bush-troops_x.htm

Bush Considers

Up to 20,000 More Troops for Iraq

December 29, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID S. CLOUD and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 — The Bush administration is considering an increase in troop levels in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000, which would be accomplished in part by delaying the departure of two Marine regiments now deployed in Anbar Province, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The option was among those discussed in Crawford, Tex., on Thursday as President Bush met there with his national security team, and it has emerged as a likely course as he considers a strategy shift in Iraq, the officials said.

Most of the additional troops would probably be employed in and around Baghdad, the officials said.

With the continuing high levels of violence there, senior officials increasingly say additional American forces will be needed as soon as possible to clear neighborhoods and to conduct other combat operations to regain control of the capital, rather than primarily to train Iraqi forces.

“The mission that most people are settling on has to do with using them in a security role to quell violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area,” said a senior Pentagon official involved in the planning.

Any plan to add to American forces in Baghdad would have to be negotiated with the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has expressed interest in using Iraqi forces, not American ones, to assert more control over the capital.

The idea of extending the deployments of two Marine units has emerged in part because most of the marines in Iraq are on seven-month rotations and keeping them there longer is considered more palatable than holding over Army brigades, which are already serving tours of a year or longer, one official said.

Additional troops would come from sending into Iraq a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division headed for the region next month and possibly by speeding up the deployment of several Army brigades now scheduled to go to Iraq by next spring.

But officials said a brigade of the First Armored Division now in Anbar Province would probably go home as planned in January, because the unit had already been kept in Iraq more than 40 days beyond its scheduled tour.

Other options remain under consideration, the officials said, noting that a decision to speed up deployment schedules would put more strain on Army and Marine equipment and personnel. But other options, like mobilizing reserve units, would take months, officials said.

After meeting with his top military and diplomatic advisers at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush said his administration was making “good progress” in fashioning a revised Iraq strategy. But he said he intended to consult with Congress when it convenes next week before presenting his plan to the nation.

“I fully understand it’s important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission,” Mr. Bush said, speaking to reporters after a three-hour meeting. “It’s important for the American people to understand success in Iraq is vital for our own security.”

The meeting, according to a senior administration official, focused on the security, economic and political situation in Iraq. But the bulk of the discussions focused on the security issue and the option of sending more American troops to Baghdad, the official said.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emerged from the meeting with the president. The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and his top deputy, J. D. Crouch, also attended the meeting and joined the others for a working lunch at the ranch.

The White House initially intended to announce a new Iraq policy before Christmas but delayed those plans so the president could consider a range of diverging views inside his administration. For weeks his advisers have been locked in internal debates about how to proceed, but it is an open question whether the meeting on Thursday brought clarity to the discussions.

“I’ve got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan,” said Mr. Bush, who did not elaborate or take questions from reporters.

Mr. Bush said he had received a briefing from Mr. Gates, his new defense secretary, and General Pace, who recently returned from Iraq. White House aides said the president did not want to offer his new plan for Iraq before Mr. Gates had an opportunity to study conditions on the ground in Iraq.

“It’s an important part of coming to closure on a way forward in Iraq that will help us achieve our objective,” Mr. Bush said, “which is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”

How additional American troops would be employed in Baghdad remains a central point of discussion among Mr. Bush’s top advisers and top ground commanders in Iraq, officials said. But two officials said there was growing agreement that most would not be attached to American teams training Iraqi Army and police units, because doing so would not necessarily yield the quick improvements in security the White House wants.

But it is also unclear to what extent the additional forces would be employed to curb the power of militias associated with Shiite groups that form a key constituency for Mr. Maliki.

The two units whose stay could be extended are the Marines’ Fifth and Seventh Regiment combat teams in Anbar Province, which are scheduled to begin leaving Iraq in February when two replacement regiments are due to arrive, officials said.

It is unclear which Army brigades could be sent early. A 3,500-soldier brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is scheduled to arrive in Iraq in mid-January, followed in subsequent months by units from the First Infantry Division, at Fort Riley, Kan., and the Second Infantry Division, at Fort Lewis, Wash.

The Third Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Benning, Ga., is scheduled to go to Iraq in the spring, according to a spokesman, Kevin Larson, who said he had not heard any discussion of accelerating that timetable. But he said, “We’re ready to answer whatever call may come up.”

How long beyond February the Marine units would remain is unclear, but officials emphasized that the goal was a temporary increase in the American presence. It is also unclear whether a decision to speed up the deployment of two Army brigades would mean that other units scheduled to be deployed would go to Iraq earlier than planned later next year. Currently there are about 134,000 American troops in Iraq.

David S. Cloud reported from Washington, and Jeff Zeleny from Crawford, Tex.

    Bush Considers Up to 20,000 More Troops for Iraq, NYT, 29.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/world/middleeast/29prexy.html

Bush, Cheney Hail Ford's Wisdom, Ability

December 27, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:44 a.m. ET
The New York Times

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush hailed former President Gerald Ford on Tuesday night for using common sense and ''quiet integrity'' to restore Americans' confidence in the presidency after the Watergate scandal.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who was Ford's chief of staff, said his former boss became president after the ''greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War'' and gave the country the ''strength, wisdom and good judgment'' needed at that moment.

Bush, in a statement from his Texas ranch, where he is spending the week, said, ''The American people will always admire Gerald Ford's devotion to duty, his personal character and the honorable conduct of his administration.''

Bush, whose father served as CIA director and a diplomat under Ford, expressed his personal condolences in a phone call with former first lady Betty Ford. He is scheduled to make a statement at 8 a.m. EST Wednesday at his ranch.

The current president drew some of his top advisers from the ranks of the Ford presidency. In addition to Cheney, recently departed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld served in the same job for Ford.

Bush said Ford would forever be remembered for assuming the presidency ''in an hour of national turmoil and division'' and helping to reunite a nation divided by Richard Nixon's fall from power in 1974.

''With his quiet integrity, common sense and kind instincts, President Ford helped heal our land and restore public confidence in the presidency.''

The vice president said Ford ''led an honorable life that brought great credit to the United States of America. Throughout his career, as a naval officer, congressman, vice president and president, Gerald Ford embodied the best values of a great generation: decency, integrity and devotion to duty.''

Cheney said that when Ford left office, ''he had restored public trust in the presidency, and the nation once again looked to the future with confidence and faith.''

Democrats and Republicans alike recalled Ford's kindness and willingness to work across party lines.

''President Ford was one of the kindest, most sincere elected officials whom I have known and with whom I have worked,'' said longtime Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V. ''Although he and I were from different political parties, we often were able to find common ground and work together for our country.''

White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten notified Bush about Ford's death shortly before 11 p.m. EST after getting the news from Ford's chief of staff.

Deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said funeral arrangements are being handled by Ford's family. The president is scheduled to return to Washington on Jan. 1, and will attend the funeral, Stanzel said.

    Bush, Cheney Hail Ford's Wisdom, Ability, NYT, 27.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Ford-White-House-Reax.html

President Bush’s Statement on the Death of Gerald R. Ford

December 27, 2006
The New York Times

Laura and I are greatly saddened by the passing of former President Gerald R. Ford.

President Ford was a great American who gave many years of dedicated service to our country. On August 9, 1974, after a long career in the House of Representatives and service as Vice President, he assumed the Presidency in an hour of national turmoil and division. With his quiet integrity, common sense, and kind instincts, President Ford helped heal our land and restore public confidence in the Presidency.

The American people will always admire Gerald Ford's devotion to duty, his personal character, and the honorable conduct of his administration. We mourn the loss of such a leader, and our 38th President will always have a special place in our Nation's memory. On behalf of all Americans, Laura and I offer our deepest sympathies to Betty Ford and all of President Ford's family. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them in the hours and days ahead.

    President Bush’s Statement on the Death of Gerald R. Ford, NYT, 27.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/washington/27ford-bush-statement.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Washington Memo

War Critics See New Resistance by Bush

December 26, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — Immediately after the beating his party took in November, President Bush indicated that he had received the message that voters wanted change, and that he would serve some up fast. He ousted his defense secretary, announced a full-scale review of his war plan and contritely agreed with critics that progress in Iraq was not happening “well enough, fast enough.”

But in the last two weeks, the critics and even some allies say, they have seen a reversal. Mr. Bush has shrugged off suggestions by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he enlist the help of Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. Countering suggestions that he begin thinking of bringing troops home, he has engaged in deliberations over whether to send more. And he has adjusted the voters’ message away from Iraq, saying on Wednesday, “I thought the election said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation.”

In a way, this is the president being the president he has always been — while he still can.

With Congress out of session, Mr. Bush has sought to reassert his relevance and show yet again that he can chart his own course against all prevailing winds, whether they be unfavorable election returns, a record-low standing in the polls or the public prescriptions of Washington wise men.

He has at least for now put the Iraq war debate on terms with which he is said to be more comfortable, if only because they are not the terms imposed on him by Democrats and the study group.

That stance could be short-lived.

Democrats warn — and some Republicans privately say they fear — that Mr. Bush is in for a dousing of cold water when he returns from his ranch in Crawford, Tex., in the new year to face a new, Democratic-controlled Congress ready to try out its muscle. His recent moves have already caused a fair degree of crankiness among his newly empowered governing partners.

“I’ve seen very few tea leaves in the mix that would give you any sense of hope or confidence that he is getting it so far,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who supports the study group’s advice that the administration seek help from Iran and Syria in Iraq. “The bottom line is this president can’t afford not to change course. The time is up.”

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army ranger who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, said, “I don’t think he’s given up the sort of sloganizing and the simplistic view of what’s happening there.”

“I think the American people’s message was deep concern about Iraq, deep skepticism about his policies, and what they want is a resolution of Iraq,” said Mr. Reed, who supports a steady withdrawal that is fundamentally at odds with any idea of an increase in troops there.

If the president does call for such an increase, he will have a potentially powerful Republican ally in Senator John McCain of Arizona, a leading contender for the 2008 presidential nomination. But other Republicans have warned that they cannot support that step now that several military commanders have expressed reservations about placing more American troops between warring factions in Baghdad. That Mr. Bush would even consider a military plan at variance with the wishes of some of his commanders has added to an increasing sense of his isolation from his own party.

“I’m growing more disturbed every night by how isolated George W. Bush has become,” the former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough said on his MSNBC program last week. “Shouldn’t more Americans be disturbed at this unprecedented example of a White House that’s in — and you can only call it this — a bunker mentality?” The screen below him read, “Bush: Determined or Delusional?”

White House officials, who note that Mr. Scarborough has been finding fault with the president for months, say critics are getting ahead of themselves, given that Mr. Bush has not yet said what his next move in Iraq will be.

“This is all background noise for the American people right now,” a senior administration official said. “Most people are going to wait and see exactly what the president’s going to say.”

This official, who insisted on anonymity as a condition of discussing internal White House thinking, said the administration calculated some of that “background noise” into the mix when it decided to postpone any announcement on Iraq until the new year.

“We know we’re just in this period of purgatory where there are things surfacing and being debated,” he said.

One member of the study group, Leon E. Panetta, who was chief of staff to President Bill Clinton when the Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, said the White House seemed to be in a period of postelection mourning in which it had not yet fully comprehended a new reality.

“What always happens with an election in which you lose badly or your party loses badly is that you spend a little time in shock,” Mr. Panetta said. “And then you reach out with the words of cooperation, and then you go into a period where you start to basically spin things in a way that says, ‘Whatever happened is really not our fault.’ And you use that to rationalize that what you’re doing is right.”

But, he said, “at some point you move into a different phase: the harsh realities come home.”

One Republican close to the White House said that moment was fast approaching.

“Jan. 4 is a new day,” this Republican said of the official shift of power in Congress, “and they still think they can control the calendar and the timing. But that’s no longer at their discretion.”

In an interview last week, Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who will become chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he was planning three hearings on Iraq in January. Speaking of the president, Mr. Levin said, “He’s got to now come to Congress with a policy he’s got to adopt, and it’s controlled by people who are pressing for a change in direction in Iraq.”

    War Critics See New Resistance by Bush, NYT, 26.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/us/politics/26bush.html

White House Memo

Bush-Watchers Wonder

How He Copes With Stress

December 25, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 — President Bush marched into his year-end news conference last week with the usual zip in his step. As always, he professed little worry about his legacy or the polls. As always, he said the United States would win in Iraq. The nation might despair, but not Mr. Bush; his presidential armor seemed firmly intact.

Yet a longtime friend of Mr. Bush’s recently spotted a tiny crack in that armor. “He looked tired, for the first time, which I hadn’t seen before,” this friend said.

Mr. Bush has never been one for introspection, in public or in private. But the questions of how the president is coping, and whether his public pronouncements match what he feels as he searches for a new strategy in Iraq, have been much on the minds of Bush-watchers these days.

Can the president really believe, as he said on Wednesday, that “victory in Iraq is achievable,” when a bipartisan commission led by his own father’s secretary of state calls the situation there “grave and deteriorating?” Is he truly content to ignore public opinion and let “the long march of history,” as he calls it, pass judgment on him after he is gone? Does he lie awake at night, as President Lyndon B. Johnson did during the Vietnam War, fretting over his decisions?

Mr. Bush addressed the sleep issue in a recent interview with People magazine, saying, “I’m sleeping a lot better than people would assume.”

Yet the president can never really escape the rigors of his job, Laura Bush, the first lady, said in an interview on Sunday on the CBS news program “Face the Nation.” “Sure, he lives with it, 24 hours a day,” Mrs. Bush said. “You don’t have his job and not live with it 24 hours a day.”

But as to whether he second-guesses himself, Mr. Bush gives little quarter, reducing such inquiries to the broad-brush question of whether it was correct to topple Saddam Hussein. Nor does the president seem to question his handling of the postwar period.

His friend, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush still believed that Donald H. Rumsfeld “did a great job over all” as the secretary of defense, despite the president’s decision to replace him after Democrats swept the November elections.

“I think he knows it’s bad over there,” this person said, “but I’m not quite sure he fully appreciates the incompetence of what’s gone on.”

Of course, it is politically perilous for any president to wallow in the nation’s troubles, or his own. The last modern president who did so was Jimmy Carter, in what came to be called his “malaise” speech, during the energy crisis of 1979. He was drummed out of office the following year, crushed during his election campaign by the optimism of Ronald Reagan. Yet at the same time, presidents can ill afford to appear overly upbeat when the public is down.

“The American public wants their chief executives strong, confident and optimistic, but you can’t look like you’re detached from reality,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, who was President Bill Clinton’s political director and who engineered the Democratic majority victory in the House.

In Mr. Emanuel’s view, Mr. Bush’s talk of victory bumps the detachment boundary. “He doesn’t seem to be addressing the facts on the ground as the rest of us perceive them,” Mr. Emanuel said.

Some Republicans said much the same.

“The poll numbers that continue to come out show that the American people have turned against this war,” said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. “The Republicans are no longer in charge of the Congress because of this war. Those are the realities, and I don’t think the administration has quite accepted those realities yet, nor the realities of how bad it is on the ground in Iraq.”

Yet the war is clearly very much on the president’s mind. When Mr. Bush met privately last week with a dozen rabbis and Jewish educators, they expected he might open the conversation by talking about Israel. Instead, the president greeted them in the Roosevelt Room of the White House with a discourse on Iraq, and why he still believes it can be a beacon for democracy in the Middle East.

“I got the sense of a man who feels very heavily the weight of history,” said Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, who attended the meeting, “but I didn’t get the sense of someone who feels he’s doing the wrong thing. He said, ‘I might change tactics, but I’m not going to change the way I feel about it.’ ”

That conviction may simply be a necessary part of the presidential armor, a kind of psychological protection against what Doris Kearns Goodwin, the historian and biographer of presidents, calls “the unbearable burden” a commander in chief would have to face if he came to the painful realization that he wrongly sent troops into combat.

Mr. Bush was asked last week if he had experienced any pain, given his own acknowledgment that things in Iraq had not gone according to plan. He spun the question toward the military families’ pain — “my heart breaks” for them, he said — before turning it back to his own: “The most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.”

Being commander in chief means learning to cope with stress. Abraham Lincoln went to the theater to relax. Franklin D. Roosevelt, paralyzed from polio, lulled himself to sleep by imagining himself as a boy sledding down a snowy slope at Hyde Park.

Mr. Bush sweats out his stress on weekend mountain bike rides. On weeknights, the Bushes watch football or baseball on television, “to try not to worry a little bit,” Mrs. Bush told CBS.

Presidents in trouble often look to history for solace, and Mr. Bush is no exception. He has sometimes likened himself to Harry S. Truman — a president who struggled to explain the nation’s involvement in Korea, but whose reputation was redeemed after his death. Mr. Bush also seems to have Lincoln on his mind; he told People magazine that Ms. Goodwin’s recent book, about Lincoln and his cabinet, “Team of Rivals,” was his favorite this year.

Ms. Goodwin, though, sees a comparison to another of her subjects, Lyndon Johnson.

“Even toward the bad days of Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson still believed this war had to be fought,” she said. “He couldn’t argue in the end that it was working, but what he could argue to himself was that if it hadn’t been fought, that somehow we would have been fighting the enemy somewhere else.”

Mr. Bush has been making a similar argument all along about Iraq, even as public opinion polls show that as many as 70 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the war.

Dr. Wexler, for one, is convinced that Mr. Bush believes it. There in the Roosevelt Room, the university president said, he felt as if he were witnessing the president have a conversation with himself.

“I’m a judge of sincerity — I think rabbis are pretty good at that,” he said. “If you didn’t tell me this was the president of the United States, I would say this was a man with something on his mind who was very, very sincere about what he was saying.”

    Bush-Watchers Wonder How He Copes With Stress, NYT, 25.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/washington/25memo.html

Bush makes Christmas Eve calls to troops

Updated 12/24/2006 2:14 PM ET
AP
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, who is spending Christmas at the Camp David presidential retreat, called 10 members of the U.S. military on Sunday to thank them for their service and wish them a happy holiday.

During the calls, which were placed to troops stationed overseas or have recently returned from deployments abroad before 8 a.m. ET, the president asked about the status of troop morale, said deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino.

"He said he wanted to call to let them know how much he appreciates their service and how proud he is of each of them," she said. "He asked them to please pass on his thanks to the men and women they serve with, and to give his best, on this Christmas, to their families."

Bush called the following servicemen and women:

•Army Sgt. Jonathan J. Corell, who has been serving in Afghanistan for 18 months. He has advanced skills in assault weaponry, which he uses while scouting and patrolling. His wife, Danielle, lives in Syracuse, N.Y.

•Army Pfc. Rebekah Vandiver, based out of Schofield, Hawaii, is deployed to Speicher, Iraq. As a combat medic, she is responsible for the prescreening of patients that enter the Battalion Aid Station. Her husband, Stephen, and three children live in Hawaii.

•Marine Sgt. Ricardo E. Contreras, based at Camp Pendleton, Calif., is deployed to Fallujah, Iraq. As a career counselor in the Marines, he is responsible for the retention and career development of the enlisted Marines in the 1st Marine Headquarters Group. His wife, Deborah, lives in San Clemente, Calif.

•Marine Lance Cpl. Michael P. Matherne is a member of the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-211 and the Marine Air Group-16 out of Yuma, Ariz. He is serving in Al Asad, Iraq, as an aircraft communications and navigation weapons systems technician and repairs the squadrons 16 AV-8B Harrier jets.

•Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Dwayne W. Meyer, a member of the Provincial Reconstruction Team at Naval Station North Island in San Diego, Calif. As a communications specialist in Kala Gosh, Afghanistan, he repairs communication devices, including satellite radios. His wife, Rebecca, lives in Chula Vista, Calif.

•Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Rahm Panjwani, who serves aboard the USS Boxer. As the ship's sailor of the year in 2005, he led 60 personnel in the safe receipt, transfer and delivery of more than 2 million gallons of aviation fuel during more than 2,100 aircraft refuelings. His wife, Heather, lives in San Antonio, Texas.

•Air Force Master Sgt. John W. Gahan, who serves in the 40th Airlift Squadron at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, has been with the Air Force for more than 17 years. He is deployed to Al Muthana Air Base, Iraq, with the 23rd Air Force Squadron, and provides upgrade training to new Iraqi C-130 fleet aviators. His wife, Karen, lives in Abilene, Texas.

•Air Force Tech. Sgt. Mark S. Pleis Jr., who serves in the Defense Information Systems Agency in Stuttgart, Germany, where he lives with his wife, Erica, and two children. He supervises 30 joint military and civilian network controllers in the operational direction of the $2.4 billion European Global Information Grid.

•Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class David A. Rosales, who is based in his homeport in Naval Support Activity, Bahrain, and serves on the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Monomoy. He plays an instrumental role in the launch and recovery of small boats, mooring and a host of other operations. He has volunteered to serve an additional six months in the North Arabian Gulf.

•Coast Guard Seaman Rayford B. Mitchell, who serves aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Diligence based out of Wilmington, N.C., and deployed to the western Caribbean Sea. Mitchell, a native of Columbia, S.C., works with the deck department, where he does hull and exterior maintenance and is also responsible for the cleanliness and general condition of the ship.

    Bush makes Christmas Eve calls to troops, UT, 24.12.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-24-bush-troops_x.htm

Bush links minimum wage to tax break

Posted 12/21/2006 10:57 AM ET
AP
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush endorsed one of the Democrats' top priorities for the new Congress, a $2.10-an-hour minimum wage increase — and on a faster timetable than they have proposed.

But his support comes with a catch.

Bush said at a Wednesday news conference that any pay hike should be accompanied by tax and regulatory relief for small businesses, potentially a tough sell for Democrats, who are about to reassume control of the House and Senate.

"Minimum wage workers have waited almost 10 long years for an increase," responded Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who has said that boosting the federal minimum wage will be his chief goal when he takes over as chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. "We need to pass a clean bill giving them the raise they deserve as quickly as possible."

The president brought up the issue unprompted during the White House news conference that was dominated by Iraq but veered into domestic issues as well.

Eager to show he heard the message of voters who stripped his party of majorities in both the House and Senate in the November elections, Bush said he'll work hard on what he called "an interesting new challenge" — trying to find common ground with Democrats who will lead Congress for the first time in his presidency.

"I don't expect Democratic leaders to compromise on their principles, and they don't expect me to compromise on mine," he said. "But the American people do expect us to compromise on legislation that will benefit the country."

He said initial consultations with incoming Democratic leaders revealed openings for cooperation in several areas. One was an immigration policy overhaul, including a way for some illegal workers to move toward citizenship. That was stymied this year primarily by conservative Republicans who favored a get-tough-only approach.

Other openings Bush saw for cooperation were increased federal spending on alternate energy sources; reform of Congress' appropriations process that has made it common for lawmakers to slip pet projects into spending bills, and giving American workers new skills and businesses help investing in new innovations.

Despite Washington's changed political reality, Bush also did not shy away from issues that have less chance of being well-received by Democrats, who have felt ignored for the first six years of the president's tenure.

He said he wants to work on the looming insolvency of the Social Security program. But his one-time plan to add private accounts to the system, once the highest domestic priority of his administration, is considered dead by Democrats. Bush is sending Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. to the Hill to gather ideas on how to restructure Social Security.

Bush also said he wants lawmakers to approve new trade deals. But Democrats have said they will insist bilateral trade agreements include tougher labor and environmental standards.

On other topics:

•Bush was asked about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's openly gay daughter, in light of his previous statements that a child ideally should be raised by in a family headed by a married father and mother.

The president said "we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly" but didn't provide specifics. Neither he nor his questioner referred to Cheney's partner, Heather Poe.

•The president said he first learned from a newspaper story Wednesday that the vice president will be called to testify in the CIA leak case on behalf of his former chief of staff. Defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with perjury and obstruction, would not say whether Cheney was being subpoenaed — a potential separation-of-powers issue — but said they do not expect the vice president to resist.

"It's an interesting piece of news. And that's all I'm going to comment about an ongoing case," Bush said.

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over three years is at the top of Democratic leaders' early to-do list for next year.

GOP-crafted legislation earlier this year combined an increase with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates and the resurrection of a number of popular tax breaks, but that combination did not get through the Republican-controlled Congress.

Bush said he supports a $2.10 raise for minimum-wage earners, but over a two-year period instead of three, and added that "we should do it in a way that does not punish" small businesses.

"I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief, to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing," he said.

Bush resisted any attempt to judge his presidency two years before it expires.

"I'm going to sprint to the finish. And we can get a lot done," he said. "I'm reading about George Washington still. My attitude is if they're still analyzing Number One, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he think is right, and make the tough choices necessary."

    Bush links minimum wage to tax break, UT, 21.12.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-21-bush-minimum-wage_x.htm

Bush Asserts That Victory in Iraq Is Still ‘Achievable’

December 21, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — President Bush warned Americans on Wednesday that the war in Iraq would require “difficult choices and additional sacrifices” in the coming year, but he firmly rejected the notion that the war could not be won and vowed that the United States would not be “run out of the Middle East” by extremists and radicals.

Mr. Bush, appearing somber and at times reflective during his traditional year-end news conference, conceded that 2006, which began on a note of optimism as nearly 12 million Iraqis voted in free elections, turned into “a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people.” He cited “unspeakable sectarian violence,” calling it “one aspect of this war that has not gone right.”

But after a month in which he has been under pressure to change course in Iraq — from Democrats who want a gradual withdrawal of troops and from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose report implied that he should reframe his goals away from democracy toward mere stability — the president showed no indication that he was inclined to change goals or pull out of Iraq.

“Victory in Iraq is achievable,” Mr. Bush said, addressing reporters in the ornate Indian Treaty Room across the street from the White House, in a historic office building once used by the Navy. He added, “Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself and is an ally in the war on terror.”

Mr. Bush also used the news conference to confirm his plans, disclosed Tuesday in an interview with The Washington Post, to propose an increase in the permanent size of both the Army and the Marines. He called the global campaign against terrorism “the calling of our generation,” and he said the military needed to be beefed up to fight it.

“I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America,” Mr. Bush said.

But the president gave little hint of what he would do in Iraq. Though he has been considering proposals to send additional troops to Baghdad in the short term, Mr. Bush said he was still listening to military commanders — some of whom are said to be skeptical of a short-term increase — and had not yet made up his mind. He is expected to outline his Iraq strategy after the first of the year.

As Mr. Bush contemplates that new strategy, some advisers have been urging him to diminish public expectations by steering clear of talk about victory and of Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Some said his language on Wednesday was not helpful.

“Victory is not a good word to use,” said Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired general who has been advising the administration and has said he believes that there is still time for Mr. Bush to turn around the situation in Iraq. “It implies that there is a military outcome in the short term that ends violence, and that’s not going to happen.”

Instead, the president has altered his language in another way. In the interview with The Post, he dropped his previous assertion — made before the November elections — that “we are winning” in favor of the murkier idea that the United States was neither winning nor losing. On Wednesday, he tried to explain.

“The first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we’re going to win,” the president said, adding, “My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we’re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.”

With Republicans having lost control of Congress after an election that was widely viewed as a referendum on the war, and polls showing public support for the war at record lows, Mr. Bush is caught in the difficult spot of coming up with a policy that will satisfy the public and Democrats, while also producing substantive change.

But his comments on Wednesday left Democrats cold.

The incoming speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, complained that the president gave no indication “that he is willing to make the changes needed to reverse the disastrous situation in Iraq.”

A former adviser to the Democratic presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said the president owed an apology to Mr. Kerry, who proposed increasing the size of the military, only to be ridiculed by Republicans. “I think you could say that so far, in this re-evaluation process, he is only dressing up ‘Stay the course,’ ” said the adviser, Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations.

Some Republicans have said that until Mr. Bush gets the situation in Iraq under control, he will be unable to move forward with his domestic agenda on Capitol Hill. But the president expressed optimism on Wednesday that he could work with Democrats in 2007 — perhaps to the chagrin of some in his own party, who fear the president will cut them loose to join with the opposition on issues like Social Security, immigration and energy independence.

“You know, there’s a lot of attitude here that says, ‘Well, you lost the Congress, therefore you’re not going to get anything done,’ ” Mr. Bush said. “Quite the contrary. I have an interest to get things done, and the Democrats have an interest to get something done.”

Mr. Bush is not one for introspection, and he expressed little sense on Wednesday that he regretted his decisions in Iraq, other than to say, “The most painful aspect of my presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.”

Still, with just two years left in his administration, the president hinted that he was thinking about his legacy — even as he denied that it was foremost on his mind.

“Look, everybody’s trying to write the history of this administration even before it’s over,” Mr. Bush said. “I’m reading about George Washington still. My attitude is, if they’re still analyzing No. 1, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he thinks is right, make the tough choices necessary.”

    Bush Asserts That Victory in Iraq Is Still ‘Achievable’, NYT, 21.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/washington/21prexy.html

Transcript

President Bush's News Conference

December 20, 2006
The New York Times

The following is the transcript of President Bush's news conference, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.

BUSH: Thank you all. Good morning. This week I went to the Pentagon for the swearing in of our nation's new secretary of defense, Bob Gates. Secretary Gates is going to bring a fresh perspective to the Pentagon, and America is fortunate that he has agreed to serve our country once again. I'm looking forward to working with him.

Secretary Gates is going to be an important voice in the Iraq strategy review that's under way.

As you know, I have been consulting closely with our commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the strategy in Iraq and on the broader war on terror.

One of my top priorities during this war is to ensure that our men and women wearing the uniform have everything they need to do their jobs.

This war on terror is the calling of a new generation. It is the calling of our generation. Success is essential to securing a future for peace for our children and grandchildren. And securing this peaceful future is going to require a sustained commitment from the American people and our military.

We have an obligation to ensure our military is capable of sustaining this war over the long haul and performing the many tasks that we ask of them.

BUSH: I'm inclined to believe that we need to increase in -- the permanent size of both the United States Army and the United States Marines. I've asked Secretary Gates to determine how such an increase could take place and report back to me as quickly as possible. I know many members of Congress are interested in this issue. And I appreciate their input as we develop the specifics of the proposals. Over the coming weeks, I will not only listen to their views; we will work with them to see that this become a reality. 2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. We began the year with optimism after watching nearly 12 million Iraqis go to the polls to vote for a unity government and a free future. The enemies of liberty responded fiercely to this advance of freedom.

BUSH: They carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success. Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country, it set back reconciliation, it kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country.

We enter this new year clear-eyed about the challenges in Iraq and equally clear about our purpose. Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror.

I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it's going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices because the enemy is merciless and violent.

I'm going to make you this promise: My administration will work with Republicans and Democrats to fashion a new way forward that can succeed in Iraq.

BUSH: We'll listen to ideas from every corridor. We'll change our strategy and tactics to meet the realities on the ground. We'll never lose sight that, on the receiving end of the decisions I make is a private, a sergeant, a young lieutenant or a diplomat who risks his or her life to help the Iraqis realize the dream of a stable country that can defend, govern and sustain itself. The advance of liberty has never been easy. And Iraq is proving how tough it can be. Yet the safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not let up. We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources. We can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will. The one thing we cannot do is give up on the hundreds of millions of ordinary moms and dads across the Middle East who want the hope and opportunity for their children that the terrorists and extremists seek to deny them.

BUSH: And that's a peaceful existence. As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home.

This work begins with keeping our economy growing.

As we approach the end of 2006, the American economy continues to post strong gains.

The most recent jobs report shows that our economy created 132,000 more jobs in November alone, and we've now added more than 7 million jobs since August of 2003.

The unemployment rate has remained low at 4.5 percent. The recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country. And I encourage you all to go shopping more.

BUSH: Next year marks a new start with a new Congress. In recent weeks, I have had good meetings with the incoming leaders of Congress; including Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid. We agreed that we've got important business to do on behalf of the American people and that we've got to work together to achieve results. The American people expect us to be good stewards of their tax dollars here in Washington. So we must work together to reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills and reform the earmark process to make it more transparent and more accountable. The American people expect us to keep America competitive in the world, so we must work to assure our citizens have the skills they need for the jobs of the future and encourage American businesses to invest in technology and innovation. The American people expect us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our use of alternative energy sources.

BUSH: So we must step up our research and investment in hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid plug-in and battery-powered cars, renewable fuels like ethanol and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, clean coal technology, and clean sources of electricity like nuclear, solar and wind power. Another area where we can work together is the minimum wage. I support the proposed $2.10 increase in the minimum wage over a two- year period. I believe we should do it in a way that does not punish the millions of small businesses that are creating most of the new jobs in our country. So I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief, to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing. I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats to help both small-business owners and workers when Congress convenes in January.

BUSH: To achieve these and other key goals, we need to put aside our partisan differences and work constructively to address the vital issues confronting our nation. As the new Congress takes office, I don't expect Democratic leaders to compromise on their principles. And they don't expect me to compromise on mine. But the American people do expect us to compromise on legislation that will benefit the country. The message of the fall election was clear: Americans want us to work together to make progress for our country. And that's what we're going to do in the coming year. And now I'll be glad to answer some questions.

QUESTION: Mr. President, less than two months ago, at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said: Absolutely, we're winning.

Yesterday, you said: We're not winning; we're not losing. Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

My comments -- the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win. I believe that -- and, by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you've got to know. We're going to succeed.

My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.

And so we're conducting a review to make sure that our strategy helps us achieve that which I'm pretty confident we can do. And that is have a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

You know, I -- when I speak, like right now, for example, I'm speaking to the American people, of course. And I want them to know that I know how tough it is. But I also want them to know that I'm going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan that'll help us achieve the objective.

I also want our troops to understand that we support them, that I believe that tough mission I've asked them to do is going to be accomplished, and that they're doing good work and necessary work.

I want the Iraqis to understand that we believe that, if they stand up, step up and lead, and with our help we can accomplish the objective.

And I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East; that they can't intimidate America.

They think they can. They think it's just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves; abandons the people of Iraq, for example.

And that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is we're going to develop a strategy that helps the Iraqis achieve the objective that the 12 million people want them to achieve, which is a government that can -- a country that can sustain itself, govern itself, defend itself.


BUSH: A free country that will serve as an ally in this war against extremists and radicals.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

If you conclude that a surge in troop levels in Iraq is needed, would you overrule your military commanders if they felt it was not a good idea?

BUSH: That's a dangerous hypothetical question. I'm not condemning you; you're allowed to ask anything you want.

Let me wait and gather all the recommendations from Bob Gates, from our military, from diplomats on the ground -- interested in the Iraqis' point of view -- and then I'll report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not.

BUSH: Nice try.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: The opinion of my commanders is very important. They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

You have reached out to both Sunni and Shia political leaders in recent weeks. And now there's word that the grand ayatollah, Ali al- Sistani, is supporting a moderate coalition in Iraq. Has the U.S. reached out to him? How important is he in the equation moving forward? And what do you say to people who say more troops in Iraq would increase the sectarian split and not calm things down?

BUSH: Well, I haven't made up my mind yet about more troops. I'm listening to our commanders. I'm listening to the Joint Chiefs, of course. I'm listening in and out of government. I'm listening to folks on the Baker-Hamilton commission about coming up with a strategy that helps us achieve our objective. And so, as I said to her -- probably a little more harshly than she would have liked -- you know, hypothetical questions, I'm not going to answer them today.

BUSH: I'm not going to speculate out loud about what I'm going to tell the nation when I'm prepared to do so about the way forward. I will tell you we're looking at all options. And one of those options, of course, is increasing more troops. But, in order to do so, there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops. And that's precisely what our commanders have said, as well as people who know a lot about military operations. And I agree with them; that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy. Secondly, whatever we do is going to help the Iraqis step up. It's their responsibility to govern their country. It's their responsibility to do the hard work necessary to secure Baghdad.

And we want to help them.

Thirdly, I appreciate the fact that the prime minister and members of the government are forming what you have called a moderate coalition, because it's becoming very apparent to the people of Iraq that there are extremists and radicals who are anxious to stop the advance of a free society.

BUSH: And, therefore, a moderate coalition signals to the vast majority of the people of Iraq that, We have a unity government, that we're willing to reconcile our differences and work together, and in so doing will marginalize those who use violence to use political objectives.

So we support the formation of the unity government and the moderate coalition. And the -- and it's important for -- that leader Sistani to understand that's our position. He is a -- you know, he lives in a -- he lives a secluded life. He -- but he knows that we're interested in defeating extremism and we're interested in helping advance a unity government.

QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. President.

Your former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, advocated for a lighter, more agile military force. Have you now concluded that that approach was wrong?

BUSH: No. I strongly support a lighter, agile army that can move quickly to meet the threats of the 21st century. I also supported his force posture review and recommendations to move forces out of previous bases that, you know, they were there for the Soviet threat, for example, in Europe.

So he's introduced some substantive changes to the Pentagon, and I support him strongly.

However, that doesn't necessarily preclude increasing end strength for the Army and the Marines. And the reason why I'm inclined to believe this is a good idea is because I understand that we're going to be in a long struggle against radicals and extremists.

BUSH: And we must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time. I'm not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it's going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate. I know you know I feel this strongly, but I see this -- we're in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies; a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in peace. Failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq or isolationism will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas. And, therefore, we will succeed in Iraq. And, therefore, we will help young democracies when we find them.

BUSH: Democracies like Lebanon; hopefully, Palestinian state, living side by side in peace with Israel; the young democracy of Iraq. It is in our interests that we combine security with a political process that frees people; that liberates people; that gives people a chance to determine their own futures. I believe most people in the Middle East want just that. They want to be in a position where they can chart their own futures. And it's in our interests that we help them do so.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In the latest CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans say they favor a beginning of an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq; 43 percent said keep fighting, but change tactics. By this, and many other measures, there is no clear mandate to continue being in Iraq in a military form.

QUESTION: I guess my question is: Are you still willing to follow a path that seems to be in opposition to the will of the American people?

BUSH: I am willing to follow a path that leads to victory. And that's exactly why we're conducting the review we are. Victory in Iraq is achievable. It hadn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. I know it's -- the fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that's troubling to the American people. But I also don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now. A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks.

BUSH: And so it's been a tough period for the American people. They want to see success. And our objective is to put a plan in place that achieves that success. I'm often asked about public opinion. Of course, I want public opinion to support the efforts. I understand that. But I also understand the consequences of failure. And, therefore, I'm going to work with the Iraqis and our military and politicians from both political parties to achieve success. I thought the American -- the election -- it said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation. They want to see us working together to achieve common objectives. And I'm going to continue to reach out to Democrats to do just that.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War; questioning his own decisions.

QUESTION: You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you, as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that.

BUSH: Yes, thanks.

QUESTION: Has it been a painful time?

BUSH: Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I -- I read about it every night. I -- my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband and wife or son and daughter. It just does.

And so, when you ask about pain, that's pain.

I -- I reach out to a lot of the families. I spend time with them. I am always inspired by their spirit. They -- most people have asked me to do one thing, and that is to make sure that their child didn't die in vain. And I agree with that; that the sacrifice has been worth it.

We'll accomplish our objective.

BUSH: We've got to constantly adjust our tactics to do so. We've got to insist that the Iraqis take more responsibility more quickly in order to do so.

But I -- you know, my heart breaks for them. It just does -- on a regular basis.

QUESTION: But beyond that, sir, have you questioned your own decisions?

BUSH: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out. Nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it -- I've come to the conclusion that it was the right decision. But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies.

It's the calling of our time. And I firmly believe it is necessary.

And I believe the next president, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations: to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism.

BUSH: It's in our nation's interest to do so.

But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.

QUESTION: You mentioned the need, earlier, to make sure that U.S. workers are skilled, that U.S. businesses keep investing in technology. You also mentioned that you want targeted tax and regulatory relief for small businesses in the coming year.

Can you describe those ideas a little more? And, also, can we really afford new tax breaks at this point, given the cost of the war on terrorism?

BUSH: The first question all of us here in Washington are going to ask is: How do we make sure this economy continues to grow? A vibrant economy is going to be necessary to fund not only the war, but a lot of other aspects of our government.

We have shown over the past six years that low taxes have helped this economy recover from some pretty significant shocks.

BUSH: After all, the unemployment rate is 4.5 percent. And 7 million more Americans have been -- have found jobs since August of 2003. And we cut the deficit in half a couple of years in advance of what we thought would happen.

The question that Congress is going to have to face and I'm going to have to continue to face is: How do we make sure we put policy in place that encourages economic growth in the short term? And how do we keep America competitive in the long term?

Part of the competitive initiative, which I have been working with Congress on, recognizes that education of young -- of the young -- is going to be crucial for remaining competitive. And that's why the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind is going to be an important part of the legislative agenda going forward in 2007.

I also spoke about energy in my opening remarks. In my judgment, we're going to have to get off oil as much as possible to remain a competitive economy.

And I'm looking forward to working with Congress to do just that. I'm optimistic about some of the reports I've heard about new battery technologies that will be coming to the market that'll enable, you know, people who -- people to drive the first 20 miles, for example, on electricity.

BUSH: That'll be the initial phase -- and, then, up to 40 miles on battery technologies. That'll be positive, particularly if you live in a big city.

A lot of people don't drive more than 20 miles or 40 miles a day. And, therefore, those urban dwellers who aren't driving that much won't be using any gasoline on a daily basis. And that will be helpful to the country.

I'm pleased with the fact that we've gone from about a billion gallons of ethanol to over 5 billion gallons of ethanol in a very quick period of time -- mainly derived from corn here in the United States. But there's been great progress and we need to continue to spend money on cellulosic ethanol.

That means new technologies that will enable us to use wood chips, for example, or switch grass as the fuel stocks for the development of new types of fuels that will enable American drivers to diversify away from gasoline.

We've spent a lot of time talking about nuclear power, and I appreciate the Congress' support on the comprehensive energy bill that I signed.

BUSH: But nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgment, of future electricity for the United States and places like China and India. Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas. And it makes a lot of sense for us to share technologies that will enable people to feel confident that the new nuclear power plants that are being built are safe, as well as technologies that'll eventually come to the fore that will enable us to reduce the wastes, the toxicity of the waste and the amount of the waste. Continue to invest in clean-coal technologies. Abundance of coal here in America. And we need to be able to tell the American people we're going to be able to use that coal to generate electricity in environmentally friendly ways. My only point to you is: We got a comprehensive plan to achieve the objective that most Americans support, which is less dependency upon oil.

BUSH: I think it's going to be very important to keep this economy growing short term and long term by promoting free trade. It's in our interest that nations treat our markets, our goods and services the way we treat theirs. And it's in our interest that administrations continue to promote more opening of markets. We've had a lot of discussions here in this administration on -- on the Doha round of the WTO -- WTO negotiations. And I'm very strongly in favor of seeing if we can't reach an accord with our trading partners and other countries around the world to promote -- to get this round completed, so that free trade is universal in its application. Free trade's going to be good for producers of U.S. product and services, but free trade is also going to be the most powerful engine for development around the world.

BUSH: It's going to help poor nations become wealthier nations. It's going to enable countries to be able to, you know, find markets for their goods and services, so that they can better grow their economies and create prosperity for their people. So we've got a robust agenda moving forward with the Congress. And I'm looking forward to working with them. And there's a lot of places where we can find common ground on these important issues.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. This week we learned that Scooter Libby...

BUSH: A little louder, please. Excuse me. Getting old.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: I understand, Mr. President.

BUSH: No, you don't understand.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You're right. I don't. This week, sir, we learned that Scooter Libby's defense team plans to call Vice President Cheney to testify in the ongoing CIA leak case. I wonder, sir: What is your reaction to that? Is that something you'll resist?

BUSH: No, I read it in the newspaper today. And it's an interesting piece of news. And that's all I'm going to comment about an ongoing case: I thought it was interesting.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Mary's having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you said it's your preference -- you believe that it's preferable to have one man-one woman...

BUSH: No, I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly. On the -- on Mary Cheney, this is a personal matter for the vice president and his family. I strongly support their privacy on the issue, although there's nothing private when you happen to be the president or the vice president. I recognize that. And I know Mary. And I like her. I know she's going to be a fine, loving mother. I'm not going to call on you again. Like, got too much coverage yesterday, you know.

(LAUGHTER)

Create a sense of anxiety amongst your -- no, no. You handled yourself well, though. Go on.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

A question about the Iraq Study Group report. One of the things that it recommends is greater dialogue, direct talks with Syria and Iran. James Baker, himself, secretary of state under your father, says that it's a lot like it was during the Cold War when we talked to the Soviet Union. He says it's important to talk to your adversaries. Is he wrong?

BUSH: The -- let me start with Iran. We made perfectly clear to them what it takes to come to the table. And that is a suspension of their enrichment program. If they verifiably suspend -- that they've stopped enrichment, we will come to the table with our E.U.-3 partners and Russia and discuss a way forward for them. It should be evident to the Iranians -- if this is what they want to do.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A question about the Iraq Study Group report. One of the things that it recommends is greater dialogue, direct talks with Syria and Iran. James Baker, himself, secretary of state under your father, says that it's a lot like it was during the Cold War when we talked to the Soviet Union. He says it's important to talk to your adversaries. Is he wrong?

BUSH: The -- let me start with Iran. We made perfectly clear to them what it takes to come to the table. And that is a suspension of their enrichment program. If they verifiably suspend -- that they've stopped enrichment, we will come to the table with our E.U.-3 partners and Russia and discuss a way forward for them. It should be evident to the Iranians -- if this is what they want to do.

BUSH: I heard the foreign minister -- or read the foreign minister say the other day that: Yes, we'll sit down with America after they leave Iraq. Now, if they want to sit down with us, for the good of the Iranian people, they ought to verifiably suspend their program. We've made that clear to them. It is obvious to them how to move forward. The Iranian people can do better than becoming -- than be an isolated nation. This is a proud nation with a fantastic history and tradition. And yet they've got a leader who constantly sends messages to the world that Iran is out of step with the majority of thinkers; that Iran is willing to become isolated, to the detriment of the people.

BUSH: I heard the foreign minister -- or read the foreign minister say the other day that: Yes, we'll sit down with America after they leave Iraq. Now, if they want to sit down with us, for the good of the Iranian people, they ought to verifiably suspend their program. We've made that clear to them. It is obvious to them how to move forward. The Iranian people can do better than becoming -- than be an isolated nation. This is a proud nation with a fantastic history and tradition. And yet they've got a leader who constantly sends messages to the world that Iran is out of step with the majority of thinkers; that Iran is willing to become isolated, to the detriment of the people.

BUSH: I mean, I was amazed that once again there was this conference about the Holocaust that heralded a really backward view of the history of the world. And all that said to me was is that the leader in Iran is willing to say things that really hurts his country and further isolates the Iranian people. We're working hard to get a Security Council resolution. I spoke to Secretary Rice about the Iranian Security Council resolution this morning. And the message will be, that, You, Iran, are further isolated from the world. My message to the Iranian people is, You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy. And you can do better than having somebody who's trying to develop a nuclear weapon that the world believes you shouldn't have. There's a better way forward.

BUSH: Syria, the message is the same. We have met with Syria since I have been the president of the United States. We have talked to them about what is necessary for them to have a better relationship with the United States. And they're not unreasonable requests. You know, we've suggested to them that they no longer allow Saddamists to send money and arms across their border into Iraq to fuel the violence -- some of the violence that we see. And we've talked to them about: They've got to leave the democrat Lebanon alone. I might say -- let me step back for a second -- I'm very proud of Prime Minister Siniora. He's shown a lot of tenacity and toughness in the face of enormous pressure from Syria, as well as Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran.

BUSH: But we made it clear to them on how to move forward. We've had visits with the Syrians in the past. Congressmen and senators visit Syria. What I would suggest: that, if they are interested in better relations with the United States, that they take some concrete, positive steps that promote peace, as opposed to instability. QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Mr. President, did you or your chief of staff order an investigation of the leak of the Hadley memo before your meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki? And if the leak wasn't authorized, do you suspect someone in your administration is trying to undermine your Iraq policy or sabotage your meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki a few weeks back?

BUSH: I'm trying to think back if I ordered an investigation. I don't recall ordering an investigation. I do recall expressing some angst about ongoing leaks.

BUSH: You all work hard to find information and, of course, put it out for public consumption, and I understand that. But I don't appreciate those who leak classified documents. And it's an ongoing problem here. It really is -- not just for this administration, but it will be for any administration that is trying to put policy in place that affects the future of the country. And we've had a lot of leaks. As you know, some of them -- I don't know where they're from. Therefore, I'm not going to speculate. Turns out you never can find the leaker. It's an advantage you have in doing your job. We can moan about it, but it's hard to find them -- those inside the government that are willing to give, in this case, Hadley's document to newspapers.

BUSH: You know, there may be an ongoing investigation of this. I just don't know if there is. If I knew about it, it's not fresh in my mind. But I do think that at some point in time it'd be helpful, if we can find somebody inside our government who is leaking materials -- clearly against the law -- that they be held to account. Perhaps the best way to make sure people don't leak classified documents is that there be, you know, a consequence for doing so. QUESTION: Mr. President, if we could return to the reflexive vein we were in a little while ago.

BUSH: The what? Excuse me. QUESTION: Reflexive.

BUSH: Reflexive stage. OK. QUESTION: Reflective.

BUSH: Reflective stage. QUESTION: Part of the process of looking at the way forward could reasonably include considering how we got to where we are. Has that been part of your process? And what lessons -- after five years now of war, what lessons will you take into the final two years of your presidency?

BUSH: Well, look, absolutely, that it is important for us, to be successful going forward, is to analyze that which went wrong.

BUSH: And, clearly, one aspect of this war that has not gone right is the sectarian violence inside Baghdad; you know, a violent reaction by both Sunni and Shia to each other that has caused a lot of loss of life as well as some movements in neighborhoods inside of Baghdad. And it's a troubling -- very troubling -- aspect of trying to help this Iraqi government succeed. And, therefore, a major consideration of our planners is how to deal with that and how to help -- more importantly, how to help the Iraqis deal with sectarian violence. There are a couple of theaters inside of Iraq, war theaters. One, of course, is Baghdad itself, where the sectarian violence is brutal.

BUSH: And we've got to -- we've got to help -- we've got to help the Maliki government stop it and crack it and prevent it from spreading in order to be successful. I fully understand -- let me finish. Secondly is the battle against the Sunnis, Sunni extremists; some of them Saddamists, some of them are Al Qaida. But all of them aiming to try to drive the United States out of Iraq before the job is done. And we're making good progress against them. It's hard fighting. It's been hard work. But our special ops teams, along with Iraqis, are, you know, are on the hunt and bringing people to justice. There's issues in the south of Iraq; mainly Shia-on-Shia tensions. But primarily the toughest fight for this new government is inside of Baghdad. Most of the deaths, most of the violence, is within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad, as well as in Anbar province.

BUSH: In other words, a lot of the country is moving along positively. But it's this part of the fight that is getting our attention. And, frankly, we have -- it has been that aspect of the battle toward a government that can defend and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror that -- where we have not made as much progress as we'd've hoped to have made. Listen, I -- last year started off as an exciting year with the 12 million voters. And, you know, the attack on the Samarra -- the Samarra mosque was Zarqawi's successful attempt to foment this sectarian violence. And it's -- it's -- it's mean, it is deadly. And we've got to help the Iraqis deal with it. The -- this -- success in Iraq will be success -- there'll be a combination of military success, political success and reconstruction.

BUSH: And they've got to go hand in hand. And that's why I think it's important that the moderate coalition is standing up, which is the beginning of a political process that I hope will marginalize the radicals and extremists who are trying to stop the advance of a free Iraq.

That's why the oil law is going to be a very important piece of legislation. In other words, when this government begins to send messages that we will put law in place that helps unify the country, it's going to make the security situation easier to deal with.

On the other hand, without better, stronger security measures, it's going to be hard to get the political process to move forward. And so it's a -- we got a parallel strategy.

So when you hear me talking about the military -- I know there's a lot of discussion about troops, and there should be. But you got to keep in mind, we've also got to make sure we have a parallel political process and a reconstruction process going together; concurrently with a new military strategy.

BUSH: The -- I thought it was an interesting statement that Prime Minister Maliki made the other day about generals, former generals in the Saddam army; that they could come back in or receive a pension. In other words, beginning to reach out in terms of a reconciliation plan that I think is going to be important.

Had interesting discussions the other day with provincial reconstruction team members in Iraq. These are really brave souls who work for the State Department that are in these different provinces helping these provincial governments rebuild and to see a political way forward.

And one of the things that -- most of these people were in the Sunni territory that I talked to. And most of them were very anxious for me to help them and help the Iraqi government put reconciliation plans in place.


BUSH: There's a lot of people trying to make a choice as to whether or not they want to support a government or whether or not their interests may lay in extremism. And they understand that a political process that is positive, that sends a signal we want to be a unified country, will help these folks make a rational choice. So it's a multifaceted plan. And, absolutely, we're looking at where things went wrong, where expectations were dashed, and where things hadn't gone the way we wanted them to have gone.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You said this week that your microphone has never been louder. But on some of the key domestic priorities you've talked about, particularly Social Security and immigration, your use of the presidential microphone hasn't yielded the results that you wanted. So I'm wondering, you know, with a Democratic Congress at this point, Republicans no longer controlling things on Capitol Hill, why you think your microphone's any louder and how you plan to use it differently to get the results that you're looking for.

BUSH: Yes. Microphone being loud means -- is that I'm able to help focus people's attentions on important issues.

BUSH: There's a lot of people trying to make a choice as to whether or not they want to support a government or whether or not their interests may lay in extremism. And they understand that a political process that is positive, that sends a signal we want to be a unified country, will help these folks make a rational choice. So it's a multifaceted plan. And, absolutely, we're looking at where things went wrong, where expectations were dashed, and where things hadn't gone the way we wanted them to have gone.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You said this week that your microphone has never been louder. But on some of the key domestic priorities you've talked about, particularly Social Security and immigration, your use of the presidential microphone hasn't yielded the results that you wanted. So I'm wondering, you know, with a Democratic Congress at this point, Republicans no longer controlling things on Capitol Hill, why you think your microphone's any louder and how you plan to use it differently to get the results that you're looking for.

BUSH: Yes. Microphone being loud means -- is that I'm able to help focus people's attentions on important issues.

BUSH: That's what I was referring to. In other words, the president is in a position to speak about priorities. Whether or not we can get those priorities done is going to take bipartisan cooperation, which I believe was one of the lessons of the -- of the campaigns. I will tell you: I felt like we had a pretty successful couple of years when it comes to legislation. After all, we reformed Medicare. We put tax policy in place that encouraged economic growth and vitality. We passed trade initiatives. Passed a comprehensive energy bill. I'm signing an important piece of legislation today that continues, you know, a comprehensive approach to energy exploration; plus extenders on R D, for example, tax credits. It's been a pretty substantial legislative record, if you carefully scrutinize it. However, that doesn't mean, necessarily, that we are able to achieve to same kind of results without a different kind of approach.

BUSH: After all, you're right: The Democrats now control the House and the Senate. And, therefore, I will continue to work with their leadership and our own leaders, our own members, to see if we can't find common ground on key issues like Social Security or immigration. I -- I -- I strongly believe that we can and must get a comprehensive immigration plan on my desk this year. It's important for us, because in order to enforce our border, in order for those Border Patrol agents who we've increased down there, and given them more equipment and better border security -- they've got to have help and a plan that says, If you're coming into America to do a job, you can come legally for a temporary basis to do so.

BUSH: I don't know if you've paid attention to the enforcement measures that were taken recently, where they -- in some of these packing plants, they found people working that had been illegally -- but had documents that said they were here legally. They were using forged documents -- which just reminded me that the system we have in place has caused people to rely upon smugglers and forgers in order to do work Americans aren't doing. In other words, it is a system that is all aimed to bypass, no matter what measures we take to protect this country. It is a system that, frankly, leads to inhumane treatment of people. And, therefore, the best way to deal with an issue that Americans agree on -- that we ought to enforce our borders in a humane way -- is we've got to have a comprehensive bill.

BUSH: And I have made a proposal. I have spoken about this to the nation from the Oval Office. I continue to believe that the microphone is necessary to call people to action.

And I want to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a comprehensive bill to my desk. It's -- it's in our interests that we do this.

In terms of energy, there's another area where I know we can work together. There is a consensus that we need to move forward with continued research on alternative forms of energy.

I just described them in my opening comments. And I'd be glad to go over them again if you'd like, because they're -- they're positive. It's a positive development. We're making progress. And there's more to be done.

So I'm looking forward to working with them. You know, there's a lot of attitude here that says: Well, you lost the Congress; therefore, you're not going to get anything done.

BUSH: Quite the contrary. I have an interest to get things done, and the Democrat leaders have an interest to get something done to show that they're -- you know, that they're worthy of their leadership roles. And it is that common ground that I'm confident we can get -- we can make positive progress, without either of us compromising principle. And I know they don't -- I know they're not going to change their principles and I'm not going to change mine. But nevertheless, that doesn't mean we can't find common ground to get good legislation done. That's what the American people want. The truth of the matter's the American people are sick of the partisanship and name-calling. I will do my part to elevate the tone. And I'm looking forward to working with them. It's going to be an interesting new challenge. I'm used to it, as Herman can testify. I was the governor of Texas with Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate. And we were able to get a lot of constructive things done for the state of Texas. And I believe it's going to be possible here to do so here in the country.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Merry Christmas.

BUSH: Thank you.

QUESTION: I have just two questions related to the amazing fact that a quarter of your presidency lies ahead.

QUESTION: First, I keep reading that you'll be remembered only for Iraq. And I wonder what other areas you believe you're building a record of transformation you hope will last the ages. And second, to follow up on Julie's question, what is your plan for either changing your role or keeping control of the agenda at a time when Democrats have both houses on the Hill and when the '08 candidates are doing their thing?

BUSH: Well, one is to set priorities, you know? That's what I've just done, setting a priority. My message is, we can work together, and here are some key areas where we've got to work together: reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, minimum wage. I hope we're able to work together on free trade agreements.

BUSH: We can work together on Social Security reform and Medicare reform, entitlement reform. We need to work together on energy, immigration, earmarks. The leadership in the -- has expressed their disdain for earmarks. I support their disdain for earmarks. I don't like a process where it's not transparent, where people are able to slip this into a bill without any hearing or without any recognition of who put it in there and why they put it in there. It's not good for the system. And it's not good for the -- building confidence of the American people in our process or in the Congress. First part of the -- oh, the last two years. I'm going to work hard. I'm going to sprint to the finish. And we can get a lot done.

And you're talking about legacy. Here, I -- I know -- look, everybody's trying to write the history of this administration even before it's over. I'm reading about George Washington still. My attitude is if they're still analyzing number one, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he think is right, and make the tough choices necessary.

BUSH: We're in the beginning stages of an ideological struggle. It's going to last a while. And I want to make sure this country is engaged in a positive and constructive way to secure the future for our children.

And it's going to be a tough battle. I also believe that Medicare reform, the first meaningful, significant health care reform that's been passed in a while, is making a huge difference for our seniors.

No Child Left Behind has been a significant education accomplishment and we've got to reauthorize it. We have proven that you can keep taxes low, achieve other objectives and cut the deficit. The entrepreneurial spirit is high in this country. And one way to keep it high is to keep -- let people keep more of their own money. So there's been a lot of accomplishments. But the true history of any administration is not going to be written until long after the person is gone. And it's just impossible for short-term history to accurately reflect what has taken place.

Most historians, you know, probably had a political preference. And so their view isn't exactly objective -- most short-term historians.

And it's going to take awhile for people to analyze mine, or any other of my predecessors', until down the road, when they're able to take -- you know, watch the long march of history and determine whether or not the decisions made during the eight years I was president have affected history in a positive way.

I wish you all a happy holidays. Thank you for your attendance. Have fun. Enjoy yourself.

For those lucky enough to go to Crawford, perhaps I'll see you down there.

Thank you.

END

    President Bush's News Conference, NYT, 20.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20text-bush.html

Bush Concedes Iraq Insurgents Hurt U.S. Efforts

December 20, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:13 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Summing up a year of setbacks, President Bush conceded Wednesday that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at ''establishing security and stability throughout the country.''

Looking to change course, Bush said he has not decided whether to order a short-term surge in U.S. troops in Iraq in hopes of gaining control of the violent and chaotic situation there.

The president spoke as Robert Gates made his first visit to Iraq since being sworn in earlier in the week as defense secretary. Bush said he has asked his new Pentagon boss to report to him as quickly as possible on plans to enlarge the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

At his traditional year-end news conference, Bush said the United States will ''ask more of our Iraqi partners'' in 2007, and he pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress, as well.

Bush didn't wait for the first question before assessing the past 12 months. ''2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people.''

He also said he supports a moderate coalition in Iraq, a new effort by the government to ''marginalize the radical and extremists'' in Iraq.

Most of the questions dealt with the war in Iraq, but the president was also asked about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

''I know Mary and I like her and I know she is going to be a fine, loving mother,'' said Bush. Neither he nor his questioner referred to Cheney's partner, Heather Poe.

Bush confronts a Democratic Congress as he begins the final two years of his presidency. Even so, he said he intends to ''sprint hard to the finish.''

He said he saw an opening for compromise with the Democratic-controlled Congress that convenes on Jan. 4. He cited Social Security and immigration as two major areas in which common ground might be found. He also called for fresh efforts to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

The president opened the question-and-answer session by conceding the obvious -- things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.

''The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success,'' he said.

''Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country.''

Bush also explained a striking shift in position -- his statement on Tuesday that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq, contrasted with his insistence at a recent news conference that it was ''absolutely winning.''

He said his earlier comments were meant to say that, ''I believe that we're going to win, I believe that ... My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted.''

Looking ahead, Bush said a decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to Iraq rests on whether a specific, achievable mission can be defined. Top generals worry that a troop surge could strain the military overall and might be ineffective unless accompanied by political and economic changes in Iraq.

''There's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy,'' the president said.

''The opinion of my commanders is very important. They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot,'' Bush said.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission said a quick buildup of troops could be helpful if the military commanders on the ground thought it would be effective in arresting what it called a ''grave and deteriorating'' situation in Iraq.

White House officials had earlier said the president intended to address the nation before year's end to set out a revised plan for Iraq. That speech has been put off until after the holidays.

Bush was asked whether he was like Lyndon Johnson, who had difficulty sleeping during the difficult days of the Vietnam War.

In response, the president said it was difficult knowing that ''my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.'' And yet, he said, the United States must prevail in the global war on terror -- and will.

It ''is the calling of our generation,'' he said.

Not for the first time in his presidency, Bush also expressed frustration that classified material continuously finds its way into print.

''Turns out you can never find the leaker,'' he conceded.

He said it was possible an investigation is under way into the recent leak of a memo from National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley that was critical of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

    Bush Concedes Iraq Insurgents Hurt U.S. Efforts, NYT, 20.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?hp&ex=1166677200&en=824cf7298c18932c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

President Wants to Increase Size of Armed Forces

December 20, 2006
The New York Times
By THOM SHANKER and JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — President Bush said Tuesday that the United States should expand the size of its armed forces, acknowledging that the military had been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to grow to cope with what he suggested would be a long battle against Islamic extremism.

“I’m inclined to believe it’s important and necessary to do,” Mr. Bush said. He said this was an “accurate reflection that this ideological war we’re in is going to last for a while, and that we’re going to need a military that’s capable of being able to sustain our efforts and help us achieve peace.”

Speaking in an interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Bush did not specify how large an increase he was contemplating or put a dollar figure on the cost. He said that he had asked his new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to bring him a proposal, and that the budget he unveils at the beginning of February would seek approval for the plan from Congress, where many members of both parties have been urging an increase in the military’s size.

In interviews on Tuesday, administration officials said the president was speaking generally about the broader campaign against terrorism and was not foreshadowing a decision on whether to send additional troops into Iraq in coming months in an effort to stabilize Baghdad. Any big change in the size of the American military would take years to accomplish.

Mr. Bush told The Post, which excerpted the interview Tuesday on its Web site, that he had not made a decision about sending more troops to Iraq.

Coming the day after Mr. Gates was sworn in as defense secretary, Mr. Bush’s comments indicated that the administration was breaking abruptly with the stance taken by Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former Pentagon chief, who championed the view that better intelligence and technological advancements could substitute for a bigger military.

Mr. Bush said his plan would focus on ground forces rather than on the Navy and the Air Force, telling The Post, “I’m inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines.” There are about 507,000 active-duty Army soldiers and 180,000 active-duty marines.

Mr. Bush’s comments were his most direct assessment that the armed forces were facing strain so serious that the nation should invest billions of dollars in expanding the military. Asked directly whether the United States was winning in Iraq, Mr. Bush quoted what he called the “construct” of Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “We’re not winning. We’re not losing.”

The president has come under increasing pressure from allies and critics, including Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who have warned that the Army could break under the stress of the demands it faces.

“I also believe that the suggestions I’ve heard from outside our government, plus people inside the government — particularly the Pentagon — that we need to think about increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with Secretary Gates to do so,” Mr. Bush said.

Congress authorized a 30,000-soldier increase in the active-duty Army after the Sept. 11 attacks — when the Army stood at about 484,000 — in what was described as a temporary measure. Army officials say they hope to reach that authorized total troop strength of 514,000 by next year and would like to make that a permanent floor, not a ceiling.

To that end, the Army already has drawn up proposals to grow to up to 540,000, with some retired officers advocating an even larger increase.

The active-duty Army peaked at 1.6 million troops during the Korean conflict and stood at just below that figure during the war in Vietnam, before hovering around 800,000 for much of the 1970s and 1980s, according to Pentagon statistics. Following the first Persian Gulf war, which coincided with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the Army’s active-duty force dropped first to below 600,000 and then below 500,000 before the increases ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Any decision to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps would do little to meet the need for more troops should Mr. Bush order a significant increase of American forces in Iraq in 2007, as it takes considerable time to recruit, train and deploy new troops. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said last week that the Army could probably grow by only 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers per year.

Army officials have estimated that for each addition of 10,000 soldiers to the force, it would cost about $1.2 billion.

While it is not likely to determine the administration’s decision about a short-term increase in troop levels in Iraq, a substantial increase in the size of the American military could give the United States more flexibility in setting and maintaining troop levels there over the long run. Army officials had already drawn up proposals for sustaining the Iraq and Afghanistan missions by drawing heavily on the National Guard and Reserves over the next several years.

But the prospect of mobilizing large numbers of those part-time soldiers would present Mr. Bush with a hugely vexing political problem as the Republican Party prepares for a campaign to hold the White House in 2008. The administration has promised to limit overseas deployments for the Guard and the Reserve, which have been used extensively since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Pentagon and military officials who were briefed on the president’s discussions with the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week said that the classified briefing ranged broader than just how to win in Iraq.

The chiefs argued that the nation must not let the military’s other capabilities lapse from commitments of personnel, equipment and money for Iraq, these officials said.

In particular, the chiefs expressed concerns that the United States must show enough strength to deter potential adversaries from aggressive moves based on an assumption that American power was bogged down in Iraq. That led to a discussion on the merits of expanding the military, officials said.

The president’s statements were applauded by leading members of Congress who specialize in military affairs. Loren Dealy, spokeswoman for Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, said that Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, who will become chairman of the panel in the new Congress, said after Mr. Bush spoke that “Mr. Skelton has long supported the idea of increasing the end strength in both the Army and the Marine Corps.”

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday night: “I am pleased President Bush has finally recognized the need to increase the overall size of our military. I have been calling for such an expansion for several years.” But Mr. Reed, who served in the 82nd Airborne Division, warned that the battle over troop numbers was not over.

“Now that the president is asking for an increase, he needs to follow through and put the money in the budget to pay for these soldiers,” Mr. Reed said. “It is imperative that this administration step up and honestly budget for the long-term commitment they have made in Iraq. If the president doesn’t put forward a plan to pay for this in his annual budget request then this announcement is meaningless.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

    President Wants to Increase Size of Armed Forces, NYT, 20.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20bush.html?hp&ex=1166677200&en=7ac6d30c774070b9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush Signs 3 Health Care - Related Bills

December 19, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:08 p.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday signed bills to raise federal funding for autism, shift AIDS money to rural areas and the South and create a government unit to oversee response to a bird flu pandemic or bioterrorism attack.

The autism bill increases federal funding by 50 percent for the disorder, which afflicts 1.5 million people in the United States.

Congress voted on Dec. 7 to significantly increase federal funding to identify the cause of autism, now diagnosed in one in 166 children. The Senate, acting a day after House passage, approved on a voice vote legislation that authorizes $945 million over five years for autism research, screening and treatment.

The legislation provides the National Institutes of Health with a list of possible research areas related to autism spectrum disorder, including an examination of whether the increase in autism diagnoses is caused by environmental factors.

The AIDS legislation Bush signed will shift care and treatment money to rural areas and the South.

The House on Dec. 9 agreed by voice vote to renew the $2.1 billion-annual Ryan White CARE Act. The Senate passed the bill earlier after senators from New York and New Jersey dropped their opposition, accepting a compromise that settled months of dispute just as Congress adjourned for the year.

Lawmakers from some urban areas feared losing money under a five-year renewal of the law. The final deal renews it for three years. That allows earlier reviews of the formulas for distributing money and eliminates the large dollar cuts in the final years that threatened some areas.

AIDS began as a big-city epidemic affecting mainly gay white men. The updates, the first since 2000, aim to spread money more equally around the country. Current law had only counted patients with full-blown AIDS. The revision also counts patients with the HIV virus who have not developed AIDS. That change favors the South and rural areas, for example, where the disease is a newer phenomenon.

The president also signed a bill to create a new agency within the Health and Human Services Department to oversee the development of medicine and equipment to respond to a bird flu pandemic or a bioterrorism attack.

------

The bills are:

Combating Autism Act of 2006 S. 843

Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act S. 3678

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 H.R. 6143

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/ 

    Bush Signs 3 Health Care - Related Bills, NYT, 19.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Bill-Signings.html

Bush Signs Nuclear Deal With India

December 18, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:40 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday signed a civilian nuclear deal with India, allowing fuel and know-how to be shipped to the world's largest democracy even though it has not submitted to full international inspections.

''The bill will help keep America safe by paving the way for India to join the global effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons,'' Bush said.

The bill carves out an exemption in U.S. law to allow civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants, however, would remain off-limits.

''This is an important achievement for the whole world. After 30 years outside the system, India will now operate its civilian nuclear energy program under internationally accepted guidelines and the world is going to be safer as a result,'' Bush said in a bill-signing ceremony at the White House.

Critics have said the measure undermines efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and technology and could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia by boosting India's atomic arsenal. India still refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The measure passed Congress with bipartisan support, but critics complain the deal undermines efforts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the pact, in effect, shreds the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ''This is a sad day in the history of efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and materials around the world,'' he said. ''The bill that President Bush has signed today may well become the death warrant to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.''

The White House said India was unique because it had protected its nuclear technology and not been a proliferator. The Bush administration said the pact deepens ties with a democratic Asia power, but was not designed as a counterweight to the rising power of China.

The administration also argued it was a good deal because it would provide international oversight for part of a program that has been secret since India entered the nuclear age in 1974. The deal also could be a boon for American companies that have been barred from selling reactors and material to India.

''India's economy has more than doubled its size since 1991 and it is one of the fastest-growing markets for American exports,'' Bush said.

In New Delhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday defended the nuclear deal, rejecting strong opposition criticism that it would lead to the dismantling of India's atomic weapons. He said he had some concerns about the legislation, but that they would be dealt with during technical negotiations on an overall U.S.-India cooperation agreement.

''The United States has assured us that the bill would enable it to meet its commitments'' made in agreements struck in July 2005 and in March by Bush and Singh.

Singh said India would not accept new conditions and its nuclear weapons program would not be subject to interference of any kind because the agreement with the United States dealt with civil nuclear cooperation.

Earlier, opposition leader L.K. Advani of the Bharatiya Janata Party said India should not accept the U.S. legislation, saying that the deal would prevent India from conducting nuclear tests in the future. India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and followed it up with a series of nuclear tests in 1998.

''The primary objective is to cap, roll back and ultimately eliminate its (India's) nuclear weapons capability,'' Advani warned.

Before civil nuclear trade can begin, several hurdles remain. American and Indian officials need to work out a separate technical nuclear cooperation agreement, expected to be finished next year.

The two countries must now obtain an exception for India in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. Indian officials must also negotiate a safeguard agreement with the IAEA.

    Bush Signs Nuclear Deal With India, NYT, 18.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-India-Nuclear.html

Bush Delays Speech on Iraq Until January

December 12, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — President Bush will wait until after the holidays to speak to the nation about a new strategy in Iraq, a spokesman for the National Security Council said today.

The spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said the president is continuing to ask detailed questions of his advisers, many on operational details involving military considerations under review, and that the answers will not be ready until after Christmas.

Mr. Johndroe’s announcement that Mr. Bush will address the American people in early January, rather than before Christmas as White House officials had indicated earlier, came shortly after the president held a video teleconference with several American commanders, the departing secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Iraq.

White House officials took pains to dispel any impression that the change in timing for the presidential address signaled indecision or dissension. They said there had always been a possibility that the complicated review process would simply not be done in time for a pre-Christmas speech.

The internal administration debate is focusing acutely on whether — and how — the United States should press the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to take more aggressive steps to crack down on militias, among other issues, following a specified timeline.

That course was among those recommended last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which called on the United States to link continued political and military support for Mr. Maliki’s government to benchmarks it would have to meet.

The administration has been generally opposed to putting overt pressure on Mr. Maliki, but on Monday Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, left open the possibility that the United States would seek a way to get Mr. Maliki’s government to achieve stability faster and get American troops home.

“There are going to be the best efforts to succeed as quickly as possible,” Mr. Snow said. “The president has made it clear to Iraqis and to the United States that we want to have this succeed, and we want it to succeed as quickly as possible.”

Mr. Snow refused to say whether the president remained firmly opposed to establishing timetables for American withdrawal — which would presumably coincide with Iraqis’ reaching certain benchmarks in securing the country. However, he indicated during his regular afternoon briefing with reporters that the president would address the issue during an expected speech laying out his plan. He later said he had meant to imply only that the president was open to various options.

The White House said Mr. Bush used meetings on Monday at the State Department with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the morning and in the Oval Office with a group of military and Iraq policy experts in the afternoon to review political and military options in Iraq as he attempts to chart what he has called “a new way forward.”

Mr. Bush was meeting today with the Iraqi vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, the leader of the most powerful Sunni Arab party in Iraq. Aides said that Mr. Bush was “approaching the conclusion” of his deliberations. But officials said the semipublic nature of the meetings — which were put on Mr. Bush’s schedule last week — were also in part intended to show that he is urgently working on a solution to the worsening instability of Iraq at a time of heavy public pressure to show progress there.

That pressure has mounted from the incoming Democratic-led Congress, from some Republicans, and from the Iraq Study Group, whose report last week prescribed 79 recommendations to help reverse what it called a “grave and deteriorating” situation in Iraq.

A poll released by CBS News on Monday showed Mr. Bush had his lowest approval rating ever on the war, with just 21 percent of those surveyed saying they approve of his handling of Iraq.

But after a weekend in which members of the neoconservative wing of his party blasted the report for proposing what they considered to be veiled retreat, and in which administration officials described some suggestions as unrealistic and impractical, the White House said the report did not play a large role in Monday’s discussions.

Asked if the report came up at the State Department meeting, Mr. Snow said, “not really.” And, he said, he did not expect the panel of experts to discuss it much during the Oval Office session either, saying they were not going to the White House to present “a book review.”

In another indication that the White House is distancing itself from the report, four of the five experts at the Oval Office — retired four-star generals Barry McCaffrey and Jack Keane, and Eliot A. Cohen of Johns Hopkins University and Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations — have already publicly questioned the practicality of certain suggestions by the study group.

Still, the administration’s discussions center on many of the same issues the study group addressed. A senior official has said that among the most complicated questions facing the president is how to get Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, to move more aggressively against Shiite militias — including the one led by one of his most powerful patrons, Moktada al-Sadr — and to provide basic services more quickly.

The report has suggested threatening Mr. Maliki and his government with a loss of United States support should the prime minister fail to meet a set of milestones. That would differ from the president’s fundamental resistance to bringing United States troops home before the Iraqi government can “sustain, govern and defend” itself.

Officials investigated reports from Baghdad that some of Mr. Maliki’s fellow Shiites were plotting to push him from office and said that they were false.

And, after his meeting with Ms. Rice — which Vice President Dick Cheney attended as well — Mr. Bush said they had discussed the roles Iraq’s neighbors could play in stabilizing Iraq, which is a central suggestion of the study group’s report. But Mr. Bush continued to make it clear he did not believe Syria or Iran would play such roles.

“We believe that most of the countries understand that a mainstream society, a society that is a functioning democracy, is in their interests,” Mr. Bush said.

    Bush Delays Speech on Iraq Until January, NYT, 12.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/us/politics/13prexy.html

McKinney introduces bill to impeach Bush

Posted 12/9/2006 2:13 AM ET
By Ben Evans, Associated Press
USA Today

WASHINGTON — In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.

The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.

McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws.

In the bill, she accused Bush of misleading Congress on the war in Iraq and violating privacy laws with his domestic spying program.

McKinney has made no secret of her frustration with Democratic leaders since voters ousted her from office in the Democratic primary this summer. In a speech Monday at George Washington University, she accused party leaders of kowtowing to Republicans on the war in Iraq and on military mistreatment of prisoners.

McKinney, who has not discussed her future plans, has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.

She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath. She introduced legislation calling for disclosure of any government records concerning the killing of rapper Tupac Shakur.

But it was her scuffle with a Capitol police officer that drew the most attention. McKinney struck the officer when he tried to stop her from entering a congressional office building. The officer did not recognize McKinney, who was not wearing her member lapel pin.

A grand jury in Washington declined to indict McKinney over the clash, but she eventually apologized before the House.

    McKinney introduces bill to impeach Bush, UT, 9.12.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-09-mckinney-impeachment_x.htm

Bush Backs Away From 2 Key Ideas of Panel on Iraq

December 8, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — President Bush moved quickly to distance himself on Thursday from the central recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, even as the panel’s co-chairmen opened an intensive lobbying effort on Capitol Hill to press Mr. Bush to adopt their report wholesale.

One day after the study group rattled Washington with its bleak assessment of conditions in Iraq, its Republican co-chairman, James A. Baker III, said the White House must not treat the report “like a fruit salad,” while the Democratic co-chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, called on Congress to abandon its “extremely timid” approach to overseeing the war.

But Mr. Bush, making his first extended comments on the study, seemed to push back against two of its most fundamental recommendations: pulling back American combat brigades from Iraq over the next 15 months, and engaging in direct talks with Iran and Syria. He said he needed to be “flexible and realistic” in making decisions about troop movements, and he set conditions for talks with Iran and Syria that neither country was likely to accept.

The president addressed reporters after meeting in the White House with his closest ally in the war, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. In light of the report’s stark warning that the situation in Iraq was “grave and deteriorating,” Mr. Bush came close to acknowledging mistakes. “You wanted frankness — I thought we would succeed quicker than we did,” the president said to a British reporter who asked for candor. “And I am disappointed by the pace of success.”

But Mr. Bush, and to a lesser extent, Mr. Blair, continued to talk about the war in the kind of sweeping, ideological terms the Iraq Study Group avoided in its report. While the commission settled on stability as a realistic American goal for Iraq, Mr. Bush cast the conflict as part of a broader struggle between good and evil, totalitarianism and democracy.

If extremists emerge triumphant in the Middle East, Mr. Bush warned, “History will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know, what happened? How come free nations did not act to preserve the peace?”


While the president said he would give the report serious consideration, he said he did not intend to accept all 79 recommendations. “Congress isn’t going to accept every recommendation in the report,” Mr. Bush said, “and neither will the administration.”

Three other reviews — one by the Pentagon, one by the State Department and one by the National Security Council — are under way, and Mr. Bush reiterated Thursday that while he believed that the nation needed “a new approach” in Iraq, he would make no decision until he received those reports. The current White House plan is for Mr. Bush to receive them over the next week to 10 days, then make a decision about what both he and the Baker-Hamilton commission are calling “the way forward” in Iraq. He intends to announce his plans in a speech before the end of the year, probably before Christmas, according to administration officials.

Pentagon officials are scheduled to brief Mr. Bush soon on the department’s recommendations for a strategy shift in Iraq. The department’s recommendations are likely to differ in some respects from the ideas presented by the Iraq Study Group, particularly over the role to be played by American combat troops over the next 12 to 18 months.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair have long stood side by side on the war in Iraq. The White House insisted that Mr. Blair’s appearance on Thursday was not timed to coincide with the release of the report, but it did help them underscore — as Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, put it — that “the president isn’t standing alone.”

The Pentagon recommendations, which are still being completed, are the product of discussions in recent weeks among ground commanders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and civilian officials in the department. While department officials are likely to present Mr. Bush with one set of recommendations, differences remain.

Some officials still back the idea of a temporary surge in American troops, though the top commander in the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, has been urging recently that any troop shortfall to restore security in Baghdad should be filled by more Iraqi forces or by repositioning American forces now in Iraq.

Military officials are also concerned about the Iraq Study Group’s call for pulling back all American combat brigades over the next 15 months, a goal that some uniformed officials see as desirable but possibly unrealistic. Pentagon officials remain skeptical about the timetable, and they are leaning toward an approach that pulls back some combat brigades but keeps others in Baghdad and other violence-ridden areas of Iraq until Iraqi units can better handle the fight on their own.

Though the Iraq Study Group also called for keeping enough American troops in place to provide protection to expanded teams of American advisers attached to Iraqi Army units, Pentagon officials fear that the panel’s recommendations, if adopted, could lead to withdrawals of substantial American troops before the Iraqi units can stand on their own.

The study group said combat brigades could withdraw from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008 if conditions on the ground permitted. Some analysts say that phrasing gives Mr. Bush wiggle room to ignore the call for withdrawal, and on Thursday Mr. Bush seized on that “qualifier,” as he called it. “I thought that made a lot of sense. I’ve always said we’d like our troops out as fast as possible.”

Mr. Bush was sensitive about commenting on the military recommendations put forth by the Iraq Study Group until he heard from his own commanders, according to a senior administration official, who was authorized to discuss the president’s point of view. “When you have your military leadership who are tasked with fighting this war, who are in the process of giving him military advice, you also have to be deferential to that,” this official said.

On Iran and Syria, Mr. Bush stuck to the conditions he set long ago for talks: Iran must abandon its nuclear program, and Syria must give up its support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. “If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it’s easy — just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict,” he said.

The Baker-Hamilton panel — five Republicans and five Democrats — made an intense plea for a bipartisan consensus, and Mr. Bush’s aides say the president has taken at least that part of their effort to heart. He met Wednesday with leaders of committees that oversee foreign affairs, defense and intelligence, and plans to meet with Republican and Democratic leaders on Friday.

The Wednesday meeting opened with Mr. Bush making an overture to Democrats, the senior official said, and telling them that although they may believe he has made the wrong decisions, they needed to work together. “The president started by saying that, you know, there’s a lot of water under the bridge, but that while we may not share all the views of this report, we ought to use it as an opportunity to work together,” the official said, adding, “I’ve been through a lot of those meetings, and sometimes you feel like people are going through the motions. And I felt yesterday that there was really a sincere effort, both Republican and Democrat, to say this could provide us an opportunity to find common ground.”

On Capitol Hill on Thursday, Republican and Democratic senators pressed Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton for ways that Congress could be involved in shaping the president’s response to the report — noting that the original impetus for the study group had come from Capitol Hill. “We’ve now heard from the Iraq Study Group, but we need the White House to become the Iraq Results Group,” said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York.

Mr. Baker replied by asking Congress to accept the report, saying that would put pressure on the administration to do the same. “If the Congress could come together behind supporting, let’s say, utopianly, all of the recommendations of this report, that would do a lot toward moving things downtown, in my opinion,” he said. Both he and Mr. Hamilton argued that cherry-picking the suggestions would not work.

“I hope we don’t treat this like a fruit salad and say, ‘I like this but I don’t like that. I like this, but I don’t like that,’ ” Mr. Baker said. “This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this problem we’re facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems that we face in the region, and to restore America’s standing and credibility in that part of the world.”

David S. Cloud contributed reporting.

    Bush Backs Away From 2 Key Ideas of Panel on Iraq, NYT, 8.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/world/middleeast/08prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House’s Religion-Based Initiative

December 2, 2006
The New York Times
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether private citizens are entitled to go to court to challenge activities of the White House office in charge of the Bush administration’s religion-based initiative.

A lower court had blocked a lawsuit challenging conferences the White House office holds for the purpose of teaching religious organizations how to apply and compete for federal grants. That constitutional challenge, by a group advocating the strict separation of church and state, was reinstated by an appeals court; the administration in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is one of three appeals the justices added to their calendar for argument in February. A question in one of the other cases is whether a public school principal in Juneau, Alaska, violated a student’s free-speech rights by suspending him from school for displaying, at a public off-campus event, a banner promoting drug use.

Together with a third new case, on whether federal land-management officials can be sued under the racketeering statute for actions they take against private landowners, the additions to the court’s docket raised the metabolism of what had begun to look like an unusually quiet term. It had been just short of a month since the justices accepted any new cases.

As in the case the justices heard on Wednesday on the administration’s refusal to regulate automobile emissions that contribute to climate change, the question in the White House case is the technical one of “standing to sue.” And as the argument on Wednesday demonstrated, standing is a crucially important aspect of litigation against the government.

In its lawsuit challenging the White House conferences, filed in Federal District Court in Madison, Wis., in 2004, an organization called the Freedom From Religion Foundation named as defendants more than a dozen administration officials who oversaw or participated in the conferences.

The lawsuit alleged that the officials were using tax dollars in ways that violated the separation of church and state required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. For example, the complaint quoted Rod Paige, then the secretary of education, as telling the audience at a 2002 White House conference that “we are here because we have a president, who is true, is a true man of God” and who wanted to enable “good people” to “act on their spiritual imperative” by running social service programs with federal financial support.

Judge John C. Shabaz of Federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, finding that the officials’ activities were not sufficiently tied to specific Congressional appropriations. Taxpayers’ objections to the use of general appropriations could not be a basis for standing, he said. The president’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative was created through a series of executive orders and not by Congress, he noted.

The decision was overturned, and the lawsuit reinstated, in a 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. Writing for the majority, Judge Richard A. Posner said the distinction cited by Judge Shabaz made no difference. Judge Posner said the plaintiffs were entitled to challenge the conferences “as propaganda vehicles for religion,” even if they were neither financed through a specific Congressional appropriation nor made grants directly to religious groups.

As a general matter, people do not have standing, based solely on their status as taxpayers, to challenge the expenditure of federal money. The Supreme Court’s precedents have carved out religion cases as an exception to this general rule.

In its appeal, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, No. 06-157, the administration is arguing the exception is a narrow one, “designed to prevent the specific historic evil of direct legislative subsidization of religious entities,” a definition that the administration says does not apply to the conferences. For the federal courts to permit such a lawsuit, its brief asserts, would upset “the delicate balance of power between the judicial and executive branches” and open the courthouse door to anyone with a “generalized grievance.”

The student free-speech case the justices accepted, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278, is an appeal by a high school principal, Deborah Morse, who suspended a student, Joseph Frederick, after an incident during the Olympic Torch Relay that came through Juneau in 2002. Students were allowed to leave class to watch the parade. Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 20-foot-long banner proclaiming “Bong hits 4 Jesus,” a reference to smoking marijuana.

When the student refused to take down the banner, claiming a First Amendment right to display it off school property, the principal confiscated it and eventually suspended him for 10 days. Mr. Frederick filed a lawsuit, which the Federal District Court in Juneau dismissed.

But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the punishment violated the student’s First Amendment rights and, further, that the principal was liable for damages, in an amount to be determined by the district court. Ms. Morse’s Supreme Court appeal challenges both the appeals court’s interpretation of the First Amendment and its refusal to shield her from financial liability through a doctrine known as qualified immunity.

The third new case, Wilkie v. Robbins, No. 06-219, is a government appeal on behalf of employees of the Bureau of Land Management in a dispute with a Wyoming landowner who charged them with using tactics amounting to extortion to get him to grant public access to his property. The federal appeals court in Denver held that a racketeering suit based on the extortion charge could proceed.

    Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House’s Religion-Based Initiative, NYT, 2.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/washington/02scotus.html

Bush to Meet With Head of Iraq Shiite Party

December 2, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER and EDWARD WONG

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — The White House said Friday that President Bush would meet next week with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of one of the most powerful Shiite parties in Iraq, the latest step in a burst of new administration attempts to try different approaches to bolstering the fragile Iraqi government.

The effort is part of a White House strategy that calls for reaching out to a wider circle of Iraqi politicians to give greater support to the weak government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and lessen his dependence on Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric.

But it immerses Washington even deeper into Baghdad’s byzantine coalition politics, and it risks being interpreted in Baghdad as a sign that Mr. Bush is hedging his bets.

“If you think Maliki may not survive,” said one senior administration official, “you’d want to make sure that the president is talking to the guy who might well form the next government.”

Mr. Hakim heads a party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, that is closely tied to Iran, so much so that just a few years ago, Washington shunned it. The party, usually referred to by its acronym, Sciri, was founded in Iran and its armed wing, the Badr Brigade, fought against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

The meeting comes at a time when the administration is overhauling its approach to dealing with Iraq’s leadership, though there are arguments over how deeply Washington can involve itself in the politics of a country in such political turmoil. One question is whether to tilt American support more heavily toward the majority Shiite government, rather than the minority Sunnis.

A senior Pentagon official said Friday that the Bush administration was also weighing whether to back away from efforts to reach out to Sunni extremists because the approach had not worked, and was alienating moderate Shiite groups.

But other administration officials insisted in interviews on Friday that they were not abandoning two years of efforts at reconciliation with the Sunnis, including former backers of Saddam Hussein.

Several officials involved in the many-layered internal discussions within the administration described its complex calculations about how to engage the various rivals in Baghdad; their common theme was that the White House needed to preserve its flexibility at a time of great flux in the administration’s policy, but none claimed to have a definitive explanation or would agree to be identified.

On Wednesday, Mr. Bush will receive the report of the Iraq Study Group, which includes a diplomatic strategy that calls on Mr. Bush to reverse policy and deal with the Iranians in an effort to stabilize Iraq. By meeting Mr. Hakim, Mr. Bush has a chance to open a channel to the Iranians and to pre-empt the study group’s criticism that he has been too slow to deal with American rivals in the region. Or, he could try to woo Mr. Hakim away from Tehran.

While administration officials suggested it was Mr. Hakim who sought the meeting, Mr. Hakim’s son, Amar al-Hakim, said in a telephone interview that the invitation came from Mr. Bush. The elder Hakim will discuss the Iraq situation with the president, conduct negotiations and visit Iraqis living in the United States, his son said, but he declined to talk in more detail. When asked whether Mr. Hakim was going to discuss matters related to Iran, with which Mr. Hakim has very close ties, his son said, “They’re only talking about Iraqi matters.”

The announcement of Mr. Hakim’s visit comes as the administration and American commanders are trying to get Mr. Maliki to distance himself from Mr. Sadr, whose militia, the Mahdi Army, has rebelled twice against the Americans and is widening the country’s sectarian rift through the killings of Sunni Arabs.

Mr. Maliki is beholden to Mr. Sadr because he lacks Mr. Hakim’s support. The Maliki-Sadr alliance was forged last spring when the religious Shiite coalition, which dominates the 275-member Parliament, held an internal vote to pick a candidate for prime minister. Mr. Sadr, who controls 30 seats in Parliament, threw his votes behind Mr. Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party, to keep Mr. Hakim’s candidate from the top job. Mr. Sadr and Mr. Hakim are fierce rivals, stretching back to the days when their fathers, both prominent clerics, competed for influence.

Mr. Hakim ceded the fight, mostly because the senior Shiite ayatollahs in Najaf, led by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have stressed the importance of unity to Shiite politicians.

The American reasoning, mentioned last month in a memorandum to Mr. Bush from his national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, was that if Mr. Hakim backed Mr. Maliki, then Mr. Maliki would not need Mr. Sadr. Mr. Hakim and Mr. Sadr, controlling 30 parliamentary seats each, have equal power in the Shiite coalition. While Mr. Hakim’s party is well organized, Mr. Sadr commands much greater popular support.

Though Mr. Hakim may want to undermine Mr. Sadr’s power, there are indications that he still wants his party to hold the position of prime minister, and so he might balk at supporting Mr. Maliki. In a recent interview, Mr. Hakim’s candidate for prime minister, Adel Abdul Mehdi, now a vice president, criticized Mr. Maliki’s soft approach to the problem of the Mahdi Army.

“The government should say they are going to take things into their own hands,” Mr. Abdul Mehdi said. “If it’s not going to, it should say, ‘I am weak,’ ” and, he implied, step aside for another Shiite leader.

American commanders rarely mention Mr. Hakim’s Badr Organization as a threat. In the first couple of years after the American invasion, many Sunni Arabs complained of abductions and killings by both it and the Mahdi Army. These days, the Sunnis and the Americans attribute militia violence almost exclusively to the Mahdi Army. Both Mr. Hakim and the Sunni leaders see Mr. Sadr as the biggest threat right now, and though they distrust each other deeply, they could decide to work together to oust Mr. Sadr.

Next month, President Bush is scheduled to meet with Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni Arab vice president and leader of the most powerful Sunni Arab party, a senior administration official said. Mr. Hashemi is a religious conservative and fiercely pro-Sunni. His political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, often issues reports of atrocities by Shiite militants.

A wild card in any power struggle among the Shiites would be Ayatollah Sistani. The elderly cleric has generally remained silent in recent months, apparently reluctant to involve himself too deeply in the political quagmire of Iraq. But if it looked like a severe Shiite split might take place, the ayatollah could step in and force the parties to make peace.

This week, though, Ayatollah Sistani said nothing when Mr. Sadr withdrew officials loyal to him — 30 parliamentarians and six ministers — from Mr. Maliki’s government. Baha al-Aaraji, a leader of the parliamentarians, said the Sadr officials would not return until Mr. Maliki had wrested more control of Iraqi forces from the Americans and improved basic services. In a news conference after his meeting with Mr. Bush, Mr. Maliki urged the Sadr followers to rejoin the government.

At Least 12 Iraqis Killed in Attacks

BAGHDAD, Dec. 1 (AP) — Sectarian attacks continued Friday in Baghdad, with at least 12 Iraqis killed and a Sunni Arab mosque damaged.

The one-story Quds mosque, in west Baghdad, was empty when it was attacked by men armed with guns and rocket-propelled grenades. In Sadiyah, a mainly Sunni area of Baghdad, a Shiite man was killed early on Friday and six relatives were wounded in twin bombings — one that drew them out of their house and a second that exploded outside, the police said. Later, bomb attacks in three areas of the capital killed six Iraqis and wounded 39, police said.

North of Baghdad, mortar rounds killed three civilians near Muqdadiya, and a suicide bomber attacking an American convoy killed two civilians in Kirkuk, the police said.

The bullet-ridden bodies of 14 Kurdish farmers were found west of the Syrian border, a provincial official said. Military officials said Friday that an American soldier was killed in Baghdad on Thursday.

David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Edward Wong from Baghdad. David S. Cloud contributed reporting from Washington.

    Bush to Meet With Head of Iraq Shiite Party, NYT, 2.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/middleeast/02policy.html?hp&ex=1165122000&en=d5937348d3dc9541&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Editorial

A Crack in the Stone Wall

November 30, 2006
The New York Times

It was one of the more outrageous moments in the story of the Bush administration’s illegal domestic wiretapping. Almost a year ago, Congressional Democrats called for a review of the Justice Department’s role in the program. But the department investigators assigned to do the job were unable to proceed because the White House, at President Bush’s personal direction, refused to give them the necessary security clearance.

Now the president, for reasons we can’t help thinking might have something to do with this month’s elections, has changed his mind. The White House will give Justice Department inspectors the required clearance, and a review will go forward.

That’s all to the good, as long as the investigation is not intended to pre-empt any efforts by the new Democratic majority to conduct its own Congressional review of the wiretap program. The Justice Department inquiry will hardly do the full job.

The department’s inspector general, Glenn Fine, has already said that the question of whether the program was legal is beyond his jurisdiction. Instead, he will investigate whether department employees followed the rules governing the program — rules that were established in a secret executive order signed by the president in October 2001.

Whether or not Justice Department employees followed the rules they were given may have bearing on their individual performance evaluations, but it will tell us very little else. Since the rules Mr. Bush established under his secret order will presumably stay secret, the investigation will not even help us to understand just how far from established legal standards he strayed when he authorized the government to eavesdrop on Americans’ international calls and e-mail without a court-issued warrant.

The Justice Department inquiry also will do nothing to fix the biggest problem with Mr. Bush’s eavesdropping program, which is that — once again — he ignored existing law and instead tried to create a system outside the law, resting on his dangerously expansive claims of executive power.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to conduct the wiretapping within the law, he could have quite easily done so, using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That law, written after the Watergate scandal and the eavesdropping abuses of the Vietnam era, created a special court to approve applications for domestic surveillance. The court operates in secret, and has rarely denied the authorities’ requests. Even in the post-9/11 era, it should have met the administration’s needs. And if there was a problem, Congress had shown itself ready and willing to amend the law.

Mr. Fine, who has proved himself willing to criticize administration operations before, could still provide an important — if limited — service. He says, for instance, that he will examine how information gleaned from the wiretaps was used to pursue criminal cases. That inquiry should be useful for those who have been wondering whether the enormous amount of information collected significantly helped antiterrorism efforts, or simply complicated them with a flood of unmanageable data.

The investigation might also help Congress understand whether FISA needs updating — something the administration has been loath to discuss as long as it has been able to end-run the court. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill aimed at making it easy for the government to get quick court approval of wiretaps on those suspected of terrorism or spying, has already said that nothing she has heard in secret briefings suggests that anything the administration needed could not have been conducted under FISA.

The question of the wiretap program’s constitutionality is now making its way through the courts and should ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Congress should not be satisfied with Mr. Fine’s very limited investigation. It should mount its own independent inquiry into how the war on terror, and American civil liberties, are being affected by an eavesdropping program about which we have been told so little.

    A Crack in the Stone Wall, NYT, 30.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/opinion/30thu1.html

Judge strikes down part of Bush anti-terror order

Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:18 PM ET
Reuters
By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal judge in Los Angeles, who previously struck down sections of the Patriot Act, has ruled that provisions of an anti-terrorism order issued by President George W. Bush after September 11 are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins found that part of the law, signed by Bush on September 23, 2001 and used to freeze the assets of terrorist organizations, violated the Constitution because it put no apparent limit on the president's powers to place groups on that list.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought against the Treasury Department in 2005 by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Collins also threw out a portion of Bush's order which applied the law to those who associate with the designated organizations.

"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists, an authority president Bush then used to empower the Secretary of the Treasury to impose guilt by association," said David Cole of the Washington-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

"The court's decision confirms that even in fighting terror, unchecked executive authority and trampling on fundamental freedoms is not a permissible option," he said in a statement

The 45-page decision, made public on Monday, came in response to petitions by both sides to throw out the lawsuit and rule in their favor. The judge allowed to stand part of the order that would penalize those providing services to groups on the list.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of five organizations, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, which wants to create a separate state for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, which represents Kurds in Turkey.

Both groups had been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.

In 2004 Collins struck down a section of the Patriot Act that prohibited lawyers from providing expert advice to groups suspected of having terrorist links.

    Judge strikes down part of Bush anti-terror order, R, 28.11.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-11-29T021821Z_01_N28295799_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-JUDGE-BUSH.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-1

Bush Blames Al Qaeda for Wave of Iraq Violence

November 28, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JOHN O’NEIL

TALLINN, Estonia, Nov. 28 — President Bush today said Al Qaeda was to blame for the rising wave of sectarian violence in Iraq, which he refused to label a civil war. Mr. Bush said he would press Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, during meetings in Jordan later this week to lay out a strategy for restoring order.

“My questions to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?” said Mr. Bush. “I will assure him that we will continue to pursue Al Qaeda to make sure that they do not establish a safe haven in Iraq.”

The remarks, made at a press conference here with President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia, were Mr. Bush’s first on the situation in Iraq since a series of bombs exploded in a Shiite district of Baghdad last Thursday, killing more than 200 people. The bombing was the deadliest single attack since the American invasion.

The following day, Shiite militiamen staged a vengeful reprisal, attacking Sunni mosques in Baghdad and in the nearby city of Baquba.

The growing cycle of violence have prompted warnings from world leaders, including Jordan’s King Abdullah and Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, that the country is at the brink of civil war.

But Mr. Bush, who heads to Jordan on Wednesday for two days of meetings with Mr. Maliki, dismissed a question about whether a civil war has indeed erupted.

“There’s all kinds of speculation about what may or may not be happening,” he said, adding, “No question about it, it’s tough.”

Mr. Bush also had harsh words for Syria and Iran, and reiterated his stance that he does not intend to negotiate directly with them to enlist their help in ending the violence in Iraq. He said he would leave such talks to the government of Iraq, “a sovereign nation which is conducting its own foreign policy.”

The president acknowledged that there were high levels of sectarian violence in Iraq, but he put the blame for the disorder squarely on Al Qaeda.

“There’s a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented, in my opinion, because of the attacks by Al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal,” Mr. Bush said, adding that he planned to work with Mr. Maliki “to defeat these elements.”

Referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq who was killed by American forces over the summer, he added, “The plan of Mr. Zarqawi was to foment sectarian violence.”

Mr. Bush’s remarks are at odds with statements made in recent weeks both by American military commanders and by Mr. Maliki.

While American military and intelligence officials credit Al Qaeda’s attack on a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February with having sparked waves of sectarian violence, more recently the officials have consistently described a more complicated picture. Earlier this month, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples of the Defense Intelligence Agency characterized the situation before Congress as an “ongoing, violent struggle for power.”

That assessment was more in line with Mr. Maliki’s declaration after the recent bombings that such attacks are “the reflection of political backgrounds” and that “the crisis is political.”

In a televised briefing in Baghdad today, the senior spokesman for the American military in Iraq said that the already high levels of violence in the capital were likely to increase in the coming weeks in reaction to last week’s bombings.

In addition, the spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, said that mortar and rocket attacks between Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods were on the rise. A mortar attack followed the bombings last Thursday, and had been part of an attack earlier that day on the Health Ministry, which is controlled by Shiite parties. Shiite militias responded with their own mortar attacks, he said.

General Caldwell described Al Qaeda as having been “severely disorganized” by American and Iraqi efforts this year, but said it is still “the most well-funded of any group and can produce the most sensational attacks of any element out there.”

He summarized the continuing violence in Baghdad this way: Shiite militias conducting murders and assassinations in the city’s Sunni western section, and Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda staging “high visibility casualty events” in the city’s predominantly Shiite east.

General Caldwell declined to say that the country was engulfed in a civil war, saying that Iraq’s government continues to function and that the conflict did not involve “another viable entity that’s vying to take control.”

The question of whether the fighting constitutes a civil war has becoming an increasingly sensitive one for the Bush administration, as Democrats cite agreement among a wide range of academic and military experts that the conflict meets most standard definitions of the term.

General Caldwell conceded that struggles for political and economic power were taking place on many levels throughout the country, including fights among Shiite groups seeking dominance in the south and among Sunni elements in Iraq’s west.

“The political parties need to start reining in their extremist elements,” he said.

At the same briefing, a spokesman for the Air Force said that the body of the pilot of an F-16 jet fighter that crashed northwest of Baghdad had not been found at the crash site. The spokesman said that it could not be determined from the position of the ejection seat whether the pilot had been able to get out before the crash, and said that DNA tests were being conducted on blood found at the scene.

Mr. Bush’s agenda today and tomorrow is supposed to focus on the spread of democracy in the Baltic nations and on Afghanistan, which will top the agenda at a N.A.T.O. summit in Riga, Latvia, where he arrived after his visit to Tallinn — the first trip to Estonia ever by a sitting United States president.

The alliance has committed 32,000 troops to Afghanistan, but many nations have imposed restrictions on the activities and deployment of their troops that N.A.T.O. commanders say are hampering the mission. Mr. Bush is expected to press for the lifting of those restrictions.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Estonia and John O’Neil reported from New York.

    Bush Blames Al Qaeda for Wave of Iraq Violence, NYT, 28.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-prexy.html?hp&ex=1164776400&en=b1465d36fd484434&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This Thanksgiving, Bush Team and Iraq Leaders Face Range of New Realities

November 23, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — Three years ago this week, President Bush made a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to Baghdad, where he told a group of stunned soldiers that the United States did not wage a bloody war to depose Saddam Hussein “only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.”

Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will spend this Thanksgiving at Camp David, in part for a discussion about the meeting recently scheduled for next week between Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq, in Amman, Jordan. There, Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki will have to contend with the thuggery and killing that continues to plague Iraq three years after that hopeful Thanksgiving Day visit.

White House officials said Wednesday that Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki would discuss a range of issues — from giving the Iraqis more control over security forces to American frustrations with the pace of the disarmament of militias in Iraq to the new political realities facing the president with the newly elected Democratic Congress, many of whose members are calling for some sort of withdrawal from Iraq.

The meeting comes as the administration, fresh off Republican losses and its subsequent announced ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is considering a significant change in approach to the war in Iraq, which will surpass World War II in duration on Sunday. Officials acknowledge that the change that is in the air in Washington is causing unease for leaders in Iraq.

“It’s an important period we’re in with Iraq and for his government, and there is a lot of speculation going on,” said Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor. “The president will assure the prime minister that he’s the one who sets foreign policy for the country.”

Stephen J. Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, told reporters on Tuesday night that Mr. Bush would also discuss with Mr. Maliki the roles that Iran and Syria could play in helping to stabilize Iraq, rather than to inflame it.

But White House officials appeared to play down expectations for the meeting, with Mr. Hadley telling reporters, “We’re not looking for a big, bold announcement.”

In diplomatic circles, the visit was being taken as an attempt to send a clear signal that Mr. Bush was intensely focused on Iraq after a losing election that has been seen as a referendum on the war. The meeting comes as the Iraq Study Group, being led in part by James A. Baker III, his father’s longtime friend and adviser, is moving toward releasing a blueprint for a new approach to Iraq.

“I think after Nov. 7 they have to demonstrate that they’re seriously looking — turning every stone — for a strategy that will work,” said Ivo H. Daalder, a national security official for President Clinton and now a scholar at the Brookings Institution.

Mr. Daalder said the administration appeared in part to be trying to pre-empt the study group’s widely expected call for direct talks with the Iranians and the Syrians about the security situation in Iraq.

But two administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could speak freely about internal matters, said in private conversations that it would be unlikely that the president would do anything that could be seen as pre-empting Mr. Baker’s report, though they bristled at its expected suggestion of direct talks between the United States and Iran and Syria on Iraq.

Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, David M. Satterfield, the State Department coordinator for Iraq, said the United States was prepared “in principle” to enter a “direct dialogue” with Iran to speak about Iraq, but that the timing of such talks was undecided. Mr. Satterfield dismissed any similar consideration for Syria.

Officials have been trying to emphasize that there are regional allies other than Syria and Iran that can help stabilize Iraq. In announcing that the president would meet Mr. Maliki in Jordan, Mr. Hadley said, “Jordan has been very helpful and supportive of the unity government in Iraq.” The White House announced Wednesday that Vice President Dick Cheney would travel at the end of the week to Saudi Arabia, another key ally in the region. Mr. Hadley said that at the top of Mr. Bush’s agenda with Mr. Maliki would be the results of a joint commission they impaneled several weeks ago to study ways to transfer more control over security forces to Mr. Maliki’s government.

That is one of several studies under way, including the one being overseen by Mr. Baker — along with the former Democratic congressman Lee H. Hamilton — and reviews under way by the National Security Council and the Pentagon. Those reviews will give Mr. Bush an array of options beyond any that come from Mr. Baker’s group.

Speaking aboard Air Force One on Tuesday night, Mr. Hadley suggested that Mr. Bush would spend the holiday weekend going over reports from the administration reviews still in progress as he considers a new course in Iraq.

“There are many voices the president will want to listen to,” Mr. Hadley said, including those of the new Congress and Mr. Baker’s commission. But, Mr. Hadley said, what is no less important will be the opinion of Mr. Maliki, “who’s obviously been developing his own ideas on the way forward.”

Thom Shanker and Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

    This Thanksgiving, Bush Team and Iraq Leaders Face Range of New Realities, NYT, 23.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/world/middleeast/23policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Turkey Is Spared After a Scare From Barney

November 22, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:18 p.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- He was going to pardon the National Thanksgiving Turkey anyway, but President Bush figured he really owed the bird this time. His dog had just scared the stuffing out of it.

Bush spared the turkey -- named ''Flyer'' in an online vote -- during a Rose Garden ceremony on Wednesday. The backup bird, ''Fryer,'' was also pardoned but nowhere to be seen on this raw day.

The president explained that his Scottish Terrier, Barney, got involved this year. The presidential dog typically gets his exercise by chasing a soccer ball around the Rose Garden.

''He came out a little early, as did Flyer,'' Bush said. ''And instead of chasing the soccer ball, he chased the bird. And it kind of made the turkey nervous. See, the turkey was nervous to begin with. Nobody's told him yet about the pardon I'm about to give him.''

Bush announced that the birds would be sent off to Disneyland in California to be the honorary grand marshals of a Thanksgiving Day Parade, just like their predecessors a year ago.

At one point, Bush moved in for a closer look at Flyer, a well-behaved bird raised in Missouri. He petted the turkey's head and back before inviting a couple dozen Girl Scouts to come up and join him.

''It's a fine looking bird, isn't it?'' Bush said.

The popular pardon ceremony dates to the days of President Harry Truman in 1947.

Yet savoring turkeys, not saving them, is the agenda for millions of people on Thanksgiving Day.

The typical American consumes more than 13 pounds of turkey a year, with a good serving of it coming at Thanksgiving.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals urged Bush to send the pardoned turkeys to an animal sanctuary, where ''they will get the exercise and socialization that they need to live longer, happier lives.''

In return, the group offered Bush a feast of Tofu turkey, vegetarian stuffing and a vegan apple pie.

Just back from a trip to Asia, Bush and his wife Laura will spend the holiday at Camp David before another international trip early next week to the Baltics and the Middle East.

The Bushes left the White House early Wednesday afternoon and arrived at the presidential retreat.

The first family's menu for Thanksgiving includes free-range roasted turkey, cornbread dressing, zucchini gratin, whipped maple sweet potatoes, basil chive red potato mash and pumpkin pie.

----

On The Net:

White House Thanksgiving:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/holiday/thanksgiving/2006/index.html

    Turkey Is Spared After a Scare From Barney, NYT, 22.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Turkey-Pardon.html?hp&ex=1164258000&en=e56c55574eccc8e4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

A Tough Road Ahead for the President’s Closest Adviser

November 19, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — Karl Rove, the top White House political strategist, is coming off the worst election defeat of his career to face a daunting task: saving the president’s agenda with a Congress not only controlled by Democrats, but also filled with Republican members resentful of the way he and the White House conducted the losing campaign.

White House officials say President Bush has every intention of keeping Mr. Rove on through the rest of his term. And Mr. Rove’s associates say he intends to stay, with the goal of at least salvaging Mr. Bush’s legacy and, in the process, his own.

But serious questions remain about how much influence Mr. Rove can wield and how high a profile he can assume in Washington after being so closely identified with this year’s Republican losses, not to mention six years of often brutal attacks on the same Democrats in line to control Congress for the remainder of Mr. Bush’s presidency.

Things have not gotten off to a great start since the election. Democrats are taking Mr. Rove’s continued influence at the White House — as well as some of its recent moves, like nominating conservative judges for the federal bench — as a sign that Mr. Bush’s conciliatory pledges of bipartisanship will prove to be fleeting.

“Karl’s role has not been to serve as a bridge over troubled waters; he has tried to stir the waters as often as possible,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who will be the second-most powerful person in the Senate next year. “Maybe he got religion on Nov. 7, but we’ll see.”

Republicans on Capitol Hill said anger ran deep over Mr. Bush’s decision to announce the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld one day after the election instead of weeks before, when some say it could have kept the Senate in their party’s hands and limited Democratic gains in the House. Mr. Rove was among those at the White House who had argued that to announce Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation before Election Day would have been tantamount to affirming criticism that the war in Iraq was failing, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

“There is lingering resentment on that,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said of the timing of the announcement. Asked if he expected the White House to take as much of a lead in setting the Congressional agenda as it had in the past, Mr. Flake responded flatly, “No, I don’t.”

More broadly, many Republicans say they blame Mr. Rove for failing to heed warnings that the war was hurting their campaigns, as the president and the vice president continued making the case for it on the stump.

“I would say that brilliant as he is, he was not right,” said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who counts himself among those who believe that Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation could have helped the party maintain control of the Senate. “I think Rove misread the anger of the American people about Iraq.”

Mr. Specter said the White House should be prepared to step back and concede some power to Congressional leaders.

Mr. Rove declined to be interviewed for this article.

The White House seems aware of the apparently limited influence in Congress of Mr. Rove, the aide most closely identified with Mr. Bush. Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, was dispatched to the Hill this week to hold meetings with members, suggesting that he is likely to play a more prominent role.

But Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said in an interview this week that Mr. Rove’s main job was not emissary to Congress. “That’s not the position he played in the past,” Mr. Bartlett said.

Rather, administration officials said, Mr. Rove’s main role had always been within the White House itself. Mr. Rove has derived his real power from his long and complicated relationship with Mr. Bush, and he has the president’s ear on a wide array of political and policy matters.

Mr. Rove’s policy oversight duties were taken away after the difficult first two years of Mr. Bush’s second term, and he was directed to focus more closely on the midterm elections. Since the outcome, Mr. Bush has given no indication that Mr. Rove’s role will change further. But he could not resist a dig at his old friend, telling reporters Mr. Rove was beating him in a book-reading contest because “I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was.”

Officials said afterward that the comment was typical of Mr. Bush’s rough teasing of his longtime friend.

And Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Rove would continue to play a central role in Mr. Bush’s final two years. “He’s going to be an integral player because his value to the president and the White House goes far beyond his political skill set,” Mr. Bartlett said. “He has an enormous amount of responsibility to help strategize in our efforts to help get things done.”

Republicans close to the White House say Mr. Rove has been arguing that the White House needs to shore up its standing with conservatives, whose support will be crucial to rebuild Mr. Bush’s popularity and ultimately give him some leverage.

Reflecting that strategy, Mr. Bush sent Congress a slate of conservative judicial nominees, which was taken as a provocation by Democrats who had previously rejected them. A close associate of Mr. Rove’s suggested that the strategy was first to placate conservatives, then tack to the middle to strike deals with Democrats on immigration reform or Social Security.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a close ally of Mr. Rove’s, said the best role for Mr. Rove would to be to help Republicans regain the House, the Senate and the presidency in 2008.

“Karl is a key player in that,” Mr. Norquist said, adding that he is going to need cooperation from the Republicans taking party leadership roles in Congress.

But Republicans do not seem to be feeling like much of a team right now, let alone one that will look to Mr. Rove as its leader.

White House officials say some of the ire against Mr. Rove in particular and the White House in general will pass.

Mr. Rove has told his associates the party still has a good-size Congressional minority that will assert its influence over the next two years.

And some in that minority expressed confidence. “We’ve sort of gone through the grieving process,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a close Republican ally of Mr. Rove’s. “Now we’re in the process of coming up with an agenda.”

    A Tough Road Ahead for the President’s Closest Adviser, NYT, 19.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19rove.html

Bush to Put Nominations Back on Table

November 16, 2006
The New York Times
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — White House officials said Wednesday that President Bush would renominate six of his earlier choices to sit on the federal appeals court, leaving Democratic senators and other analysts to ponder what message he is sending.

At least four of the nominations have been declared dead on arrival in the Senate by Democrats who have consistently opposed them as unacceptable. All six nominations will remain before the Senate through the lame-duck session of Congress and then will expire.

When the 110th Congress is seated in January, Mr. Bush can deliver another list of judicial nominees to the Senate, which will by then have a Democratic majority.

Mr. Bush’s motive in sending up the nominations has been closely analyzed, with several Democrats and liberals labeling it as provocative and a sign that he does not intend to seek compromise as he suggested he would after Republican losses in the elections last week.

“Democrats have asked the president to be bipartisan, but this is a clear slap in the face at our request,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. “For the sake of the country, we hope that this is an aberration because the president feels he must placate his hard-right base rather than an indication of things to come.”

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who will be the leader of the Judiciary Committee, said, “Barely a week after the president promised to change course by working in a bipartisan and cooperative way with Congress, it is disappointing that he has decided to ‘stay the course’ on judicial nominees.”

But Edward Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who has supported Mr. Bush’s judicial nominations throughout the first term, said Democrats were engaging in “rhetorical gamesmanship.” He said that despite the changed numbers in the Senate, Mr. Bush was not obliged to offer a unilateral surrender. He said the president was resubmitting the nominees for the lame-duck session because Democrats had refused to comply with the usual courtesy and moved to have the nominations expire at the last recess.

The four nominees whose chances of confirmation are viewed as nearly impossible are: William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon’s general counsel who was involved in setting many of the interrogation policies for detainees; William G. Myers III, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries and a critic of environmental regulations; Terrence W. Boyle, a district court judge in North Carolina; and Michael B. Wallace of Mississippi, a lawyer rated unqualified for the court by the American Bar Association.

The other nominees, who have not aroused as much opposition, are N. Randy Smith, a district judge in Idaho, and Peter D. Keisler, assistant attorney general for the civil division of the Justice Department.

    Bush to Put Nominations Back on Table, NYT, 16.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/washington/16nominees.html

Bush, Team to Meet With Iraq Study Group

November 12, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:45 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's chief of staff said Sunday ''nobody can be happy with the situation'' now in Iraq and the White House would consider the idea of U.S. talks with Syria and Iran if a blue-ribbon commission recommended that.

President Bush and his national security team planned to meet Monday with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is trying to develop a new course for the war.

''We're looking forward to the recommendations,'' said Josh Bolten, Bush's top aide. With Democrats seizing majorities in the House and Senate in last week's elections and urging a change in Iraq policy, Bolten said the White House is ''looking forward to a dialogue with bipartisan leaders in Congress.''

''Everybody's objective here is to succeed in Iraq. I think that's true of Democrats as well as Republicans. But the president has said we need to get fresh eyes on the problem. We need a fresh perspective,'' Bolten said.

Already, military commanders are re-evaluating strategy to determine what changes are needed ''to get ourselves more focused on the correct objectives,'' the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said last week.

The administration, Bolten said, ''has always been ready to make a course adjustment'' in Iraq.

''Nobody can be happy with the situation in Iraq right now. Everybody's been working hard, but what we've been doing has not worked well enough or fast enough,'' Bolten said. ''So it's clearly time to put fresh eyes on the problem. The president has always been interested in tactical adjustments. But the ultimate goal remains the same, which is success in Iraq.''

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group with ex-Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, has questioned the administration's policy of not talking to the Iranians or Syrians, whom the United States has accused of helping terrorism, about cooperating on a way to end the violence in Iraq and stabilize the country.

Bolten, asked in an interview with CNN's ''Late Edition'' whether the administration was open to talking to Iran and Syria, said ''nothing is off the table. All the options will be considered'' from the commission.

''There's been lots of talking with Iran and Syria over the years ... The important thing is what do the Iraqis want,'' he said.

''The problem hasn't been a lack of communication. But we'll look at whatever the Baker-Hamilton commission come up with because there are a lot of good smart people there and see what they're recommendations are,'' Bolten said.

Iran's hard-line Shiite theocracy maintains close ties to Iraqi Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's population and dominate the government. Iraq's Sunnis are highly suspicious of such ties.

The U.S. has accused Syria of facilitating the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who plans to speak to the commission via video link on Tuesday, reportedly will urge the administration to open talks with Syria and Iran and push for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a way of defusing Mideast tensions.

Bolten was whether the administration was ready to make a new effort to get involved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. ''We'll see. The timing has to be right and it has to be something that both the Israelis and the Palestinians want,'' he said.

    Bush, Team to Meet With Iraq Study Group, NYT, 12.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html

In Gates Selection, White House Hopes to Close Rift Between State and Defense

November 12, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 — President Bush selected Robert M. Gates as his new defense secretary in part to close a long-running rift between the Defense Department and the State Department that has hobbled progress on Iraq, keeping the two agencies at odds on issues ranging from reconstruction to detaining terrorism suspects, according to White House officials and members of Mr. Gates’s inner circle.

While Mr. Gates, a former director of central intelligence, had long been considered for a variety of roles, over the past two months Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quietly steered the White House toward replacing Donald H. Rumsfeld with Mr. Gates, who had worked closely with Ms. Rice under the first President Bush. One senior participant in those discussions, who declined to be identified by name while talking about internal deliberations, said, “everyone realizes that we don’t have much time to get this right” and the first step is to get “everyone driving on the same track.”

White House officials said that goal may be difficult to accomplish in the seventh year of an administration. Ms. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld never managed to resolve their differences, especially after their arguments over the handling of the occupation came into public view in late summer 2003. As national security adviser during Mr. Bush’s first term, Ms. Rice was unable to halt a war between the State Department and the Pentagon that put senior officials in the departments in a state of constant conflict.

The question now is whether it is simply too late to achieve President Bush’s goal of a stable and democratic Iraq, even if Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice are able to work together as smoothly in altering policy as they did 15 years ago on a very different kind of problem, managing the American response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

A few members of the Iraq Study Group — the commission created in March at the urging of members of Congress and led by James A. Baker III, from which Mr. Gates stepped down on Friday — have wondered aloud in recent days whether the insurgency and sectarian conflict in Iraq may be too far advanced to reverse. The group will consult with the British prime minister, Tony Blair, by video on Tuesday and is due to present recommendations to the White House and Congress in December.

And while Mr. Gates, who faces Senate confirmation hearings at roughly the same time, is considered far less combative and contrarian than Mr. Rumsfeld, he has a long-ago history of conflict with secretaries of state, most notably George P. Shultz, who objected to Mr. Gates’s hawkish views of the Soviet Union and once tried to have him fired.

He is being thrust into the job at a moment when Democrats, newly empowered by their control of the House and the Senate, are promising investigations into the conduct of the war in Iraq and demanding a far greater voice in Iraq policy.

Nor is it clear how Mr. Gates will deal with Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney worked for years to protect Mr. Rumsfeld, who had hired him for his first government job, and the top echelons of the Defense Department have been peppered with Cheney protégés. Many of them have told associates they expect to be leaving, as Mr. Gates takes over with a mandate, in Mr. Bush’s words, to approach the job with “fresh eyes.”

White House officials would say little on the record about the deliberations that led to the selection of Mr. Gates, 63, the president of Texas A&M University. But on Friday, they rejected the conventional wisdom in Washington that his selection amounts to a resurrection of the advisers to Mr. Bush’s father, or a resurgence of realism to rescue a war started with the ideological certainty that toppling Saddam Hussein would help spread democracy across the Middle East.

“It dumbs this whole thing down to say that this is the victory of the pragmatists over the ideologues,” said Daniel Bartlett, the president’s counselor, who took part in the secret decisions to oust Mr. Rumsfeld and bring in Mr. Gates. “We are going to be practical in some respects, and ideological in others. But we knew that we needed a defense secretary who could hit the ground running and who was very familiar with the challenges we face.”

A national security official who served under Ms. Rice in President Bush’s first term said she regularly consulted with Mr. Gates, particularly on intelligence matters. “When she needed to figure out what had gone wrong at the C.I.A., she turned to him,” the official said.

Perhaps so, but Mr. Gates’s friends say he will approach the current Iraq policy with a healthy skepticism. Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor and a Democrat who has known Mr. Gates for two decades and dealt with him on a variety of intelligence issues, describes him as “a realist, a conservative realist.”

“He is open to evidence and less likely to be driven by fads, or the ideological certainties that sped this administration off course,” Mr. Nye said. Mr. Gates’s “frame of reference is more where Condoleezza Rice used to be, before the administration’s excursion into democracy promotion.”

In his memoirs, Mr. Gates writes of working with Ms. Rice, then a mid-level aide in the National Security Council, on a variety of projects, including the preparation of secret contingency plans in 1989 for the possibility that Mikhail S. Gorbachev might be overthrown and the Soviet Union descend into chaos.

Now, in a new partnership 17 years later, officials say their task is to guide Mr. Bush through even more treacherous waters: finding a way to stabilize Iraq, while devising options for the United States if the weak Iraqi government collapses or full-scale civil war breaks out.

All those possibilities have been debated by members of the Iraq Study Group. Mr. Gates was chosen as a Republican member of that commission by Mr. Baker, though the two occasionally clashed during the first Bush administration.

In his 1995 memoir, “The Politics of Diplomacy,” Mr. Baker recounted his fury at learning in 1989 that Mr. Gates, then deputy national security adviser, intended to give a speech predicting that Mr. Gorbachev would not remain in power for much longer.

“When Gates had been at the C.I.A., he had given a speech that had completely undercut George Shultz on Soviet policy,” Mr. Baker wrote. “That had hurt President Reagan then, and this would hurt George Bush now,” he continued, referring to the first President Bush. Mr. Baker killed the speech.

In his long cold war experience as a C.I.A. director and deputy national security adviser, Mr. Gates never had to cope with an insurgency the size of the one that has erupted in Iraq, or devise a strategy for containing a battle between rival Islamic groups.

Last summer he told the Council on Foreign Relations that “we have the old line in the intelligence business that everything we want to know is divided into two categories: secrets and mysteries.” Iraq, he said, “is very much the latter.”

Yet together with Ms. Rice, Mr. Gates is expected to have to put into action recommendations by the study group that are likely to call for initiatives involving European allies and Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East. The new plans are expected to mix diplomacy, the training of Iraqi troops and the use of American force to quell the violence in Baghdad, and to require close coordination between the Departments of State and Defense.

“They needed someone who was not only capable but willing to try something new,” said a former Gates colleague who has followed the process closely and who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Once these recommendations come out, some are going to be Gates’s to carry out, and some are going to be Rice’s.”

Mr. Gates has at times been critical of Bush administration policies, most clearly in the case of how to deal with Iran, which administration officials fear is manipulating Shiite militias in Iraq. Along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, his former boss on President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council, he called in 2004 for a new approach, including talks with Tehran and expansion of and cultural contacts. So far, Mr. Bush has rejected most of that advice.

“He defies labels,” said Bobby R. Inman, an old friend and former C.I.A. colleague of Mr. Gates. “His orientation is to solving problems.”

In 1994, he endorsed with some reservations the idea of missile strikes to take out North Korean nuclear facilities. “Unless they believe we can and will use our strength, there is little chance of influencing them,” he wrote. “A nuclear North Korea is the price we have paid to learn this lesson.”

Similarly, in 1997, he proposed “a powerful air and missile campaign” to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring unconventional weapons.

But in 1998, he took a less bellicose approach in a prescient article on terrorism, written after the bombings at American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He said the United States had to consider “whether to make a war against terrorism our highest priority in foreign policy.”

He counseled caution, arguing that “retributive violence, no matter how massive, almost inevitably begets more violence against us in response.” He advised a combination of terrorist arrests, targeted military action and promotion of human rights and political freedom in the Middle East.

    In Gates Selection, White House Hopes to Close Rift Between State and Defense, NYT, 12.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/washington/12gates.html

This Election, Modest Tour for President

November 3, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG

BILLINGS, Mont., Nov. 2 — If there is one thing the White House can usually count on when President Bush campaigns in small, Republican-leaning cities like this one, it is friendly wall-to-wall news coverage of his arrival. And his visit here on Thursday did make the front page of The Billings Gazette.

But news of his impending arrival took second billing in the paper. It ran below the fold and under a package of articles about the return of a local sailor’s body from Iraq, accompanied by a photograph of the flag-draped coffin at Billings Logan International Airport.

Mr. Bush’s visit certainly was the subject of local talk radio. But it was mixed with grim talk of newspaper endorsements for the Democratic candidate for Senate here, Jon Tester, leading a local conservative radio host to tell a dejected caller he doubted endorsements were any more influential than “visits of luminaries or stars or political mucky-mucks coming in from the national scene.”

During the last two elections, the fumes of Air Force One worked like political magic dust for the candidates lucky enough to score visits from Mr. Bush.

Candidates flew to Washington just to be seen arriving back home on his 747. Local newspapers doubled as welcome mats, and television reporters and radio hosts excitedly echoed his verbal jabs at Democrats long after he had left.

But 2006 is not 2004 or, for that matter, 2002, when Mr. Bush’s last minute, 17-city tour won credit for helping his party buck history by gaining seats in a midterm election cycle in which it also held the presidency.

This time around, Mr. Bush is a less popular president and is on a more modest tour. He is visiting carefully chosen districts and states like this one, where he won handily in 2004 and where his aides believe he can provide pivotal help in the tight election battle between Senator Conrad Burns and Mr. Tester, whose lead over Mr. Burns has shrunk in recent weeks. Mr. Burns’s seat is one of six that could determine which party controls the Senate.

Mr. Bush is more popular here than he is elsewhere in the country, with an approval rating of 45 percent, according to the Montana State University-Billings poll. But that is considerably lower than it was two years ago, and his visit showed the new political reality that confronts him wherever he goes this election season, even in usually solid patches of Bush Country like this one: With those low poll ratings and bad news out of Iraq inescapable, his visits are as likely to galvanize the other side as they are to buck up local Republicans.

That new dynamic, helped along by new technology, played out on the local political blog featured on the Gazette’s Web edition. There were plenty of excited posts like this one, from “JJ,” “I’m anxiously waiting to see the president of this beautiful country! I am a Republican and proud to be!!! I admire Bush and agree with what he stands for as a human being and our President!”

But there were angry rejoinders, such as this dispatch from “NOT my president”: “Never, in the history of our ‘compassionate’ country, have I been as ashamed of a person as I am with the man who currently lives in the White House.”

In a state where Mr. Bush beat Senator John Kerry by 20 percentage points two years ago, it was all too much for “SHOCKED,” who wrote: “I am just shocked at the hatred that has been shown in these blogs toward our president. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for acting like children rather then rational grownups. What is happening to America??”

Similar scenes have played out across the country as Mr. Bush has begun stumping more vigorously for candidates. In the Republican stronghold of LaPlume, Pa., when Mr. Bush went to raise money for Representative Don Sherwood, an embattled Republican incumbent, a local radio host lamented news that students would protest the president, saying, “It’s not cool to like President Bush these days.”

In an article about Mr. Bush’s planned visit on Friday to the conservative enclave of Le Mars, Iowa, The Des Moines Register quoted Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, as saying the president’s visit could be “a marginal plus” when local conservatives are so deflated.

But here in Billings it was a plus that Mr. Burns’s campaign was eager to have, giving the president full coverage on local television.

Republican strategists say Mr. Bush is not going to have the same influence he had in 2002 — the first elections after the Sept. 11 attacks, when his approval ratings were exceptionally high — or in 2004, when he was a candidate with tens of millions of dollars of advertising promoting him. But party officials say he is still the name-brand Republican for base voters.

“Despite a challenging election cycle, he’s a singular force,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

And aboard Air Force One, a senior White House official said Montana was one of two Senate contests where Mr. Bush’s top strategists believe he can have the most impact. “In a smaller community,” he said, “you get so much more buzz.”

And buzz Mr. Bush did get. The two major local news stations broke into regular programming to show Air Force One landing, though neither Mr. Burns, nor the other candidate for whom Mr. Bush was stumping, Representative Denny Rehberg, went to meet the plane.

“It’s an amazing experience,” said Jodi Hathaway, the correspondent on KULR, the local NBC affiliate. “It’s just really amazing to see this very famous, famous piece of aircraft.”

On KTVQ, the local CBS affiliate, the anchor Alex Tyson said in hushed tones as the camera focused on the aircraft, “Again we are awaiting the president of the United States to get off of Air Force One.”

But Ms. Tyson added that the latest New York Times/CBS poll showed some of “the lowest ratings of Mr. Bush’s presidency,” and only “29 percent approve of his handling of Iraq, so it will be interesting to see what he says in his speech this hour with regard to the war.”

Her viewers did not have to wait to find out, as KTVQ and KULR ran the speech live, in its entirety, over roughly 40 minutes, without interruption. Mr. Bush addressed Iraq head-on before 5,000 cheering supporters, saying: “The only way we can fail is if we leave before the job is done. And that’s exactly what the Democrats want to do.”

That charge, as well as his assertion that Democrats would raise taxes, led the local newscasts, with the anchor Emily Nantz relaying his statement that voters should make their choices based on two issues: “who will tax people less,” she said, “and which party will keep Americans safe.” That segment was soon followed, however, by a report on the few dozen protesters calling for an end to the war.

Matt McKenna, a spokesman for Mr. Tester, said Mr. Bush’s visit would serve to “fire up” Democrats because local voters had a problem with “not just the president, but anybody who comes from out of state who tries to push us around and tell us how to vote.”

But Mr. Burns’s spokesman, Jason Klindt, said he was not worried about that. “How could the other side get more riled up?” Mr. Klindt said. “They already are.”

He said Mr. Bush had provided a crucial spark for local Republicans.

Kristi Angel, managing editor of the Gazette, said the visit would get plenty more coverage in Friday’s newspaper, and said it would have gotten better play on Thursday had it not been for the arrival of the body of the dead sailor, Petty Officer Second Class Chuck Komppa of the Navy.

“That is our first really local soldier that’s been killed in combat,” Ms. Angel said.

    This Election, Modest Tour for President, 3.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/politics/03impact.html?hp&ex=1162616400&en=aebd9e94236119b2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush Shores Up His Base as Democrats Spot Opening

November 3, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE and ANNE E. KORNBLUT

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Trying to save a threatened Western Senate seat, President Bush on Thursday urged Montana voters to re-elect Senator Conrad Burns to help place conservative judges on the federal bench. And in Arizona, Democrats decided to pump money into the race for Senate, saying early voting patterns showed an unexpected opening.

Working his way through a region that has traditionally been reliably Republican, Mr. Bush used stops in Billings, Mont., and later in Elko, Nev., to raise the specter of Democrats blocking his judicial choices.

“Senator Conrad Burns understands the importance of having good judges on the federal bench,” said Mr. Bush, saying he was happy to be in a place where cowboy hats outnumbered ties. He acknowledged the sharp tongue that has sometimes caused trouble for Mr. Burns and contributed to his tough re-election fight against the Democratic challenger, Jon Tester. “You might call him a plain-spoken fellow,” the president said.

While Mr. Bush was going to bat for Mr. Burns, Democrats were mounting a new effort against Senator Jon Kyl in Arizona, in a race the party had almost given up on. But Democrats said a poll of early voters had found strong support for their candidate, Jim Pederson, inspiring $1 million in last-minute spending by the national party.

Republicans challenged the poll findings, but Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the survey of Arizonans who had already cast their ballots “could be a harbinger of a wave.”

Mr. Schumer conceded that the Montana race, where Mr. Burns has been struggling for months, has tightened. But he remained optimistic about his party’s chances, saying the incumbent had never come close to cracking 50 percent in polls.

Working to make certain they do not get surprised in an East Coast race, Senate Democrats also placed a new advertisement in Maryland trying to tie the Republican candidate, Michael J. Steele, to Bush policy on the war in Iraq.

The party, though it believes it has the contest in hand, remains nervous about the potential appeal of Mr. Steele, an African-American, to the state’s large, and usually Democratic-voting, black population. Last week he was endorsed by several well-known black leaders in Prince George’s County, a populous and predominantly black Washington suburb.

The new commercial revisits Mr. Steele’s recent statements of support for the war and notes that his Democratic opponent, Representative Benjamin L. Cardin, opposed the war at the outset. “We need a senator who does what’s right for us, not George Bush,” the advertisement says.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Mr. Steele, the state’s lieutenant governor, said Democrats were trying to sidestep important local issues like education and economic empowerment. “Ben Cardin is running against George Bush,” Mr. Heye said. “Michael Steele is running for Maryland.”

The political maneuvering came as the parties and candidates made last-minute adjustments to try to cover all their bases. Mr. Bush continued to try to rally voters in heavily Republican areas, and was staying out of New England, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where his low approval ratings may make him a liability in important races.

“We’re focusing his energy on places where he can best turn out the vote for Republican candidates,” a senior administration official told reporters traveling with the president on Air Force One. “These are all races that are close. These are all races that are likely going to come down to turnout. And so that’s the nature of all these visits.”

Mr. Bush has refused to express any of the pessimism that other Republicans have voiced as they face the prospect of losing control of the House and perhaps the Senate as well.

“We’ve been through this before,” Mr. Bush said in Montana, referring to tough races of the past. “We are going win these elections because we understand the values and priorities of the American people.”

But there was some confusion at the White House on Thursday about just which elections were taking place. One spokesman initially told reporters there was no Senate race in Nevada this year, though the incumbent Republican, John Ensign, has a Democratic opponent who should be at least passingly familiar, since he is Jack Carter, the son of former President Jimmy Carter. The White House later acknowledged the mistake.

Anne E. Kornblut was traveling with the president.

    Bush Shores Up His Base as Democrats Spot Opening, NYT, 3.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/politics/03elect.html

Editorial

The Great Divider

November 2, 2006
The New York Times

As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he’s settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can’t defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.

In Mr. Bush’s world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday’s Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush’s world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.

In Mr. Bush’s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don’t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don’t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.

Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to “get stuck in Iraq.” In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush’s intelligence. That’s impolitic and impolite, but it’s not as bad as Mr. Bush’s response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero.

It’s not the least bit surprising or objectionable that Mr. Bush would hit the trail hard at this point, trying to salvage his party’s control of Congress and, by extension, his last two years in office. And we’re not naïve enough to believe that either party has been running a positive campaign that focuses on the issues.

But when candidates for lower office make their opponents out to be friends of Osama bin Laden, or try to turn a minor gaffe into a near felony, that’s just depressing. When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don’t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading.

This is hardly the first time that Mr. Bush has played the politics of fear, anger and division; if he’s ever missed a chance to wave the bloody flag of 9/11, we can’t think of when. But Mr. Bush’s latest outbursts go way beyond that. They leave us wondering whether this president will ever be willing or able to make room for bipartisanship, compromise and statesmanship in the two years he has left in office.

    The Great Divider, NYT, 2.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/opinion/02thu1.html

Bush Works to Solidify Base With a Defense of Rumsfeld

November 2, 2006
The New York Times
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — With less than a week before the election, President Bush sought to rally Republican voters on Wednesday with a vigorous defense of the war in Iraq and a vow to keep Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in office until the end of Mr. Bush’s term.

Mr. Bush appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, whose audience is a reservoir of conservative voters, to criticize Democrats as lacking a plan for victory in Iraq.

Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also spent another day going after Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee two years ago, for remarks that Republicans say insulted the intelligence of American troops in Iraq.

“Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words,” Mr. Bush said, “and our troops deserve the full support of people in government.”

Mr. Kerry said in a statement issued on Wednesday by his office that his “poorly stated joke at a rally was not about and never intended to refer to any troop.”

As Mr. Bush worked to solidify his base, Democratic and Republican Party committees were making some of their final moves on the electoral chessboard. The Republican Senate committee reported spending nearly $1 million on television advertisements in Maryland and more than $800,000 in Michigan. The Senate seats in those states are held by Democrats and have generally been considered safe, but the investments by Republicans suggested a hope of making them competitive.

Democrats sought to expand the contest for the Senate as well by buying air time in Arizona to rattle, if not defeat, Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican thought to be headed for relatively easy re-election. Democratic officials would not disclose how much they were spending.

Mr. Bush, in an interview with wire service reporters on Wednesday, said he intended to keep Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and Mr. Cheney in the vice presidency until he leaves office in 2009. Both are controversial figures, even among some Republicans, but they are also popular with conservatives who form the foundation of Mr. Bush’s political and electoral strategy.

With polls showing a majority of Americans unhappy with the course of the war and many Republican candidates distancing themselves from Mr. Bush on it, the White House was taking a gamble on making Iraq the central subject of discussion in the final week of the campaign. His embrace of Mr. Rumsfeld carried particular risk, since some Republican candidates have joined nearly all Democrats in seeking his dismissal.

Democrats responded to the Republicans’ efforts with new advertisements accusing Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld of botching the war and making the United States less safe. A television spot from the Democratic Congressional committee said, “The White House is in denial as top generals warn that Iraq may be sliding into full-scale civil war.”

A veterans group released an advertisement on Wednesday in which Iraq war veterans and Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who is retired and who was a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, criticize the war. “Because of Iraq, there are more terrorists in the world,” one veteran says.

Democrats also criticized Representative John A. Boehner, the No. 2 Republican in the House, as seeming to shift responsibility for problems in Iraq from Secretary Rumsfeld to the uniformed military.

“Let’s not blame what’s happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld,” Mr. Boehner said in an interview on CNN on Wednesday afternoon. “But the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president.”

Seeking to a draw a parallel to the flap over Mr. Kerry’s comments, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, demanded that Mr. Boehner apologize to the generals.

“John Boehner ought to be ashamed,” Mr. Reid said in a statement. “He’s blaming our troops for failures in Iraq.”

Republican leaders hoped to buck up morale among conservative Christians, a normally reliable source of Republican votes. A sizeable number of such so-called values voters have told pollsters that they are unhappy with Mr. Bush and the Republican-led Congress and might stay home on Election Day or vote for Democrats.

James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and an influential voice among evangelical Christian voters, said on his radio program this week that Democrats and the news media were trying to suppress the conservative vote by reporting on unhappiness among evangelicals.

Mr. Dobson also warned that a Democratic takeover of Congress would bring “crippling setbacks in the battles against abortion and gay marriage.”

In recent days, Mr. Bush and his surrogates have sought to rally Republicans by raising the specter of what they call unreconstructed liberal Democrats leading powerful committees if the Democrats regain control of Congress. Mr. Cheney took aim at one of them, Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax laws.

Mr. Cheney said late last week that Mr. Rangel knew nothing about the American economy and would raise taxes as soon as he took over the committee.

Mr. Rangel responded by using a profanity to question Mr. Cheney’s parentage. He said in an interview Wednesday that he was sorry for his choice of words, but not for the thought. He said he hoped that if the Democrats won control of Congress the nasty language on both sides would cease.

“I can take a political shot,” Mr. Rangel said. “But my family and friends and constituents deserve better from the vice president of the United States.”

    Bush Works to Solidify Base With a Defense of Rumsfeld, NYT, 2.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/us/politics/02elect.html