Democrats Cool On Bush Offer Of Iraq Talks

Top Leaders Wary Because President Won't Negotiate On Troop Withdrawal Deadline

(CBS/AP)  It sounded like an olive branch. President Bush said Tuesday he wants to sit down with Democrats to resolve the standoff with Congress over war funding.

But the White House insisted Bush was in no mood to negotiate, and since the president won't sign any bill that includes a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal, Democrats questioned the point of meeting at all.

“We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill — a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground,” Bush said in a speech to an American Legion audience in nearby Fairfax, Va.

On the one hand, Bush extended an offer to meet with lawmakers Tuesday. On the other, the White House bluntly said it would not be a negotiating session.

The president said if lawmakers don't send him a bill he will sign — one that does not include timetables or money for pet projects in their home districts — it would be Congress, not the White House, that will have to answer to troops.

“The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,” Bush said at American Legion Post 177. “Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hit back hard, saying a lack in funding would be the president’s fault for not realizing he no longer has a Republican Congress, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

“The president in the past, he has just done whatever he wanted," said Reid. "He had a big rubber stamp up here on Capitol Hill. Whatever he wanted, they stamped 'okay.' That's not the way it is now ... he has got to listen to us because we are speaking for the American people he isn’t.”

In a joint statement, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the terms set by the White House.

“Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the president at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions,” the statement said.

“With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home. The president is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end.”

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said Bush must drop his conditions on the meeting before Reid would attend. Pelosi agreed.

“I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an offer of that kind,” Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco. “The president wants a blank check and the Democrats won't give it to him.”

Bush said the Defense Department will soon send Congress a request to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover funding for troops — a move needed, he said, because lawmakers have delayed his emergency spending request. He warned that continued delays would undermine troop training, slow the repair of equipment and force soldiers to serve longer tours of duty.

Bush got an assist for his argument on Tuesday from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said he saw no need to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. His comments in Japan came a day after tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of two Shiite holy cities, demanding that U.S. forces leave the country.

Meanwhile, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates questioning whether additional National Guard units named Monday for possible deployment to Iraq will be properly trained and equipped before they leave.

The Missouri Democrat also said he was concerned about another proposal revealed Monday that could keep five active duty brigades in Iraq beyond their planned late-summer homecoming. “I must ask you, Mr. Secretary, where does this end?” Skelton said in his letter Tuesday.

Bush has asked Congress for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. The House and Senate have approved the money, but their bills aim to wind down the war by including timelines for troops to come home — something Bush won't accept.

The Senate bill would require a U.S. troop exit in Iraq to begin within 120 days, with a completion goal of March 31, 2008. The House bill orders all combat troops out by Sept. 1, 2008.

Bush also opposes the bills because of what he calls pork-barrel spending on matters unrelated to the war.

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino suggested that Bush has the upper hand because Democrats do not have votes to override his veto. And she stressed that the meeting was not a negotiation session.

“The president is not asking to lecture anybody, nor does he want to,” Perino said. “We understand that Congress has a role to play. We understand what that role is. I would hope that they understand what the commander in chief's role is. And if a meeting can help alleviate some of the tension, then that's what we're for.”

When a reporter said it sounded like an invitation for Democrats to agree with Bush, Perino said, “Well, hopefully so.”

Perino said Democrats could benefit by meeting with Bush but said she was not aware of any lawmaker who had accepted his invitation so far. “Maybe they need to hear again from the president about why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal,” she said.

[me4prezz]

Saad, a humanitarian worker, is quoted as recalling the scene after a bomb blast: "I saw a four-year-old boy sitting beside his mother's body, which had been decapitated by the explosion. He was talking to her, asking her what had happened."

The report quotes a woman as saying: "If there's anything anybody could do that would really help us, it would be to help collect the bodies that line the streets in front of our homes every morning and that we find nobody dares touch or remove." It was "simply unbearable" to face them every morning on the way to school.

Medical services are in dire straits, with many health workers fleeing the country after the deaths or abductions of colleagues. At Baghdad's al-Kindi hospital only 40 of the 208 surgeons who used to work there are now still on duty.

Rest of the story.

Tell me again how we are helping these people? We are making their situation worse everyday that we are there. Bush needs a trip down reality lane and he can start by going to Iraq and seeing the children holding the hands of their dead parents with no home. No food. No water. No shelter. No security. Congratulations Bush. You just killed an entire nation.

[me4prezz]

Iraqi civilians are experiencing "immense suffering" because of a "disastrous" security situation, deepening poverty and a worsening humanitarian crisis, according to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The ICRC also sees no sign that the US-led security "surge" in Baghdad is bringing relief to the capital, while hospitals struggle to cope with mass casualties as malnutrition as well as power and water shortages become more frequent across the country.

"The suffering Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable," Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the organisation, said at the group's Geneva headquarters.

The report, Civilians without Protection, provides a grim snapshot of the situation in Iraq but will carry special weight thanks to the ICRC's reputation as the scrupulously neutral "silent service" of international humanitarian work. It maintains a presence in Baghdad despite the bombing of its offices in 2003, and works closely with the Iraqi Red Crescent.

The report says that more than 100,000 families have been forced to leave their homes in the past year because of the shootings, bombings, abductions, murders and military operations.

"Every day dozens of people are killed and many more wounded," it says. "The plight of Iraqi civilians is a daily reminder of the fact that there has long been a failure to respect their lives and dignity."

Guardian Unlimited....

[randalds]

Wonder why the MSM is overlooking Nancy (et al's) shadow foreign policy comments in Syria? We have a right to know what was actually discussed.

I demand an investigation!!!!
Posted by us_infidel at 03:06 PM : Apr 11, 2007

Because what she did was 100% legal and the White House authorized her to go by stamping her passport for the trip and they even briefed her before she left. Of course even though they pre-approved the trip it didn't stop them from taking some political cheap shots, which they're getting so lame at doing.

[us_infidel]

Wonder why the MSM is overlooking Nancy (et al's) shadow foreign policy comments in Syria? We have a right to know what was actually discussed.

I demand an investigation!!!!

[bigsk8fan]

Yes, we voted in these Democrats to fight against W's war in Iraq. Until he gets the message and is more willing to work with the will of the people, then his war funding bill will not come for his signature.

[homespunlady]

From an AP article CBS hasn't posted:
Also Wednesday, Iraqi Cabinet ministers allied to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened to quit the government to protest the prime minister's lack of support for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Such a pullout by the very bloc that put Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in office could collapse his already perilously weak government. The threat comes two months into a U.S. effort to pacify Baghdad in order to give al-Maliki's government room to function.

Pretty interesting the very people that helped put him in are making noise to get him out.
It appears they've learned how current "American Style Democracy" works fairly well.
SO, why don't we LEAD the way and SHOW them what a REAL DEMOCRACY can do. Get back on track and take care of OUR PEOPLE FIRST rather than a power hungry megalomaniac. That's Democracy as opposed to MONARCHY.

[djermano1]

The real War is the war between the Oil Corporations, the so called spreading of Democracy VS. Global Warming. I am afraid Global Warming is winning hands down. Bush will go down as hard as the WTC. And I don't think we will be crying! Change your ways Bush, or the world will make the decision for you.
http://www.sugarcitycane ...how we will win the war on Global Warming.

[djermano1]

The real War is the war between the Oil Corporations, the so called spreading of Democracy VS. Global Warming. I am afraid Global Warming is winning hands down. Bush will go down as hard as the WTC. And I don't think we will be crying! Change your ways Bush, or the world will make the decision for you.
http://www.sugarcitycane ...how we will win the war on Global Warming.

[bluestardad]

Even Eisenhower had problems with Israeli groups but he did not let them buy him!

READ AS THEY BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON OUR GOVERNMENT!
http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm


Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed [AIPAC]." [SPIEGEL, p. 52].[citation needed] Today, AIPAC has over 100,000 members.[1]
Activities and stated goals
AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace".[2] It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. AIPAC has been effective in gaining support for Israel among members of Congress and White House administrations.
The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East."

[tuckerndfw]

If we were really serious about defeating this threat we would bomb the Pakistanian broder area to rubble and destroy 90% of their infrastructure.

Posted by afmca at 09:26 AM : Apr 11, 2007

We agree that "terrorists" pose no genuine existential threat to any nation, including the US.

But, bombs and missiles will never defeat "terrorists."

Using bombs & missiles against them has only increased their ability to recruit others.

There is no military solution to the "war on terror." As it is being conducted by the Bush administration, is a complete waste of lives and money. And, is counterproductive.

George Bush and Cheney have produced more terrorists than they eliminated.

And, they should be impeached to prevent further harm from coming to this nation and the world at large.