History > 2007 > USA > Politics > White House

George W. Bush (VI)

Ed Stein

The Rocky Mountain News        Colorado

Cagle

2 November 2007

Bush Adviser Reportedly Resigning

November 28, 2007
Filed at 8:30 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Hubbard, chairman of President Bush's National Economic Council, will announce on Wednesday that he's leaving his post, joining a growing line of top presidential advisers exiting the White House as the Bush administration heads into its final year.

Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy, will submit a letter to the president later in the day to make official his decision to leave the White House after three years, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not yet been made.

His departure, by the end of the year, continues an exodus of key Bush aides and confidants. Earlier this month, Fran Townsend, Bush's terrorism adviser, announced she was stepping down after 4 1/2 years. Top aide Karl Rove, along with press secretary Tony Snow, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior presidential adviser Dan Bartlett, have already left.

Hubbard, of Indiana, was a low-profile economic adviser to the president whose strength came from his closeness to Bush. The two both attended Harvard University. Hubbard also has close ties with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Hubbard accompanied Paulson on some of his trips to China to lend White House support to efforts to get China to reform its economy and narrow the huge trade imbalance between the two nations.

Among other issues, Hubbard has been deeply involved in the debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program and Bush's proposal for a major shift in tax policy to, for the first time, treat health insurance costs as taxable income.

He has not yet announced his future plans.

Hubbard, who is married and has three children, has owned and operated several businesses. He served in the Bush-Quayle administration as executive director of a council on competitiveness. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard School of Business Administration.

    Bush Adviser Reportedly Resigning, NYT, 28.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Bush-Economic-Adviser.html?hp

In Bush’s Last Year, Modest Domestic Aims

November 24, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — As President Bush looks toward his final year in office, with Democrats controlling Congress and his major domestic initiatives dead on Capitol Hill, he is shifting his agenda to what aides call “kitchen table issues” — small ideas that affect ordinary people’s lives and do not take an act of Congress to put in place.

Over the past few months, Mr. Bush has sounded more like the national Mr. Fix-It than the man who began his second term with a sweeping domestic policy agenda of overhauling Social Security, remaking the tax code and revamping immigration law. Now, with little political capital left, Mr. Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, is using his executive powers — and his presidential platform — to make little plans sound big.

He traveled to the shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland to announce federal protection for two coveted species of game fish, the striped bass and the red drum. He appeared in the Rose Garden to call on lenders to help struggling homeowners refinance. He came out in favor of giving the Food and Drug Administration new authority to recall unsafe foods.

Just this weekend, thanks to an executive order by Mr. Bush, the military is opening up additional air space — the White House calls it a “Thanksgiving express lane” — to lessen congestion in the skies. And Mr. Bush’s aides say more announcements are in the works, including another initiative, likely to be announced soon, intended to ease the mortgage lending crisis.

With a Mideast peace conference planned for the coming week and a war in Iraq to prosecute, Mr. Bush is, of course, deeply engaged in the most pressing foreign policy matters of the day. The “kitchen table” agenda is part of a broader domestic political strategy — which some Republicans close to the White House attribute to Mr. Bush’s new counselor, Ed Gillespie — for the president to find new and more creative ways of engaging the public as his days in office dwindle and his clout with Congress lessens.

“These are issues that don’t tend to be at the center of the political debate but actually are of paramount importance to a lot of Americans,” said Joel Kaplan, the deputy White House chief of staff.

One Republican close to the White House, who has been briefed on the strategy, said the aim was to talk to Americans about issues beyond Iraq and terrorism, so that Mr. Bush’s hand will be stronger on issues that matter to him, like vetoing spending bills or urging Congress to pay for the war.

“It’s a ticket to relevance, if you will, because right now Bush’s connection, even with the Republican base, is all related to terrorism and the fighting or prosecution of the Iraq war,” this Republican said. “It’s a way to keep his hand in the game, because you’re only relevant if you’re relevant to people on issues that they talk about in their daily lives.”

Mr. Bush often says he wants to “sprint to the finish,” and senior White House officials say this is a way for him to do so. The president has also expressed concerns that Congress has left him out of the loop; in a recent press conference, he said he was exercising his veto power because “that’s one way to ensure that I am relevant.” The kitchen table initiatives are another.

Yet for a president accustomed to dealing in the big picture, talking about airline baggage handling or uniform standards for high-risk foods requires a surprising dip into the realm of minutiae — a realm that, until recently, Mr. Bush’s aides have viewed with disdain.

After Republicans lost control of Congress a year ago, Tony Snow, then the White House press secretary, told reporters: “The president is going to be very aggressive. He’s not going to play small ball.”

It was a veiled dig at Mr. Bush’s predecessor, Mr. Clinton, who, along with his adviser Dick Morris, developed a similar — and surprisingly effective — strategy in 1996 after Republicans took control of Congress. That approach included what Mr. Clinton’s critics called “small-ball” initiatives, like school uniforms, curfews for teenagers and a crackdown on deadbeat dads, as well as the use of executive powers to impose clean air rules, establish national monuments and address medical privacy.

“People in Washington laughed when Mr. Clinton would talk about car seats or school uniforms,” said John Podesta, Mr. Clinton’s former chief of staff. “But I don’t think the public laughed.”

Nor does the public appear to be laughing at Mr. Bush.

When the president sat down at a rustic wooden desk on the shores of the Chesapeake last month to sign an executive order that made permanent a ban on commercial fishing of striped bass and red drum in federal waters, people in the capital barely took notice.

But it was big news on the southwest coast of Louisiana, where Chris Harbuck, a 45-year-old independent financial planner and recreational angler, likes to fish with his wife and teenage children. Mr. Harbuck is also the president of the Louisiana chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, a nonprofit group dedicated to conserving marine resources; Mr. Bush’s order is splashed all over his latest newsletter.

“We were very thrilled with what he did,” Mr. Harbuck said.

That is exactly the outside-the-Beltway reaction the White House is hoping for. Mr. Bush’s aides are calculating that the public, numbed by what Mr. Kaplan called “esoteric budget battles” and other Washington conflicts, will respond to issues like long airline delays or tainted toys from China. They were especially pleased with the air congestion initiative.

“You could just tell from the coverage how it did strike a chord,” said Kevin Sullivan, Mr. Bush’s communications counselor.

Yet some of Mr. Bush’s new initiatives have had little practical effect. Fishing for red drum and striped bass, for instance, is already prohibited in federal waters; Mr. Bush’s action will take effect only if the existing ban is lifted. And the Federal Aviation Administration can already open military airspace on its own, without presidential action.

Democrats, like Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, who runs the Senate’s Democratic Policy Committee, dismiss the actions as window dressing. “It’s more words than substance,” said Mr. Dorgan said, adding he was surprised to see a president who has often seemed averse to federal regulation using his regulatory authority.

“He’s kind of a late bloomer,” Mr. Dorgan said.

Mr. Bush, for his part, has been using the kitchen table announcements to tweak Democrats, by calling on them to pass legislation he has proposed, such as a bill modernizing the aviation administration. The message, in Mr. Sullivan’s words, is, “We’re not going to just sit back because they’re obstructing things the president wants to accomplish. We are trying to find other ways to do things that are meaningful to regular people out there.”

    In Bush’s Last Year, Modest Domestic Aims, NYT, 24.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/washington/24bush.html?hp

Bush to Nominate an I.R.S. Chief

November 22, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday he intends to nominate Douglas Shulman to be the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Shulman is currently vice chairman of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, previously known as the National Association of Securities Dealers. He also has served on the bipartisan National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, the White House said.

The nomination requires Senate approval.

The I.R.S.’s acting commissioner is Linda E. Stiff.

    Bush to Nominate an I.R.S. Chief, NYT, 22.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/business/22tax.html

In Thanksgiving Speech, Bush Urges Americans to Give Back

November 20, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

CHARLES CITY, Va., Nov. 19 — In a reflective mood as he looks toward his final year in office, President Bush delivered his first official Thanksgiving speech Monday, urging Americans to “show their thanks by giving back” and to remember that “our nation’s greatest strength is the decency and compassion of our people.”

For seven years, Mr. Bush has commemorated Thanksgiving with the presidential tradition of pardoning a turkey, a 60-year tradition that he planned to continue Tuesday in the Rose Garden. But this year, the White House hoped to show a more contemplative side of Mr. Bush, who, his aides say, has been struck by the goodness of the many ordinary Americans he meets during his travels.

So Monday, the president visited a food bank in Richmond, Va., and then traveled here, to Berkeley Plantation on the banks of the James River. It claims to be the home of the nation’s “first official Thanksgiving,” two years before the Pilgrims’ harvest celebration in Massachusetts.

On Dec. 4, 1619, a band of English settlers arrived at the plantation and, upon reviewing orders that the day of their arrival should be “yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God,” dropped to their knees in prayer.

After recounting the Berkeley story, Mr. Bush ticked off the reasons Americans had to be thankful, including “farmers and ranchers who provide us with abundant food,” “entrepreneurs who create new jobs” and “devoted teachers who prepare our children for the opportunities of tomorrow.” He also spoke about the times that “America has fallen short” of its ideals, noting that “for many years, slaves were held against their will here at Berkeley and other plantations — and their bondage is a shameful chapter in our nation’s history.”

Mr. Bush went on to praise “Americans who serve a cause larger than themselves,” not only the military but also people like Liviu Librescu, the Virginia Tech professor who died this spring blocking a gunman from entering his classroom, and Jeremy Hernandez, who broke open the back door of a school bus to lead children to safety in August when the Minneapolis bridge they were traveling on collapsed.

It was a call to action, in a sense, from a president whose first instinct after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was to ask the public for “continued participation and confidence in the American economy,” a request that has been widely interpreted as advice to go shopping.

By contrast, Mr. Bush on Monday asked Americans to consider the “many ways to spread hope this holiday: volunteer in a shelter, mentor a child, help an elderly neighbor, say thanks to one who wears the nation’s uniform.”

    In Thanksgiving Speech, Bush Urges Americans to Give Back, NYT, 20.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20bush.html

Bush Gives Clearances for N.S.A. Inquiry

November 14, 2007
The New York Times
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — Just four days after Michael B. Mukasey was sworn in as attorney general, Justice Department officials said Tuesday that President Bush had reversed course and approved long-denied security clearances for the Justice Department’s ethics office to investigate the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program. The department’s inspector general has been investigating the department’s involvement with the N.S.A. program for about a year, but the move suggested both that Mr. Mukasey wanted to remedy what many in Congress saw as an improper decision by the president to block the clearances and that the White House chose to back him.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, and Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, declined to say whether Mr. Mukasey had pressed Mr. Bush on the clearances for the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility. Mr. Mukasey himself had indicated in a written answer to senators on Oct. 30, before his confirmation, that the clearance issue had been resolved. But Democrats said they thought Mr. Mukasey deserved credit.

“It seems the new attorney general understands that his responsibility is to the American people and the rule of law and not to any particular person, including the president,” said Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, who had first demanded the internal Justice Department investigation.

In response to appeals from Mr. Hinchey and other members of Congress, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, H. Marshall Jarrett, said in February 2006 that he had opened an investigation of the conduct of department lawyers in approving and overseeing the N.S.A. program. But three months later he said the inquiry had been dropped because his staff had been denied the necessary high-level clearances.

The Justice Department later said that Alberto R. Gonzales, the attorney general at the time, had recommended that the clearances be granted but that Mr. Bush declined to approve them.

Mr. Roehrkasse said the Office of Professional Responsibility’s investigation “will focus on whether the D.O.J. attorneys who were involved complied with their ethical obligations of providing competent legal advice to their client and of adhering to their duty of candor to the court.”

Officials said it was unlikely that either of the inquiries would address directly the question of the legality of the N.S.A. program itself : whether eavesdropping on American soil without court warrants violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They said that decision had been left to the courts.

Under the program, which began after the Sept. 11 attacks and ended in January, the National Security Agency intercepted without court warrants the international phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans and others in the United States suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department initially approved the program in late 2001. But the head of the office, Jack Goldsmith, decided in 2004 that part of the program violated the law and declined to reauthorize it. Mr. Bush agreed to change the program to satisfy the legal objections.

    Bush Gives Clearances for N.S.A. Inquiry, NYT, 14.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/washington/14justice.html

Bush Vetoes Domestic Programs Spending Bill

November 13, 2007
The New York Times
By ROBERT PEAR

NEW ALBANY, Ind., Nov. 13 — President Bush today vetoed a bill that would have provided $150.7 billion for education, health care, job training and other domestic programs.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said the measure exceeded the president’s budget request by nearly $10 billion and included some 2,000 items designating money for lawmakers’ pet projects.

“He will ask Congress to take out the pork and reduce the overall spending level and return it to him quickly,” Ms. Perino said as the president flew here from Washington, for speeches to business and community leaders.

At the same time, just before leaving the White House, Mr. Bush signed the Defense Department appropriations bill, which provides $459 billion for military programs in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Congress is still working on a separate bill that would provide a fresh infusion of money for the Iraq war, while requiring Mr. Bush to begin the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The Defense Department measure includes a stopgap spending bill that will finance operations of most federal agencies at 2007 levels through Dec. 14. Democratic leaders said they hoped they would be able to pass most of the annual spending bills by then.

Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, denounced Mr. Bush for rejecting the health and education bill, which embodies the values and priorities of the Democrats who now control Congress.

“The only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics,” Mr. Obey said.

“The same president who is asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq and is insisting on providing $60 billion in tax cuts next year to folks who make over a million bucks a year” is “now refusing to provide a $6 billion increase to crucial domestic investments in education, health care, medical research and worker protections that will make the country stronger,” Mr. Obey said.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, “With today’s veto, the president has shown once again how out of touch and out of step he is with the values of America’s families.” Mr. Kennedy said Americans wanted to spend more on cancer research, schools, job training and worker protections.

The veto guaranteed a new round of wrangling with Democrats over war costs and domestic spending priorities, although the immediate response from the Democratic speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, seemed almost conciliatory. She held open the possibility of reaching compromise and finding “common ground” with the president.

    Bush Vetoes Domestic Programs Spending Bill, NYT, 13.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13cnd-veto.html?hp

Bush Marks Veterans Day in Texas

November 12, 2007
Filed at 10:59 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WACO, Texas (AP) -- Marking his fifth Veterans Day since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush honored U.S. troops past and present at a tearful ceremony for four Texans who died there.

The White House had said Bush was going to also use his Veterans Day speech to scold Congress for not sending him a veterans spending bill. But the president finished without any reference to the bill or Congress.

''In their sorrow, these families need to know -- and families all across our nation of the fallen -- need to know that your loved ones served a cause that is good and just and noble,'' Bush said. ''And as their commander in chief, I make you this promise: Their sacrifice will not be in vain.''

Bush, who is scheduled to return to the White House on Monday, was in Texas for the holiday, following his two-day meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at his ranch in Crawford.

He went to American Legion Post 121, which was honoring four Texas men who were among the more than 3,860 members of the U.S. military who have died in Iraq since 2003. They were Army Spc. Javier Antonio Villanueva of Bellmead, Army Spc. Jeffrey Paul Shaffer of Waco, Marine Lance Cpl. Johnny Ray Strong of Waco and Marine Gunnery Sgt. John David Fry of Lorena.

Post Commander Clayton Hueske admitted being nervous, but said he was proud to have Bush in attendance at the emotional event, which ended with the audience joining a soloist in singing ''God Bless America.''

A bugler played taps. Post officials offered comforting words to the fallen troops' families and presented them with honorary plaques and flags that have flown over the state capitol.

''These men and women saw the future of the terrorists' intent for our country and they said with clear voices, 'Not on my watch,''' Bush said of the troops.

''America is blessed to have such brave defenders. They are tomorrow's veterans and they are bringing pride to our country. Their service is noble and it is necessary,'' he said. ''The enemies who attacked us six years ago want to strike our country again, and next time they hope to kill Americans on a scale that will make 9/11 pale by comparison.''

Bush has spent four of the past six Veterans Days at Arlington National Cemetery. This year, Vice President Dick Cheney went to Arlington to pay tribute to Iraq veterans.

In a 10-minute speech, Cheney said soldiers from World War I to ''the current fight against terrorism'' have served their country valiantly and ''kept us free at the land we call home.''

''Free to live as we see fit, free to work, worship, speak our minds, to choose our own leaders,'' the vice president said. ''May the rest of us never take them for granted.''

Hundreds of people of braved the crisp November weather to witness Cheney's tribute and they cheered when he offered personal regards from Bush. Cheney placed a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns, pausing to straighten the ribbons on the front.

Cheney quoted Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, in saying troops there are fighting in a complex and challenging situation, and praised them for a ''magnificent job.''

''Our conduct of our military today and throughout our nation's history makes this country very proud,'' Cheney said. ''It is our prayer they will return in victory, safely home, to live out their lives and be here to observe many Veterans Days to come.''

In previewing Bush's speech, the White House had said he would criticize Congress for not sending him the appropriations measure that funds programs for veterans.

The veterans bill has gotten caught up in a larger battle between Bush and Congress over Democratic efforts to add about $23 billion for domestic programs to Bush's $933 billion proposal for all agency budgets.

In a joint letter to Bush on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the president that the Democratic Congress wanted to work with him on spending bills.

''Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground,'' they wrote. ''Thus far, we have seen only a hard line drawn and a demand that we send only legislation that reflects your cuts to critical priorities of the American people.''

The White House said there is no reason why Congress could not have sent the bill to the president by Veterans Day, as he requested, except that lawmakers wanted to attach it to other bills the president has said he would veto.

Once Bush was at Sunday's ceremony, however, he decided not to mention the budget fight.

Afterward, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush ''significantly shortened'' his remarks because the ceremony had already been more than an hour long. ''I think he felt it was more important to shorten the remarks and meet with the families as scheduled,'' Johndroe said.

----

Associated Press writer Natasha Metzler in Arlington contributed to this report.

    Bush Marks Veterans Day in Texas, NYT, 12.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-White-House-Veterans.html

Bush and Relatives of Fallen Lean on Each Other

November 10, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — Late one night last year, while her husband was an Army scout in Iraq, Melissa Storey sat in the quiet of her bedroom to write President Bush a letter. She wanted him to know “we believed in him.” And after Staff Sgt. Clint Storey, 30, was killed by a roadside bomb, his widow put pen to paper again.

“I felt like I needed to let him know I don’t hate him because my husband is dead,” Mrs. Storey said, “that I don’t blame him for Clint dying over there.”

The correspondence did not go unnoticed. In May, Mrs. Storey received a surprise telephone call from the White House inviting her to a Memorial Day reception there. As she mingled at the elegant gathering, too nervous to eat, her 5-year-old daughter clutching her dress, her infant son cradled in her arms, a military aide appeared. The president wanted to see her in the Oval Office.

The Storeys, of Palmer, Mass., joined a growing list of bereaved families granted a private audience with the commander in chief. As Mr. Bush forges ahead with the war in Iraq, these “families of the fallen,” as the White House calls them, are one constituency he can still count on, a powerful reminder to an unpopular president that even in the face of heartbreaking loss, some still believe he is doing the right thing.

Since the war in Afghanistan began six years ago, Mr. Bush has met quietly with more than 450 such families, and is likely to meet more on Sunday, Veterans Day, in Waco, Tex., near his Crawford ranch. Mr. Bush often says he hears their voices — “don’t let my son die in vain,” he quotes them as saying — when making decisions about the war. The White House says families are not asked their political views. Yet war critics wonder just whose voices the president is hearing.

Like Melissa Storey, Bill Adams, who has been leading war protests in Lancaster, Pa., wrote Mr. Bush a letter — not to praise the president, but to question the military’s account of the death of his son, Brent. When Mr. Bush held a town-hall-style meeting in Lancaster last month, Mr. Adams asked a friend with a ticket to deliver his missive to the president. It worked, and a top aide to Mr. Bush later called Mr. Adams.

But when the president met families of the fallen that day in Lancaster, it did not escape Mr. Adams’s notice that he was not among them.

“I can’t help but be left with the suspicion that possibly his advance team screened those families for people who would be sympathetic,” Mr. Adams said. Given the chance, he said, he would have told Mr. Bush “that my son’s life was squandered.”

Polls show that two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way the president is handling the war in Iraq; in a recent New York Times/CBS News survey, a majority said Mr. Bush’s troop buildup was having no impact, or making things worse. The White House pays close attention to military families, an important constituency, yet surveys, including a New York Times/CBS News poll in September, have also shown an erosion of support for the war among them.

Yet, White House aides and nine families who have met with Mr. Bush said dissent was rare in the sessions. The meetings are deeply private — the administration never reveals names of participants — and just one senior official attends, to take notes.

That official, who would speak only anonymously, said the “overwhelming number of families talk about the good their loved one felt they were doing.” This official said families were not screened; when Mr. Bush is traveling, the Pentagon finds local families for him to meet. And not all the meetings are cordial; two years ago, one mother, Cindy Sheehan, emerged from her audience with Mr. Bush complaining that he had been dismissive of her, and went on to start a political crusade against the war. Other family members have expressed discontent, including Elaine Johnson of Spartanburg, S.C., who said she asked Mr. Bush in her meeting why soldiers like her son, Darius Jennings, were still dying in Iraq. She subsequently began speaking out against the war.

Mr. Bush also meets families in connection with Iraq-related ceremonies and speeches, where war supporters make up the audience. John Ellsworth, vice president of Families United, a support group that backs Mr. Bush, has been invited to three White House events in the past seven months; each time, he, his wife, Debbie, and their daughter, Jessica, 12, have met Mr. Bush.

Tears are a big part of presidential family meetings; Mr. Ellsworth, whose son, Justin, died in Iraq in 2004, called Mr. Bush “a big softie.” Since the day in September 2001 that he stood on a charred fire truck with a bullhorn in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, much has been made of Mr. Bush’s role as comforter in chief. He has consoled victims of floods, wildfires and tornadoes. But in his family meetings, the comforting works both ways.

Kevin Graves of the Northern California town of Discovery Bay waited two hours during a South Lawn picnic to tell Mr. Bush “it was an honor for my son to serve under you as commander in chief.” Amy Galvez of Salt Lake City told Mr. Bush that “as a mom who lost a son in this war, it’s easier for me to handle because I believe you are sincere.”

God is a frequent topic. Robert Lehmiller, also of Salt Lake City, says the president brought religion into the conversation, telling him, “If you truly believe the Scriptures, you will see your son again.”

Sometimes, gifts are exchanged. Maureen and Dan Murphy of Patchogue, N.Y., gave Mr. Bush a gold dog tag engraved with the likeness of their son, Lt. Mike Murphy, moments before Mr. Bush awarded him a posthumous Medal of Honor. They were stunned to see the president loosen his tie and slip the necklace under his shirt. Mr. Bush later remarked to Mr. Murphy that it had gone well “because I had Mike next to my heart.”

The senior official said Mr. Bush often remarked that he gained “strength and comfort” from the encounters. But war critics say the sessions amount to little more than echo chambers to reinforce Mr. Bush’s views. Charley Richardson, a founder of Military Families Speak Out, which opposes the war, said about 100 families who had lost loved ones were members of his group, but just one, Ms. Johnson, had met Mr. Bush.

“He doesn’t hear the other voices,” Mr. Richardson said. “If all the voices are supporting the war, it’s a powerful emotional addition to the chorus.”

The White House knows that if support for the war erodes among military families, Mr. Bush’s ability to pursue his policies in Iraq will suffer.

In a recent interview with conservative columnists, Mr. Bush said” “I am constantly trying to get a sense of the military, the people that are out there in the fight. And the question is, Are their families in the fight?”

To see to it that they are, Mr. Bush often plays the role of social worker in his family meetings, asking participants about issues like benefits and health care. Mrs. Storey said the president “seemed to get really upset” when she told him she was not getting her survivor’s benefits. Within a week, she said, “the checks began showing up.”

It has been nearly six months since their meeting, and sometimes Mrs. Storey still finds it hard to believe that the simple act of writing a letter brought her into the presence of the president of the United States. She still has the photographs from the session, the letters she and Mr. Bush exchanged. Living in the heavily Democratic state of Massachusetts, she said, it is not easy to be a Bush supporter.

“When I tell the people I met the president, a lot of people will give that look,” she said. “I say, I don’t care what your opinion is of him. You have your opinion, I have mine, but I’ve met him and he’s a good guy. I cannot say anything negative about that man. He showed us nothing but kindness.”

    Bush and Relatives of Fallen Lean on Each Other, NYT, 10.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/us/10families.html?hp

In First Bush Veto Override, Senate Enacts Water Bill

November 8, 2007
The New York Times
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 — The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a popular $23 billion water projects measure affecting locales across the country, thereby handing President Bush his first defeat in a veto showdown with Congress.

The vote was 79 to 14, far more than the two-thirds needed to override the veto that President Bush cast last Friday. Only 12 Republicans voted against the measure, and just two Democrats, Senators Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

On Tuesday, the House voted by 361 to 54 in favor of the bill, also well over the two-thirds barrier to nullify the veto.

Enactment of the water projects measure had been widely expected, despite the veto, given the importance of the bill to individual districts and, of course, the lawmakers that represent them. The measure embraces huge endeavors like restoration of the Florida Everglades and relief to hurricane-stricken communities along the Gulf Coast and smaller ones like sewage-treatment plants, dams and beach protection that are important to smaller constituencies.

The bill authorizes the projects but does not appropriate the money for them. Appropriation of funds will have to be taken care of in subsequent legislation.

The veto of the water bill was the fifth cast by Mr. Bush, and the first to be overridden by Congress. The president and some Republicans had complained that the bill was wasteful. Some critics said the measure did not do enough to reform the Army Corps of Engineers, which would handle much of the work, and was larded with political pork.

But, as the comments of lawmakers made clear today, pork is in the eye of the beholder.

The bill “is one of the few areas where we actually do something constructive,” Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, told The Associated Press. He said the bill contains “good, deserved, justified projects.”

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, also argued in favor of overriding the veto. “This bill is enormously important, and it has been a long time coming,” Mr. Vitter said.

Mr. Lott and Mr. Vitter side with President Bush far more often than they oppose him. But both senators represent areas that were hard-hit by Hurricane Katrina, and their votes to override Mr. Bush’s veto underscored the adage that politics is basically local, or at least regional.

Then, too, the bill was the first water-projects measure in several years, so there was plenty of pent-up demand for money in locales from coast to coast.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said the veto override “sends an unmistakable message that Democrats both will continue to strengthen our environment and economy and will refuse to allow President Bush to block America’s real priorities for partisan reasons.”

“The Water Resources Development Act provides authority for essential new navigation projects and funds programs to combat flood and coastal-storm damage, restore ecosystems, and projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region,” Mr. Reid said.

Mr. Bush previously vetoed a stem cell-research bill (twice), an Iraq spending bill that set guidelines for withdrawing troops and, most recently, a children’s health insurance bill.

Senator Feingold said he was disappointed at the lost opportunity to fix “this flawed, bloated bill.” He noted that there is already a huge backlog of projects that have been authorized but for which money has not yet been appropriated.

The Associated General Contractors of America lobbied hard for passage of the bill. “This week’s veto override means that this nation will finally have the opportunity for new investments in improved flood control, increasing navigation capacity and ecosystem restoration,” Stephen E. Sandherr, the organization’s chief executive, said after the Senate vote.

    In First Bush Veto Override, Senate Enacts Water Bill, NYT, 8.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/washington/08cnd-spend.html?hp

House Presses Bush on Subpoenas

November 5, 2007
Filed at 12:22 p.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers exhorted the White House Monday to comply with subpoenas of President Bush's key confidants in connection with a probe of U.S. attorney firings.

In so doing, the Michigan Democrat raised the specter of a House floor vote by Thanksgiving on contempt of Congress citations against chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former legal counsel Harriet Miers.

''As we submit the committee's contempt report to the full House, I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis,'' Conyers said in a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding.

Conyers wants testimony and documents from Bolten and Miers on whether the Justice Department's purge of nine federal prosecutors last winter was carried out at the White House's behest.

Also in Conyers' sights: Karl Rove, the architect of Bush's rise to the White House and a top political adviser who left last summer.

A contempt report was being delivered to the House clerk on Monday, and a vote by the full House would happen next week if Fielding refuses to provide the information the Judiciary panel is demanding, according to several House Democratic aides.

The White House showed no signs of budging, calling Conyers' effort ''futile'' and a waste of Congress' time.

''This Congress is proving to be the all time champion of investigations,'' said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. ''If the Judiciary Committee really wanted facts instead of headlines, they should have accepted the president's offer of accommodation to interview current and former advisors.''

Fielding has declared that the information Conyers seeks is off-limits to lawmakers under the doctrine of executive privilege, but offered to make officials and documents available to the committee behind closed doors -- not under oath and off the record. Lawmakers demanded a transcript and the negotiations stalled.

Keeping the U.S. attorney controversy alive are several political and administrative developments, including the pending Senate vote on the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Unlike former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey during his confirmation hearings did not rule out prosecuting Miers and Bolten for contempt of Congress.

The committee was expected to file the contempt report with the clerk of the House later Monday, several Democratic officials said. If passed by the House, the contempt citation would be referred to the office of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

In what he said was his ninth letter to the White House on this issue, Conyers said he was trying one last time to reach an agreement on the release of the information.

The proposal included an initial release of communications between White House officials and others on the firings, according to Conyers' letter to Fielding. The White House would then make available for confidential staff review any remaining internal White House documents on the same subjects.

Finally, Miers, Rove and other, lower-ranking current and former White House officials would be interviewed along the lines of Fielding's previous offer of private testimony not under oath. Conyers insisted on a transcript of any such question-and-answer sessions, however. That's a condition that Fielding so far has rejected.

Conyers asked Monday that Fielding reply by end of the week. Congress goes on a two-week recess in mid-November.

Conyers' panel passed a contempt resolution against Miers and Bolten July 25 after the two failed to respond to subpoenas compelling the information as part of the probe into the firings. The House investigation, which moved in cooperation with a probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee, spurred the controversy that led to Gonzales' resignation in September. Mukasey will receive a vote by the Senate panel Tuesday and is expected to be confirmed by the full chamber before Thanksgiving.

Fielding has asserted executive privilege on the details pertaining to the White House, but offered to make interviews and documents available to congressional investigators behind closed doors, off the record and without a transcript. Lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol have agreed to the first two conditions, but insisted on a transcript.

    House Presses Bush on Subpoenas, NYT, 5.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-House-Contempt.html

Bush Presents Medals of Freedom

November 5, 2007
Filed at 12:24 p.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, to recognize contributions in science, the arts, literature and the cause of peace and freedom.

''Each of them, by effort and by character, has earned the respect of the American people, and holds a unique place in the story of our time,'' Bush said at an East Room ceremony.

The honorees were:

-- Gary Becker. The economist and 1992 Nobel Prize winner was honored for broadening the understanding of economics and social science, and for helping to improve the standard of living around the world.

-- Oscar Elias Biscet. A human rights advocate and champion of freedoms in Cuba, Biscet is a political prisoner in Cuba who is being recognized for his fight against tyranny and oppression.

-- Francis Collins. The director of the National Human Genome Research Institute was honored for his leadership of the Human Genome Project and for greatly expanding the understanding of the human DNA.

-- Benjamin Hooks. The NAACP's former executive director is considered a pioneer of the civil rights movement.

-- Henry Hyde. The Illinois Republican served for 32 years in the House, where he was known for his battles against abortion rights and his leading role in the impeachment of President Clinton. He was honored as a ''powerful defender of life'' and an advocate for strong national defense, the White House says.

-- Brian Lamb. The president and CEO of C-SPAN was recognized for elevating the public debate and making the government more accessible.

-- Harper Lee. The author of the beloved novel ''To Kill a Mockingbird'' was honored for her contribution to American literature.

-- Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. The president of Liberia and the first woman elected president of an African nation, she is credited with working to expand freedom and healing a country torn apart by conflict.

The Medal of Freedom was established by President Truman in 1945 to recognize civilians for their efforts during World War II. The award was reinstated by President Kennedy in 1963 to honor distinguished service. It is given to those deemed to have made remarkable contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, culture, or other private or public endeavors.

    Bush Presents Medals of Freedom, NYT, 5.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Medal-of-Freedom.html

Bush Pushes Hill Foes, Allies to the Max

November 5, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:23 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush enters a new phase of government-by-minority this month, issuing a veto certain to draw the first override of his presidency, and testing even his most loyal allies' limits on spending issues that will dominate the fall agenda.

The strategy allows Bush to employ every ounce of his presidential powers, imposing his will so long as he is backed by one-third of either house in Congress -- the minimum to sustain a presidential veto. But it could strain his relations with GOP lawmakers as he pushes his tax-and-spending dogma beyond points that even a third of the House or Senate can accept.

Bush's growing use of the veto, combined with his continued embrace of executive orders and ''signing statements,'' signal his willingness to defy large portions of Congress and the public to shape policies in his final year in office.

''I think what he's trying to do is recast his presidency, after the '06 elections, on spending,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Bush ally on most issues.

Democrats view the tactic as a hollow, deathbed conversion to spending concerns and a stubbornness that will haunt the GOP in the 2008 elections. They grudgingly acknowledge, however, that there is little they can do to force the president's hand on Iraq, domestic spending and other issues for the next 14 months.

''He may decide that all he wants to do is veto and stop progress,'' said Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, head of the House Democratic Caucus. ''But everybody will know who wants to change things, and who wants to keep them just the way they are.''

Until last week, Bush used the veto sparingly, applying it only when congressional conservatives were sure to prevent an override. That changed Friday, when he vetoed a water projects bill popular with lawmakers in both parties.

House and Senate GOP leaders made it clear to Bush that both chambers would muster the two-thirds majorities needed to hand him his first veto override, possibly this week.

More significantly, Bush seemed to push beyond his core of supporters by pledging veto any measure that includes a tax increase. That could lead to the awkward scene of a large number of congressional Republicans voting to override his veto of a high-profile bid to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

So far, most House Republicans have sustained Bush's veto because they share his objection to participation in the program by adults, illegal immigrants and middle-income families. But the president signaled he will veto a revised bill if it continues to be funded by a proposed tobacco tax increase.

That's a provision many House Republicans have agreed to swallow. The tax question is so settled that it isn't even discussed by House-Senate negotiators trying to craft a veto-proof bill, GOP leaders said.

Bush's hard-line stand puts those leaders in a tough spot. While eager to stay loyal, they realize that proposed changes to the health program's eligibility rules might attract enough Republican votes to override another veto.

House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt headed successful efforts to sustain Bush's veto last month. But now they are working with negotiators to cut the best deal possible.

The two leaders may not vote for the compromise, Blunt said in an interview. But they want a bill that will win over a significant number of GOP members, not just the bare minimum that Democrats have sought.

If lawmakers can agree on a veto-proof version of the children's health bill, it would mark a rare legislative defeat for Bush on a major issue. But legislators think he will still be able to block Democratic-backed bills -- such as one to fund health, labor and education programs -- that he considers too costly.

And the president's ability to slap down congressional efforts to redirect the Iraq war seems undiminished, to Democrats' deep frustration.

''He has his loyal Republicans standing by him,'' said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill. ''That may become a more uncomfortable position as time goes on.''

Besides vetoes, Bush uses executive orders and signing statements to dictate policies despite a hostile Congress.

A signing statement is controversial tool in which the president signs a bill into law but notes portions he will ignore. One recent report found that Bush has issued at least 151 statements challenging 1,149 provisions in laws.

Bush has increased his use of executive orders, which ranged from restrictions on striped bass fishing to sanctions against Myanmar's government. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Friday the administration ''will continue to look for ways to make progress'' on Bush initiatives that Congress rejects or ignores.

A leading contender to succeed Bush says the administration has gone too far.

''I will conduct a very serious review of how the Bush-Cheney administration has grabbed power,'' Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a recent campaign speech. ''They have ignored checks and balances,'' she said. ''They have disregarded the separation of powers.''

    Bush Pushes Hill Foes, Allies to the Max, NYT, 5.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Lameless-Duck.html

Bush Vetoes Water Bill, Citing Cost of $23 Billion

November 3, 2007
The New York Times
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing $23 billion in water resource projects, calling it overly expensive, and Congressional Democrats responded angrily, accusing him of insensitivity to the hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast, a big beneficiary of the legislation. They pledged to override him.

The bill, the Water Resources Development Act, would authorize $3.5 billion in work for hurricane-ravaged Louisiana, nearly $2 billion for efforts to save the Everglades and additional sums for a host of other projects favored by lawmakers. Critics said the bill not only was costly but also failed to provide vital changes to the often criticized Army Corps of Engineers, which would do most of the work.

Mr. Bush has now cast five vetoes as president, four since Democrats took control of Congress in January. None have been overridden, although this legislation passed both houses with more than the two-thirds majorities needed to override.

In his veto message, the president noted that when the bill emerged from a House-Senate conference committee, its cost had risen more than 50 percent above the cost of legislation originally passed by the two houses. He also said a backlog of projects for the Corps of Engineers meant that many projects in the bill would never be financed or completed.

“This bill lacks fiscal discipline,” he said. “This authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping.”

“The bill’s excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs,” he added, “exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.”

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, promised a swift override vote, scheduled for Tuesday. Mr. Hoyer denounced the veto, calling it “another example of this president obstinately standing in the way of bipartisan legislation.” The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, predicted an override and accused Mr. Bush of being “out of touch with the American people.”


While lawmakers in both chambers and of both parties quickly issued statements criticizing the veto, some taxpayer rights’ groups praised it, agreeing with Mr. Bush that it was too expensive. And Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who has led the calls for overhauling the corps by adding independent review of its project designs, among other things, said Congress ought to use the veto as an opportunity to improve the bill.

    Bush Vetoes Water Bill, Citing Cost of $23 Billion, NYT, 3.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/washington/03water.html

Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup

November 3, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

FORT JACKSON, S.C., Nov. 2 — President Bush offered an upbeat assessment on Friday of progress in Iraq, saying that while corruption remained a problem and unemployment was high, the economy was growing, violence was down and, “slowly but surely, the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society.”

Speaking to 1,300 graduates of the Army’s basic training camp here, Mr. Bush gave his first progress report on Iraq since September, when he announced that his troop buildup would come to an end by next spring, with reductions beginning at the end of this year.

In the September speech, the president called the new strategy “return on success,” a phrase he reiterated in his remarks here on Friday.

To make his case that the strategy is working, Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of statistics. Since the buildup was completed in June, he said, the number of attacks each week involving I.E.D.’s, or improvised explosive devices, had dropped by half. The number of American military deaths, he said, had fallen to its lowest level in 19 months.

With Karbala Province moving to Iraqi control this week, Mr. Bush said Iraqis were now responsible for security in 8 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.

“The Iraqis are becoming more capable, and our military commander tells me that these gains are making possible what I call ‘return on success,’” Mr. Bush said. “That means we’re slowly bringing some of our troops home — and now we’re doing it from a position of strength.”

Mr. Bush typically finds friendly audiences at military bases, and Friday was no exception; the graduates and their relatives and friends applauded wildly as he arrived on the grassy parade field here, and they interrupted his remarks several times with foot stomping and cheers.

The speech came as Mr. Bush was pressing the Democratic-controlled Congress to approve an emergency spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Debate on the spending bill may not take place until early next year, but some are already predicting that the Democrats may make another attempt to force Mr. Bush to shift strategy in Iraq, in order to bring the troops home more quickly than he had planned.

In a statement responding to Mr. Bush’s speech, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, accused the president of “overstating the security situation” in Iraq.

“While the decrease in U.S. and Iraqi civilian deaths is welcome news, violence remains high in Iraq,” Mr. Reid said. “Our primary goal — political reconciliation — is still out of reach, and Iraqi security forces have not met the responsibilities the president himself laid out for them when he announced his escalation strategy in January.”

When Mr. Bush first announced the troop buildup in January, he said it was intended to give the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki “breathing space” to build a cohesive central government that could bridge the sectarian divisions that were ripping Iraq apart. Mr. Bush conceded Friday that “reconciliation at the national level hasn’t been what we hoped it’d been by now,” and said he had “made my disappointments clear to the Iraqi leadership.”

But he argued, as he has in the past, that reconciliation was taking place at the local level, and that Shiite and Sunni leaders were beginning to cooperate with one another to fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led.

Mr. Bush also took the unusual step of offering a body-count figure, saying that together with Iraqi forces, American troops had killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 “enemy fighters” per month since January.

On the economic front, the president argued that Iraqi society was beginning to return to normal.

“We’re seeing improvements in important economic indicators,” he said. “Inflation has been cut in half. Electricity production in September reached its highest levels since the war began — and higher than it was under Saddam Hussein.”

    Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup, NYT, 3.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/washington/03prexy.html

Bush Tells Dems War Denial Is Dangerous

November 2, 2007
Filed at 2:32 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying ''the world paid a terrible price'' then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Bush accused Congress of stalling important pieces of the fight to prevent new terrorist attacks by: dragging out and possibly jeopardizing confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a key part of his national security team; failing to act on a bill governing eavesdropping on terrorist suspects; and moving too slowly to approve spending measures for the Iraq war, Pentagon and veterans programs.

''Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war,'' Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. ''This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq.''

Bush's remarks were his second in two days alleging inaction on Capitol Hill, which has been led by Democrats since January. This speech focused on measures related to the war on terror, while Wednesday's emphasized disputes between the White House and Congress over domestic issues.

Bush argued the current debate over the Iraq war and the administration's anti-terror methods harkens back to debates decades ago over resisting action when Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin first talked about launching a communist revolution, when Adolf Hitler began moves to establish an ''Aryan superstate'' in Germany, and in the early days of the Cold War when some advocated accommodation of the Soviet Union.

''Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East,'' Bush said. ''Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability.''

Bush said any denial of war is dangerous.

''History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake,'' Bush said. ''Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?''

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-.N.Y., running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, took issue with Bush's comparisons.

''George Bush's faulty and offensive historical analogies aren't going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or bring our troops home,'' she said in a statement. ''Americans are tired of the president's efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division.''

Congress earned Bush's scorn even while he offered praise because a key Senate committee has passed a new eavesdropping bill containing many provisions the president wants. ''It's an important step in the right direction,'' he said.

Bush repeated earlier criticisms of a move to combine spending bills for the Defense Department and veterans programs with one for labor, health and education matters that Republicans consider bloated. Bush also lamented that his emergency spending request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still languishes.

''When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,'' Bush said, ''and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.''

    Bush Tells Dems War Denial Is Dangerous, NYT, 2.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html

Bush: No Attorney General if Not Mukasey

November 2, 2007
Filed at 2:34 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush sought to save Michael Mukasey's troubled nomination for attorney general Thursday, defending the retired judge's refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding torture and warning of a leaderless Justice Department if Democrats don't confirm him.

''If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general,'' Bush said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

''That would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war,'' the president said.

Nonetheless, opposition continued to grow. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., became the fourth of 10 Democrats on the 19-member Judiciary Committee to declare he will vote against Mukasey when the panel decides Tuesday whether to endorse or reject his nomination.

Kennedy said Mukasey's unwillingness to say that waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, is torture increases the chances that it will be used against U.S. troops.

''Judge Mukasey appears to be a careful, conscientious and intelligent lawyer and he has served our country honorably for many years,'' Kennedy said in a Senate speech announcing his opposition. ''But those qualities are not enough for this critical position at this critical time.''

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., planned to announce Friday in his state how he will vote next week.

Bush framed Mukasey's nomination with the familiar theme of national security and the attorney general's role in it.

''It's important for Congress to pass laws and/or confirm nominees that will enable this government to more effectively defend the country and pursue terrorists and radicals that would like to do us harm,'' the president said earlier Thursday during a rare Oval Office session with reporters.

The comments raised questions about whether Bush would nominate anyone else to succeed Alberto Gonzales as the nation's top law enforcer. Bush could bypass Congress by filling the job with someone serving in an acting capacity or appointing someone while lawmakers are in recess to serve out the last 14 months of his administration.

Asked if Bush was saying he would not nominate anyone if Mukasey is rejected, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: ''We don't believe it would come to that. No nominee could meet the test they've presented.''

There is a way for Mukasey to get a full Senate vote even if committee Democrats are united in opposing him. The Senate Judiciary Committee could agree to advance the nomination with ''no recommendation,'' allowing Mukasey the chance to be confirmed by a majority of the 100-member Senate. Several vote-counters in each party said Mukasey probably would get 70 ''yes'' votes.

Despite that prospect, opposition to Mukasey was growing among Senate Democrats. Most cited his refusal to say whether waterboarding is torture and thus illegal under U.S. and international law.

In a letter to Senate Democrats this week, Mukasey said waterboarding is ''repugnant to me'' but added he wanted to review legal and other issues surrounding it before saying whether it is torture.

Democratic Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois said this week they will vote ''no'' in committee. Assuming all nine of the panel's Republicans vote for Mukasey, only one Democrat would have to side with the president for the nomination to move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation.

So far, the committee's other Democrats have declined to announce their positions. That includes Mukasey's chief Democratic sponsor, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters he could not guarantee a full Senate vote if the nomination fails in committee.

''I really believe in the committee process,'' said Reid, who has not said how he would vote. ''If I'm asked by members of the committee to stay out of the fray, I am willing to do that.''

Two Republicans troubled by Mukasey's initial answers said they would vote for him in the full Senate.

But in a letter to Mukasey, GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina urged the nominee never to let waterboarding be used if he were to become attorney general.

Still, signs abounded that Mukasey's nomination was in trouble. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is not on the Judiciary Committee, declared his opposition.

In the Oval Office, Bush complained about the delay and said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques about which he has not been briefed. ''He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not,'' the president said during the session.

Bush said, ''It doesn't make any sense to tell an enemy what we're doing.''

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking to veterans and National Guardsmen in Indianapolis, said classified CIA interrogation methods are not the same as those of the military, where waterboarding is not a permitted in the Army Field Manual.

''This CIA program is different. It involves tougher customers -- men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, and it involves tougher interrogation,'' Cheney said.

Bush urged swift approval of Mukasey, saying the U.S. needs an attorney general on the job to help with the fight against terrorism.

Without saying whether interrogators use waterboarding, Bush said, ''The American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law.''

Asked if he considers waterboarding legal, Bush replied: ''I'm not going to talk about techniques. There's an enemy out there.''

Schumer said, who led the probe that pressured Gonzales to quit and suggested Mukasey as his replacement, continued to withhold comment on his vote.

''No nominee from this administration will agree with us on torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who will rebuild the Justice Department and remain independent, even when pressured by this administration,'' he explained. ''I am weighing if Judge Mukasey is that person.''

------

Associated Press writer Rick Callahan in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

    Bush: No Attorney General if Not Mukasey, NYT, 2.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Senate-Mukasey.html

Bush,

Defending Justice Nominee,

Sees Unfairness

November 2, 2007
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — The White House began a campaign Thursday to save the candidacy of Michael B. Mukasey for attorney general, with President Bush defending him in a speech and in an Oval Office interview, where he complained that Mr. Mukasey was “not being treated fairly” on Capitol Hill.

With Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation in doubt over his refusal to state a clear legal position on a classified Central Intelligence Agency program to interrogate terrorism suspects, Mr. Bush took the unusual step of summoning a small group of reporters into the Oval Office to preview remarks he planned to make later in the day at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization here.

“I believe that the questions he’s been asked are unfair,” Mr. Bush said. “He’s not been read into the program — he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he’s not been briefed. I will make the case — and I strongly believe this is true — that Judge Mukasey is not being treated fairly.”

The president’s remarks and a separate address on Thursday by Vice President Dick Cheney demonstrate just how much the White House has been caught off guard by the fight over Mr. Mukasey, a retired federal judge whose confirmation until recently seemed like a sure thing and had been championed by a leading Democratic senator, Charles E. Schumer of New York.

But the effort also suggests that the White House believes it can combat criticism of Mr. Mukasey and his views by appealing to public concern about terrorism.

With leading Democrats like Mr. Schumer giving Mr. Mukasey positive reviews at the outset the White House hoped to use the Mukasey nomination to mend the bitter partisan feelings left by the resignation of Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general. Now Mr. Schumer says he is undecided, the top Democratic presidential candidates say they will oppose the nomination, and any hope of bipartisan support has been all but erased.

The nomination has not moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee — a panel vote is expected Tuesday — and the committee could decide to keep Mr. Mukasey from receiving a vote on the Senate floor. Mr. Mukasey’s biggest obstacle is his refusal to declare whether he believes a particularly controversial technique known as waterboarding is illegal and a form of torture.

One Republican consulted on the nomination said the White House realized only recently that confirmation was in doubt, and had debated whether it was wise to risk a partisan backlash by having the president weigh in.

“Everybody understands that there’s a price to be paid for the president upping the ante,” the Republican said. “The price is, you put pressure on the Democrats to have a committee action, and you basically do a warning shot to Republicans, including people like McCain and Graham. The flip side of it is you’re making it far more partisan, so nobody’s expecting now that the vote will be 90 to 0.”

The warning shot may have done Mr. Bush some good, at least with Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, both of whom have condemned waterboarding as torture. They issued a joint statement Thursday saying they would vote for Mr. Mukasey.

“Once he is confirmed, however,” the statement added, “we strongly urge that he publicly make clear that waterboarding is illegal and can never be employed.”

The senior Republican on the judiciary panel, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said in an interview Thursday that the White House was right to be concerned about the nomination.

Mr. Specter said he was trying to persuade the administration to brief Judiciary Committee members on the C.I.A. program, so that “we can talk it out amongst ourselves and try to come to a consensus.” But he said Mr. Bush’s aides had been “noncommittal.”

Among Democrats and their outside allies, support for Mr. Mukasey is dwindling. In a sign of how much the debate has shifted, the Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group that had spoken kindly of Mr. Mukasey at first, said Thursday that it would oppose him.

“Based on his record as a judge, we had every expectation that he could show some independence from the administration,” Nan Aron, the group’s president, said in an interview. “But his testimony and his answers indicate that he’s really unwilling to distance himself from Bush’s illegal, unconstitutional policies.”

Mr. Bush, in the Oval Office meeting, declined to address waterboarding. “I’m not going to talk about techniques,” he said, adding, “My view is this: The American people have got to understand the program is important and the techniques used are within the law.”

Waterboarding, a centuries-old method that simulates a feeling of drowning, has become a symbol of the larger debate over the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program, and the Mukasey nomination has become a kind of proxy fight for that battle. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney made the war on terror and the C.I.A. program a central theme of their speeches on Thursday, with Mr. Cheney suggesting that the agency’s efforts had spared Americans another terrorist attack.

“Because we’ve been focused, because we’ve refused to let down our guard, we’ve done — gone more now than six years without another 9/11,” the vice president said, addressing the American Legion in Indianapolis.

Mr. Bush, for his part, took after Congress on a variety of fronts, accusing lawmakers of delaying not only the Mukasey confirmation vote, but also passage of an emergency spending measure to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and legislation that would make permanent the administration’s domestic surveillance program.

“On too many issues,” Mr. Bush said, “Congress is behaving as if America is not at war.”

White House officials said it was Mr. Bush’s idea to invite reporters in for an informal “pen and pad” briefing, without television cameras, something the White House has not done before. Dana M. Perino, the press secretary, said aides to Mr. Bush had been discussing ways to make him more accessible to the press, and settled upon the Oval Office idea after Mr. Bush saw a photograph of President Dwight D. Eisenhower conducting a news conference there.

Bush, Defending Justice Nominee, Sees Unfairness, NYT, 2.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/washington/02bush.html