2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

May 18, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - May 18

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID OBEY (D-WI), HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS CMTE CHMN: The offers that were made today represent a very large steps toward compromise on or part and I think that we got an inch worm response from the administration, virtually no movement whatsoever.

JOSHUA BOLTEN, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: The conversation this morning was a disappointment. It was certainly courteous and candid and it was a lively exchange, but it was not the exchange we had hoped for. Democrats seem to be dug in on precisely the same approach that resulted in the president's veto.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: OK, Democrat David Obey followed by White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, talking about negotiations over a war funding bill. Here we are with our panel to give us some analytical observations from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Juan Williams, senior correspondent of National Public Radio; and syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer -- FOX NEWS contributors, all.

Now gentlemen, on this debate, Democrats demanded what the president had already voted, which was time lines so they were going to offer a waiver with that, while Republicans got the White House, Charles, to move a little bit on some new conditions.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Right, that's the one place where there's a little bit of room in the president's position, that has to do with benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

Everybody loves to put benchmarks on them and not us and of course, it's a good idea, you want the government to do stuff in terms of reconciliation. The president is willing to do that, Senator Warner had proposed a bill which would threaten to cut off nonmilitary aid to the Iraqi government. Now, that's foreign aid and if there's one thing on that people on Capitol Hill love to oppose it's foreign aid. So it's not going to be hard to get people to link the benchmarks with this "foreign aid."

The only question is will the president accept a hard benchmark in the sense the money would have to be withheld or will he be allowed a waiver? I suspect he would not agree it a bill that doesn't allow him a waiver.

ANGLE: Now Juan, it is was interesting that the White House noted Josh Bolten was saying, look the Warner bill is the only bill that has gotten a bipartisan majority. It didn't get enough votes to proceed, but it's the only one that got a majority, go 52 votes the other day. So, there does seem to be a lot of support for that. Is that likely to be enough for Democrats in the House? There you have a lot of pressure on the leadership from the anti-war left.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, the question here is one of accountability. Is the president going to be held accountable for the progress or lack of progress on the warfront? And what he's saying right now is even if he is given a waiver he's not buying in.

On timelines, you mean.

WILLIAMS: Right, on terms of a deadline for withdrawal of troops. So what that means is he doesn't want any accountability and maybe the accountability can slop over in terms of this proposal by Senator Warner of Virginia that you put the pressure on the Iraqi government to build up. But he's, I think he's really holding a hard line here and apparently doing so with no political consequence in terms of the Republican base.

ANGLE: Fred.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Look, he's being held accountable all the time, by you right now. I mean the notion that the president's not being held accountable is absurdment. Look at his popularity rating, because the war's not going well. He's being held accountable.

Now look, Democrats had to know that this was an offer that to we'll get rid of some of the pork if you accept the timelines, this was an offer that the president was bound to refuse. They knew that. But there's something are smart in what they're doing, it's purely political, but every week in which the Democrats raise the Iraqi issue is good week for Democrats, politically. Even Republicans in Congress will tell you that. They hate to see it, but they recognize what is happening. The war is unpopular, the more Democrats harp on that issue and it's the big issue in the forefront, it helps them politically.

ANGLE: Now Charles, Brit was reporting that one Democrat in the house, referring to the fact that Nancy Pelosi has a pretty big anti-war block over there, and nothing will suit them except a date certain for complete withdrawal. So, at least in the initial going, the sense is that she has to go in and push things pretty hard in order to satisfy them that she made her best effort and I think Brit quoted someone as saying that she knows she won't get a timeline, but they have to do their best because the anti-war guys are ripping their hair out.

KRAUTHAMMER: Now the question is, whose hair, her or theirs? (INAUDIBLE)

(LAUGHTER)

.we have to investigate. Look, what's happening here is a dynamic that's very clear. The Republicans, ironically, are united on this at least until the beginning of the surge. They are not going to desert the president right now. The Democrats are divided. They have the antiwar wing, but ultimately as Pelosi has said, she said it earlier in that clip, they are going to approve the authorization. They are not going to withhold the money for our troops and leave them, because in public opinion in the polls if you ask who's to blame if the money doesn't reach troops, it's Congress and not the president. So she has to placate them by these shows week after week, but ultimately by Memorial Day there's going to be a bill, it's going to have the money.

WILLIAMS: Well, just one quick point, I don't think it's a matter of placating anybody. I think that in fact, the will of the American people to their representative is let's look for some reasonable way out of this problem and the president's saying, look, I believe in what I'm doing, I understand, I respect the president, but he's not in keeping with the will of the American people, here.

ANGEL: OK, up next: When's the last time Congress took a no confidence vote? How about never? But one is planned next week for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We'll hash that out when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: It is clear that the time has come for the attorney general to step down. Today, we are announcing that we will offer a no confidence vote on the attorney general. We hope to vote on it next week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: OK, there's Democratic Senator Charles Schumer talking about a no confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. A no confidence vote, gentlemen, will the U.S. parliament actually take that kind of action?

BARNES: Well, how long have we had Congress going, since what -- 1789 and they haven't done it yet and maybe they'll do that vote. But I think it'll have no effect on the Bush administration. You know, the White House, and I have talked to people there, one of the things they feel the most passionate about is not that Alberto Gonzales is the greatest attorney general, but he has been abused and abused and abused over and again by Democrats in Congress and they're not going to, look, they're not going to can him because Chuck Schumer says so. Because they think he has done nothing illegal, nothing wrong, perhaps some things clumsy, but no grounds for being canned and so they're not going to go along with this even if there ultimately is a vote and there may not be.

WILLIAMS: Now, I have some friends who don't even like what I do for a living and stay out of politics and they live in Washington, but they stay out of politics. But this week they were all talking about the drama in James Comey's testimony, the former deputy attorney general, and saying that Alberto Gonzales, the attorney General, and Andy Carr, the former White House chief of staff, had gone, in the dark of night, to John Ashcroft's bed, as Ashcroft was sedated and tried to get him to sign a document that would allow the president to conduct the wiretaps on telephones intended to discover information about terrorists.

Now, as it turns out, it has been said, you know what, but he didn't need that signature. The president has the authority to do that anyway, and secondly that this was the night before the Madrid attacks. And so they were really hungry for information to stop this possible attack, at least that's the thought. We don't know that specifically. But the point I think that is spreading nationwide is why are you going to it man's hospital room and while he is sedated, even if you don't need the signature, apparently you thought you needed the signature.

ANGLE: Well, let -- we should explain to people a little bit. What was happening was there's a regular 45-day review that the president insisted on, in the executive order when he established this program in October of 2001. And it had been renewed repeatedly. Comes up to this point in March of 2004 Ashcroft goes to the hospital, Comey is the acting attorney general and he says the time is up for it and he will not renew it.

So the White House, card and Gonzales go to Ashcroft's bed, Charles, and try to get him to overrule him and Ashcroft says no, basically I agree with Comey and besides he is attorney general right now, so it's up to him. Later on Comey meets with the president, a couple days later, and the president tells him to do what's right.

KRAUTHAMMER: Fred used the word "clumsy" in relation to the attorney general. I would agree. He is the Inspector Clouseau of American government, and I would dismiss him on those grounds alone. But on this issue, even though it was a clumsy attempt and the signature of Ashcroft was not required, Comey himself has said, when he was asked before the Senate, this was -- there was nothing illegal here, it's a matter of custom and after all, the attorney general works for the president, it's his ultimate authority as to whether he can have this program or not.

And the second issue of illegality it wasn't in and of itself illegal. There obviously is a division of opinion, the president after 9/11 was looking for any way to protect America, including listening in on al Qaeda and he stretched the limits of what's legal and people have disagreed, although I think he was right in this. He had Article Two authority as commander in chief to do this.

So there was nothing illegal, here. It was a clumsy attempt to get the signature, but on the basis of fact, there was nothing he did wrong and in fact he defended us and this program and it was extremely important in accounting for the fact that we have not had a second attack since 9/11.

WILLIAMS: So the question is, why did he feel he needed to go to this man's hospital bed in the middle of the night?

KRAUTHAMMER: You want the most authority on your side in a difficult decision in which people honorably disagree and he didn't get it.

WILLIAMS: We didn't get it and he knew that Ashcroft disapproved and so that's -- I think that's -- you know, but...

BARNES: But they rested this on presidential -- every president has claimed this authority in wartime so President Bush wasn't asking for anything new and obviously it was to protect our country from another terrorist attack.

ANGLE: Well in fact, the Justice Department prevailed on this, because Comey and Mueller met separately with the president, the president said you go back and do what is right and they eventually brought the program into compliance with what the Justice Department thought was in fact -- could be certified...

KRAUTHAMMER: Which shows that everybody acted it good faith, here.

WILLIAMS: No, but it says that in that case, that night they were trying to force something and that's -- even the supporters -- even Gonzales' supporter say they're not clear why that night they felt they needed that signature in such a rush.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, because it was expiring. Because authority was expiring. I wouldn't have gone into an intensive care unit, but there was a matter of urgency.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006