Republicans Stop Bill To Ban Waterboarding
(CBS/AP) Senate Republicans blocked a bill Friday that would restrict the interrogation methods the CIA can use against terrorism suspects.
The bill would require the CIA to adhere to the Army's field manual on interrogation, which bans waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.
The interrogation procedure, which is recognized as a form of torture by making the subject think he's drowning, is banned by international law. It has been used by CIA interrogators on terrorism suspects, or by those to whom U.S. prisoners have been sent via rendition flights.
It was recently learned that the CIA ordered the destruction of videotapes of interrogations in which detainees were reportedly subjected to waterboarding and other harsh measures.
The legislation, part of a measure authorizing the government's intelligence activities for 2008, had been approved a day earlier by the House by a vote of 222-199, and sent to the Senate for what was supposed to be final action.
Senate opponents of that provision, however, discovered a potentially fatal parliamentary flaw: The ban on torture had not been in the original versions of the intelligence bill passed by the House and Senate. Instead, it was a last-minute addition during negotiations between the two sides to write a compromise bill, a move that could violate Senate rules. The rule is intended to protect legislation from last-minute amendments that neither house of Congress has had time to fully consider.
Although it's not unheard of for new language to be added in House-Senate negotiations and accepted anyway, the rules allow such a move to be challenged and the language stripped from the bill.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., placed a hold on the intelligence bill, preventing the Senate from voting on it while the challenge goes forward.
"I think quite frankly applying the Army field manual to the CIA would be ill-advised and would destroy a program that I think is lawful and helps the country," Graham said in an interview.
If the Senate were to approve a stripped-down authorization bill next week, it would then have to go back to the House for another vote.
The field manual amendment was pushed by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and backed by two Senate Republicans, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Feinstein defended the provision and said the Senate should debate it. "The Army Field Manual has been an effective guide for the military," she said. "It was very carefully written and reviewed. It has not come under criticism, unlike the constant criticism in the CIA arena .... It is my belief that America is not well-served by torture."
The White House threatened to veto the bill this week over the interrogation restrictions and a list of other issues. The CIA denies that it tortures detainees.
The Army field manual, adopted in 2006, prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.
The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners but has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official familiar with the program who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified. CIA Director Michael Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006.
The White House gave the CIA special latitude to conduct harsh or "enhanced" interrogations in 2002.
Bush 'cannot recall' CIA videos
US President George W Bush has said he has "no recollection" of the existence of video tapes of CIA interrogations and the plan to destroy them.
The CIA says it wiped two tapes of interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects to protect the identities of its agents.
But human rights groups accuse it of destroying evidence of practices that may be tantamount to torture.
A US Senate committee has promised a thorough investigation into the history of the making and wiping of the tapes.
Mr Bush continued to have confidence in CIA Director Michael Hayden, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
The president "did not remember" being told of the tapes prior to Thursday, she said.
The CIA confirmed on Thursday allegations in the New York Times that two tapes were destroyed in 2005.
Officials feared the tapes could have raised doubts about the legality of the CIA's techniques, the newspaper says.
The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, John Rockefeller, a Democrat, called for a thorough investigation into the tapes and their destruction.
Gen Hayden said House and Senate intelligence committee members had been informed of the tapes and the decision to wipe them.
Jane Harman, a senior Democrat who was on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, said she had been informed of the decision, but was opposed to it.
"I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it," she told the Associated Press.
Pete Hoekstra, a Republican who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, told the news agency he did not recall being briefed on the matter at all.
Separately, Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin asked the Attorney General to request an investigation into whether the CIA broke obstruction-of-justice laws by destroying the footage.
'Disingenuous'
The CIA revelation has drawn criticism from civil liberties and human rights groups.
Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel with Human Rights Watch, said the wiping of the tapes was "destruction of evidence", and described the reasons given by the CIA as "disingenuous".
The American Civil Liberties Union accused the agency of showing an utter disregard for the law.
"The destruction of these tapes appears to be a part of an extensive, long-term pattern of misusing executive authority to insulate individuals from criminal prosecution for torture and abuse," an ACLU statement said.
Gen Hayden explained why the footage was destroyed in an internal memo sent to CIA employees and obtained by the Associated Press.
He said the CIA had begun taping interrogations as an internal check in 2002 and decided to delete the videos because they no longer had "intelligence value" and posed a security risk.
"Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the programme, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaeda and its sympathisers," he said.
Harsh techniques
The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the news is likely to trigger more questions about the interrogation techniques used by the CIA and whether they amounted to torture.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, President Bush authorised the use of "harsh techniques" in the interrogation of suspected terrorists.
According to our correspondent, those techniques are alleged to have included water-boarding, a method in which a suspect is made to feel he is drowning.
Human rights groups say that water-boarding - and other techniques allegedly used by the CIA - can be defined as torture under various international treaties to which the US is a signatory.
Gen Hayden says that the CIA's internal watchdogs saw the tapes in 2003 and verified that the techniques used were legal.
The Bush administration has always maintained that it does not allow the use of torture.
The tapes are thought to have shown the interrogation in 2002 of a number of terror suspects, including Abu Zubaydah, who had been a chief recruiter for the al-Qaeda network.
Guantanamo legal showdown begins
The US Supreme Court has begun considering whether Guantanamo Bay inmates should be able to contest their detention in US civilian courts.
Two cases challenge the removal by Congress of the "habeas corpus" right of detainees under the US constitution to be heard by an independent judge.
If the court rules in their favour, indefinite detention under military control could be declared unlawful.
The court's judges have ruled against the US government in two earlier cases.
The first concerned the status of Guantanamo Bay in relation to US territory.
In 2004, the judges found that existing law gave federal courts the right to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay - the right of "habeas corpus" - because of the unique control the US government had over the land leased from Cuba.
Two years later, it ruled that the president did not have the authority to order the "enemy combatants" there to face military commissions.
The government responded both times by obtaining congressional legislation restricting judicial review of the detentions.
The Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed in 2006 removed the right of habeas corpus and set up commissions to try detainees who were not US citizens.
'Law-free zone'
Now the two test cases challenging the MCA brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian arrested in Bosnia in 2001, and Fawzi al-Odah, a Kuwaiti seized in Pakistan in 2002, have been consolidated into one and brought on behalf of 37 foreign nationals who remain among the 305 detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Their lawyers argue that habeas corpus should extend to the facility even though it is technically not US sovereign territory.
On Wednesday, court justices questioned lawyers from both sides.
Seth Waxman, lawyer for one of the inmates, said many prisoners had been held for six years with "no prospect" of challenging their detention in any meaningful way.
"The US government has complete jurisdiction and control over this place. No other law applies," Mr Waxman said.
"If the US law doesn't apply, it is a law-free zone."
But Solicitor General Paul Clement said the prisoners at Guantanamo have more rights to contest their detention than foreigners held by the US outside its territory have had in the past.
"This is a remarkable liberalisation," he said.
The US constitution states that habeas corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".
Mr Clement said in his brief to the court that the US does not own Guantanamo Bay and therefore the writ of habeas corpus does not run there.
"As aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, petitioners do not enjoy any rights," he said.
Outside Wednesday's hearing two dozen protesters, some in orange jump suits, shouted "restore habeas corpus", the Associated Press news agency reported.
The court is expected to decide the case by mid-2008.
Kidnapped Britons tape condemned
The UK government has condemned a videotape issued by the kidnappers of five British men held captive in Iraq.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the tape would "add to the distress of the men's families and friends".
In the film, dated 18 November, the kidnappers say they will kill one of the men as a "first warning" unless UK forces leave Iraq within 10 days.
The five men were seized on 29 May from Baghdad's finance ministry building by gunmen disguised as police officers.
They are being held by a militia group calling itself the Islamic Shia Resistance in Iraq.
The tape, which the Foreign Office is studying, is in Arabic and was broadcast on Al-Arabiya television on Tuesday.
The Britons - four guards and a computer expert - were initially taken to a Shia suburb after being seized.
Consular officials had remained in regular contact with the families of the men, the spokesman added.
The case has not featured in the media as much as other kidnappings in Iraq - including those of Ken Bigley and Margaret Hassan - because of a Foreign Office request for minimal coverage.
That request was made in keeping with the wishes of the men's families.
The Foreign Office says it does not want anything to get in the way of its negotiations, through third parties, to get the men released.
'Withdraw thieves'
In the tape, filmed in front of an "Islamic Shia Resistance in Iraq" flag, one of the men gives his name, says he has been held for 173 days and adds: "I feel we have been forgotten."
In written text shown on the video, the kidnappers say the UK should "withdraw all the thieves and the gangs that they have brought with them to plunder and squander our wealth and resources, and to return what they have stolen".
They warn that, if the UK does not meet its demands, "this hostage will be executed on day number 10 as a first warning, then other details that you will not like will be made public".
It is unclear whether the 10-day deadline begins now, or when the recording was made.
The Foreign Office spokesman said: "No matter what the cause, hostage-taking can never be justified.
"We again call on those holding the men to release them unconditionally."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman also condemned the release of the videotape.
"It's our long-established policy not to comment on such footage and we encourage others not to speculate," he added.
"That would be unhelpful and distressing to the families concerned."
'Ordinary men'
BBC special correspondent Gavin Hewitt said a crucial difference between this kidnapping and previous cases had been that intelligence agencies believed the Britons were being held by a splinter group of the Mahdi army - a Shia militia - rather than Sunnis linked to al-Qaeda.
But the "secretive cell" did not appear to be part of a big organisation, BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said, which made it more difficult for British authorities to understand its motives.
However, our correspondent said going public with the tape signalled a change of behaviour in the kidnappers as, up until now, nothing had been heard from the five men being held.
It was putting "immense pressure" on the British government to resolve the issue, but little was yet known about the hostages' whereabouts and how serious the group's threats were, he added.
In September, the families of the five men urged their captors to end their "torment" of being separated from "ordinary family men".
The statement continued: "They are sons, fathers and brothers who were working to support us - their families.
"We miss them so much and want them to come home to us so that our families can be complete again and our children no longer have to endure the pain of missing their fathers."
Bill Clinton's Iraq War Claim Disputed
A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton's statement this week that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion.
Clinton's comments in Iowa on Tuesday went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003. But the disclosure of his presence in briefings by Rice -- and his private expressions of support -- may add to the headaches that the former president has given his wife's campaign in recent weeks.
Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was "shocked" and "astonished" by Clinton's remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams "coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that 'we have Clinton's support.'"
Leverett, a former career foreign service officer who said she is not involved in any presidential campaign, said the incident affected her because of her own doubts about the wisdom of an attack. "To hear President Clinton was supportive really silenced whatever questions I had," she recalled. Leverett, who worked in the same office as Abrams at the time, said Rice and Abrams "made it a high priority" to get Clinton's support, meeting with him at least twice. Abrams was tasked to answer Clinton's questions and "took the responsibility very seriously," Leverett said. "Elliott was then very focused on making sure that we followed up on Clinton's questions to keep Clinton happy and on board."
One of the specific questions Clinton asked, Leverett recalled hearing, is what the United States would do if Iraq's "military used chemical weapons against our Gulf allies."
She recalled being told that Clinton made it clear to Rice and Abrams that they could count on his public support for the war if it was necessary.
Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said that "she is not going to comment on past conversations with former presidents in either capacity as [national security adviser] or secretary of state." White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on behalf of Abrams.
Leverett added that the White House at the time had little concern about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for the war and "they discussed inviting her to various White House events as a sort of reward for her support."
Leverett and her husband, Flynt Leverett, also a former top Rice aide, have become critics of the Bush administration since they left the White House, accusing the administration of trying to censor their writing because of their criticism of Iran policy.
In an interview last night, Sen. Clinton said of her husband's comments, "There was nothing new in what he said."
An adviser to the former president said that, while Clinton recalled meeting with Rice before the war, it was strictly an informational session about technical war planning, not the merits of an invasion. Clinton did not, the adviser said, believe he was being solicited for an opinion about whether to invade.
Although Bill Clinton is still viewed as a political asset, particularly in the hotly contested Democratic primaries, he has also repeatedly made remarks that have put him out of step with his wife's message and irritated Clinton campaign aides who have been forced to address them.
After the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last month, the former president insinuated that his wife's Democratic rivals were mounting attacks on her akin to the "Swift boat" campaign Republicans launched against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 race -- an explosive charge that prompted some of Hillary Clinton's rivals to lash out more aggressively than ever.
The following week, Clinton strayed off-message again, continuing to reinforce the theme that other candidates were piling on his wife after her strategists had decided to drop the issue. In a speech on Nov. 12, Clinton complained about the "boys" in the campaign "getting tough" on his wife. It was then that Clinton campaign aides began quietly distancing themselves from the former president, saying his comments were not part of their coordinated effort.
Jay Carson, a longtime Clinton spokesman who recently moved to Sen. Clinton's campaign, quickly sought to put the former president's comments on Iraq into context -- arguing that Clinton had always had concerns about attacking Baghdad.
"This administration assured us that Saddam Hussein had [weapons of mass destruction], that the war was over 2,500 casualties ago and that the insurgency was in its last throes," he said. "Their claim that President Clinton privately offered his support for the war should be viewed with the same level of credibility."
And the campaign made clear that Clinton would remain his wife's chief, and best, surrogate.
"President Clinton is a huge asset to the campaign. Everywhere he goes, he draws large, supportive crowds," said Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser.
Edwards Releases Plan To Combat Hunger
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday released his plan to fight domestic hunger and called on Congress to immediately take action to fund programs that provide food services for millions of Americans.
"This is an issue that we can actually do something about," Edwards said, also asking Americans to do their part at an individual level. "I think we have a moral responsibility as a country to stand up and take action to where no man, woman or child in this country should feel hungry."
Edwards' six-point proposal urges Congress to pass a farm bill that would provide food stamps and support food banks. It asks lawmakers to reform the food stamps program to help more families get more assistance.
The plan also tells politicians in Washington to quickly provide $5.1 billion to help low income families pay their winter heating bills to free up extra money for food.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, said he would help low-income children get more access to healthy meals, support programs that provide meals for the elderly, and develop a new program that would identify and provide for neighborhoods that don't have full-service supermarkets.
More than 35.5 million people in the United States went hungry in 2006, according to a Department of Agriculture study. Of those, about one-third reported they had "very low food security," meaning they had a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat.
Edwards said that while the hunger problem won't go away overnight, the nation needs new leadership to address it.
"If we have a president who's committed to it, who can take responsibility, we can move (that number) significantly and quickly," he said.
Edwards has brought to the presidential campaign trail a populist message defined by several proposals targeting the nation's poor. Among them, plans for universal health care, raising the minimum wage and revitalizing the economies of rural areas.
After announcing his domestic hunger plan, Edwards and his three children left home and took a five-minute drive in his hybrid sport utility vehicle to a Carrboro food pantry.
The family unloaded turkeys - some a little too heavy for Edwards' 7-year-old son, Jack. They also handed out meals to families and helped load bags of food into cars.
Jack and his 9-year-old sister, Emma Claire, talked with children their own age while older daughter Cate, 25, helped pack supplies. Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, was at home amid days-long preparations for Thanksgiving dinner.
Although he acknowledged that campaigning didn't allow him much time to volunteer in places like a food shelter, Edwards launched a "One Can Change America" campaign.
It encourages his supporters to volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate canned food or toys, and ask their friends, co-workers and others to do the same.
Ex-Aide: Bush Misled Public On CIA Leak
(AP) Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field - and often duck - those types of questions.
Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt and she had no immediate comment. McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.
Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.
McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.
In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.
"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.
Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.
Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.
McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."
In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."
Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
Democrat: Bush Is Blocking New Iraq Course
(AP) A Democratic senator on Saturday accused President Bush and congressional Republicans of hindering his party's attempts to chart a new course in Iraq even though U.S. troops are fighting violence "they cannot possibly resolve."
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said increased troop levels ordered earlier this year to give Iraqi politicians breathing space to meet political and diplomatic goals have not had the intended result.
"That means our troops are fighting for a peace that we seem more interested in achieving than the Iraqi politicians do themselves," Casey said while delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.
The White House has said there have been positive developments in Iraq, such as a reduction in violence and increased economic capacity.
On Friday, Senate Republicans blocked a $50 billion Democratic bill that would have paid for several months of combat. It also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days and set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.
Democrats now plan to sit on Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next year, which pushes the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare.
Bush has said Congress should not be telling military leaders what to do.
Casey said the war is costing Americans at all levels. More than 3,800 U.S. troops have died in Iraq - 178 from his home state of Pennsylvania. Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee estimated this past week that about $1 trillion has been spent on the war, he said.
About 170,000 troops will spend Thanksgiving in Iraq, he said.
"They will face hatred they did not create and sectarian violence they cannot possibly resolve," Casey said. "They are doing a remarkable job, a heroic job, but the Iraqi leaders are not holding up their end of the bargain."
Sparks Fly In Democratic Debate
(AP) Under pressure in a feisty campaign debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday night the American people "know where I stand" and accused her rivals of distorting her record and slinging mud "right out of the Republican playbook."
"There's nothing personal about this," countered former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who joined Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in bluntly accusing Clinton of constantly switching positions on Social Security, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other issues.
"What the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions, and that is not what we have seen from Senator Clinton on a host of issues," added Obama.
The three-way confrontation reduced the other Democratic presidential hopefuls on the debate stage to the uncomfortable role of spectator yet it perfectly captured the race for the party's nomination seven weeks before the kickoff Iowa caucuses.
Clinton leads in the nationwide polls, but recent surveys in Iowa show she, Obama and Edwards are in a virtual dead heat.
Obama was the first to challenge Clinton, saying it took two weeks to "get a clear answer" on whether she supports or opposes issuing driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. "The same is true on Social Security," he said.
For the first time in a debate since the campaign began, Clinton swiftly answered in kind. "When it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage he chose not to do that," she said of Obama. She added his plan would leave 15 million people without coverage - the population of Iowa and three other early voting states in the nominating campaign.
Edwards was next to accuse Clinton of trying to have it both ways - with the war in Iraq, Social Security and defining the scope of President Bush's power to use military force against Iran. "She says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged, that is corrupt," added the former North Carolina senator.
"I've just been personally attacked again," Clinton broke in. "I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."
The debate unfolded on a stage at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. The state holds caucuses on Jan. 19 - following Iowa on Jan. 3 and most likely the New Hampshire primary several days later.
For New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, the opening moments were frustrating - and they repeatedly tried to break in.
"O, no, don't make me speak," Biden said in mock horror when moderator Wolf Blitzer called on him roughly 15 minutes into the proceedings.
"Let's stop the mudslinging," said Richardson.
Yet Richardson, who has campaigned in Nevada more than any other presidential hopeful, took verbal shots at Clinton and her two closest pursuers in the polls.
He said Edwards is engaging in class warfare, Obama was trying to start a generational war and questioned whether Clinton wanted to truly end the Iraq war. "All I want to do is give peace a chance," he said.
The focus on Clinton from the debate's opening moments was hardly surprising.
The New York senator herself has conceded she turned in a sub-par performance at the last debate, when she stumbled on a question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Her husband, the former president, leapt to her defense in the interim, saying of her rivals: "Those boys have been getting tough on her lately."
The setting underscored Nevada's newly prominent role in the nominating process. The state is far more racially diverse than either Iowa or New Hampshire, with a population that is about 22 percent Hispanic and 10 percent black.
Democrats in Nevada hoped the focus on their state would prompt candidates to pay closer heed to Western issues like water, grazing and mining rights.
But it was more than an hour into the two-hour debate before the issue of energy came up.
Instead, Clinton drew the first question - and moments later the first barb from Obama.
Despite her critics, she said, "I think the American people know where I've stood for 35 years," adding she had been fighting for children, workers, families and universal health care.
More than an hour later, Dodd sought to turn the focus back onto Clinton, saying she had changed positions on trade by announcing her support for a deal with Peru at the same time she advocates a "time out" for such agreements.
Moments earlier, Clinton gave a careful answer when asked whether she now viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement - a product of her husband's administration - to be a mistake.
"NAFTA is a mistake to the extent it did not deliver what we hoped it would," she said.
<
Poll: Top Democrats Deadlocked In Iowa
(CBS) Democrats and Republicans are both headed toward heated showdowns in Iowa, where, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, Hillary Clinton holds a statistically insignificant lead over John Edwards and Barack Obama, and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney finds his long-held position as the state's front-runner challenged by a surging Mike Huckabee.
The situation in Iowa, where nominating caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, is in stark contrast to New Hampshire, where Clinton and Romney continue to hold large leads among those likely to vote in the state's first-in-the-nation primary, which could come only days after Iowa's contests.
But in both states, large chunks of voters have yet to make up their minds, meaning the results of the contests that will kick off the 2008 nominating season are still difficult to predict.
In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.
None of the top three has firmed up their support yet - about half of those backing each candidate said they could change their minds before caucus night. Despite that fluidity, there are some clear patterns that show how important it will be for each candidate to turn out certain groups of voters: Women have a strong preference for Clinton, favoring her over Edwards by 10 percent and Obama by 12 percent. Obama leads among those under the age of 45 - 39 percent of that group backed the Illinois senator, compared to 25 percent for Clinton and 18 percent for Edwards. While Obama and Clinton are nearly tied for support among first-time caucus-goers, previous attendees give Edwards a narrow edge over Clinton.
The findings indicate that if older and established voters dominate turnout, the caucuses could be a two-way contest between Clinton and Edwards. If the Obama campaign succeeds in its bid to bring young voters and first-time caucus-goers out on Jan. 3, however, it could leave Iowa with a win and a crucial momentum boost headed into later contests. Doing so will be a challenge: Only a third of possible first-time attendees say they will "definitely" attend the caucuses, compared with six in 10 of previous attendees.
Read The Complete CBS News/NY Times Poll
One factor in Obama's favor is that nearly two-thirds of the state's independent voters who plan on voting on Jan. 3 say they'll attend the Democratic caucus. Obama attracts the support of 37 percent of those voters, compared to only 17 percent for Edwards and 15 percent for Clinton.
The priorities of Iowans will also be crucial. Clinton is seen as the most electable in November 2008 by a wide margin. However, Obama is clearly seen as the most likely to bring about change in Washington and Edwards holds a strong edge on the question of who understands the problems of Iowans.
Poll: Clinton, Romney Lead In N.H.
(AP) The Democratic race in the key early primary state of New Hampshire has tightened with Barack Obama gaining ground on front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a new poll released Sunday.
On the Republican side, support for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has grown slightly since the last poll of New Hampshire voters in October, according to the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.
Among Democrats, Clinton, the New York senator, led with 36 percent, followed by Illinois senator Obama with 25 percent. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards had 14 percent, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson 6 percent.
Romney led all Republicans with 33 percent, followed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 22 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain with 13 percent. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee each had 7 percent, with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson at 5 percent.
In the October poll, Clinton led Obama by 40 percent to 20 percent, while Romney had 25 percent to Giuliani's 21 percent.
Another poll of New Hampshire voters released Sunday showed similar results. The poll conducted for The Boston Globe by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center showed Clinton leading with 35 percent, followed by Obama at 21 percent, Edwards at 15 percent and Richardson at 10 percent. Among Republicans, Romney had 32 percent to Giuliani's 20 percent. McCain was close behind with 17 percent and Paul had 7 percent.
The New Hampshire primary in early January is one of the first key tests in the presidential nominating process, serving to provide momentum to the front-runners and winnow the field.
The Marist poll found that nearly two-thirds of Clinton's supporters strongly support her, while roughly half of Obama's say the same. About half of Romney's and Giuliani's backers express firm support.
Terrorism, the economy and immigration are the top concerns cited by likely Republican voters, while Democrats name the war in Iraq, the economy and health care, according to the Marist poll.
The Marist poll involved telephone interviews conducted Nov. 2-6 with 458 likely Democratic voters and 372 likely Republican voters. The margins of sampling error were 5 percentage points for Democrats and 5.5 points for Republicans.
The Boston Globe poll found that although Romney and Clinton remain the front-runners in New Hampshire, they have yet to seal the race. Just 24 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans said they have "definitely decided" whom to support.
The poll shows Clinton with strong support on questions of experience and dealing with terrorism, but when asked who is "most trustworthy," 26 percent said Obama, compared to 19 percent each for Clinton and Edwards.
Romney has vulnerable spots, as well. Thirty-four percent of Republicans said Giuliani is the "strongest leader," compared to 26 percent for Romney. And Romney trailed McCain and Giuliani on the question of which candidate is best able to deal with terrorism.
Bill Clinton: Blame Me For Health Care
(AP)
Former President Clinton said Thursday that he is to blame for his administration's failed health care plan, not his wife, who spearheaded the effort.
Clinton was asked about the plan during a campaign event, where he spoke to about 600 people crowded into a YMCA gymnasium. The health care effort was led by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, now a New York senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"She has taken the rap for some of the problems we had with health care the last time that were far more my fault than hers," the former president said.
He said part of the problem was a lack of money to finance the health care expansion. Money could be available this time to pay for expanded health care, such as the universal health care plan Hillary Clinton has proposed.
"This time, when you let the tax cuts for upper-income people expire, it'll create a pool of money that wasn't there last time," Bill Clinton said. "We told her she had to get to universal coverage and there would be no new money. She had to figure out how to do it."
Clinton added that his wife's plan faced opposition in Congress, in part, because they had an attitude of "just say no to Bill Clinton."
When asked by a reporter about the former president's comments, Sen. Barack Obama, a rival for the presidential nomination, said Hillary Clinton shouldn't tout her experience and then not take responsibility for the failures.
"If part of your basis for experience is the work you did on health care, then presumably when it didn't work out, that's part of the experience as well," Obama said during a brief stop outside a convenience store and gas station in Albia.
"We're focused on trying to deliver a message of the kind of president I would be and why I think I would be the best nominee for the Democratic Party," Obama said. "My understanding is that President Clinton is not on the ballot."
Climate Is A Risky Issue For Democrats
All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow.
Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who from the outset has made global warming one of the three pillars of his campaign, explains his ambitious plan to Democratic primary voters in terms of sacrifice.
"I know what presidential candidates are supposed to do; they roll in here every four years and they promise you this, they promise you that. What I'm going to do is tell you the truth," Edwards says at nearly every campaign stop. "It won't be easy, but it is time for a president who asks Americans to be patriotic about something other than war."
The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling -- an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 -- tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society.
In a speech yesterday in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she plans to address climate change and the nation's energy needs by launching an effort to require U.S. vehicles to average 55 miles per gallon by 2030 and providing $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help the auto industry transform to production of more efficient cars. Clinton estimated that by 2030, her plan would cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds compared with current projections.
"This is the biggest challenge we've faced in a generation -- a challenge to our economy, our security, our health and our planet. It's time for America to meet it," Clinton said. ". . . I believe America is ready to take action, ready to break the bonds of the old energy economy and ready to prove that the climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country. . . . It will be a new beginning for the 21st century."
According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.
"I'd be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation," Edwards acknowledged in an interview, adding that audiences tend to pause before expressing their support when he lays out his climate plan. "No matter what the politics are, there's such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We've got to do it."
In a Des Moines speech last month, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) predicted that new technology will ultimately bring rising energy costs back down. "But at least on the front end, there's going to be some costs, and we can't pretend like there's a free lunch," he told the crowd.
While Democrats are working to outdo each other on climate change -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for example, supports a 90 percent greenhouse gas reduction by midcentury -- GOP presidential candidates remain more skeptical, to say the least. Former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) stands by his commentary on National Review Online that warming on other planets has led some people "to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle."
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said in the wake of Gore's Nobel Prize win that when it comes to global warming, "if we try to deal with it at too hysterical a pace, we could create problems."
Bush The Elder Won't Go Easy On Hillary
(AP) Former President George H.W. Bush says the post-White House friendship he has nurtured with the man who turned him out of office won't make him go any easier on his successor's wife, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bush and former President Clinton in recent years have worked together on numerous charitable causes, including jointly raising money for victims of the Indonesian tsunami in late 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
"And I might say I've enjoyed playing golf with the guy," Bush said.
But none of that will make him hold his tongue against Hillary Clinton, who leads the Democratic presidential nomination race.
"I'm enough older that he has treated me with great deference and I would say friendship. And so there is a friendship there," Bush said of former President Clinton in a taped interview broadcast on "Fox News Sunday."
"But just as he's not going to tiptoe about his differences with the president, I wouldn't tiptoe with my differences with Hillary," Bush said. "But I don't plan to be all involved in this."
Bush also was asked to explain the country's attachment to the Bushes and Clintons. A Bush or Clinton has been on the ballot in every presidential contest since 1980; Bush's son, George W., is finishing his second term as president.
"Well, I don't know that it's an attachment to families. I think it's being in the right place politically at a certain time," the elder Bush said.
He said the American people have a way of sorting these things out.
"They go to caucuses or go to the primaries and just work, grind your way up the - to whatever lies ahead, and that's what's happened. There hasn't been any anointing in the process," he said.
The former president also said he's not as sure as he once was that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.
"In her own party there seems to be more willingness to take her on and to argue about stuff," he said. "But she's a formidable opponent and she's done very well, in my view. Now would I be for her? No."
Illegal Immigrant License Debate Heats Up
(CBS)
The question of whether or not illegal immigrants should have access to driver's licenses has stayed under the radar for most of the 2008 presidential campaign.
But that changed Tuesday night, when Sen. Hillary Clinton made vague comments at a Democratic presidential debate about whether or not she supports New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer's driver's license proposal. Clinton's rivals quickly criticized her for what they characterized as a refusal to take a position on the issue.
Spitzer's revised plan calls for a system in which three licenses will be available to New York residents. One type of license, which would be available to legal residents, would conform to the Real ID Act of 2005, a controversial federal standard designed to tighten homeland security by making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get state driver's licenses. This license would be sufficient identification for residents who want to fly domestically. Critics, among them the ACLU, contend that compliance with the Act "would turn state driver's licenses into a national ID card." Fourteen states have refused to comply over potential cost and privacy implications.
A second type of license would allow residents to cross the border between Canada and the United States without a passport. The third, which would be available to illegal immigrants, would be used solely for driving and identification, and would allow those who hold it to get auto insurance.
After the debate, the Clinton campaign issued a statement on the Spitzer plan, which did not put to rest questions about her position on it.
"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform," the statement said. "As President, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this unnecessary."
A number of states have implemented plans that allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. Critics charge that such policies create a security risk and encourage illegal immigrants to come to America.
"The public feels illegal aliens should receive no benefits from the government," William Gheen of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said in an interview with CBS News. "Licenses, in state tuition, anything short of emergency medical care will only attract more illegal aliens."
But supporters of such legislation say it's a mistake not to document illegal immigrants.
"This is a really bad issue to have a substantive disagreement on," said Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute痴 office at the New York University law school. "Every expert out there thinks it's a good idea to give driver's licenses to the undocumented."
Chishti said it is important to have data on everyone in the country, undocumented or otherwise, for security reasons. "The pragmatic response is to have them in a database," he said.
Spitzer's compromise plan, worked out in concert with the Department of Homeland Security after an earlier plan to grant a single type of license to both legal residents and illegal immigrants met with opposition, has been criticized from both sides.
The Spitzer plan "is potentially the worst of all possibilities," said Chishti. "He's telling the undocumented 'we're going to give you a driver's license, but it will clearly say this is not for federal purposes. It will indicate to anyone who looks at it that you are not here legally.'" Chishti said illegal immigrants "will be very, very reticent" to apply for such a document.
A debate over this issue arose four years ago in the state of California, when then-Governor Grey Davis signed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to get licenses. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned on his opposition to the legislation, and after Davis was recalled, and Schwarzenegger became governor, it was repealed.
Five of Clinton's six opponents at the Democratic debate say they support states issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. After Clinton seemed to back Spitzer's proposal, Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, who does not support the policy, said the "idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license, I think, is troublesome."
Clinton responded that "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do it." The comment prompted John Edwards to charge that "Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." Sen. Barack Obama said he "was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer" and "can't tell whether she was for it or against it."
The Republican presidential hopefuls, most of whom have taken a hard line on illegal immigration, also criticized Clinton over the comments. A spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney characterized the former first lady as being "dismissive of efforts to enforce our nation's immigration laws and entirely unwilling to offer a straight answer to a very direct question."
Illegal immigration can be a tough issue for presidential candidates from both parties. Many Republican primary voters favor tightening the U.S. borders, and the GOP hopefuls have tried to look tough on the question of giving rights to undocumented residents. Democrats have largely backed giving legal status to undocumented workers, but have sometimes differed on issues of enforcement. Both parties are wary of alienating Latino voters, who represent a sizable and rapidly growing voting bloc.
"All the questions you have seen in the [Democratic] debate are dealing with enforcement," said Chishti. "And that's where you are beginning to see fudging."
Edwards Makes New Push Against Clinton
(AP) John Edwards on Monday cast Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and her ties to lobbyists as part of a corrupt Washington system that voters should reject in the presidential election.
Edwards railed against the "bankruptcy of our political leadership," an approach that his campaign said would be a major thrust of his efforts in the two months before the first nomination voting. With Clinton appearing to gain strength with every poll, Edwards seemed less to target Republican President Bush's leadership than to cast fellow Democrat Clinton as the insider whom voters should reject
"This corruption did not begin yesterday - and it did not even begin with George Bush, although Lord knows it's been present while George Bush has been president," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in a speech at St. Anselm College. "It has been building for decades until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy."
"Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington," he said. "And history tells us that when that bus stops there, it is the middle class that loses."
Edwards' speech was subdued and direct. The campaign did not set up a flashy venue - he spoke from a podium in a small stripped-down academic auditorium with just one well-worn campaign banner hanging behind him. He read from his remarks and didn't make any attempt to fire up the crowd and draw applause.
He cast the 2008 election as the culmination of an epic struggle between Washington greed and the power of the people. "This is the moral test of our generation," Edwards said.
"Down one path, we trade corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty, and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine," he said.
Although Clinton has become the clear front-runner in the Democratic primary, she still has a vulnerability - a tight race in the leadoff state of Iowa where Edwards and Barack Obama are within striking distance in current polls. But Edwards' support has dropped, according to a University of Iowa Hawkeye poll out Monday.
The poll had Clinton with 29 percent, Obama with 27 percent and Edwards with 20. Edwards was down six points from August.
Clinton's lead is stronger in New Hampshire, the other early-voting state.
Her campaign said Edwards was turning to attack politics.
"In 2004, John Edwards said, 'If you are looking for the candidate that will do the best job of attacking the other Democrats, I am not your guy,"' said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "But now that his campaign has stalled, he's become that guy."
With many voters unhappy with Mr. Bush's presidency, Democratic candidates have been promoting themselves as agents of change. That includes Clinton, but Edwards is challenging her and trying to make the race a referendum on who will bring real change to Washington.
"Maybe I have been freed from the system and the fear that holds back politicians because I have learned that there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul," Edwards said.
"I saw the chase for campaign money at any cost by the front-runner in this race," Edwards said. "And I chose not join it because the cost to our nation and our children is not worth the hollow victory by any candidate."
The former North Carolina senator said Clinton has refused to accept his challenge not to accept political donations from Washington lobbyists. Clinton has gained strength in the polls since Edwards started making that case several months ago, but he said he thinks it will make the difference in the election.
Singer responded by questioning Edwards' ties to special interests. Edwards has taken donations from industries that employ federal lobbyists, though he doesn't take donations directly from the lobbyists themselves. "If Mr. Edwards is so concerned about the influence of special interests, he should give back the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's taken from health care, securities, and insurance companies," Singer said.
Edwards: Demand Corporate Responsibility
(AP) Democrat John Edwards on Friday released a plan he said would demand corporate responsibility, including limits on executive compensation packages and requirements that big businesses operate more openly.
(AP) The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said.
(AP) Former Vice President Al Gore says winning the Nobel Peace Prize has not pushed him into entering the 2008 presidential race.
(AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton is holding a commanding lead over Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in New Hampshire, a poll released Sunday found.
(AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's votes and statements on war and torture should give voters pause, Democratic rival Barack Obama said Wednesday on the fifth anniversary of Congress' vote to authorize military force in Iraq.
Former Sen. John Edwards chimed in with his own criticism of Clinton on the war.
Obama, who was in the Illinois state Senate at time of the vote, said the New York senator now is painting her support in a different light.
“What's clear when you look at her statements and her approach to the problem, she was too willing to give the president a blank check. There's been a little bit of revisionist history since that time, where she indicates she was only authorizing only inspectors or additional diplomacy,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“I think everybody in Washington and people in New Hampshire and round the country understood this was a vote for war. The question is: Does she apply different judgment today?”
Edwards, who voted for the measure but has since apologized for that decision, said in a statement from North Carolina:
“Unfortunately, political rhetoric aside, Senator Clinton has no specific plan to end the war in Iraq. Instead, she refuses to commit to a specific timeline for withdrawal and has made it clear that she will continue 'combat missions' in Iraq.”
Obama and Edwards have been criticizing Clinton daily on the war and on a recent vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and links threats from it to the war in Iraq - a stance they suggest could affect U.S. commitments in the region.
The Clinton campaign struck back.
“It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and embracing the same old attack politics as his support slips here in New Hampshire,” Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said. “Senator Obama is well aware that Senator Clinton will end the war in Iraq, opposes torture and has made clear that George Bush does not have the authority to attack Iran. Attacks on other Democrats won't bring about the change we need, but electing Senator Clinton will.”
Obama, in the interview, also took issue with Clinton's statements on torture. At one time, she had said that in some narrow cases torture could be acceptable to protect the United States.
She later retracted that.
“The administration has tried to redefine torture in ways that would allow the CIA and other intelligence agencies to engage in brutal tactics that historically have been considered torture,” Obama said Wednesday. “We have to have a very clear line. I agree with John McCain on this, that the United States government does not torture people. It doesn't yield good intelligence, and it weakens our ability to deal with human rights abuses around the world.”
“I think it's very important for any Democratic nominee to be very clear on this issue and not waffle,” he said.
Obama dismissed a question about why, if Clinton is so wrong on the war, he is trailing her in the polls. He also said he doesn't think war with Iran is inevitable before President Bush leaves office in January 2009.
Obama criticized Clinton's vote in support of a bill that would designate Iranian special forces as a terrorist organization. He said that was something that I think many of us would agree” was correct, but he took issue with “language in the bill that would state that the structure of our forces in Iraq should, in some sense, be dependent on our need to check Iran.”
Obama, campaigning in New Hampshire, did not vote on that measure.
“I think the American people recognize that given the mistakes in Iraq, we have to operate with deliberation and caution. I think Iran is a grave and serious threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. I don't think it's acceptable for them to possess nuclear weapons,” said Obama, who added that diplomacy hadn't yet been given a serious chance.
“There is still time to do that, but we've got to have an administration that understands how to use those tools, and we haven't had that in this president,” he said.
A Republican National Committee spokeswoman said the three Democrats are missing the point.
“While President Bush is working to win the war on terror and protect our country for future generations, the Democratic presidential candidates are grappling about who supported surrender first,” Summer Johnson said.
Former US President Bill Clinton has told the BBC he would take a back seat in the White House should his wife Hillary be elected president in 2008.
Mr Clinton said he was not worried by the prospect, and told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that he would not be a "president by proxy".
He would be "the happiest person on earth" if she was elected, adding that his wife would make a great president.
Mr Clinton said he could take a role promoting the US around the world.
The new President Clinton, he added, would be the only one making policy decisions.
Clear asset
Mr Clinton did not rule out giving Mrs Clinton advice once she was installed in the White House.
But he said he could best imagine his role as helping "restore America's standing in the world and build more allies and get us to work together again".
"You can see with the recent success of the North Korea nuclear effort that when America moves from unilateralism to working through and with others it works pretty well," he said.
US foreign policy - notably the invasion of Iraq - meant the US had "squandered" much widespread global support after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
"There was a period there after 9/11 when we decided on a go-it-alone, my way or the highway approach, which I think really alienated a lot of the world," Mr Clinton said.
High profile
The former president has emerged as a clear asset in his wife's campaign for the White House.
In a new poll for the Washington Post and ABC News, a majority said they would be comfortable with him as a "first spouse".
If elected Hillary Clinton would be the first woman president of the United States.
A campaigner for women's rights, healthcare and job creation, she has a high profile both at home and internationally.
As a senator from New York she has become a key figure in the congressional Democratic party.
Mr Clinton also spoke to the Today programme about his new book, Giving: How Each Of Us Can Change the World, in which he urges people to do what they can to change the world for the better, regardless of income, available time, age and skills.
(AP) Republican White House hopeful John McCain said Wednesday that President Bush made a mistake after the Sept. 11 terror attacks by encouraging people to shop rather than urging citizens to join the military or volunteer.
(AP) Democrat Barack Obama said Friday that as president he would relax drug sentencing laws and address vast racial inequities in the justice system as part of his crime policy.
The Illinois senator said he would review mandatory minimum drug sentencing and give first-time, nonviolent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence in drug rehabilitation programs instead of prison.
“If you're convicted of a crime involving drugs, of course you should be punished,” Obama said in a speech at Howard University's opening convocation. “But let's not make the punishment for crack cocaine that much more severe than the punishment for powder cocaine when the real difference is where the people are using them or who is using them.”
The historically black college awarded Obama an honorary degree.
Obama framed his speech around the case of a racially charged school beating in Jena, La., that has sparked demonstrations by civil rights advocates. Racial animosity flared about a year ago in the largely white town when a black student sat under a tree that was a traditional gathering place for whites.
A day later, three nooses were found hanging from the tree. Reports followed of racial fights at the school, culminating in the a December attack by a group of black students on a white classmate. The black students were arrested while no one was ever held responsible for hanging the noose.
“Like Katrina did with poverty, Jena exposed glaring inequities in our justice system that were around long before that schoolyard fight broke out,” Obama said.
Last week, the State newspaper in South Carolina reported that civil rights activist Jesse Jackson said Obama was “acting like he's white” for not speaking out more forcefully about the incidents in Jena. Jackson later said in a statement that he had been taken out of context.
As Obama finished his speech, his campaign announced he would make a four-day “judgment and experience tour” across Iowa next week. The tour was timed for the fifth anniversary of a speech Obama gave in opposition to the Iraq war. It is meant to answer doubts that the first-term senator is ready to be president, a reality that his advisers acknowledge are keeping some voters from signing onto his campaign.
During his years as an Illinois state legislature, Obama played a lead role on several law enforcement issues, from reforming the death penalty system to studying racial profiling in traffic stops. He brought a decidedly liberal viewpoint but developed a reputation for listening closely to police and Republican lawmakers.
For instance, he led negotiations on legislation to require Illinois police to videotape interrogations in death penalty cases as a safeguard against abusing and threatening suspects into false confessions. Police groups had long opposed the idea, but Obama got them on board and the measure passed unanimously.
“There's also no reason why we can't pass a racial profiling law like I did in Illinois, or encourage state to reform the death penalty so that innocent people do not end up on death row,” Obama said.
(AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding herself in her rivals' cross-hairs.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards rolled out a program for reforming primary education in the United States on Friday, proposing to pay teachers up to $15,000 more in high poverty areas and initiating universal preschool.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson on Wednesday called for the U.S. to end the war in Iraq, arguing that the troops exacerbate the sectarian violence and the billions spent could be used for health care and other needs.
“We're a nation that spends $5.5 billion in cancer research - that's two weeks of the Iraq war,” Richardson told The Associated Press. “It shows the misguided priorities.”
“We are being bled dry by an invasion that is costing us $500 billion so far - $500 billion,” he said, stressing the cost. “And it's detracting from American security objectives in dealing with terrorism, with nuclear proliferation, with energy independence.”
In an hourlong interview with AP editors and reporters, the New Mexico governor argued that all combat and non-combat troops should be removed from Iraq because their presence is only contributing to violence instead of bringing security.
“There's no question there's tribal and ethnic hatreds,” Richardson told The Associated Press. “But when those tribal and ethnic hatreds are fueled by American policy of hostility, then you make the situation worse.”
Richardson criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - his leading rivals for the presidential nomination - for plans to pull out combat troops from Iraq but leave residual forces behind. He said he would keep the Marines that guard the U.S. embassy in Baghdad but would withdraw all other military personnel.
“Who is going to take care of non-combat troops? The Iraqis?” Richardson asked. He said he would move a small contingent mostly of special forces to Kuwait and more troops into Afghanistan, although he would leave the specific number up to military leaders.
He said he has asked his rivals to describe exactly how many troops they would leave and for how long in two previous debates but seemed frustrated that he hasn't gotten an answer.
“It's as if I'm talking to myself,” he said.
(AP) In its most direct attack on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the campaign of Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Tuesday denounced a fundraising luncheon that included sessions for Clinton donors with members of Congress who have expertise in homeland security.
(CBS/AP) Six Democratic presidential candidates took aim at President Bush as they made their case Sunday to thousands of activists scattered across an Iowa field.
(CBS/AP) Tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators marched through downtown Washington on Saturday, clashing with police at the foot of the Capitol steps where at least 160 protesters were arrested.
(CBS) We've seen plenty of ads already in the presidential election cycle, but tonight brings us the first example of a candidate purchasing a semi-sizable block of airtime tied to a specific event. John Edwards will provide his own two-minute response ad to President Bush7s address to the nation on MSNBC.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
(CBS/AP) President George W. Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.
Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits the pair from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus' assessment missed the point. The Delaware Democrat said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, was the only way to foster national reconciliation among warring factions.
When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. ... We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
"There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington. But the problem is the system in Washington isn't working for us, and it hasn't been for a very long time."
Democrat Barack Obama on Monday sharpened his critique of lead rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, warning against a return to "divisive, special interest politics" that had demoralized the country even before President Bush took office.
(AP) Barack Obama and John Edwards joined three other Democrats in vowing to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries, a move that leaves only a few candidates planning to compete in person in Florida and Michigan.
(CBS/AP) Congress should continue to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday on Face The Nation.
(AP) If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins Iowa's presidential caucuses, it won't be because of endorsements or poll numbers. It will be because of people like Carol McCarty, who lives in the state's heavily Republican northwest corner but plans to attend her local caucus and stand up for Clinton.
"We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action"
(CBS/AP) Sen. John Warner said Thursday President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.
(CBS) Many of Republican Senator John McCain's positions have not been popular recently, but the presidential hopeful believes he has been making the right calls and doing what's best for the country, he said on Face The Nation.
(AP) Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled the first television ad of her presidential campaign Monday. The commercial targets voters in Iowa, where Clinton is in a tight race with rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards.
(AP) Following a meeting with Pakistan's leader, the Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat on Wednesday defended the country's efforts to battle al Qaeda along its mountainous border with Afghanistan.
(CBS/AP) Republican presidential contenders sparred over abortion on Sunday while generally agreeing the United States must remain in Iraq to help win the war against radical Islamic extremists.
(AP) The Senate voted Thursday to make lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move some called the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades.
(AP) Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday a pivotal September report on the war in Iraq is likely to show 都ignificant progress・・putting himself ahead of President Bush, who has refused to speculate on what the report will say.
(AP) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used the Democrats' weekly radio address Saturday to tout her party's passage of legislation to implement major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
(AP) Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
(AP) Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday called rival Barack Obama's debate claim that he'd be willing to meet with leaders of rogue nations "irresponsible and frankly naive."
(CBS/AP) Young, Internet-savvy voters challenged Democratic presidential hopefuls on Iraq, the military draft and the candidates' own place in a broken political system, playing starring roles in a provocative, video-driven debate Monday night.
(CBS/AP) Senate Republicans who blocked a vote on setting a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are more interested in protecting the president than protecting American troops, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday on Face The Nation.
(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
(CBS) A new CBS News/New York Times poll out Thursday shows 63 percent of voters believe it's likely that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton will be elected the first woman president in U.S. history if she wins her party's nomination.
(AP) Democrats pushed the Senate toward an attention-grabbing, all-night session Tuesday to dramatize opposition to the Iraq war, but conceded they were unlikely to gain the votes needed to advance troop withdrawal legislation blocked by Republicans.
(CBS/AP) Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton ended the first half of the year with more than $30 million each for the presidential primaries, a formidable financial performance for the two leading Democratic White House contenders.
(CBS) With a growing number of Senators, Congressman and Americans losing confidence in the war in Iraq, the White House is trying to buttress it's case for seeing the fight through to the end.
(AP) Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday derided President Bush's commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term even as black men routinely serve time behind bars.
(CBS/AP) Several Republican senators told President Bush's top national security aide privately Wednesday that they did not want Mr. Bush to wait until September to change course in Iraq.
(CBS/AP) President Bush's most recent surgeon general accused the administration Tuesday of muzzling him for political reasons on hot-button health issues such as emergency contraception and abstinence-only education.
(AP) President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.
(AP) A man with a large knife was arrested Wednesday outside presidential hopeful Barack Obama's hotel in southeast Iowa, police said.
(AP) President Bush, who faces mounting congressional pressure to end the war, called Saturday for patience as U.S. forces conduct stepped-up operations in Iraq.
(CBS) President Bush was in no mood for questions about his stunning defeat on immigration.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Wednesday that conservative author Ann Coulter's attacks are personally hurtful and it's important that he respond to them.
The CIA has made public the details of its illicit Cold-War-era activities, including spy plots, assassination attempts and experiments with drugs.
Documents declassified on its website include plans to use Mafia help to kill Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro.
They reveal the extent to which the CIA spied on US journalists and dissidents and on the Soviet Union.
They are part of a report commissioned by a former CIA chief in 1973 in response to the Watergate scandal.
Press reports from the period had implicated the CIA in a break-in which took place at Democratic Party offices at the Watergate Hotel.
A newspaper investigation into the burglary eventually led to the downfall of the Republican President, Richard Nixon.
The spy agency's former director, James Schlesinger, responded by ordering all "senior operating officials" to report on all activities, past and present, "which might be construed to be outside the legislative charter of this agency".
The CIA is barred by law from conducting spy activities within the US.
'Unflattering history'
CIA officers in service in 1973 largely used their memory to compile the 693-page report for Mr Schlesinger.
The abuses and illicit activities listed within date from the 1950s to the 1970s.
Much of the information contained within them was already known.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed in the New York Times newspaper in 1974 that the CIA had been spying on anti-war dissidents and civil rights campaigners.
However, the documents declassified on Tuesday provide a more comprehensive account of events.
Last week, CIA chief Michael Hayden announced the decision to declassify the records, saying the documents were "unflattering but part of CIA history".
The documents detail assassination plots, domestic spying, wiretapping, and kidnapping.
The incidents include:
Among the documents is a request in 1972 for someone "who was accomplished at picking locks" who might be retiring or resigning from the agency.
'Soviet succession'
Another set of documents, also just declassified, is known as the CAESAR-POLO-ESAU papers.
This is an 11,000-page analysis, done between 1953 and 1973, on Soviet and Chinese internal politics and Sino-Soviet relations.
Among the papers are an analysis of the Soviet leadership completed some four months after the death of Josef Stalin in 1953.
The CIA's report, stamped "Top Secret", said the Soviets carried out a hasty shake-up of top posts to head off possible "panic and disarray" following Stalin's death.
"It is strongly suggested that the leaders in this moment of crisis had moved swiftly to show their unity and to gird themselves for any battle that might be coming from inside and out," the CIA report said.
(AP) Months of tumultuous negotiations with the White House and GOP allies have brought the Senate's liberal lion, Edward M. Kennedy, to the brink of passing a bill to legalize up to 12 million unlawful immigrants.
(CBS) New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg fueled speculation that he might run for president after he quit the Republican Party to become an independent last week.
(AP) Republican John McCain and Democrat John Edwards are in danger of losing their place among the leading presidential contenders if their spring fundraising falls too short of earlier totals.
(AP) The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office has opened an investigation into whether presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's staff might have made an illegal traffic stop, the same day a group of conservative activists with a connection to rival Sen. John McCain complained Thursday.
(CBS) Michael Bloomberg's repeated denials are doing nothing to quell the assumption that he is laying the foundations of a possible presidential run. Bloomberg's decision on whether to mount a third-party or independent campaign may be heavily influenced by his predecessor as mayor of New York ・Rudy Giuliani.
(AP) Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday it was a mistake for him to join the Iraq Study Group, on which he lasted just two months and failed to show for any official meetings.
(AP) A trio of Democratic presidential candidates appealed to anti-war passions that run deep in their party Tuesday, with each portraying himself as most strongly against the war in Iraq.
(AP) A bomb-sniffing dog reacted to a vehicle that was being used for Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert's visit Monday, leading to evacuation of parts of a White House annex building.
(CBS) The troops for the "surge" strategy, which started in January, are now all in place. While the Bush administration and congressional Republicans say they are waiting to see how well it will work, critics say that the United States' increased military presence will do little to build a stable Iraq.
(AP) In their weekly radio address, Democrats on Saturday called for a new direction in energy policy, away from gas-guzzling automobiles and reliance on foreign oil.
The US military has said all the extra US troops sent to Iraq as part of the "surge" strategy are now in place.
The US has deployed some 28,500 troops, mostly in Baghdad, to try to improve security and curb sectarian violence.
Spokesman Lt Col Christopher Garver told the BBC that counter-insurgency efforts could now get fully under way.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates - who has landed in Baghdad on a surprise visit - said the government should do more to reconcile warring factions.
Asked by reporters what message he would convey to Iraq's leaders, Mr Gates said: "That our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation, that frankly we are disappointed with the progress so far."
The US military is due to report on the success of the build-up in September, against a backdrop of pressure from the Democrat-led Congress to end the war.
Meanwhile the US military said an Air Force F-16 fighter jet crashed in Iraq early on Friday.
It said the plane with one crew member "was flying on a close air support mission", without specifying where the crash occurred, what caused it or what happened to the pilot.
The military also confirmed that four US soldiers had died in Iraq on Thursday. Three were killed when their vehicle hit an explosive device in Kirkuk, to the north of the country.
'Some progress'
The top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are due to report to the US Congress on the success of the troop build-up in September.
They are likely to come under pressure to show that the surge - which has the backing of President George W Bush - is getting results, as lawmakers debate the next funding bill for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lt Col Garver told the BBC News website that the strategy could only now start to work as had been planned.
"All the forces initially identified as part of the surge have completed their strategic movements into theatre in Iraq," he said.
"Now everyone is here, this is when General Petraeus intends the surge to start as it was envisaged, with everyone working together to bring the levels of violence down in Baghdad."
He warned it would take 30 to 60 days for the final brigade, which arrived this week, to become fully operational.
Other brigades have already moved into their operational areas and begun building relations with the Iraqi army, police and local civilians, Lt Col Garver said.
"We've seen some progress in some areas, in other areas where we have been working there hasn't been as much progress as we would like," he said.
Open criticism
The extra forces will concentrate on security in Baghdad and the "belt" around the city, particularly to the north, west and south, Lt Col Garver said.
"We know most of the car bombs are made out on the rural areas and brought into the city, so we have to be out looking for those bomb factories and take them out," he said.
Within Baghdad, the deployment of all the troops will mean that once insurgents have been driven out of one area they will not be able to find "safe haven" in another neighbourhood, Lt Col Garver said.
The military hopes its efforts will build the confidence of local people so they become more willing to provide information on suspected insurgents in their midst, he added.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has taken the unusual step of openly criticising the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace.
Senator Reid told reporters on Thursday that he had told Gen Pace "he had not done a very good job of speaking out for some obvious things that weren't going right in Iraq".
Mr Reid also said he was "waiting to see if General Petraeus can be a little more candid with us" about the situation in Iraq, saying he believed past assessments had been too rosy.
(AP) Former President Clinton made more than $10 million in paid speeches last year, according to new filings that show he and his presidential-candidate wife have at least $10 million in the bank, and may have closer to $50 million.
(AP) Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Tuesday that New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez will serve as co-chair of her presidential campaign, providing her with a strong link to the Hispanic community.
(CBS/AP) Republicans handily blocked a symbolic vote of no confidence against Attorney General Albert Gonzales in the Senate on Monday, turning back a Democratic effort to prod him from office after lawmakers in both parties questioned his competence and his evasive answers to questions about the dismissals of U.S. attorneys.
(CBS) The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation.
(AP) The high hurdles faced by congressional Democrats in their efforts to end the Iraq war make electing a Democratic president in 2008 the best way to finish the conflict, Democratic party chairman Howard Dean said Saturday.
(AP) Public approval of the job President Bush is doing now matches its all-time low, an AP-Ipsos poll says.
(CBS/AP) President Bush on Wednesday discounted Vladimir Putin's threat to re-target missiles on Europe, saying "Russia is not going to attack Europe."
(AP) President Bush drew startling criticism Tuesday night from Republican White House hopefuls unhappy with his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.
“I would certainly not send him to the United Nations” to represent the United States, said Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor and one-time member of Bush's Cabinet, midway through a spirited campaign debate.
Arizona Sen. John McCain criticized the administration for its handling of the Iraq War, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein.”
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said the current administration “has the slows” when it comes to building a security fence along the border with Mexico.
Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado recalled that White House aide Karl Rove had once told him “never darken the door of the White House.” The congressman said he'd tell George Bush the same thing.
The Republicans sprinkled the criticism of Bush throughout a two-hour debate that ranged over topics from war to immigration legislation pending in Congress to religion.
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Hunter both said they would pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former aide Lewis I. “Scooter” Libby, sentenced to 30 months in prison earlier in the day for lying and obstructing a CIA leak investigation.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a former prosecutor, said the sentence was excessive, which “argues in favor of a pardon.”
Much of the debate focused on Iraq.
McCain and Brownback both admitted they voted to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq without reading the formal National Intelligence Estimate in advance.
The confession drew a jab from former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia. Members of Congress “ought to read at least that kind of material,” he said.
Hunter said he had, the only member of Congress on the debate stage to make the claim.
Both McCain and Brownback said they had received numerous briefings on the situation in Iraq before they cast their votes in 2002.
National intelligence estimates are compilations of the best thinking of U.S. intelligence agencies, meant to provide the broadest guidance to government policymakers.
But they can be wrong. A 2002 assessment, for example, concluded that Iraq had continued its development of weapons of mass destruction, held arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and “probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”
McCain drew loud applause from the partisan debate audience when he turned a question about the war in Iraq into criticism of the leading Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
“When Senator Clinton says this is Mr. Bush's war, President Bush's war,” she is wrong, he said. “When President Clinton was in power, I didn't say Bosnia was President Clinton's war,” the Arizona senator said.
“Presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars. Nations lose wars,” he added.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(AP) Iraq was the top subject for presidential hopefuls addressing delegates in the first primary state's Democratic convention Saturday.
(CBS/AP) Before an expected clash with other world leaders at next week's G-8 summit, President Bush on Thursday offered up his own plan for addressing the threat of climate change. (CBS) Former Vice President Al Gore asserts it's time to act, to save American democracy as we know it.
(CBS/AP) President Bush ordered new U.S. economic sanctions Tuesday to pressure Sudan's government to halt the bloodshed in Darfur that the administration has condemned as genocide.
(AP) President George W. Bush paid tribute Monday to America's troops ・"a new generation of fallen leaders" ・in a solemn Memorial Day visit to the national burial ground for war heroes.
The outgoing president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, has told the BBC an "overheated" atmosphere at the bank and in the media forced him to resign.
Mr Wolfowitz stood down after a scandal over his role in winning a new pay and promotion package for his girlfriend.
In an interview, Mr Wolfowitz said the bank's board did accept that he had acted ethically, and in good faith.
He leaves the bank on 30 June after a presidency that was controversial both at the beginning and at the end.
His appointment was originally opposed by many European nations, who disapproved of his previous role as a senior Pentagon official and an architect of the Iraq war.
Vindication
Speaking to the BBC World Service, Mr Wolfowitz denied that his own actions were the root cause of his departure.
"I'm pleased that finally the board did accept that I acted in good faith and acted ethically," he said.
"I accept the fact that by the time we got around to that, emotions here were so overheated that I don't think I could have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish for the people I really care about."
He denied suggestions that lingering personal antipathy against him had contributed to his decision to leave.
"I think it tells us more about the media than about the bank and I'll leave it at that.
"People were reacting to a whole string of inaccurate statements and by the time we got to anything approximating accuracy the passions were around the bend."
'Governance issues'
Mr Wolfowitz defended his record over his two-year tenure at the organisation, and reserved high praise for those he encountered outside Washington.
"Frankly the most inspired people and the ones most easily convinced, happen to be the ones that are out there working in country offices.
"There's something that's a little enervating, to be charitable about it, about being in these wonderful comfortable conditions in Washington."
But he did concede that the World Bank, which was created alongside the International Monetary Fund after the end of World War II, had some "governance issues" that needed addressing.
"This kind of experience actually exposes problems but you don't solve problems unless you expose them," Mr Wolfowitz said.
Turning to Africa, he said reducing poverty in the continent was the most important challenge the bank faced.
Mr Wolfowitz told the BBC Africa had been left behind in what had been spectacular development success in other regions, such as east Asia or India.
He said the World Bank was answerable on Africa and if it did not deliver for Africa in five years from now nothing else mattered.
(AP) President Bush signed a bill Friday to pay for military operations in Iraq after a bitter struggle with Democrats in Congress who sought unsuccessfully to tie the money to U.S. troop withdrawals.
(CBS/AP) President Bush defended a revised Iraq war spending bill even as a new CBS News/New York Times poll showed that 76 percent of Americans think the war is going somewhat or very badly.
(CBS)
(CBS/AP) Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
(CBS/AP) Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted" when he said the Bush administration has been the "worst in history" for its impact around the world.
(AP) The White House on Sunday dismissed former President Jimmy Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after his harsh criticism of President George W. Bush.
(AP) Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
(CBS/AP) The White House and Congress failed to strike a deal Friday after exchanging competing offers on an Iraq war spending bill that Democrats said should set a date for U.S. troops to leave.
(CBS/AP) World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will resign at the end of June, he and the bank said late Thursday, ending his long fight to survive pressure for his ouster over the generous compensation he arranged for his girlfriend.
(AP) The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.
(AP) President George W. Bush has chosen Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Defense Department's director of operations, to oversee the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a "war czar" after a long search for new leadership, administration officials said Tuesday.
(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that it is "not any easy" time in Russia-U.S. relations, but that the tensions do not amount to a new Cold War.
(CBS) Al Gore could not be clearer.
(AP) The National Guard isn't as strong as it should be because of the war in Iraq and American communities will suffer as a result, retired Air Force Gen. Melvyn Montano said Saturday.
(AP) A federal judge approved an immunity deal Friday allowing former Justice Department aide Monica Goodling to testify before Congress about the firing of eight top federal prosecutors.
(CBS/AP) The Democratic-controlled House voted Thursday night to pay for military operations in Iraq on an installment plan, defying President Bush's threat of a second straight veto in a fierce test of wills over the unpopular war.
(CBS/AP) Eight days after the president vetoed the war funding bill, he's threatening to do so again, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.
(CBS/AP) House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.
The Queen and Prince Philip have arrived for a state banquet at the White House during their US visit.
The monarch and her husband are guests of honour at the dinner hosted by US President George W Bush and wife Laura.
A total of 134 guests were due to attend the state dinner - the first in Mr Bush's presidency to have a white tie dress code.
Earlier, the Queen was honoured with a 21-gun salute in Washington DC on the final leg of her six-day US visit.
Standing outside the White House, the Queen said Britain and America had a "close and enduring" friendship and Mr Bush called his guest "a good person, a strong leader and a great ally".
The state visit has included trips to the site of the first permanent English settlement in the US and the famous Kentucky Derby horse race.
The monarch also reflected on how "the stories of our two countries have been inextricably woven together".
She called the US a "great nation" and said it was time to "take stock of our present friendship".
"It is the time to look forward, jointly renewing our commitment to a more prosperous, safer and freer world," she added.
Mr Bush, meanwhile, joked with the Queen after making a mistake in his speech.
He said: "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17... 1976" , and then joked the Queen had given him "a look that only a mother could give a child".
The president said the UK had "written many of the greatest chapters in the history of human freedom".
He said its relationship with the US was built "on the surest foundations - our deep and abiding love of liberty".
The Queen was last in Washington in 1991 when George Bush Snr was the American president.
Earlier in the trip, the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, fulfilled a long-held ambition to watch the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs, Louisville.
Her visit to the first permanent English settlement in the US, in Jamestown, Virginia, marked its 400th anniversary.
In Virginia, the Queen extended her sympathies to those affected by the shootings at Virginia Tech last month.
The tour is the Queen's first carbon-offset state visit, where a donation is made to an environmental charity to offset the plane journeys made by the royal party.
(CBS) As top White House aides and Congressional leaders try to find a way past the political standoff over funding the Iraq war, a powerful House Democrat says President Bush is the one who will have to blink first.
(CBS/AP) President George W. Bush, urging Congress to craft a war spending bill quickly, offered no clues Saturday about whether he will compromise over linking U.S. support to stability in Iraq.
(AP) Congressional Democrats have signaled they're not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, spurring Republicans to accuse them of causing political gridlock.
(CBS/AP) The Secret Service said Thursday that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama was being placed under its protection, the earliest that's ever happened for a presidential candidate.
(CBS/AP) President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.
(AP) While she is known to millions simply as "Hillary," New York's junior senator is having something of an identity crisis in her official life.
(CBS/AP) President George W. Bush will not support a war spending bill that punishes the Iraqi government for failing to meet benchmarks for progress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on Face The Nation.
(CBS) Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton denounced President George W. Bush on Saturday for his "Mission Accomplished" speech and said his conduct of the Iraq war was "one of the darkest blots on leadership we've ever had."
(CBS/AP) President Bush warned Congress Friday that he will continue vetoing war spending bills as long as they contain a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
(CBS/AP) Democratic presidential hopefuls flashed their anti-war credentials and heaped criticism on President George W. Bush's Iraq policy in an early first debate of the 2008 campaign.
“The first day I would get us out of Iraq by diplomacy,” said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of eight rivals on the debate stage Thursday night.
“If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will,” pledged Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
But Clinton found herself on the receiving end of criticism moments later when former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said she or anyone else who voted to authorize the war should “search their conscience.”
Edwards, in the Senate at the time, also cast his vote for the invasion, but he has since apologized for it.
Of the eight foes participating in the debate at South Carolina State University, four voted earlier in the day to support legislation that cleared Congress and requires the beginning of a troop withdrawal by Oct. 1. The legislation sets a goal of a complete withdrawal by April 1, 2008.
“We are one signature away from ending this war,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. He said if Mr. Bush won't change his mind about vetoing the bill, Democrats need to work on rounding up enough Republican votes to override him.
In addition to Obama and Clinton, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also cast votes earlier in the day in favor of the legislation.
Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio also participated in the debate.
Mr. Bush is barred by the Constitution from running for re-election next fall, and the result is an extraordinarily early start to the campaign to succeed him.
The state in which the debate was held — South Carolina — has only been carried by one Democrat since 1960. African-Americans make up 29.9 percent of the state's population, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield.
In '04, nearly half the Democratic vote was black, Greenfield reports, which is why Democrats put this primary close to the starting line.
The debate — nine month
The presidential candidate said his plan would also restore retirement security for the middle class through tax reforms and savings help, allowing more people to put aside money and purchase stock from companies. He said those companies would perform better for regular workers under his proposed corporate reforms.
"What does Washington do while corporate profits climb and the wealth of the very wealthiest grows - all at the expense of the vast majority of hardworking Americans? It circles the wagons around the people who are already doing the best," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery that were provided to The Associated Press. "Instead of protecting the compact of equal opportunity and shared prosperity, Washington protects corporate profits and hoards prosperity."
Under his plan, Edwards wants to:
The former North Carolina senator said it's important to force companies to honor their pension promises. In recent years, he said, about two-thirds of companies have frozen their plans, and many workers are seeing cutbacks in their pensions. Companies also should not be allowed to classify workers as contractors to avoid paying them benefits, Edwards said.
Edwards, who wants to mandate universal health care, said businesses should be required to provide coverage for their workers, or help them purchase coverage.
Voters' Choice In 2008: Mom Versus Dad
On its current trajectory, the race for president in 2008 may turn voters into children of divorce - forced to choose between Mom and Dad.
The contest comes as something of a surprise. Many strategists expected that Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the first woman to wage a leading presidential campaign, would decide to play down policies, rhetoric and campaign imagery that would remind voters - especially skeptical male voters - of traditionally feminine roles or issue priorities.
Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, was supposed to have the opposite gender challenge. His image as the crime-busting mayor who rallied his stricken city after Sept. 11 gave him plenty of credibility on strength. What he needed, the thinking went, was to show voters - especially wary female voters - a softer and more empathetic side.
As it happens, the expectation that Clinton and Giuliani would spend much of their time playing against type when it comes to gender politics has turned out to be mostly wrong.
Clinton is indeed concerned about projecting strength. But she is doing it by unabashedly invoking her woman's perspective and presenting her diverse biography with a maternal emphasis. Her campaign tour last week focused on "women changing America." She told stories of raising her daughter, Chelsea, while unveiling a new $1 billion family-leave proposal.
Giuliani, for his part, has decided for now that his best side is his hard side. He speaks of taming crime as if New York City before his administration was an unruly adolescent - lots of potential in need of a firm hand. At every turn, he emphasizes the threats facing the country in an age of terrorism - dangers he says Democrats do not understand. Of his own biography, he says it shows an occasionally flawed person who is nonetheless precisely the kind of aggressive leader the times demand.
If the two front-runners maintain their position, the precedent-shattering 2008 may in the end have a very traditional feel - a contest between two classic American archetypes, each designed in different ways to convey conviction and reassurance.
"If it does come down to Hillary versus Rudy, it is at one level a showdown between the iconography of matriarchal womanhood and the cowboy riding to the rescue," said Susan Faludi, an author who has spent two decades studying gender and American society.
In this vein, Giuliani invokes a mantra on the trail that "weakness invites attack; strength keeps you safe." He stated he would "guarantee" Iran would not use nuclear weapons if he were president. He has defended his conservative credentials, stating, "I gave my blood for the Republican Party," as if politics were combat. He accuses Democrats of supporting "nanny government."
Clinton's latest rhetoric, in contrast, represents a subtle but distinct shift over time in her national profile. As a senator preparing for a presidential run, some commentators perceived that she was positioning herself as an American, Democratic version of Margaret Thatcher - a woman who projected an austere and even martial bearing. Her campaign now believes that she has cleared a "threshold" of being trustworthy on national security, said Ann Lewis, her director of women's outreach. This has apparently given her latitude to put greater emphasis on domestic issues - such as her recent floating of a proposal to give a $5,000 "baby bond" to every child born in the United States - as well as on maternal themes.
Last week at a YWCA in Manchester, N.H., she recounted the struggle to balance her law career with motherhood. "Late one night, [Chelsea] was crying inconsolably. I said, 'Chelsea, you've never been a baby before, and I've never been a mother before; we're just going to have to work and figure this out'" Clinton recalled.
In a revealing contrast to how parental roles are invoked on the campaign trail, Clinton talks more about child-rearing than Republican Mitt Romney - even though he has five sons.
One challenge for Clinton is to promote herself as a believer in traditional values without seeming to abandon her roots as an outspoken feminist.
"She has to build a very big coalition, and I appreciate the difficulty of doing that. A lot of feminists tend to put people off," said Frances Rosenbluth, a Yale political science and gender studies professor. "Hillary already has a reputation as not being quite normal, not quite average, not quite a regular American woman. She's trying to say, 'Yeah, I am.'"
The language of familiarity and comfort is found throughout her campaign. Her official campaign biography presents her as a woman "raised in a middle-class family in the middle of America."
However, Clinton spent much of her life pushing very publicly against the confines of traditional gender roles - a part of her biography with uncertain political consequences.
In a 1969 commencement speech at Wellesley College, she said her generation was seeking a more "immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living," and closed with a poem expressing hope that "hollow men of anger and bitterness" and the "bountiful ladies of righteous degradation" would be left to "a bygone age."
In the 1992 campaign, she stirred controversy when she responded to ethics questions concerning her legal work by saying, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession."
Many stay-at-home mothers were put off, and she moved the next day to say she meant no offense.
Clinton's shift in the past decade away from the most outspoken brand of feminism may be a response to the shift of American women. In 1986, a Gallup poll found that 56 percent of women called themselves a "feminist." By 2001, that number had fallen roughly 30 points, to a quarter of American women.
"My sense of [Clinton] is that she is, before everything else, a supreme pragmatist," Faludi said. "She is certainly careful to avoid spouting women's lib rhetoric, and that goes back to her being a realist, and that goes back to where the culture is."
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said Clinton is "an icon of the feminist movement who must run a campaign to appeal to women living in a post-feminist era."
This presents a constant challenge of navigating conflicting sensitivities. At one recent debate, Clinton spoke of her experience standing up to the "right-wing machine." If Democrats want a candidate tough enough, she declared, "I'm your girl."
Some feminists squirmed. "That might not have been my phrasing," said Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal, referring to the use of the noun "girl."
Even so, liberal women's organizations remain Clinton's biggest backers. Clinton's emphasis on family leave "resonates" with "women's rights activists," as Smeal put it. "Finally, someone is mainstreaming and centering our issues."
Women are the "critical swing vote" in the coming presidential election, her chief strategist, Mark Penn, wrote in a recent memorandum.
But if next year features a Clinton-Giuliani matchup, polling suggests Clinton faces a formidable challenge winning independent or even Republican women, as her campaign boasts it can do. A Gallup poll taken Oct. 12-14 testing a Clinton-Giuliani race showed that 57 percent of white women, married or single, who do not identify as Democrats, have an "unfavorable" view of Clinton. Nearly thre in four married white women who do not identify as Democrats said they would back Giuliani.
"These are women who want strength in their political leaders, not namby-pamby leaders who appeal to liberal interest groups," Faludi said. Clinton, by these lights, must prove her strength not merely for men but for women, as well.
But Giuliani likewise faces challenges in the gender politics of 2008.
He will be running in the dusk of the Bush era, a time when the traditional masculine political archetype that benefited Republicans for decades may have lost credibility with some voters because of the current administration's failures on Iraq and Hurricane Katrina.
Giuliani, Faludi posited, may find that, "Maybe it was a mistake to bet on 10-gallon-hat politics."
Cheney: Iran Won't Get Nuclear Weapon
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech Sunday to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.
He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."
If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.
"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President George W. Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."
Cheney said the ultimate goal of the Iranian leadership is to establish itself as the hegemonic force in the Middle East and undermine a free Shiite-majority Iraq as a rival for influence in the Muslim world.
Iran's government seeks "to keep Iraq in a state of weakness to ensure Baghdad does not pose a threat to Tehran," Cheney said.
While he was critical of the Iranian government and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, he offered praise and words of solidarity to the Iranian people. Iran "is a place of unlimited potential ... and it has the right to be free of tyranny," Cheney said.
Cheney accused of Iran of having a direct role in the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and said the government has "solidified its grip on the country" since coming to power in the 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah.
The U.S. and some allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and have demanded it halt uranium enrichment, an important step in the production of atomic weapons. Oil-rich Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity.
At a news conference Wednesday, Mr. Bush suggested that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, it could lead to a new world war.
"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said.
Mr. Bush's spokeswoman later said the president was making not making any war plans but rather "a rhetorical point."
Also, on Thursday, the top officer in the U.S. military said the U.S. has the resources to attack Iran if needed despite the strains of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said striking Iran is a last resort, and the focus now is on diplomacy to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions, but "there is more than enough reserve to respond" militarily if need be.
The Bush administration's intentions toward Iran have been the subject of debate in Congress.
Last month the Senate approved a resolution urging the State Department to label Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.
Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat, said he feared the measure could be interpreted as authorizing a military strike in Iran, calling it Cheney's "fondest pipe dream."
Gore: I Have No Plans To Run
"I don't have plans to be a candidate again, so I don't really see it in that context at all," Gore told Norwegian state broadcaster NRK in an interview broadcast Wednesday. "I'm involved in a different kind of campaign. It's a global campaign. It's a campaign to change the way people think about the climate crisis."
NRK said it interviewed Gore in Nashville, Tenn.
At a press conference last Friday in Palo Alto, California, Gore sidestepped the issue of a U.S. presidential run, saying then that he wanted to "get back to business" on "a planetary emergency."
However, before winning the Nobel Prize he had said repeatedly that he has no plans to run for office in 2008.
Gore shared the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations network of scientists. The scientific panel has explained the dry details of global warming in thousands of pages of footnoted reports every six years or so since 1990.
Gore told NRK that it was a "great honor" to win the peace prize.
"For me personally it means the chance to be more effective in trying to deliver this message about the climate crisis and the urgency of solving the climate crisis," he said.
On Tuesday, a Gallup Poll found that there was no spike in support for Gore to run for office.
Asked if they would like to see Gore run for president in 2008, people said no by a margin of 54 percent to 41 percent, according to the Gallup Poll, about the same as in March, when people opposed his running by 57 percent to 38 percent.
Even among Democrats there was no visible surge of interest in Gore. In the new survey, 48 percent of them said they would like him to run and 43 percent said they would not. In March, Democrats were in favor of his entering the race by 54 percent to 41 percent -- statistically the same as the new poll.
Poll: Clinton, Romney Lead In N.H. Races
Clinton, the New York senator, had the support of 40 percent of those surveyed compared to 20 percent for Obama, the Illinois senator, Marist College Institute for Public Opinion said.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was third (12 percent) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson fourth (7 percent).
On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 25 percent held a slight edge over former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 21 percent. Sen. John McCain of Arizona was third at 18 percent, and Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator, was fourth at 10 percent.
The New Hampshire primary, traditionally held in January, plays a key role in the presidential nomination process because it is one of the first tests of the candidates' popularity with voters. A strong showing in New Hampshire can provide momentum for candidates in the next round of primaries in larger states.
Voters in the primaries select delegates to their party's national presidential nominating convention who are pledged to different candidates.
Clinton was the overwhelming choice among those polled who want a strong leader or someone who will bring about change - 44 percent chose her compared with 20 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.
Clinton also drew the most support - 33 percent - from those questioned who ranked the Iraq war as their top issue. Clinton was seen as the most likely Democrat to win in November, getting the nod from 58 percent in the survey.
In the Republican field, when people were asked to pick a strong leader, Romney got 29 percent, compared with 23 percent for McCain and 22 percent for Giuliani.
Security against terrorism was the most important issue for Republican voters; on this issue, Romney was picked by 29 percent, and Giuliani and McCain by 21 percent each. Giuliani was picked by more people in the survey as having the best chance of winning in November - 36 percent versus 30 percent for Romney.
The poll, done by Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, was conducted from Oct. 4-9 and involved telephone interviews with 1,512 registered voters and New Hampshire residents likely to register in time to vote in the presidential primary. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for Democratic primary voters and 4.5 percentage points for Republican primary voters.
On the Net:
www.maristpoll.marist.edu
Gore Urges Action After Nobel Prize Win
(CBS/AP) Former Vice President Al Gore, newly named co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, said Friday he hopes the honor will "elevate global consciousness" about the challenges of global warming.
Gore, whose documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award earlier this year, was awarded the prize earlier in the day along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international network of scientists, for spreading awareness of man-made climate change and laying the foundations for counteracting it.
Shortly after the announcement, he pledged to donate his share of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion worldwide about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.
"This is just the beginning," Gore told reporters at a meeting of the group. "Now is the time to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face."
Gore had been widely tipped to win Friday's prize, which expanded the Norwegian committee's interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts that have traditionally been the award's foundations.
"We face a true planetary emergency," Gore said. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
The Nobel committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, asserted that the prize was not aimed at the Bush administration, which rejected Kyoto and was widely criticized outside the U.S. for not taking global warming seriously enough.
"We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, to challenge, all of them, to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming," Mjoes said. "The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front of this."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
Even before Gore's Nobel prize was announced, speculation began over whether a Nobel medal might cause Gore to consider becoming a candidate for president.
Obama, Edwards Criticize Clinton On War
Iowa a Key Test for Democrats
From the high altitude of national polls, the race for the Democratic nomination may seem a potential runaway for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). From ground level in the state with the nation's first presidential caucuses, a far different reality exists. Here Clinton's path remains strewn with obstacles.
Iowa has become ground zero in the Democratic race. The results here could instantly change the dynamic of what has been a campaign marked elsewhere by Clinton's relentless march forward. Here the Democratic front-runner faces stiff challenges not only from Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) but also from former senator John Edwards (N.C.).
Clinton's Iowa problem has been evident from the day she entered the race in January, and it is the result of a confluence of factors that appear to exist nowhere else in the country right now. They include support for Edwards that far outpaces his backing elsewhere, the spillover effect of Obama's next-door-neighbor status as a senator from Illinois and strong organizational efforts by both her rivals.
"I think it's a function of the others running so strong here, it's difficult [for her] to break away," said Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan.
Part of the problem rests with Clinton herself. "When she became a candidate, she attracted the largest percentage of negatives among Democrats of any of the candidates," said J. Ann Selzer, who conducts the Iowa Poll for the Des Moines Register. "She's got people who just don't like her."
Clinton has made progress over the course of eight months of campaigning, easing but not yet erasing doubts about her support for the Iraq war and perceptions of her as cool and aloof. One sign of that progress came in a new Iowa Poll, published in today's Des Moines Register, showing her leading with 29 percent, Edwards at 23 percent and Obama at 22 percent.
Still, that Clinton has not fully solved her image problem is evident by the name her campaign has given to the bus tour she begins Monday in Cedar Rapids. They have dubbed it the "Middle Class Express" tour, as if to remind voters that she cares about the problems of hard-working Iowans.
Teresa Vilmain, Clinton's Iowa director, said the senator from New York has made "great strides since spring" in reaching Iowa voters, but she was quick to add: "We have a lot of work to do. John Edwards is still very strong."
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, an Obama supporter, said factors that influence national polls -- including a candidate's name identification and being seen as a front-runner -- are less important in Iowa because voters have more direct contact with candidates.
"Here it's a real campaign, where people are seeing the candidates close up, hearing speeches, they're being contacted by staff and volunteers," he said. "It's a much more active and intense campaign, and people are getting a much bigger, clearer view of the candidates than people are nationally. That's a huge difference."
Clinton has much on the line in Iowa, but so, too, do Obama and Edwards. They know that stopping Clinton here is essential. A defeat for Edwards probably would end his campaign, and he has said as much. Obama aides play down expectations by repeating the mantra that he has to only "do well" in Iowa, but the candidate's wife, Michelle, said recently that, if he loses here, the campaign will have been but a dream.
Clinton may be able to survive a loss in Iowa, but many strategists believe that a loss to Obama would be far more crippling than a loss to Edwards.
The intensity of the campaign here is astonishing. Obama spent four days crisscrossing the northeast quadrant of the state last week. Edwards is retracing some of those steps this weekend with a four-day swing of his own. Clinton was to arrive Saturday night for a four-day tour. No other state, including New Hampshire, has seen such a concentration of campaigning.
Obama already has spent just over $3 million on television ads. With the heaviest barrage of advertising still to come, he will set records for TV spending. Clinton, who has spent about $1.4 million by one estimate, could do the same before the Iowa campaign is over.
Clinton is not even the second-largest spender on television ads at this point. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has put down $1.8 million for a series of humorous commercials that have helped him gain some momentum.
But Richardson, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) -- all with at least pockets of support -- struggle against the reality that the three leading candidates are waging a precinct-by-precinct battle of organizers that they are so far ill-equipped to match.
Obama has an army of field operators in the state, deployed from 31 field offices, compared with 22 for Clinton and 15 for Edwards. His advisers refuse to give out the number of staffers on the ground here, but it is believed to be far in excess of the numbers Clinton and Edwards have recruited.
At his rallies, Obama rarely forgets to praise his "underpaid and under-appreciated" field organizers, and they are diligent about educating people about the caucus process.
Edwards's crowds and Iowa staff are smaller in numbers, but the breadth of his support worries his rivals. Building on his second-place finish here in 2004, Edwards has spent the past three years nurturing a base spread across a state whose caucus rules reward balanced support everywhere more than concentrated support in a few areas.
Already Edwards has visited 76 of Iowa's 99 counties, compared with 56 counties for Obama and 31 for Clinton.
All the campaigns report that well over half of the prospective caucus attendees are undecided at this point, and the history of the caucuses is that a sizable percentage of voters do not make a final decision until the final few weeks before the voting.
When all the candidates came to Iowa last month for Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry, Linda Bollenbaugh of Boone was among the more than 15,000 Democrats in the crowd. She carried placards for Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden, and said Richardson's speech impressed her, too.
An Edwards backer in 2004, she said she is now undecided and paying very close attention. "I'm looking for more depth now, more details," she said.
Edwards: Restrict Private Contractors
(AP) Democrat John Edwards called Friday for new restrictions on the use of private contractors to provide security services in combat areas, including blocking such companies from giving to political parties and candidates.
Edwards linked his proposal to charges that the company Blackwater USA had engaged in random violence in Iraq that's led to the deaths of innocent civilians and prompted a congressional investigation. He also charged that Mark Penn, a top adviser to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, has done work for Blackwater.
"We don't want to replace a group of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats," Edwards said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
Edwards said his plan would virtually eliminate the use of private contractors to provide security services and would put sharp restrictions when such services are allowed. Private forces have spiraled out of control, Edwards said, with more than 50,000 operating in Iraq with few restrictions or oversight.
"They don't have rules of engagement and they don't have legal oversight," Edwards said.
Those private security forces allowed under Edwards' plan would be within the Pentagon chain of command, he said.
Edwards said private security firm undercuts the accountability of the nation's volunteer military.
"It undermines the purpose of having a volunteer army," said Edwards.
Edwards said his plan also would ban private security companies from donating to politicians because such contributions played a role in the Blackwater situation. He argued that Blackwater won lucrative contracts in Iraq after becoming a reliable contributor to the GOP.
"Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush," said Edwards.
Edwards released his plan as he opened another intensive campaign swing through Iowa, planning stops in 17 counties over four days.
Most polls have shown him near the top of the Democratic field in Iowa, along with Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton, however, leads in national polls and Edwards is betting his campaign on a solid showing in Iowa's precinct caucuses, giving him a boost heading into New Hampshire and other early voting states.
In this Iowa visit, Edwards will focus on his proposal to immediately pull as many as 40,000 troops out of Iraq. He said Blackwater's problems offer one more example of how Bush has mismanaged the war.
"The recent incidents of violence involving Blackwater contractors in Iraq, including the shooting of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last month, has caused tremendous damage to America's battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis," said Edwards. "These incidents hurt America's moral standing both in Iraq and around the world, and they serve as a tragic reminder of how the Bush administration has outsourced our military responsibilities to corporate contractors and political cronies who operate outside the rules of engagement and without any meaningful oversight."
Edwards said Blackwater's role has expanded well beyond traditional security to include loading weapons systems and sometimes engaging in combat operations.
Those forces can't be allowed to operate outside the chain of command and without control by the judicial system, he argued. Iraqis don't distinguish between soldiers and civilians, he said, but simply see excesses committed by Americans.
Clinton relaxed over Hillary bid
McCain: Bush Sent Wrong Message After 9/11
"I believe that the big mistake that our leadership of our nation made after 9-11 is we told people to go shopping and we told them to take a trip," McCain told students at a military prep school in this early voting state.
A month after the attacks, Mr. Bush said, "We cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where we don't conduct business or people don't shop."
People would have joined the military or volunteer groups had the president urged them to do so, McCain said. "I think Americans would have responded overwhelmingly and I believe they still will," he said.
The Arizona senator made the comments critical of Bush on Wednesday after shelving a prepared speech that was highly critical of Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
McCain said the original text of his speech was similar to an address he'd already made and that his differences with the New York senator remain a "legitimate issue."
Excerpts of the original speech he was to give at the Camden Military Academy - which were released Tuesday by the McCain campaign - accused Clinton of indecisiveness, arguing that won't work for a post-Sept. 11 commander in chief.
"The Democratic front-runner wants to have it both ways when it comes to foreign policy. On the one hand, the New York senator voted for the Iraq War. On the other hand, she now opposes it - sort of," the prepared remarks said.
"On the one hand, she wants a firm deadline for retreat. But, on the other hand, she says we cannot abandon the nation to Iran's designs," the speech said.
The Clinton campaign said Tuesday the two senators, both members of the Armed Services Committee, "have an honest disagreement on the war."
"Senator McCain is the Senate's biggest supporter of President Bush's escalation there. Senator Clinton wants to end the war and when she is president she will," Zac Wright, Clinton's South Carolina spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.
McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said McCain's decision to not give the speech Wednesday had to do with the venue. Camden Military Academy is for students grades 7 to 12.
"It has nothing to do with the content of the speech," Buchanan said. "This isn't the appropriate venue for that."
Late Tuesday, McCain said he had not yet seen the remarks. "But I will look at them very carefully," he said.
<
Bush Engagement Unites Two Political Clans
The nation's first family tree is about to gain a new branch. The future in-laws, it turns out, are not unlike the Bushes.
Henry Hager, 29, who was engaged to Jenna Bush, 25, in August, hails from a world of good breeding and foregone conclusions. His parents, who live in the West End of Richmond, are staples of their society. Like the Bushes, with their prominent forebears and their best schools, the Hagers are a Good Family, in the old sense of the phrase.
So much about the Hager family reminds you of how things used to be.
Like many old cities, Richmond has changed -- and it hasn't. Many of the trappings of the Hagers' lives pay homage to the way Richmond once was. Henry's parents, John and Maggie, are regulars on the cocktail party circuit and members of the Country Club of Virginia near their house. Margaret Chase Hager, 66, the product of prep schools and Richmond's debutante culture, was raised by an almost mythic woman who -- as one of Henry Hager's first cousins remembers it -- rode sidesaddle on a white horse she called Lady Godiva, and never wore a pair of pants in her life.
(Somehow, Good Families always have good legends.)
John, 71, formerly Virginia's lieutenant governor, has for decades been part of a small group of Republican-leaning business leaders in Richmond who recruit and fund local and state politicians. Statewide, he is the ubiquitous John Hager, known for attending the smallest of gatherings on the chicken dinner circuit (and always writing thank-yous).
Recently he was elected chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, a position in which his networking and fundraising talents will no doubt come in handy.
"John knows where the money is," says Mike Salster, Hager's communications director during his 1997 run for lieutenant governor.
Social anthropologists say that in matters of love, like meets like. Whatever frisson is sparked, there are also subtle evaluations of shoes and manners, of accent and ambition -- and these things become part of the calculus by which human beings can guess at a future together.
In the case of Jenna and Henry, there is much like in their love. They are both acquainted with the power of family and of politics. In addition to working on his father's campaigns, Henry has worked for Karl Rove and on President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.
Henry's immediate family declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the young couple's desire for privacy. During her book tour, which began last week, Jenna has said she doesn't yet know when and where her wedding will take place. She has spoken a little about her "open-minded" and "outdoorsy" fiance, who took her on a cold, early-morning hike up Maine's Cadillac Mountain and asked her to marry him as the sun broke over the horizon.
He proposed with his great-grandmother's ring, which he had reset.
We are a nation without nobility, but we have frequent political dynasties, great families that marry great families to produce important American clans. The Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes.
In love, as in politics, the name counts for a lot.
A 'Victorian' Upbringing
The groom-to-be's parents met through friends at a country club in Richmond.
It was 1970. She was somebody and he was going places, and they married within six months of their first date.
Even now, the language people use to describe Maggie Hager comes from another era. They call her "courtly" and a "gentlelady." Maggie had been raised in Richmond and New York. Her mother belonged to the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America, and her father was said to be related to former chief justice Salmon P. Chase.
A family friend, Marie Louise "Pie" Friendly, recalls Maggie and her sister dressed by their mother in organza with satin sashes. They had a German governess and a strict "Victorian" upbringing, Friendly says.
Richmond during mid-century was "arch-conservative, at least the West End where we grew up," Friendly says. "We didn't know people who went to public school. It was awful -- there was the Country Club of Virginia and that was it."
John Hager was tall and hardworking. He and his older sister had grown up in Durham, N.C. His mother was involved with the city's Debutante Ball Society, the country club and the garden club, according to her obituary. John's father, like John's uncle and grandfather, was an executive at the now-defunct American Tobacco Co., maker of Pall Malls and Lucky Strikes. After Purdue and an MBA at Harvard, John joined the company, too.
Then John got the flu, which turned out not to be the flu at all. It was instead a rare case of polio in 1973, contracted from an excessively virulent dose of the vaccine with which his first child, Jack, then an infant, had been inoculated. Even now he uses a wheelchair.
The company rescinded a promotion he'd just gotten to executive vice president. John stayed on in lesser positions until he retired in 1994.
With his newfound time, he took an increasing interest in politics. His son Henry would be at his side in his unsuccessful race for governor.
Quiet Influence
During an era when the name Trump has become synonymous with money and power, it's easy to forget that you don't need your name on a building or on a bottle of vodka to be influential. And while Trump's standing depends on his wealth and celebrity, there are people whose standing depends on neither, but on who they are, who their people are, and the role they occupy in their community.
Their influence is of a quieter and more traditional sort, a matter of manners and knowing one's place, of sitting on the right boards and working behind the scenes.
Most likely you would never hear of these people -- unless they chose to get into politics.
This is the model for much of the Hagers' influence. They know the other movers and shakers, the other Good Families in Richmond. The Children's Hospital of Richmond, the state Chamber of Commerce and countless other groups outside the political realm have been the lucky recipients of John's prodigious energies. (And he does seem to have more energy than most people.)
Maggie, meanwhile, was inspired by her husband's polio to serve with numerous groups dealing with the problems of the disabled. Lex Frieden, a disability advocate who served with Maggie on the presidentially appointed National Council on Disability 15 years ago, describes Maggie as supremely "gracious" and seldom critical of anything.
Obama Calls For Drug Law Changes
John Edwards' Learning Curve
When John Edwards started his second campaign for president, he said the experience of having run for the White House in 2004 gave him one important advantage over others in the 2008 field.
"One thing that's changed about me is that I spent most of my time last time learning how to be a presidential candidate," he told me almost a year ago. "I didn't know how to do it. I woke up every day worrying about how to be a better candidate than I was yesterday."
What Edwards absorbed from his first campaign was on display Wednesday night at the Democratic debate at Dartmouth College. More than any of his rivals, Edwards came to the debate with a clear plan for differentiating himself from front-running Hillary Clinton. The result was a debate in which someone other than Clinton turned in the best performance.
The art of multi-candidate debates is knowing what you need to accomplish and finding opportunities to make that happen. Clinton's goal on Wednesday was to deflect as much as possible the anticipated attacks from her rivals. She managed that through careful and sometimes evasive answers, through calculated laughter whenever the questioning cut too close, and through the command and expertise she has displayed in the past.
For Edwards, the goal was to force Democratic voters who may be uneasy with the prospect of Clinton as their nominee to think of him more than Barack Obama as the principal alternative, as well as raising doubts about Clinton herself.
He began somewhat delicately, when moderator Tim Russert asked all the candidates if they would pledge to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of their first term in January 2013. Edwards, Clinton and Obama all declined to make that promise.
But Edwards still found a way to draw a contrast with Clinton, arguing that she was prepared to keep U.S. troops in combat indefinitely. He said that, even if some residual forces were needed, he would prohibit their involvement in combat operations. It was a small difference but one designed to make Clinton unpopular with the party's antiwar constituency.
He was far more direct in criticizing Clinton over a Senate vote on Wednesday on a resolution urging President Bush to label the Iranian Revolution Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton supported the measure (in contrast to rivals Joe Biden and Chris Dodd) and Edwards took her to task by looping back to her support for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq.
Edwards also voted for that resolution, but has renounced it in a way Clinton steadfastly has refused to do. He was caustic in asserting that he and Clinton had learned "a very different lesson" from that experience. "What I learned in my vote on Iraq," he said, "was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted."
Edwards learned another valuable lesson from his 2004 experience, which is not to allow the conventional wisdom of the moment to overwhelm your candidacy. Time and again in the fall of 2003 he was counted out. He started as the bright, fresh hope for the party, then saw Howard Dean roar past him (and everyone else) on the strength of the antiwar movement. He languished in single digits in the polls so long that it appeared he had little chance of becoming a factor in the race.
Then when it counted, he came alive--with help from an endorsement by the Des Moines Register shortly before the Iowa caucuses. He was moving so quickly in the final days of the Iowa campaign that Kerry's team feared he might overtake them and win.
So Edwards has a healthy appreciation for what counts and what doesn't in the sound and fury of the 24/7 news cycle and the constant chatter and instant analysis of the web and cable news. His advisers believe Obama has obstacles that he will never be able to overcome -- principally the question of whether he has the right experience to be president -- and are therefore confident that by the middle of January, the Democratic race will be a two-way contest with Clinton.
Before the race gets to that point, Edwards may face his own time of testing. He was grilled Wednesday by Russert about his involvement with a hedge fund that has been involved in foreclosures against some New Orleans residents. He stood his ground, but the experience is one that may unsettle Democratic voters.
His detractors also question whether he is driven by more than a desire to be president. His positions have moved left over the past four years, on the war, on health care and on other issues. Can he retain the kind of support he has enjoyed in a state like Iowa among moderate male voters with a platform that is increasingly pitched to the left?
Finally, while he remains well positioned in Iowa, his prospects in New Hampshire are far less bright. His advisers believe that, if he wins Iowa, he can survive with a second-place finish in New Hampshire. They confidently predict he can wrap up the nomination in January by becoming the giant killer in Iowa and riding that altered dynamic to victory.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns strongly disagree with the assessment inside the Edwards campaign, and there are good reasons to be skeptical about how the Raleigh-based team has sketched out the future. Even some Democrats who were once partial to Edwards question the decisions that he, his wife Elizabeth and their team have made this year.
This bothers Edwards not at all. The confidence gained from running and losing in 2004 has permeated his 2008 campaign. Now he must persuade Democratic voters to put their confidence in him.
Can Clinton Be Stopped?
The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.
She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.
Clinton's goal has been to surround her candidacy with an aura of inevitability, which is certainly common among front-runners. The more she can do that, the more she puts the focus on whether her rivals have a strategy to stop her. The more she does that, the less focus there will be on questions pertinent to what kind of general election candidate or president she actually might be.
The rush to anoint Clinton as an inevitable nominee overlooks the history of nomination battles, which is that few candidate win these contests without a struggle or without at least one serious setback or stumble -- either self-inflicted or inflicted by the voters. What happens before the voters are heard from is not unimportant, but it is rarely decisive.
What could trip up Clinton? Many things: a scandal, a mistake or an unexpected event -- although mistakes seem the least likely given what has transpired to date. The most likely is a defeat and that certainly appears most possible in Iowa. A Clinton loss in Iowa would instantly change perceptions of the Democratic race and bring new scrutiny to Clinton's candidacy that may be overlooked right now.
Iowa is the outlier in the polls at this point in the campaign. Clinton holds a sizeable lead in national polls, and she has, on average, double-digit leads in the other early states. But in Iowa, the polls show a three-way contest that also includes Barack Obama and John Edwards -- and what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire will affect all the other states.
Iowa's electorate is notoriously picky about its choices. The voters there demand considerable attention and, even when they get it from the candidates, wait until the last minute to make up their minds. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin believes more than half the likely Democratic caucus voters have not settled on a candidate. Advisers to the leading candidates say the percentage may be even higher than that. No matter what the polls show elsewhere, Iowa is a real battleground.
An Obama victory in Iowa would deal a serious -- though not fatal -- setback to Clinton. Although Clinton has a lead in New Hampshire today, Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary. If Obama were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton then would be in deep trouble.
An Edwards victory over Clinton in Iowa would present a potential obstacle to her nomination, but perhaps not one as significant as if Obama were to win Iowa. That's because Edwards did not do well in New Hampshire in 2004 and has struggled there this year. Knowing that, he and Elizabeth Edwards have been investing more time and resources in New Hampshire, but no one can say with any confidence whether it could pay off if he wins Iowa.
Clinton is acting as if her whole campaign depends on Iowa -- and it may. She has rebuilt her ground operation there. She has used Iowa as the venue for major speeches on Iraq and health care to position herself favorably for the Democratic electorate. Twice now she has brought in her husband to campaign across the state with her. She and her advisers believe a victory there could secure her nomination. They also know that a loss there would scramble what has so far been generally smooth march forward.
What happens next depends in part on her opponents. She and the other Democrats will assemble in New Hampshire for a two-hour debate on Wednesday night (9-11 p.m. on MSNBC), moderated by NBC's Tim Russert. That event likely will reveal how they intend to try to stop her.
Obama may be forced onto the attack, if only to shake up a race that has been largely unchanged for months. Or he may try to avoid direct confrontation awhile longer, hoping that Edwards assumes that role immediately. Last week's debate in Iowa also found Joe Biden and Chris Dodd willing to challenge Clinton on the key question of whether she is the strongest Democratic standard-bearer in the general election and the kind of politician who could accomplish big things as president.
At some point, the voters will face up to those questions more directly than that have. Whether that will be during the primaries or, if Clinton is the nominee, after she has effectively wrapped up the nomination, depends in part on what the New York senator's opponents decide. But after the week she just wrapped up -- her most dominating week of the campaign to day -- her rivals must be ever more aware of the consequences of not doing so.
Hillary Clinton: Front-Runner And Target
Barack Obama and John Edwards try to paint her as a candidate of the Washington establishment and beholden to special interests. Chris Dodd questioned the former first lady's competence on health care reform. They have hinted she's too divisive to govern effectively as president.
The shift in tone was perhaps inevitable, coming nine months into a largely cordial primary campaign that has left the New York senator the undisputed front-runner for the Democratic nomination. In criticizing Clinton, they acknowledge she's a formidable candidate and accept that she's unlikely to stumble badly to give others an opening.
"Her opponents are starting to worry that she is consolidating her position, and that's potentially fatal for them," said Raphael Sonenshein, a political science professor at California State University, Fullerton. "A lot of people watching her campaign are surprised by the fact that it's strengthening and could be starting to break away."
The new dynamic is also a clear expression of frustration by Clinton's rivals, who were forced to the sidelines this week when she released her new health care plan. The rollout drew extensive media coverage.
Republicans are criticizing Clinton as though she's already the Democratic nominee. Rudy Giuliani has relied on newspaper and Web ads to assail her on the Iraq war.
To remain in the game, Democrats are starting to point out Clinton's potential vulnerabilities and question her electability.
At a seniors' forum in Iowa on Thursday, rival Joe Biden suggested congressional Republicans would refuse to work with Clinton to accomplish health care reform.
"Let's be frank about this," Biden said. "What's changed to make you think Hillary is going to be able to put together the 15 percent of Republicans" who will be needed to enact any overhaul of the health care system?
In an interview with The Associated Press, Dodd said Clinton had mismanaged her effort to reshape the nation's health care system during her husband's presidency and questioned why she touted that experience as evidence she should be allowed to try again.
Biden and Dodd are both polling in single digits and have had little impact on the overall dynamic of the field. But their criticisms come amid new efforts by Clinton's lead rivals, Obama and Edwards, to portray her as part of the status quo.
Edwards has been particularly aggressive, claiming Clinton lifted his health care plan and criticizing her ties to lobbyists and other special interests.
His top campaign strategist, Joe Trippi, even sent an e-mail to supporters this week blasting her for attending a fundraising lunch with lobbyists. Clinton, he wrote, is the "poster child" for what's wrong in Washington.
Obama faces his own set of risks and complications. He has pledged to run a positive campaign without the personal attacks or negativity that would cast him as a "conventional" politician. That pledge has come with a downside: Clinton strategists pounce each time Obama utters any sort of critique.
So in a new television ad campaign released this week, Obama tiptoes around Clinton's vulnerabilities without addressing them head on.
In an ad about health care, he laments the "bickering" that defined past attempts to reform the system. "For the last 20 years, Washington has talked about health care reform but reformed nothing," he says.
Is he talking about Clinton? Obama doesn't say.
And without naming names, Obama's new campaign speech includes a warning about a return to political polarization.
"George Bush and Dick Cheney may have turned divisive, special interest politics into an art form, but it was there before they got to Washington," he said.
For her part, Clinton hasn't taken the bait and has largely ignored the potshots from fellow Democrats.
"Voters can see through politically motivated attacks," said her spokesman Howard Wolfson. "Other candidates are clearly frustrated with their falling poll numbers."
Clinton is already training her sights on the GOP. She referred to Cheney this week as Darth Vader, and a top Clinton campaign adviser, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, said Giuliani's rocky personal life would be fair game in a general election.
But longtime Democratic strategist Erik Smith said that despite Clinton's clear strengths, there was still opportunity for her rivals to make headway. Their critiques could have particular resonance in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where voters are closely following the contest, he said.
"If you are running behind a front-runner, you have to do something to change the dynamics of the race," Smith said. "You really have no choice - you can't rest on your laurels and hopes that she trips."
Edwards Calls For Universal Preschool
Edwards was to detail the proposals, which also include longer school years and reforming No Child Left Behind, later in the day in a speech at a Des Moines middle school.
In a copy of his policy statement provided to The Associated Press, Edwards said giving all children an equal chance to get a quality education is a commitment that is at the core of his plan to build a country "where everyone has a chance to succeed."
He said schools are still separate and unequal 50 years after a Supreme Court ruling required desegregation in public schools.
"No longer legally separated by race, our children are sorted by economics, often with a racial or ethnic dimension. At the same time, our children are preparing for unprecedented global economic competition," Edwards said in the policy statement.
He criticized the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind law, saying it's not working and needs a radical overhaul.
Rather than requiring students to take cheap standardized tests, Edwards said assessments that measure higher-order thinking skills must be developed, including open-ended essays, oral examinations, projects and experiments.
Edwards' plan calls for federal funding for the creation of universal preschool for all children when they turn 4. The preschools will teach skills students will need in school, including language abilities and introductions to early math, reading and other academic concepts.
The program, which will be voluntary, will begin in low-income neighborhoods where schools are struggling. Tuition would be charged on a sliding scale based on family income and waived for children from low-income families.
Edwards also proposed creation of a national program to promote health screening for problems related to speech, hearing, vision, dental and learning disabilities. The program would promote home visits by nurses to 50,000 low-income new parents.
Richardson: Withdraw All Troops From Iraq
Edwards Camp Slams Clinton Over Fundraiser
Today's Clinton fundraising event is a 'poster child' for what is wrong with Washington and what should never happen again with a candidate running for the highest office in the land,・Edwards' senior adviser Joe Trippi said in a letter to supporters.
Edwards and Barack Obama have declined money from individuals who lobby the federal government and have tried to portray Clinton, who does accept lobbyists' money, as beholden to special interests. Obama and Edwards do accept money from corporate executives whose industries have interests in government policies.
In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren't going to end the war, deliver universal health care or turn John Edwards' flagging campaign around.・
The Clinton fundraiser was held Tuesday in the Washington offices of Jones Day, a global law firm with more than 2,200 lawyers in 30 offices worldwide.
Among those scheduled to attend were House members who are backing Clinton and sit on the House Homeland Security Committee, including Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jane Harman of California, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas, James Langevin of Rhode Island and Nita Lowey of New York.
Some of the luncheon chairs and members of the host committee have been lobbyists for a wide range of business interests.
According to the invitation, the luncheon would be followed by issues breakout sessions. Donors attending the luncheon had to pay $1,000 or $2,300.
Trippi's broadside came a day after Edwards argued that while Clinton's new health care plan is similar to his, she would be unable to reform the health system because she accepts lobbyists' contributions.
"I don't believe you can sit down with lobbyists, take their money and cut a deal,"Edwards said Monday in a speech to a union conference in Chicago. The only way to bring real health care reform is to end the Washington influence game and end it once and for all.・
Democrats Descend On Iowa
"Everybody is sick and tired of being sick and tired of George Bush," said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. "All you have to do is take a look at the president pretending that going around in circles was making progress. If that doesn't get you ready to get rid of George Bush I don't know what will."
The six candidates paraded after each other in a carnival-like atmosphere in a field about 20 miles south of Des Moines. An estimated 12,000 activists streamed in for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry, shelling out $30 each in a fundraiser for a veteran Democrat senator who doesn't face serious opposition in next year's election.
The presence of every serious Democratic contender demonstrates just how much Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus next January is dominating the current contest, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield.
John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton joined with Harkin to grill some steaks before a giant bank of television cameras. "I've done this before," Edwards said as he flipped a steak.
Clinton, the New York senator, called on Bush to bring the troops home from Iraq, declaring, "The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."
"They deserve to come home because there is no military solution," said Clinton. "Unfortunately, both the Iraqi government and the Bush administration have failed."
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "George Bush made it clear - he will not end the war in Iraq. If there was ever any doubt, now there is none. One of us on this stage will have to stop the war he started."
Obama said he would not vote for any war-funding measure that doesn't include a timeline for bringing troops home.
"We must recognize that until we end the divisive politics this war has spawned, we will be unable to build a consensus here at home to accomplish all the goals we share," Obama said.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said: "I would end the war in Iraq and I would bring all the troops out of Iraq. No residual forces. My position is clear: we bring the troops out within six to eight months. The war cannot end with leaving troops behind."
A few other issues popped up during the event. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd pointed to his call for expanded health coverage. "It is shameful that today, 50 million people in America have no health care," he said. That will change and must change if we care about the future of our country."
Clinton is scheduled to announce her plan for universal health care on Monday. Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, took at shot at her refusal to give up campaign money from health interest groups. "If they get a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food and there will be nothing left for the rest of America," he said.
War Of Anti-War, Pro-War Protesters
The group marched from the White House to the Capitol to demand an end to the Iraq war. Their numbers stretched for blocks along Pennsylvania Avenue, and they held banners and signs and chanted, What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now.・
Army veteran Justin Cliburn, 25, of Lawton, Okla., was among a contingent of Iraq veterans in attendance.
We're occupying a people who do not want us there,・Cliburn said of Iraq. We're here to show that it isn't just a bunch of old hippies from the 60s who are against this war.・
CBS News Correspondent Dan Raviv reports that counterprotest groups, including a contingent of Vietnam veterans called Gathering of Eagles who support the war in Iraq, lined Pennsylvania Avenue and had a verbal battle of chants and slogans.
The arrests came after protesters lay down on the Capitol lawn in what they called a tie in- with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.
Many were arrested without a struggle after they jumped over the waist-high barrier. But some grew angry as police with shields and riot gear attempted to push them back. At least two people were showered with chemical spray. Protesters responded by throwing signs and chanting: shame on you.・
The number of arrests by Capitol Police on Saturday was much higher than previous anti-war rallies in Washington this year. Five people were arrested at a protest outside the Pentagon in March when they walked onto a bridge that had been closed off to accommodate the demonstration, then refused to leave. And at a rally in January, about 50 demonstrators blocked a street near the Capitol, but they were dispersed without arrests.
The protesters gathered earlier Saturday near the White House in Lafayette Park with signs saying end the war now・and calling for President Bush's impeachment. The rally was organized by the ANSWER Coalition and other groups.
Organizers estimated that more than 100,000 people attended the rally and march. That number could not be confirmed; police did not give their own estimate. But there appeared to be tens of thousands of people in attendance.
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan told the crowd is was time to be assertive.
的t's time to lay our bodies on the line and say we've had enough,・she said. 的t's time to shut this city down.・
About 13 blocks away, nearly 1,000 counterprotesters gathered near the Washington Monument, frequently erupting in chants of U-S-Aand waving American flags.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, speaking from a stage to crowds clad in camouflage, American flag bandanas and Harley Davidson jackets, said he wanted to send three messages.
Pure Horserace: A Two-Minute Warning?
According to early reports, Edwards will use the occasion to once again try and apply pressure to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the war in Iraq. While all the Democratic candidates are calling for an end to the war, the former senator has been trying to position himself as the most anti-war candidate from the start of the campaign. Tonight, he will call on Congress (read, Clinton and Obama) to force the president to end the war.
Of course, two members alone can't cut off funding or force the administration to set up a timetable for withdrawal and Democrats in the Senate have yet to find enough Republicans for a veto-proof majority on those issues. But many party activists have grown restless with their leadership and it is that sentiment Edwards is aiming at.
"Well Congress you know the truth," Edwards will say in the ad, according to the Associated Press. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice - a firm timeline for withdrawal.・
The ad will air on MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann has gained a progressive following with his commentaries castigating the president on Iraq. And the campaign is tying it to a fund-raising pitch. On Edwards Web site, an appeal reads, buying this kind of airtime is expensive, but we believe that President Bush's address must be countered with a strong voice in opposition to the failed policies that have kept our troops in harm's way for far too long.・
Obama Calls For Immediate Troop Pullback
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to The Associated Press.
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now," the Illinois senator says.
Obama's ardent opposition to the war has been a central theme of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he has used it to distinguish himself from leading rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. She voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002; Obama was not yet a senator.
Obama was trying to further sharpen that distinction Wednesday, spelling out his views on what the U.S. should do next.
He introduced legislation last January calling for withdrawal to start on May 1 and for all combat brigades to be pulled out by March 31, 2008. Anti-war Democrats and some Republicans want to bring all combat troops home in a matter of months.
Obama's push for withdrawal drew a sharp rebuke from Republican rival Mitt Romney.
"I think Barack Obama has disqualified himself for presidential leadership," Romney said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "If we take the kind of left turn represented by Barack Obama and his flee-in-the-face-of-success strategy, we'd be in a very different position as a nation."
In a letter to Bush on Wednesday, Clinton urged him to bring troops home faster and not to use his prime-time speech Thursday to declare new successes in Iraq. She said Bush's planned announcement of a reduction of 30,000 troops would have happened any way when the troops would have had to come home at the end of their 15-month deployment.
"He is in essence is going to tell the American people that one year from now the number of troops in Iraq will be the same as there were one year ago," she said after picking up the endorsement of the National Association of Letter Carriers. "Taking credit for this troop reduction is like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning."
In criticizing the administration's current strategy, Clinton also linked the president's anticipated speech to the one he gave more than four years ago on an aircraft carrier under a banner that read "Mission accomplished."
"Mr. President, we don't need another mission accomplished moment," she said. "What we need is honesty and candor."
Obama's speech comes a day after Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker updated Congress on the situation in the war zone during two days of testimony on Capitol Hill.
Petraeus recommended that a 2,000-member Marine unit come home this month and not be replaced. That would be followed in mid-December by the departure of an Army brigade of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. An additional four combat brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008.
Obama said the U.S. and the Iraqi government should discuss how to go about withdrawing troops.
"We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later," Obama said in prepared remarks. Key excerpts were obtained by The Associated Press.
Although he stopped short of calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, Obama said there should be a clear and certain timetable.
"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he said. "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."
By arguing that only combat brigades should be withdrawn — there are 20 in Iraq, including five President Bush sent January — Obama appeared to suggest that other U.S. troops could remain.
Underscoring the importance he was putting on the speech, Obama was being introduced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to President Carter from 1977 to 1981. Brzezinski has endorsed Obama's bid, and Wednesday's appearance would be his first on the candidate's behalf.
Obama rejected Petraeus' recommendation to maintain current troop levels through next summer to ensure security gains are maintained.
"The president would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis," Obama said. "I reject this choice."
Instead, he argued for creating an international working group of countries in the region and in Asia and Europe that would work to stabilize Iraq.
Democratic rival Chris Dodd criticized Obama and Clinton, contending that they were backtracking on "the need for a firm, enforceable deadline" on redeploying U.S. forces. Dodd said Obama "has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity."
Petraeus Presents Conundrum For Dems
This week's progress report from General David Petraeus marked an opportunity of sorts for both sides in the debate over the war. Congressional Democrats, having been unable to win a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq, saw Petraeus' report as an opportunity to win over moderate Republicans and begin a process to wind down the four-year war.
The White House and its allies, meanwhile, saw the report as a chance to bolster their claim that progress was being made in Iraq. They portrayed America's top general in Iraq as an impartial and highly reputable source on the Iraq war; in a press conference on Aug. 1, spokesman Tony Snow, who has denied that the White House has seen or shaped the general's testimony, called Petraeus "a serious guy who sees his mission not as a political mission, but, in fact, as somebody who reports facts."
After Petraeus, as expected, delivered testimony largely in line with White House rhetoric, Democrats had to be careful to raise questions about the message without directly disparaging the messenger -- in this case a general whom they have praised in the past. A full-page ad in Monday's New York Times, purchased by MoveOn.org Political Action, complicated that task. In the ad, the anti-war group used the phrase "General Betray Us" and suggested that Petraeus is "cooking the books for the White House."
Republicans, both in the House committee room where Petraeus was testifying and on the presidential campaign trial, quickly seized upon the ad: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called it an "outrageous ... attempt to call into question the reputation and character of General Petraeus," while Arizona Sen. John McCain characterized it as "a McCarthyite attack on an American patriot."
Numerous Republicans called on Democrats to repudiate what Snow called "a boorish, unworthy, childish attack." Immediately before Petraeus' testimony, Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen suggested, in a comment carried on the cable news channels, that Democrats may have coordinated the attack with MoveOn.
According to one Democratic Senate aide, the ad complicated matters for "Democratic members of House and Senate that are here trying to do their job and really have problems with Petraeus' report but don't have problems with Petraeus personally."
Nita Chaudhary, a spokesman for MoveOn, said that there was no coordination between Democrats and their organization concerning the ad. "The intent of the ad is to get out there in advance of the White House spin," said Chaudhary. "It's unfortunate that the Republicans are focusing on the ad rather than the facts on the ground."
The dustup stoplights a potential problem for Democratic presidential candidates: The tension between those members of their party who want an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and those who, for personal or political reasons, do not advocate that course. During yesterday's House hearings, several protesters, among them Cindy Sheehan and members of anti-war group Code Pink, repeatedly interrupted speakers with calls for an immediate end to the war.
"There are parts of the Democrats' base that are absolutely committed to the idea that this war has got to stop and believe that Democrats who do not oppose the war and are not calling for pullout are not worthy of support," said CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield.
But the party's presidential candidates have cautioned that an immediate and complete withdrawal is unrealistic. Democrats, who hold a narrow majority in the Senate, have been unable to garner the votes necessary to force a change in the administration's policy. And the complexity of withdrawal has forced most of the top-tier candidates to acknowledge that some level of troops will likely be needed in Iraq for some time to come.
In a debate last month, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton called withdrawal "a massive, complicated undertaking." And Illinois Sen. Barack Obama added, "There are only bad options and worse options, and we're going to have to exercise judgment in terms of how we execute this."
Whether or not the presidential candidates can manage to sufficiently satisfy anti-war activists, Democrats see benefits in talking about the war.
"A lot of Democratic members of the House and Senate distanced themselves from what they regarded as a personal attack on Petraeus," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said in reference to the MoveOn ad. "But at the end of the day, the real issue is still the real issue. Bush and Petraeus are saying they want an open ended commitment of 120,000, 130,000 troops into the indefinite future, and that is a policy that most Americans oppose. Americans want a timetable for withdrawal. What Democrats are saying is we need to change course. That's the fundamental difference."
Iraq Debate Flares Before Petraeus Report
Ahead of Monday's crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.
"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.
Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and their recommendations about the course of war strategy.
Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which brings the current U.S. total in Iraq to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability. The officials also disputed suggestions that Petraeus and Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.
The testimony sets the stage for a nationally televised speech by Bush later in the week about how he will proceed.
There is widespread public unhappiness and growing congressional discomfort with the war. But, a new CBS News/New York Times poll suggests the "surge" strategy may be gaining support among the American people.
The poll finds 35 percent say the surge has made things better, up from 29 percent last month and 19 percent in July. Only 12 percent say it has made things worse, but nearly half see no change in either direction, according to the poll.
CBS Poll: More Think The 'Surge' Is Helping
"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong," Biden said.
Biden contended that Bush's main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.
"This president has no plan - how to win and how to leave," Biden said.
Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out," except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al Qaeda.
Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said.
"I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "But none of us should be fooled - not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress - we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."
On Face The Nation, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the Bush administration is leaving the ultimate decision on whether to keep troops in Iraq to the next president.
"It's clear that ... this administration is trying to delay the ultimate judgment till the next president gets into office, that's what this president has said, and then let them take the burden on it," Kennedy told Bob Schieffer.
Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he respects the judgment of Petraeus but will not blindly follow his assessment.
"We're going to look behind the generalizations that General Petraeus or anybody gives us and probe the very hard facts to see exactly what the situation is," Specter said. "As I've said in the past, unless we see some light at the end of the tunnel here, very closely examining what General Petraeus and others have to say, I think there's a general sense that there needs to be a new policy."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said it would be foolish for Congress to try and second-guess commanders on the ground.
In the end, Graham said, the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw prematurely if it is military unwise and risks plunging the region into more chaos.
"If the general tells me down the road we can withdraw troops because of military success, we should all celebrate it," Graham said. "But if politicians in Washington pick an arbitrary date, an arbitrary number to withdraw, it's not going to push Baghdad politicians.
"It's going to re-energize an enemy that's on the mat," he said.
Unions Press Clinton on Outsourcing
Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."
The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign, and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.
Despite aggressive courtship by Democratic candidates, major unions such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have withheld their endorsements as they scrutinize the candidates' records and solicit views on a variety of issues.
High on the agenda of union officials is an explanation of how each candidate will try to stem the loss of U.S. jobs, including large numbers in the service and technology sectors that are being taken over by cheap labor in India. During the vetting, some union leaders have found Clinton's record troubling.
"The India issue is still something people are concerned about. Her financial relationships, her quotes - they have both gotten attention," said Thea M. Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO.
Facing a cool reception, Clinton and her advisers have used closed-door meetings with labor leaders in recent months to explain her past ties to Indian companies, donors and policies. Aides have highlighted her efforts to retrain displaced workers and to end offshore tax breaks that reward companies that outsource jobs.
But the Clinton camp has been pressed by labor leaders on her support for expanding temporary U.S. work visas that often go to Indians who get jobs in the United States, and it has been queried about the help she gave a major Indian company to gain a foothold in New York State. That company now outsources most of its work to India.
"They're obviously defensive about it," observed Lee, who has taken part in such meetings.
Clinton declined repeated requests for an interview about her views on outsourcing. Her campaign advisers, however, say she believes there are no inconsistencies in the comments she has made here and in India or in her actions as a senator.
They say she opposes legislative measures - such as trade barriers - to slow the loss of American jobs if they would restrain free trade. And they say she has supported the expansion of the temporary-worker visas because U.S. technology companies have repeatedly told her the visas are needed to maintain a ready workforce.
At the same time, they say, she has worked hard to secure money to assist workers who have lost jobs to outsourcing and wants to retrain the American workforce to compete better in the global marketplace.
Clinton "believes that we must make sure that we are not allowing other countries to take advantage of American workers and that we do not have policies in place that actually promote outsourcing of American jobs," spokesman Philippe Reines said.
Her rivals for the Democratic nomination have monitored her every comment on the issue. Last year, the India Abroad newspaper reported that she joked to a group of Indian American donors that she could easily win a Senate seat if she were running in the Indian state of Punjab. An aide to her chief foe in the Democratic contest, Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., parodied those remarks in a document distributed to reporters; it listed her political affiliation as "D-Punjab."
At a recent event in Los Angeles, host Nadadur Vardhan told those gathered that they should support Clinton because "she may shift more jobs to India," according to an Indian news account. Asked about the remarks, Vardhan told The Washington Post: "That's not our goal. Our goal is to support her because she is best for this country."
Obama and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who trail Clinton in the polls, have sought to attack her record on outsourcing while arguing that they support more direct government intervention to protect U.S. jobs.
Clinton's camp counters that Obama and Edwards have acknowledged that some loss of American jobs is inevitable in a global economy. Edwards, for example, told a New Delhi conference in 2005 that outsourcing was "an economic reality" and "America must act to ensure that it stays strong and adapts ... to ensure that the American people are better prepared to meet the challenges of the new world." And Obama said just two months ago: "We know that we can't put the forces of globalization back in the bottle. We cannot bring back every job that's been lost."
When Clinton told a union-sponsored debate last month that the nation needed a "better approach" to globalization and trade, Edwards railed against the North American Free Trade Agreement that President Bill Clinton's administration signed in 1993, saying it compromised "millions of jobs." Obama chimed in that "people don't want a cheaper T-shirt if it's costing us jobs."
Obama Touts Change Over Experience
"As bad as this administration has been, it's going to take more than just a change in parties to truly turn this country around," Obama told supporters at a Labor Day rally.
"George Bush and Dick Cheney may have turned divisive, special interest politics into an art form, but it was there before they got to Washington. If you and I don't stand up to challenge it, it will be there long after we leave."
It was the latest volley in the "change versus experience" debate that has dominated the dialogue between Clinton and her top rivals in recent weeks. On Sunday, Clinton unveiled a new campaign speech where she argued that only a president experienced in the ways of Washington could bring about real political transformation.
Without mentioning Clinton by name, Obama struck back hard at that argument.
"There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington," Obama said. "But the problem is the system in Washington isn't working for us, and it hasn't been for a very long time."
Obama, who has spent much of the campaign answering questions of whether he is experienced enough to be president, ticked through his years as a community organizer and consensus builder in the Illinois legislature and now in the Senate. But he also sought to frame his hope-driven message as an antidote to the cynicism of political insiders.
"A lot of people who've been in Washington a lot longer than me, they've got better connections, they go(to the)right dinner parties, they know how to talk the Washington talk," he said. "I may not have the experience Washington likes but I believe I have the experience America needs right now."
With Clinton still riding high in most polls as the fall campaign was set to begin in earnest, both Obama and John Edwards have stepped up their claim that Clinton is too cautious and too conventional to bring real change to Washington.
"Hope and change are not just the rhetoric of a campaign for me," he said, adding that for others, politics seemed to be a game.
He also vowed to tell the truth always as president.
"You shouldn't expect anything less from your president," he said to loud cheers.
Obama had a full day of campaign appearances in New Hampshire, where polls show him trailing Clinton by a wide margin.
With his wife, Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha, Obama participated in a Labor Day parade in Milford. He and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney exchanged greetings at the parade staging area before meeting voters along the two-mile parade route.
The Obama family was also scheduled to attend an ice cream social and a community dinner.
Most Dems Vow To Skip Early Primaries
The decision by Obama and Edwards is a major boost to the primacy of the four early voting states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - and a welcome development to the Democratic National Committee, which has tried to impose discipline on a handful of unruly states determined to vote before Feb. 5.
"As I have campaigned across America over the last six months, it's become clear that Governor (Howard) Dean and the Democratic National Committee have put together a presidential nomination process that's in the best interests of our party and our nation," Obama said in a written statement.
Said Edwards, also in a statement: "Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money. This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."
Obama and Edwards signed onto the pledge to only campaign in the early voting states a day after Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden had endorsed the plan. The pledge had been circulated by Democratic leaders of the four early voting states that have party approval to hold early contests. The pledge says they won't compete in any other states that vote before Feb. 5, as Florida plans to do and Michigan is poised to do.
Their decision is a blow to Florida, which had moved its primary to Jan. 29, and Michigan, where the legislature this week voted to push its primary to Jan. 15. Michigan acted despite the DNC's threat to punish Florida by stripping it of its 210 delegates unless it comes up with another plan in the next four weeks.
The chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, Karen Thurman, has criticized the pledge, calling it "a pact to ignore tens of millions of diverse Americans by a selfish, four-state alliance of party insiders."
Clinton aides said Friday they were reviewing the pledge.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the New York senator is committed to the "special role" that the four states play and that she will campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire no matter the dates of their contests.
"A number of other states are undergoing a process," Elleithee said. "And we have repeatedly said we are going to let that process play out."
The prospect of five candidates bypassing Florida and Michigan would essentially turn those contests into non-binding beauty contests, with no delegates at stake if the DNC imposed its punishment.
Party rules for this cycle had Iowa's caucuses on Jan. 14, with tests in Nevada Jan. 19, New Hampshire Jan. 22 and South Carolina Jan. 29.
New Hampshire and Iowa are considering earlier contests to maintain their influence, but the pledge does not prohibit candidates from campaigning in those states even if they go earlier than the national party allows.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was preparing to sign legislation that would move its contest to Jan. 15, despite the threat of similar sanctions. She encouraged the candidates to ignore the pact, saying her state's manufacturing crisis and unfair trade policies were more important than the politics behind which states get to vote early.
Dodd, Richardson and Biden have the most incentive to keep the contest focused on the states approved by the DNC. They have raised less money and can't afford to organize in multiple states at the same times, especially those with expensive media markets such as Florida and Michigan where Clinton is a substantial favorite in the polls.
Financial concerns also were a factor for Edwards, who has lagged behind Clinton and Obama in fundraising. Edwards also favored caucuses in Michigan, hoping a strong labor turnout would improve his chances, but the state had been moving toward a primary.
Why Karl Touts Hillary
Karl Rove knew exactly what he was doing. In a round of interviews as he exited the White House, the man President Bush called the "architect" of his re-election was designing something else: a push for Hillary Clinton's nomination. "I think she's likely to be the nominee," he told Rush Limbaugh. "And I think she's fatally flawed." All observations that, coming from anyone else, might be considered routine punditry. But when Rove speaks, the political class pays attention - usually with good reason. And this time, Rove's eagerness to engage on the question of Clinton was no spontaneous event. Ever a helpful fellow, he's happy to drive Democrats into the arms of Hillary by taking her on.
All of which creates the oddest Rove and Clinton coupling. After all, her interests and his are perfectly aligned right now: He wants her to be the Democratic nominee (because he thinks she will lose). And she does, too (because she thinks she will win). So Rove happily promotes the idea that Clinton's nomination is "inevitable," a virtual done deal. And when Rove opines on Clinton in any way, she's just as thrilled to take him on. What better way to win over those liberal Democratic primary voters - skeptical about you because you voted for the Iraq war - than to remind them that the evil Rove is attacking you? "I don't think Karl Rove's going to endorse me," Clinton said at a recent Iowa debate, clearly relishing his attention, if not his affection. "That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me."
Just interesting? More likely, it's a political marriage of convenience - a circumstance not altogether uncomfortable for Clinton. Indeed, the efficient Clinton campaign went into overdrive responding to Rove's charges that "she's got a weakness" on the issue of healthcare, given the debacle of Hillary's foray into the national health insurance debate as first lady. "This woman's got one idea on health care, which is to let the government do it all, and she's voted against all these very positive reforms which would allow the doctor and the patient to be in charge of health care." Translation: This can be a two-fer. Help Clinton win the nomination. At the same time, excite the depressed GOP faithful by taking her on.
That's all fine by the Clinton campaign. And it's right; anyone who attacks her is doing her a favor, on lots of levels. When the critique comes from a Republican like Rove, she becomes the Democratic stalwart, the tough fighter, the candidate to fear - as she's the first to tell you. "You know, I have been fighting against these people [Republicans] for longer than anybody else up here," Clinton pointed out at the Iowa debate. "I've taken them on and we've beaten them. ... " Unspoken: No other Democrat - notably Barack Obama or John Edwards - can say that. An added plus for Hillary: As the object of GOP attacks, she even becomes more sympathetic - particularly to those single, lower-income, female Democratic primary voters she is working so hard to attract.
Opponents Stagnate
And what about the attacks from Democrats? So far, they've been either predictable or weak, or both. Obama has pounded her on her war vote; she's punched back by criticizing his "naive" foreign policy views. She talks of her 35 years of invaluable experience; he calls for a change from the old-style Washington politics (aka Clinton-Bush) to a post-boomer mindset. Yet while Obama's message resonates with a solid piece of the country sick of politics-as-usual, he hasn't managed to add to that base what he'll need to beat Hillary Clinton, at least according to recent polls. As for John Edwards, both he and his wife have been busy attacking Clinton's Washington connections and money, touting his "not for sale" candidacy - only to see his campaign lose altitude as his persona diminishes. (In one debate, Edwards took a dim view of the color of Hillary Clinton's blazer. Imagine what he would have said if she had been the one to get a $400 haircut.)
This is not to say, of course, that Hillary Clinton should be off limits. But she has proved herself to be a strong adversary - and a steady politician. Sure, Karl Rove has a point: Clinton enters this race with among the highest negative ratings of any candidate "in the history of the Gallup Poll," with nearly half of all voters viewing her unfavorably. And she's clearly the candidate he would like to run against. Now all Rove has to figure out is who can beat her.
Edwards: Congress Should Demand Withdrawal
"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."
The former North Carolina senator started the last day of his four-day bus tour of New Hampshire outside Manchester's City Hall, where he told several hundred people that they should ask themselves two key questions when the report is released. First, has Iraq made progress toward a political solution? And second, how long will troops be deployed if there is no progress?
Edwards has said if he were president, he would remove about 50,000 American troops immediately, with the rest redeployed over about nine months. A troop withdrawal would show the Iraqi government that it needs to find a political compromise to end the conflict, he said.
"There has to be some compromise between Maliki and the Shia-led government and the Sunni leadership," Edwards said. "Otherwise there'll never be stability and security in Iraq. And Maliki, who has been, clearly, a weak leader, needs to be focused on that job."
Meanwhile, Sunday, Iraq's beleaguered prime minister lashed out at Democrats who have called for his ouster.
"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses," al-Maliki said.
Al-Maliki struck back in the final days before the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus is due in Washington for his September progress report.
The Shiite prime minister said a negative report by Petraeus would not cause him to change course, although he said he expected Petraeus would "be supportive of the government and will disappoint the politicians who are relying on it" to be negative.
Edwards said the prime minister is focusing on the wrong issue.
"I think that Maliki should quit worrying about Democrats and the presidential campaign in America and start worrying about what he needs to do in his own country," Edwards said.
"I mean, everyone knows that at the end of the day, as the Iraq Study Group has said and most of us have said at this point, there can be no military solution in Iraq. There has to be a political solution," he said.
Edwards stopped short of saying al-Maliki should resign.
"I think that's something for them to decide, not for us to decide," Edwards told Schieffer.
The former Senator from North Carolina said that there was no way of predicting what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its troops from Iraq.
"The truth is there are no good choices and no one can predict with any kind of accuracy exactly what's going to happen in Iraq," Edwards said. "We're going to maximize the chances of success, we're going to do this in an orderly and responsible way, but there's no way to know with certainty what will happen."
To Win In Iowa, It's One Vote At A Time
"Hillary's been through the mill," McCarty, who calls herself a retired homemaker, said at a recent Clinton campaign meeting at a Pizza Ranch restaurant here. "She took a lot of abuse as first lady, and hopefully she knows how to handle it. She's very strong, she's very smart and I'm glad she's a woman."
In Iowa, it's all about getting people to the caucuses on a cold night this winter. Currently, the caucuses are scheduled to take place Jan. 14, but the date is likely to move up as other states jockey to push their nominating contests forward as well.
Identifying supporters like McCarty ・and persuading them to show up at the caucuses to choose delegates for each candidate ・is the central challenge facing Clinton and her rivals in this important early voting state. Democratic candidates have mounted vast organizational efforts across Iowa, deploying hundreds of staff and volunteers to feed, court and cajole finicky caucus-goers months before a vote is cast.
"Our organizers sit down with supporters, go to their homes, go to coffee with them and give them several ways to become involved," said Angelique Pirozzi, who runs Clinton's Iowa field program. "It's fundamentally a program of relationships."
Democratic rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama have also mounted strong operations in Iowa, and polls show a tight race here even as Clinton maintains a lead in national polls.
Much has changed here for Clinton since May, when a memo surfaced from her deputy campaign manager urging her to skip Iowa ・"our consistently weakest state," in the memo's words.
Since then, the campaign has redoubled its efforts in the state, opening 19 field offices and hiring more than 100 staffers. Supporters are being recruited to chair each of the state's 99 counties and 1,784 precincts. Clinton has stepped up her visits, and the campaign recently began running its first television commercials.
Identifying supporters and persuading them to caucus for a candidate remains a slow and meticulous process for all the campaigns. Democratic campaigns also focus much of their efforts in rural Republican-leaning counties, where even a handful of supporters showing up on caucus night can yield delegates for a candidate.
In Primghar, just nine voters showed up for what was billed as the Clinton campaign's O'Brien County kickoff meeting. The group was treated to pizza and presentations by local field organizer Rebecca Slutzky and by Rep. Jay Inslee, who flew to Iowa from his home state of Washington.
"I'm here because Iowa's the most important place to be. The rest of the world watches and waits to see who Iowa picks," Slutzky, a Virginia native, told the group. "If you're undecided and you want to hear more, we'll set up a meeting. I'll sit in your living room as long as it takes."
To make their pitch, Slutzky and Inslee carefully went through talking points. Attendees listened and asked questions, but by the end most remained uncommitted. Only McCarty promised to attend the caucuses for Clinton.
"This has made my whole trip worthwhile!" Inslee said, asking McCarty if she'd be willing to call her friends and talk up Clinton's candidacy.
"I'll speak personally to people. I'm not a great phone person," McCarty replied.
GOP Sen.: Begin Iraq Pullout By Christmas
The move puts the prominent Republican at odds with the president, who says conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.
Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush earlier this year.
The departure of even a small number of U.S. service members ・perhaps 5,000 out of the 160,000 troops in Iraq ・would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out, he said.
"We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action," he told reporters after a White House meeting with Bush's top aides.
Sen. Warner ・just back from Iraq ・said U.S. soldiers are now fighting for a failing government, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
"I really firmly believe the Iraqi government under the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki has let our troops down," Warner said.
It's the messenger, not the message, that is important, says CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer.
"John Warner is the single most influential Republican voice on Capitol Hill," says Schieffer. "Other Republicans listen when he's talking about defense matters."
Warner's new position is a sharp challenge to a wartime president that will undoubtedly color the upcoming Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to brief members on the war's progress.
A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, declined to say whether Bush might consider Warner's suggestion.
Asked whether Bush would leave the door open to setting a timetable, Johndroe said: "I don't think the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. I just think it's important that we wait right now to hear from our commanders on the ground about the way ahead."
Republicans, including Warner, have so far stuck with Bush and rejected Democratic proposals demanding troops leave Iraq by a certain date. But an increasing number of GOP members have said they are uneasy about the war and want to see Bush embrace a new strategy if substantial progress is not made by September.
Warner, known for his party loyalty, said he still opposes setting a fixed timetable on the war or forcing the president's hand.
"Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress," he said.
Nevertheless, his suggestion of troop withdrawals is likely to embolden Democrats and rile some of his GOP colleagues, who insist lawmakers must wait until Petraeus testifies.
His stature on military issues also could sway some Republicans who have been reluctant to challenge a wartime president. Warner is a former Navy secretary and one-time chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; he is now the committee's second-ranking Republican.
Warner said he came to his conclusion after visiting Iraq this month with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, committee chairman. Earlier this week, Levin said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should be replaced. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., followed suit, saying Maliki has been "a failure."
Warner said he "could not go that far" to call for Maliki's resignation but said he did have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current leadership, confirmed by an intelligence report released Thursday. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted it would be 12 months before the U.S. could expect a reconciliation.
"When I see an NIE which corroborates my own judgment ・that political reconciliation has not taken place ・the Maliki government has let down the U.S. forces and, to an extent, his own Iraqi forces," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the report confirms what most Americans already know: "Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and the president's escalation strategy has failed to produce the political results he promised to our troops and the American people."
"Every day that we continue to stick to the president's flawed strategy is a day that America is not as secure as it could be," said Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
McCain: "I Know What's Right For America"
"I know what's right, and I'm going to do what's right, and at the end of the day, I'm going to sleep well at night, because I know what's right for America," he told Bob Schieffer.
His two most controversial stances are on Iraq and immigration. McCain believes that the United States needs to stay in Iraq to help secure the nation and that the surge in troops needs more time to be tested.
"We have got our opponents wanting to go back to a strategy that failed for four years, and abandon a strategy we have really only been pursuing for about four months, which is succeeding," McCain said. "If you set a date for withdrawal ・and that's what the Democrats are going to be proposing in the middle of September ・my friend, that's a date for surrender... It's going to be chaos, genocide, not only in Iraq but in the region."
Within the Republican party, McCain said he has been most damaged by his fight for an immigration reform bill. He began this campaign season as the de facto frontrunner, but is now running fourth in some polls.
"As president, I would say, 'I will secure the borders,'" he said. "But I still think we need a comprehensive approach to this immigration issue, including a temporary worker program. So, I think that was ・that was harmful to me."
Current frontrunner former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says he believes illegal immigration can be completely stopped. McCain says it can be brought under control by using things like a tamper-proof biometric identification documents. If an employer hires someone without one, McCain said, the employer would be prosecuted.
"Then you dry up the magnet from south of the border, because if they know even if they get across our border that they can't get a job here, then I think that has a very big effect," McCain said. "But I believe we have to have a temporary worker program, and I mean temporary. If you're an agriculture worker, come for 10 months, go back for two months."
Clinton Campaign Unveils First TV Ad
The 60-second spot, which goes up Tuesday on Iowa television, intercuts scenes of Clinton interacting with voters with scenes of the candidate delivering a portion of her standard campaign speech. In the speech, Clinton speaks of the challenges facing many working people.
"If you're a family that is struggling and you don't have health care, you are invisible to this president," she says. "If you're a single mom trying to find affordable child care so you can go to work, you're invisible, too."
"Americans from all walks of life across our country may be invisible to this president, but they're not invisible to me and they won't be invisible to the next president of the United States," she says to applause.
Images of Clinton walking in an Iowa farm field, talking to young mothers, children and seniors and addressing a crowd at a campaign event fill the screen.
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who endorsed Clinton after dropping his own bid for the Democratic nomination, unveiled the ad at a news conference.
"This is the Hillary Clinton, not the one who has been vilified by some, but the Hillary Clinton who cares deeply about the people most in need," Vilsack said.
The ad is aimed at softening Clinton's image. While polls have shown her running strongly, her negatives remain high and the spot is designed to introduce her to voters.
The move intensifies Clinton's campaign in Iowa, her weakest state, and comes on the eve of her latest campaign swing here. Iowa is slated to hold its caucuses on Jan. 14, though the date is certain to change after South Carolina Republicans moved up their primary last week.
Some state polls show Edwards leading while other surveys show Clinton, Obama and Edwards essentially tied. This is in contrast to national surveys and other state polls in which Clinton has a clear advantage. In May, Clinton's deputy campaign manager wrote a memo urging her to bypass the Iowa caucuses to focus time and money on states where she's faring better.
Obama is already airing commercials in the state. The Democratic candidates are descending upon Iowa this week for photo-friendly appearances at the Iowa State Fair, a high-profile convention of the Iowa Federation of Labor and this weekend's debate sponsored by ABC.
The New York senator was campaigning Monday in Nevada, which follows Iowa in the primary calendar.
It was unclear how much Clinton would be spending on the ads. Ad buyers not connected with the Clinton campaign said her staff had not yet asked for available time slots or actually placed ads with television stations.
U.S. Senator Defends Pakistan's Prez
Speaking with reporters in a conference call from Iraq, Sen. Dick Durbin said Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf voiced concern over news reports that portray him as not doing enough to eradicate al Qaeda.
"It would be a mistake to conclude that they are not making the effort. I believe they have," Durbin said, citing the deaths of 600 Pakistani soldiers. "I just believe they can be more effective in the way they're doing it."
Durbin, the Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat, said Musharraf did not talk about fellow Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who has been criticized by Pakistan's government for suggesting he was prepared to send U.S. military forces into Pakistan if that is what it would take to eliminate al Qaeda as a terrorist threat.
Durbin has been traveling in South Asia and the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, where he arrived Wednesday. He met with Musharraf on Tuesday.
Durbin is scheduled to be in Jordan on Thursday at a refugee camp with Democratic Sen. Bob Casey.
In Iraq, he visited U.S. troops at a remote patrol base and later met with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Baghdad.
He said he envisions that even with U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq there would still be some U.S. military personnel embedded with Iraq's army for training purposes. He did not speculate about how many troops should remain. The U.S. military presence now hovers around 165,000.
During much of the day Wednesday, Durbin was at a U.S. patrol base about 10 miles outside of Baghdad along the banks of the Tigris River, where he met with a force of about 900 servicemen, including many from Illinois.
In Afghanistan, Durbin had meetings with officials in Kabul and took a trip to a border region with Pakistan, where he said al Qaeda and Taliban forces often gather.
"I believe the Afghanis are anxious to stop the Taliban infiltration and al Qaeda as well," he said. "So, I have an optimistic feeling about this."
He cautioned that U.S. allies from NATO are still needed in Afghanistan.
"This is the war we should have focused on ・the war we can win," Durbin added. "We have to do our best to finish this."
Meanwhile, Casey, on his first trip to Iraq, said he has been telling Iraqi leaders that Americans are troubled by the lack of political progress by the country's politicians.
"The troops have met every assignment, they've beaten the odds time and again, they've done everything we've asked them to," Casey said in a conference call with reporters. "You could make a good argument they've won the war, but some still say that we need lots more time and lots more troops and lots more in the way of resources."
Casey, who voted against a January plan that increased the number of troops in Iraq, said the Bush administration and political leaders in Iraq should be making progress that matches the intensity that U.S. troops have shown. He jas has not advocated for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, but he has supported measures that would bring most troops home by April.
GOP Rivals Agree On Iraq, Spar On Abortion
"Just come home," dissented Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the lone advocate of a quick troop withdrawal from Iraq on a presidential campaign debate stage. He said there had never been a good reason to go to war in the first place.
"Has he forgotten about 9/11?" interjected former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, referring to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
But it was Romney who was forced to answer on the issue of abortion, when Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback defended automated phone calls his campaign has made highlighting his rival's one-time support for pro-choice policies.
"It's truthful," Brownback said. "I am pro-life. I think this is a core issue for our party."
Romney called it "desperate, maybe negative," adding moments later, "I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have."
The exchanges took place less than a week before Iowa Republicans gather for a party fundraiser and much-anticipated straw poll which is likely to determine the fate of several candidates. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are not directly participating in the event but the other candidates have directed time and resources in the hopes of scoring a public relations victory next Saturday.
Tensions in the state have risen over the past several weeks as the campaigns fight for the support of the conservative activists who will participate in the straw poll. "For candidates like Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, this is a make-or-break moment," said CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs. "This is their chance to distinguish themselves and break out of a large group of candidates all competing for a limited pool of campaign money and support."
In the absence of direct participation by Giuliani and McCain, Romney is the prohibitive favorite to win the straw poll and has been organizing supporters for months in advance. "Anything less than a clear win next Saturday would be a major setback for Romney, and that is why so many of the attacks by other candidates have been directed at him," said Ververs.
For some of the less-known candidates without the financial resources and organization, the straw poll is even more critical. "A good showing next Saturday can keep a long-shot candidacy alive or even catapult it to a higher level," said Ververs. "But for some of these guys, anything less almost certainly means the end of the road."
The debate unfolded on a Drake University stage, hosted and carried live by ABC television, five months before Iowa caucus-goers begin winnowing the field of White House contenders. The Iowa caucuses are the first major test for candidates in the presidential campaign season when voters in each state begin selecting delegates to their party's national nominating conventions.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Romney, the most prominent contenders, agreed the United States must remain in Iraq. So, too, Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Duncan Hunter of California.
"I firmly believe that the challenge for the 21st century is a challenge against radical extremism," McCain said. He forecast a battle in the Senate in September in which anti-war critics will try to cut off funds.
"We will win that debate because the American people understand the consequences of failure," he added.
Giuliani saved his sharpest jabs for Democrats. "In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme," he said.
Romney, too, was eager to criticize Democrats. His chosen target was Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who said recently he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran in his first year in office, and declared in a speech he would order military action to capture terrorists in Pakistan if that nation's president did not.
"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," said Romney. "I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."
Obama's campaign spokesman responded promptly. "Before he makes more false accusations, Mitt Romney should tell us why he believes we should keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of someone else's civil war but not take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights," said Bill Burton.
Giuliani provided a rare moment of laughter, dodging a question about the defining mistake of his life with a quip.
"Your father is a priest," the former mayor said to moderator George Stephanopoulos, the son of a Greek Orthodox priest. "I'm going to explain it to your father, not to you, OK?
Polls consistently show the war in Iraq to be the issue uppermost in the minds of the voters. But abortion is a constant concern in Republican presidential contests, particularly in Iowa, where caucuses attract the most fervent party activists.
Stephanopoulos opened the debate by asking Romney about Brownback's automated phone calls. Moments later, he asked the former Massachusetts governor about having said last spring that Giuliani was "pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and anti-gun, and that's a tough combination in a Republican primary."
Romney deflected the question, saying, "I'd rather him speak to his own positions rather than me speak for him."
Giuliani said he supports the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which provides for the right to bear arms, and believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.
"And I believe the best way we can have common ground in this debate that you're hearing is if we put our emphasis on reducing abortions and increasing the number of adoptions, which is something that I did as mayor of New York City."
But former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said, "Any candidate that's pro-choice is going to have a difficulty with the party faithful. ... The Republican Party is a party of pro-life."
Senate Votes For Sweeping Ethics Bill
The 83 to 14 vote, which sends the bill to President Bush, prompted Democrats to claim fulfillment of their 2006 campaign promise to crack down on lobbying abuses that sent some lawmakers and a prominent lobbyist to prison.
The bill would require lawmakers to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by "bundling" donations from many people. Lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, or "earmarks," would have to publicize their plans in advance, although critics said the requirements are hardly airtight.
The Democratic-crafted bill would bar lawmakers from taking gifts from lobbyists or their clients. Former senators would have to wait two years before lobbying Congress; ex-House members would have to wait one year.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called it "the most sweeping reform bill since Watergate."
But several Republicans said it fell short of requiring full disclosure of earmarks, which have soared in number ・and controversy ・in recent years. Some earmarks fund popular civic projects that boost a lawmaker's re-election prospects. Others help large contractors or other companies that hire lobbyists and donate to campaigns.
The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He broke with several former allies on ethics matters, including Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
"By any measure," Feingold said in the debate, the bill "must be considered landmark legislation."
Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before a Senate vote. They would have to certify they have no direct financial interest in the items.
McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.
All 14 senators who voted against the bill were Republicans.
Among those voting for it was GOP Sen. Ted Stevens, whose Alaska home was searched this week by federal agents probing alleged influence-peddling involving earmarks.
Self-styled watchdog groups acknowledged that the bill was less stringent in several respects than were versions embraced by the House and Senate in January. But they hailed it as a major leap by an institution generally loath to police itself.
Public Citizen said it amounts to "far-reaching lobbying and ethics reforms."
Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 called it "a great victory for the American people and a major accomplishment for Congress and its leaders." He said it will give the public "comprehensive information about the multiple ways in which lobbyists provide campaign funds and other financial support" to lawmakers they seek to influence.
The 107-page bill would require senators, and candidates for the Senate or White House, to pay full charter rates for trips on private planes. House members and candidates would be barred from accepting trips on private planes.
Senators' secret "holds" on legislation would be banned. Lawmakers convicted of bribery and other serious crimes would lose their congressional pensions.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave the measure a lukewarm endorsement.
"This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it," McConnell said. "But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law."
The White House did not immediately say whether Bush will sign the bill.
The legislation marks Congress' most far-reaching reaction to scandals involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Both are now in prison on corruption charges that in some cases involved congressional earmarks.
Reform advocates said the bill's main achievement involves greater disclosure of lobbyists who bundle campaign donations to lawmakers and political parties by soliciting checks from numerous people. Under current disclosure laws, their efforts often go undetected, but the recipients are well aware of the help they received.
Earlier versions of the bill would have required lobbyist-bundlers, rather than the recipients, to disclose such contributions. They also had set the reporting threshold at $5,000 over six months, rather than $15,000.
Cheney Optimistic About New Iraq Report
Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are required to report to Congress by Sept. 15 on progress in Iraq. Their evaluation is expected to shape the administration's next move on the war, including decisions on how many U.S. troops will stay in Iraq, and for how long.
典he reports I'm hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results,・Cheney told CNN's Larry King in an interview to be telecast Tuesday night. 哲ow, admittedly, I've been on one side of this argument from the beginning.・
The White House has been touting encouraging signs of progress since Bush ordered a troop buildup in Iraq in January. Yet Bush has deferred comment on the upcoming report itself.
的 don't want to prejudge what David is going to say,・Bush told reporters as recently as Monday.
Discussing his low public approval rating, Cheney said he just doesn't worry about it. He said he would like to be liked, but only up to a point.
的f you wanted to be liked, I should never have gotten into politics in the first place,・he said. 迭emember, success for a politician is 50 percent plus one. You don't have to have everybody on board.・
Cheney would not comment on whether Bush should eventually pardon his friend and former chief of staff, I. Lewis 鉄cooter・Libby. Bush commuted a 30-month jail sentence for Libby, who was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Libby was left with a $250,000 fine and two years' probation.
的 think having the commutation of sentence decided has been a huge relief for him, but he still has a very difficult road,・Cheney said. 滴e's got ・obviously he needs to find work. He's got legal bills. He carries the burden of having been convicted. All those are not easy problems.・
Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money even after his sentence was commuted. Given the scope of his legal defense and top attorneys he chose to represent him, Libby's bills are expected to well exceed the $5 million raised.
Pelosi Boasts Over Homeland Security Bill
The House passed the bill Friday on a 371-40 vote, a day after the Senate passed it 85-8. The White House said the president would sign it.
The legislation would shift money to high-risk states and cities, expand screening of air and sea cargo and put money into a new program to ensure that security officials at every level can communicate with each other.
Its passage ranks among the top accomplishments of the 6-month-old Democratic Congress. Republicans would say it's one of the few.
"We will have done in six months what previous Congresses failed to do for almost six years," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
"Implementing the recommendations will fundamentally change the way the president and the Congress deal with matters related to terrorism, making us more unified and more effective," she said. "That is because this bill closes loopholes and weaknesses that terrorists seek to exploit."
The independent 9/11 Commission in 2004 issued 41 recommendations covering domestic security, intelligence gathering and foreign policy. Congress and the White House followed through on some, including creating a director of national intelligence, tightening land border screening and cracking down on terrorist financing.
Democrats, after taking over control of Congress, promised to make completing the list a top priority, and Republicans generally went along.
The House passed the original version of the 9/11 Commission bill the first day of the current Congress. The minimum wage increase the Democrats passed in those first days has just taken effect, but other early priorities ・such as energy reform and stem cell research funding ・remain far from becoming reality. Bush vetoed a stem cell bill last month.
The 9/11 bill would require screening of all cargo on passenger planes within three years. It also sets a five-year goal for scanning all container ships for nuclear devices before they leave foreign ports.
"The threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing. Al Qaeda is gaining strength, and Osama bin Laden continues to elude capture," Pelosi said. "There is not a moment to spare to take the steps necessary to keep the American people safe."
Documents Contradict Gonzales Testimony
The documents, obtained by The Associated Press, come as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.
A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.
At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.
Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.
Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program's legality.
"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."
"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."
"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."
A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office shows that the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.
The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.
It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.
Bush acknowledged the existence of the classified surveillance program in December 2005 after it was revealed by The New York Times. In January, it was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for judicial review before any wiretaps were to be approved.
Asked for comment on the documents Wednesday evening, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales "stands by his testimony."
"The disagreement referenced by Jim Comey in March 2004 was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president," Roehrkasse said. "It was about other highly classified intelligence activities that have been briefed to the intelligence committees."
The disagreement over whether to renew the program led to a dramatic, and highly controversial, confrontation between Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the night of March 10, 2004.
After briefing the congressional leaders, Gonzales testified that he and then-White House chief of staff Andy Card headed to a Washington hospital room, where a sedated Ashcroft was recovering from surgery. Ashcroft had already turned over his powers as attorney general to Comey.
Comey was in the hospital room as well, and recounted to senators in his own sworn testimony in May that he "thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."
Ultimately, Ashcroft sided with Comey, and Gonzales and Card left the hospital after a five- to six-minute conversation.
Gonzales denied that he and Card tried to pressure Ashcroft into approving the program over Comey's objections.
"We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," Gonzales told the Senate panel Tuesday. "At the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, 'I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is.' And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left."
Clinton: Obama "Irresponsible" And "Naive"
The New York senator, in an interview with Iowa's Quad-City Times, made her first direct criticism of her chief rival after the two campaigns engaged in a back-and-forth about Obama's remarks in Monday night's debate.
In the debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet ・without precondition ・in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
"I would," he responded.
Clinton said she would not.
"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted video of her answer online, trying to show she has a different understanding of foreign policy than her chief rival.
Asked about the exchange, she told the newspaper that Obama is regretting his answer a day later.
"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton said. The interview was posted on the newspaper's Web site.
In a separate interview with the newspaper, Obama said: "What she's somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon."
The rival campaigns clashed over the meaning of Obama's answer. Clinton supporters characterized it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator's lack of foreign-policy savvy, while Obama's team claimed his response displayed judgment and a repudiation of President Bush's diplomacy.
"I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign.
Obama's team summoned Anthony Lake, who was national security adviser in President Clinton's first term and now serves as a foreign policy adviser to Obama.
"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so ・just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.
In a memo from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the campaign contended that Obama's comments played well with focus groups that watched the debate and "showed his willingness to lead and ask tough questions on matters of war."
Obama "offered a dramatic change from the Bush administration's eight-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available ・including diplomacy," said the memo.
Obama adviser David Axelrod said on Tuesday that Obama would not just meet blindly with such leaders but only after diplomatic spadework had been accomplished.
Americans "are sick of the Bush diplomacy and aren't interested in continuing it," said Axelrod.
The Obama campaign was quick to point to an April 23 quote from Clinton in which she said, "I think it's a terrible mistake for our president to say he won't talk to bad people." That, Obama representatives said, showed Clinton had changed her position.
Clinton advisers noted that the New York senator's full quote included a line that she would first "begin diplomatic discussions with those countries" before such meetings ・same as she said in Monday's debate.
"I never would have gotten out of the debate last night that there was any change in position," Albright said.
She emphasized that Obama had said he would meet with such leaders in his first year without preconditions.
"If you look back at real breakthroughs and diplomatic history, what you basically find is that in order to understand where the situation is, to clear the underbrush away, it is necessary to have lower level people make the initial contact," Albright said.
In a memo, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Obama "has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office. Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment."
Obama representatives also sought to emphasize anew Clinton's initial support for the war, echoing comments by the candidate himself who asserted in the debate: "The time to ask how we're going to get out of Iraq was before we got in."
Rival John Edwards, who campaigned in South Carolina on Tuesday, echoed Clinton's comments in the debate.
"I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez," Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. "I think there's a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool."
21st Century Debate: Grilled By Web Video
"Wassup?" came the first question, from a voter named Zach, after another, named Chris, opened the CNN-YouTube debate with a barb aimed at the entire eight-candidate field: "Can you as politicians ... actually answer questions rather than beat around the bush?"
The answer was a qualified yes. The candidates faced a slew of blunt questions ・from earnest to the ridiculous ・and, in many cases, responded in kind.
To Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois: Are you black enough? "You know, when I'm catching a cab in Manhattan ... I'm giving my credentials," he replied.
To Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York: Are you feminine enough? "I couldn't run as anything other than a woman," she said.
Her answer drew a challenge from former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who said he was the best advocate for women on the debate stage. "I have the strongest, boldest ideas," he said.
Posing a question that few, if any, of the candidates had fielded before, one voter asked whether young women should register for the draft as do young men. Clinton, Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said yes.
The debate featured questions submitted to the online video community YouTube and screened by the all-news cable TV network. A talking snowman, two rednecks and a woman speaking from her bathroom were among the odd, 21st-century twists to the oldest forum in politics: a debate.
"This debate is an acknowledgement of the power of YouTube and the entire Internet as a force in American politics in 2007," CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs said. "Campaigns and political operatives have found ways to tap into that power for fundraising and communications purposes. The bigger question now is whether they can find a way to harness it in a way that translates into actual votes at the ballot box."
A Clio, Mich., man asked about gun control while brandishing an automatic weapon.
"He needs help," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware snapped.
When was the last time a presidential candidate was forced to promise to work at minimum wage? That is effectively what seemed to happen when a voter asked whether the candidates would serve four years at $5.85 an hour rather than the president's annual $400,000 salary.
"Sure," replied Clinton.
Obama said they group could afford to do so. When Dodd started to protest, Obama cut him off with a joke, "You're doing OK, Chris."
The gathering was held at the military college of The Citadel in South Carolina, site of one of the earliest primaries ・Jan. 29. Fittingly, the Democrats skirmished over the Iraq war, as they have before.
Asked if Democrats are playing politics with the war, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said yes. "The Democrats have failed the people," he said.
Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel said U.S. soldiers are dying in vain. No other candidate would go that far.
Reid: GOP Protecting Bush Not Troops
"Even Iraqis, by a 70 percent margin, think that Americans in Iraq are doing more harm than good," he said. "So getting the Americans out of Iraq ... I think, would lessen chaos rather than increase it."
The legislation stalled Wednesday after a 52-47 vote fell eight votes short of the 60 that Democrats needed to advance it. Reid kept the Senate all night Tuesday to try to force some movement on the issue.
Critics have charged the Democratic leader with failing to compromise after he ended debate early Wednesday morning, but Reid said he only wanted to force an up-or-down vote.
"I offered on many occasions ・not one, two, three, four occasions ・many occasions said, 'Let's vote on all the Iraq amendments, all of them, and have a simple majority for them.' The Republicans wouldn't let us," Reid said. "They would not let us vote on the Iraq amendment because they are more interested, minus Olympia Snowe and a few others, they're more interested in protecting the president than they are protecting the troops."
Reid said Democrats do not want to withdraw troops precipitously, but rather set a timetable where forces would be redeployed by May 1, 2008. The U.S. military would then focus on counterterrorism, protecting American assets in the Middle East and training Iraqi troops, Reid said.
Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, was one of four Republicans who broke with her party and voted Wednesday with the Democrats. She said Congress and the president need to reach a compromise and start to bring troops home in anticipation of an assessment to be given by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.
"The president needs to understand that September 15 is going to be a serious deadline for change in our mission," she said on Face The Nation. "If you look where we are today, I mean, it's been eight months since the election, where the American people repudiated the stay-the-course in Iraq, rejected the open-ended, unconditional commitment by the president in Iraq."
Snowe said that Congress, which has a 14 percent approval rating, isn't reflecting the views of the American people.
"Here we are 8 months later, who would've believed that we would be now committing additional troops of more than 30,000 and the Iraqi government has yet to achieve one political benchmark to reconcile their country," she said. "And more outrageously that they plan to take the month of August off while our men and women dying in the field. So we're making the military sacrifice, our brave men and women yet they are unable to make a political sacrifice to achieve what only they can achieve in the end and that is to reconcile their country and to take charge of their own destiny."
But at the same time, Snowe said Reid should be more willing to compromise, even though Republicans blocked a straight-majority vote.
Obama: Don't Stay In Iraq Over Genocide
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now ・where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife ・which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnate for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.
The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.
"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."
Obama said the answer to Iraq ・and other civil conflicts ・lies in diplomacy.
"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."
The Republican National Committee accused Obama of changing his position on the war.
"Barack Obama can't seem to make up his mind," said Amber Wilkerson, an RNC spokeswoman. "First he says that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops, and then he votes to cut funding for our soldiers who are still in harm's way. Americans are looking for principled leadership ・not a rookie politician who is pandering to the left wing of his party in an attempt to win an election."
Obama, who has expressed reservations about capital punishment but does not oppose it, said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving," Obama said. "I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes."
In response to criticism from Republican Mitt Romney, Obama said the former Massachusetts governor was only trying to "score cheap political points" when he told a Colorado audience that Obama wanted sex education for kindergartners.
"All I said was that I support the same laws that exist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in which local communities and parents can make decisions to provide children with the information they need to deal with sexual predators," Obama said.
Romney on Wednesday targeted Obama for supporting a bill during his term in the Illinois state Senate that would have, among other things, provided age-appropriate sex education for all students.
"How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old? In my mind, zero is the right number," Romney said.
Obama said Romney was wrong to take the shot and incorrect on its basis.
"We have to deal with a coarsening of the culture and the over-sexualization of our young people. Look, I've got two daughters, 9 and 6 years old," Obama told the AP. "Of course, part of the coarsening of that culture is when politicians try to demagogue issues to score cheap political points."
"What we shouldn't do is to try to play a political football with these issues and express them in ways that are honest and truthful," Obama said. "Certainly, what we shouldn't do is engage in hypocrisy."
Romney himself once indicated support for similar programs that Obama supports.
In 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood in a questionnaire that he also supported age-appropriate sex education. He checked yes to a question that asked: "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"
Poll: 63% Say Clinton "Likely" To Win
While opinions about the New York senator are strongly divided by gender, majorities of both men (59 percent) and women (65 percent) surveyed think it's very or somewhat likely Clinton will win the presidency.
Even most Republicans (53 percent) think Clinton will win ・as do 77 percent of Democrats.
LIKELY CLINTON WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER 2008? (Among registered voters)
All
Very/somewhat likely
63%
Not very/not at all likely
35%
Women
Very/somewhat likely
65%
Not very/not at all likely
32%
Men
Very/somewhat likely
59%
Not very/not at all likely
40%
The poll shows Clinton continuing to hold a solid lead over the rest of the Democratic field. Among likely Democratic primary voters, she has a 43-24 percent edge over her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama. Former Sen. John Edwards is third at 16 percent.
On the Republican side, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner at 33 percent, but still-undeclared candidate Fred Thompson, the actor and former senator, is gaining ground, up to 25 percent. Sen. John McCain has slipped to 15 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 8 percent.
More voters (75 percent) say Clinton is a strong leader, than say this about Giuliani (71 percent) and Obama (68 percent). Obama has a slight lead over Clinton when voters were asked whether a candidate shares their moral values, while Giuliani trails.
Clinton falls behind, however, on the question of believability. More voters think she's likely to say what people want to hear than say that about either Obama or Giuliani.
IF THESE WERE THE CANDIDATES, WHO WOULD YOU WANT AS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE? (Among Democratic Primary Voters)
Clinton
43%
Obama
24%
Edwards
16%
IF THESE WERE THE CANDIDATES, WHO WOULD YOU WANT AS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE? (Among Republican Primary Voters)
Giuliani
33%
Thompson
25%
McCain
15%
Romney
8%
On specific issues, a majority of voters thinks Clinton would make good decisions on health care (74 percent) and foreign policy (68 percent), while 58 percent think she'd be effective as commander in chief. But many (52 percent) are "uneasy" about her ability to handle an international crisis.
Forty-one percent of voters think Clinton's vote authorizing the Iraq war was a mistake, while 53 percent think it was not. But even those who see it as a mistake don't feel overwhelmingly that she needs to apologize.
There is a significant gender gap on nearly every question asked about Clinton, with women having a more positive opinion of her than men.
The poll suggests that Sen. Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, will not have a major impact on the election. Half of voters think her marriage to him will not influence her support one way or the other; while voters who think the marriage will have an impact are evenly split between those who think it will help her and those who think it will hurt her.
The poll also asked about President Bush and the U.S. Congress, and both receive the same low overall job approval ratings: 29 percent. Majorities say they're disappointed with both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress.
Pessimism about the overall direction of the country remains high, too, with more than seven in 10 Americans saying the U.S. is on the wrong track.
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,554 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-17, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of women was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 1,068 interviews among this group, by selecting them with higher probability than men in households with both men and women. The weights of men and women in mixed-gender households were adjusted to compensate for their different probabilities of selection. The final weighted distribution of men and women in the sample is in proportion to the composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census.
Dems Vow All-Night Senate Debate On Iraq
"Our enemies aren't threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
McConnell and many other Republicans favor waiting until September before considering any changes to the Bush administration's current policy. They have vowed to block a final vote on the Democrats' attempt to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days.
"We have no alternative except to keep them in session to explain their obstruction," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
So far, the legislation has drawn the support of three Republicans, Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
With a test vote set for Wednesday ・capping a day and night of debate ・Democratic officials conceded they were likely to get 52 or 53 votes at most. That's well short of the 60 needed to force a final vote on the measure.
While the issue was momentous ・a war more than four years in duration, costing more than 3,600 U.S. troops their lives ・the proceedings were thick with politics.
MoveOn.org, the anti-war group, announced plans for more than 130 events around the country to coincide with the Senate debate, part of an effort to pressure Republicans into allowing a final vote on the legislation. A candlelight vigil and rally across the street from the Capitol was prominent among them, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., expected to attend.
Inside the Capitol, the session shaped up as the Senate's first all-nighter since 2003. Then, as now, the Senate staff wheeled about a dozen cots into a room near the chamber for any lawmakers needing them.
But the political roles were reversed. Four years ago, Republicans demanded votes on Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, and Democrats filibustered to avoid certain confirmation of several conservative appointees.
Then, Reid labeled the Republican-led all night-session a "circus," while other Democrats stoutly defended their right to set a 60-vote threshold for confirmation.
And then, McConnell talked critically of "unprecedented filibusters of President Bush's nominees" by Democrats, while other Republicans said they simply wanted an "up or down vote" on judicial appointments.
"Will the all-night session change any votes? I hope so," Reid said at midafternoon this year, pointedly stopping well short of a prediction that it would.
Smith and Snowe appeared with Democratic supporters of the legislation at a news conference.
"We are at the crossroads of hope and reality, and the time has come to address reality," said Snowe, who said the Iraqi government was guilty of "serial intransigence" when it came to trying to solve the country's political problems.
Smith, who is seeking re-election next year, said Iraqis appeared focused on "revenge, not reconciliation," and that the administration needed to change its approach. "The American mission is to make sure that Iraq doesn't fall into the hands of al Qaeda," he said, rather than referee a civil war.
The legislation would require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by April 2008. The measure envisions leaving an undetermined number of troops behind, their mission limited to counterterrorism against al Qaeda and other groups, protecting U.S. assets and training Iraqi troops.
There are currently an estimated 158,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq, and supporters of the legislation have repeatedly declined to estimate how large a residual force they envision. "We're not going to get into numbers, because it changes the subject," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. The subject, he said, was focusing attention on Republican blocking tactics. Levin is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a leading sponsor of the measure along with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
While most Republicans have resisted the withdrawal bill, unhappiness with Mr. Bush's policy has been growing within the GOP ranks.
Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, two senior Republicans with long experience in military and foreign policy, last week proposed legislation to require Mr. Bush to submit a new strategy by Oct. 16. It would focus on protecting Iraqi borders, targeting terrorists, protecting U.S. assets and training Iraqi forces.
In addition, at least six Republicans support a bipartisan measure that would set a goal of beginning a troop withdrawal in early 2008.
In the complex political environment of the Senate, neither of those two measures seems likely to gain much traction in the next few weeks.
Democratic leaders oppose them as too weak to force a change in Mr. Bush's policy. Administration allies are determined to block any measure that contemplates a change in policy before September.
Obama, Clinton Have Over $30M In The Bank
As the two rivals basked in money, Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign reported spending more than it raised from April through June, leaving him financially strapped with $3.2 million cash on hand and a $1.8 million debt.
Those contrasting financial pictures emerged Sunday from quarterly financial reports filed by the campaigns with the Federal Election Commission.
Obama reported having about $34 million in primary cash on hand; Clinton reported $33 million. Obama had an edge on money owed by the campaign; he reported less than $1 million in debts and Clinton reported $3 million.
Obama led in fundraising for the period covering April though June, raising $32 million for the primary election and nearly $800,000 for the general election.
Clinton raised about $21.5 million for the primary and $5.6 million for the general election, her campaign said.
Neither candidate can use the general election money unless he or she wins the nomination.
It's not just how much the candidates are raising, it's how much earlier they're raising it compared with past election years, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. This year, half of the country will have voted in nominating contests by Feb. 5. Candidates can't afford to wait ・even when they can't afford much else.
John Edwards, the Democrat closest to the two fundraising leaders, reported having $12 million in the bank for the primary.
Hindered by unpopular stands on the war and on immigration, McCain raised $11.26 million in the second quarter, short of his first-quarter donations. He spent $13 million. Overall, McCain has raised $25 million so far in his campaign and spent $22 million.
The Arizona senator upended his campaign organization last week as his financial straits became apparent. His campaign manager, Terry Nelson, left and his longtime strategist, John Weaver, resigned. The repercussions caused changes down the chain of command.
While his financial straits have been known for more than a week, the reports show that McCain spent more on staff than either of his better financed rivals. McCain's payroll grew after the first quarter, despite initial cutbacks. Overall, McCain payroll was nearly $3.6 million for the year so far.
Obama enters the third quarter with more fundraising momentum than Clinton. Not only has he aggressively gone after money, he has also worked to expand his donor base. His efforts have netted him more than 250,000 donors for the year. Overall, he has raised nearly $59 million, with all but about $1.7 million devoted to the primary election.
Despite his vaunted base of small donors, Obama is a favorite among employees of some of the nation's largest investment banks and hedge funds. One of them, Kenneth C. Griffin, president of Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel Investment Group, gave Obama $4,600 this quarter, the maximum allowed. Other Citadel employees gave him $147,550.
Hadley: The Surge Can Work
President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, led a media campaign Sunday to reassure the nation that there is reason for optimism.
U.S. and Iraqi forces are "now finally in a position to prosecute the surge, enhancing security in the country," Hadley said on Face The Nation.
Hadley also said President Bush's troop "surge" was already showing some signs of progress, despite the mixed picture presented in an interim report on the war's progress.
"If you listen and observe the reports of what is happening on the security side, it is working," Hadley told Bob Schieffer.
Regaining Congressional support for the president's war policies, however, will be a difficult task for Bush administration officials. On Thursday, the Democrat-led House passed a measure that would withdraw U.S. troops by spring. On Friday, two prominent Republican senators put forward a bill that would require President Bush to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.
The White House rejected the legislation proposed by Senators John Warner and Richard Lugar as premature and has promised to veto the House's withdrawal bill.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said on Face The Nation that he does not support the Warner-Lugar legislation because it is a Republican bill. Alexander said he was part of a bi-partisan group that wants Congress and the White House to adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group as law. He said it is Mr. Bush's best chance to get widespread support for any war strategy.
"I think we need a new strategy," Alexander said. "I think most senators do and the country does and I wouldn't be surprised if the president does."
Alexander said leaders from both sides of the aisle need to come together to find a solution to the Iraq issue.
"If Harry Reid would play less politics and the president would be more flexible, we could have 60 votes in the Senate for the Baker-Hamilton recommendations," he said. "And the president could have a bipartisan strategy, and we could be sending a message to our troops, which is the most important message we could send, which is we are united in what believe you're over there to do."
But, Hadley said Mr. Bush is sticking to his plan to take stock of progress in Iraq in September when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker present their full report on Iraq's progress to Congress.
"I think we will have had two additional months of our security strategy going forward," Hadley said. "Congress set a schedule which basically said, we need to do review in September. Everybody agrees. We'd like to put our policy there in a different place. Everybody agrees. Everybody also agrees that the starting point is to hear from our commanders on the ground."
Hadley said the administration has an orderly process set out for reviewing whether its Iraq strategy is working and that should be allowed to play out.
Hadley said the Bush administration is still pressing Iraqi lawmakers to cancel their month-long vacation in August. The White House, however, seems resigned to seeing the break go forward, and he joined other Bush aides in playing down its significance.
"We'd like them to stay in session and work on this issue," Hadley said. "They are now going to stay in session in July. They're going to work a six-day week session. We want to continue them to work on this legislation."
Hadley said work will continue outside the parliament through August on sectarian reconciliation and power-sharing.
The parliament shortened its usual two-month break under pressure but that has not appeased critics. They say Iraqi political leaders should not take a vacation that U.S. troops fighting in the blistering heat of summer do not get.
Candidates Bash Bush's Record On Race
All eight Democratic hopefuls and a lone Republican candidate, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, addressed the NAACP convention. The Democrats focused their criticism on the administration's record on race relations.
"We know we have more work to do when Scooter Libby gets no prison time and a 21-year-old honor student, who hadn't even committed a felony, gets 10 years in prison," Obama said to loud cheers.
Aides said Obama was referring to Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. A judge last month ordered Wilson to be freed, but prosecutors are blocking the order.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the CIA-leak case. He received a 30-month prison sentence, which Bush commuted last week.
In their bid to woo black voters, a key party constituency, all the Democratic hopefuls shared the stage at the forum devoted to racial issues.
Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton predicted the forum would cover more issues of importance to the black community than the administration had in six years.
"We have a president who does not see what you and I see. ... With your hard work, we will render the people that you and I see visible once again," the New York senator said. She cited "The Invisible Man," Ralph Ellison's famed novel of black alienation.
John Edwards touted his commitment to fighting poverty, calling it "the cause of my life." Edwards will launch a tour Monday in New Orleans to spotlight the millions living in poverty.
"We want America to see the other America," Edwards said. "That seems to be forgotten."
While all the contenders were warmly received as they took their place onstage, Obama received a boisterous, sustained ovation.
Tancredo said he accepted the invitation to speak because his message is for all Americans. A vociferous foe of illegal immigration, Tancredo said the wages of black workers suffer because of illegal workers.
GOP Senators: Change Course On Iraq Now
The meeting that lawmakers had with national security adviser Stephen Hadley came as GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel announced they would back Democratic legislation ordering combat to end next spring.
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively that a U.S. pullout would be extremely complicated, dangerous and would take two years if the military takes all its equipment out, according to a study recently presented to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Republican support for the war has steadily eroded in recent weeks as the White House prepared an interim progress report that found that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting major targets of reform.
Of the GOP lawmakers who say the U.S. should reduce its military role in Iraq, nearly all are up for re-election in 2008.
"I'm hopeful they (the White House) change their minds," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.
Domenici and at least five other Republicans support a bill by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that would adopt as U.S. policy the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report.
The bipartisan panel, led by Republican James A. Baker III and Democrat Lee Hamilton, said the U.S. should hand off the combat mission to the Iraqis, bolster diplomatic efforts in the region and pave the way for a drawdown of troops by spring 2008.
Domenici, who is expected to face voters next year, said he and other co-sponsors told Hadley the president shouldn't wait until September to adopt the bipartisan policy.
"The only difference of opinion at the moment is the president wants to deal with the Baker-Hamilton recommendations in September," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the first GOP co-sponsors.
"I think he should do that today because it develops a long-term strategy for what happens in the surge," added Alexander, who also is up for re-election. "It would put him and Congress on the same path, which is what we definitely need."
Members said Hadley did not indicate the White House would switch gears. Mr. Bush this week said he will not reconsider the military strategy in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander there, delivers his progress report in September.
"He was not in a position to do anything other than say 'I hear you,'" Domenici said of Hadley.
Other Republicans at the meeting did not call for immediate change, but offered tepid support for the current policy.
Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota said he was seriously considering Salazar's legislation and remained gravely concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq.
"I'm still in the same place, and I don't think there were any hearts or minds changed in there," Coleman said upon leaving the meeting.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who also attended the meeting, is expected to call for a change in Iraq policy after Mr. Bush releases on Thursday that interim report on Baghdad's political progress.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a staunch supporter of Mr. Bush's Iraq policies, said he and many others would stick behind the president. But "obviously everyone was concerned, and we're trying to figure out what the answer is," he said.
GOP support has become crucial as the Senate opened debate on a $649 billion defense policy bill.
Meanwhile, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports seven Senate Republicans broke with the president Wednesday and voted with Democrats to consider an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to require that troops returning from Iraq get more rest and training before being sent back.
But with Republican leaders using a filibuster to block any Iraq amendments, it would have taken 60 votes to move forward and they fell four votes short, 56-41.
The Senate is expected to vote next week on an amendment by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order troop withdrawals to begin in 120 days and end all combat on April 30, 2008. The House plans to take up a similar measure on Thursday.
Levin's amendment is not expected to survive and Mr. Bush has vowed to veto it if it does. But in a signal of growing unease with the war, it has picked up at least one new vote from Snowe of Maine.
Snowe initially opposed setting a firm deadline, contending it would not make any sense to broadcast war plans to the enemy. But the senator, who is up for re-election next year, said she decided to switch her position because the situation has grown too dire.
"Frankly, given the fact that the Iraqi government isn't prepared to change its own political direction, we should be prepared to change course with respect to our strategy," Snowe told reporters Tuesday.
Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., also signed on as co-sponsors of the bill; both voted for a similar measure earlier this year.
Hadley's visit to Capitol Hill came as the White House finalized a 23-page progress report on Iraq that concludes the government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting reform goals laid down by Mr. Bush and Congress.
The administration is likely to argue that some progress has been made in reducing the level of sectarian violence and militia control. Iraq also has established several, but not all, of the needed joint neighborhood security stations in Baghdad and has increased the number of capable Iraqi security units.
But the report also is expected to concede that several major goals have not been met, including agreement on new Iraqi laws to allocate oil and gas resources and revenue and to address amnesty for former Baath Party members. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the report will indicate whether there has been "progress at a satisfactory rate, or unsatisfactory rate, and in some cases, maybe mixed results on some of those benchmarks."
Ex-Surgeon General: Bush Muzzled Me
Dr. Richard Carmona, the nation's 17th surgeon general, told lawmakers that all surgeons general have had to deal with politics but none more so than he.
For example, he said he wasn't allowed to make a speech at the Special Olympics because it was viewed as benefiting a political opponent. However, he said was asked to speak at events designed to benefit Republican lawmakers.
典he reality is that the nation's doctor has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget, and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas,・said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006.
Responding, the White House said Carmona was given the authority and had the obligation to be the leading voice for the health of all Americans.
的t's disappointing to us if he failed to use his position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation,・said Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto. 展e believe Dr. Carmona received the support necessary to carry out his mission.・
Politicians trying to control the message is nothing new, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. President Clinton axed Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders after she expressed liberal ideas about sex education in schools.
Confirmation hearings are scheduled to be held Thursday for Dr. James. Holsinger Jr., the Kentucky cardiologist Bush nominated as the nation's 18th surgeon general. The nomination has been criticized by gay rights groups.
Carmona testified Tuesday at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Also appearing were Drs. C. Everett Koop, who served as surgeon general from 1981-1889, and David Satcher, who served from 1998-2001.
撤olitical interference with the work of the surgeon general appears to have reached a new level in this administration,・said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Koop is probably the most recognized former surgeon general. He talked about AIDS as a public health issue rather than a moral issue, which won him many admirers and some critics. He said President Reagan was pressed to fire him every day, but Reagan would not interfere.
Koop said that after he left office he had more access to the secretary of Health and Human Services than his successor, Satcher, and that embarrassed him. 泥r. Carmona was treated with even less respect than Dr. Satcher,・Koop said.
A report condemning secondhand smoke was a hallmark of Carmona's tenure.
Another report, on global health challenges, was never released after the administration demanded changes that he refused to make, Carmona said.
的 was told this would be a political document or you're not going to release it.・Carmona said. 的 said it can't be a political document because the surgeon general never releases political documents. I release scientific documents that will help our elected officials and the citizens understand the complex world we live in and what their responsibilities are.・
He refused to identify the officials who sought the changes.
Carmona said he believed the surgeon general should show leadership on health issues. But his speeches were edited by political appointees, and he was told not to talk about certain issues. For example, he supported comprehensive sex education that would include abstinence in the curriculum, rather than focusing solely on abstinence.
滴owever, there was already a policy in place that didn't want to hear the science, but wanted to quote, unquote preach abstinence, which I felt was scientifically incorrect,・Carmona said.
Bush Says Dems In Congress Are Failing
"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."
The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. "We saw this with immigration, and we're seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges," said spokesman Tony Fratto.
The main reason the immigration measure died, however, was staunch opposition from Bush's own base ・conservatives. The president could not turn around members of his own party despite weeks of intense effort.
The immigration bill was the top item on Bush's domestic agenda. With its demise, Bush was left to focus on the annual appropriations process and reining in federal spending.
Twelve annual spending bills dole out approximately one-third of the federal budget. They must be passed each year by Congress, before the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year, but lawmakers began considering this year's batch just in mid-June. The House has passed half and the full Senate has not yet taken up any.
"Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time," Bush said. "I urge Democrats in Congress to step forward now and pass these bills one at a time. "
Democratic leaders say they are behind because an emergency spending measure funding the war in Iraq came first. They also had to pass an omnibus measure cleaning up last year's appropriations mess. Then, the Republicans who then controlled Congress failed to pass into law a single spending bill for domestic agencies save the Homeland Security Department ・a situation that brought little complaint from Bush.
With the Senate and House now in Democratic hands, this year's bills are producing skirmishes with the White House that also are causing delays. Almost every domestic bill already has attracted a veto threat because it exceeds Bush's proposed budget in certain areas.
All told, Democrats plan spending increases for annual agency budgets of about $23 billion above the White House budget request. Bush put it in terms of a five-year outlook, and said their budget plan would be $205 billion bigger than his over that period, and would include "the largest tax increase in history" by allowing some of his tax cuts to expire as planned.
The president said Democrats are embracing "the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past," and vowed to stand firm for fiscal restraint. Republican lawmakers have pledged to support him and sustain any vetoes.
"No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity," Bush said. "And I have made it clear that I will veto any attempt to take America down this road."
The president also applauded a new jobs report, which showed employers adding 132,000 jobs, paychecks growing solidly and the unemployment rate staying at a low 4.5 percent in June.
Bush said the evidence that the once listless economy is regaining energy is a result of his insistence on lowering taxes and spending.
Man Arrested Outside Obama's Hotel
Davit Zakaryan, 24, was searched and apprehended after Obama's security crew allegedly saw him loitering outside a Fairfield Inn in Ottumwa before the Illinois senator was about to leave for a busy day of campaigning.
Police said they did not know why Zakaryan was outside the hotel with the knife, and they cautioned against making any assumptions until he was questioned further.
"This is not an earth-shattering" arrest, Lt. Mike McDonough of the Ottumwa Police Department said. "He made no threats toward the senator."
Zakaryan was arrested after 8:30 a.m. and charged with possessing an illegal weapon and driving without a license. Police said the knife was longer than 8 inches, which exceeds the state limit. Zakaryan was being held Wednesday night at the Wapello County Jail on a $6,825 bond. He was to be arraigned Thursday morning.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's Iowa office, said he was not familiar with the specifics of the arrest, but complimented police and Secret Service for their efforts.
McDonough said Obama's security crew had been keeping an eye on Zakaryan because they thought his car looked familiar and may have been at another of Obama's campaign stops. After Zakaryan pulled the car near the hotel, the agents asked police to question him. That's when they found the knife inside the car, McDonough said.
McDonough said the identification card Zakaryan gave them showed he was from Ohio, but they weren't sure whether the ID was valid. McDonough said he was not sure what Ohio city was listed on the card.
Obama, a Democrat, has spent much of his time campaigning in Iowa the past few months, trying to build support for the state's leadoff caucuses in January. In May, Secret Service announced it would provide protection for Obama while he was campaigning.
Bill: "Husbands For Hillary," That's Me
Presidential candidates are nearly as hard to miss as American flags in Iowa this week and the biggest fireworks are being delivered by New York Senator Hillary Clinton and her biggest political ally -- her husband. For the first time in the 2008 presidential campaign, former President Bill Clinton appeared at a rally alongside his spouse Monday night.
The sight of a former two-term president actively participating in his party's presidential primary is historic in its own right but the campaign left no doubt as to who is getting top billing this time around.
It was the Hillary and Bill show at the Iowa state fairgrounds, something that Mr. Clinton pointed out right away by drawing attention to some of the signs in the crowd, saying, "There's one guy in the back over there that represents a group I belong to - it says 'Husbands for Hillary.'"
Bill Clinton's role, as advertised in advance by campaign aides, was to tout his wife's life story and years of involvement in public service.
In keeping with the slogan of this week's Iowa tour, "Ready for change, ready to lead," the former president emphasized the quality that the Clinton campaign repeats like a mantra ・experience. Announcing he is entering into his 40th year of voting eligibility, Mr. Clinton proclaimed his wife "the best qualified non-incumbent I have ever had a chance to vote for president."
It was a not-so-subtle barb aimed directly at the Democrat emerging as the greatest threat to Clinton's nomination: Barack Obama. The first term Illinois senator's campaign surprised many this week by announcing they had outpaced Clinton by nearly $10 million in primary contributions in the second three months of this year.
Obama took in $31 million that can be used in next year's primary contests, compared to $21 million collected by the Clinton campaign. The New York Senator raised about $5 million more that cannot be spent before a general election campaign.
The former president took pains to avoid criticism of his wife's primary opponents, telling the large crowd that "as a Democrat, I love this election, because I don't have to be against anybody. I like the other people running for the nomination."
But he left no doubt as to which candidate he feels is the right person for the job. Mr. Clinton, famous for his stem-winding abilities on the trail, also kept his remarks brief, and quickly sat down to listen to the candidate.
Hillary Clinton returned to the theme of experience after touching on the issues atop the Democratic agenda ・universal health care, energy policy, education and the war in Iraq. While acknowledging her pride in being the most credible woman ever to seek the nation's highest office, Clinton insisted, "I am not running as a woman, I am running because I believe I am the best qualified and experienced person."
Iraq, and Clinton's past support for the war, has been a thorn in the campaign's side, particularly in Iowa where party activists have long opposed it. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who finished second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses, has made his opposition to the war a central issue in his campaign and has led in most polls taken in the state.
Bush Defends Military Buildup In Iraq
"We're still at the beginning of this offensive, but we're seeing some hopeful signs," Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address, in which he likened U.S. troops deployed around the globe to the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
"We're engaging the enemy, and killing or capturing hundreds," said Mr. Bush, who is losing GOP support for his decision in January to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad and Anbar.
The president said two senior al Qaeda leaders were killed this week north of Baghdad and U.S. troops are finding arms caches at more than three times the rate of a year ago. Despite an upward trend in May, sectarian murders in the Iraqi capital are down from January, Bush said.
He said the last of the U.S. reinforcements just arrived in Iraq earlier this month.
The White House thought it had until September, when military commanders are to give an assessment of Iraq. But most senators now believe troops should start coming home within the next few months, and House Republicans are calling to revive the independent Iraq Study Group to give the nation new options.
"The fight in Iraq has been tough, and it will remain difficult," Mr. Bush said.
He said the Fourth of July on Wednesday will be an opportunity to remember the nation's founders as well as the more than 3,568 men and women of the U.S. military who have died in the Iraq war.
"We remember the spirit of liberty that led men from 13 different colonies to gather in Philadelphia and pen the Declaration of Independence," said Bush, who plans to spend Independence Day with the West Virginia Air National Guard in Martinsburg, W.Va.
"Today, a new generation of Americans has stepped forward and volunteered to defend the ideals of our nation's founding. ... They've helped bring freedom to the Iraqi people," he said. "They've helped make Americans more secure. We will not forget their sacrifice."
Also today, the Senate Democratic leader said some Republicans are "saying the right things on Iraq," but he wants them to vote the right way as well.
In this week's Democratic radio message, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is urging GOP lawmakers to "put partisan politics aside" and vote with the Democrats on the upcoming defense bill.
The Nevada Democrat also accused Republicans of blocking ethics reform and the enactment of 9/11 Commission recommendations.
Reid listed items on his party's agenda that have been able to move forward, like funding Gulf Coast recovery as part of the Iraq spending bill. He also noted successful efforts to raise the minimum wage, provide disaster relief for farmers and fund a health insurance program for low-income children.
In Reid's words, "the progress we've made has not come easy."
Do Bush Defeats Signal End Of Influence?
It's not just that this is a clear rebuke of his confident prediction 2ｽ weeks ago ...
"I believe we can get it done," he said. "I'll see you at the bill signing."
... It's that the defeat was sealed by his own party. After personally lobbying many Republicans, more than three dozen defected.
Immigration was Mr. Bush's signature domestic issue, and he used whatever remaining political capital he had left. Remember those hot and sweaty trips to the Southwest so he could patrol the border?
That's exactly why historians will look back on this as a defining day in the Bush presidency, CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports.
"The failure of the immigration bill means that George Bush is beyond being a lame-duck president," says CBS News analyst Douglas Brinkley. "He's a 'dead-duck' president."
CBS News Poll: Immigration
And it's not just immigration. When the White House claimed executive privilege today to fight congressional subpoenas in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, a top Republican complained the White House was just continuing to protect the president's embattled attorney general.
"And while the investigation is lagging, Attorney General Gonzalez continues to serve. But as long as he continues to serve, the department is in disarray," Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pa., said.
Add to that this week's high-profile Republican deflections about the war, which sent national security adviser Steven Hadley to Capitol Hill to see if he could contain the damage.
"When people in your own party turn on you when you're a president is when your policies crumble," says Brinkley.
One GOP insider told Axelrod today: "When it comes to the president's influence, it's 'how low can you go.' If the president's approval ratings were just at traditional lows, things might be different. They're not. They're at historic lows. So now it's every man for himself.
Coulter Attacks Give Edwards A Boost
While Edwards made his first comments to The Associated Press in response to Coulter's suggestion that she wished he would be "killed in a terrorist assassination plot," his campaign was also using her remarks to bring in donations in the final week before his next fundraising deadline.
It's not the first time Coulter has given the Edwards campaign a financial boost. In March, she called Edwards a "faggot" and the campaign used video of the comment to help raise $300,000 before the end of the first quarter.
The campaign has sent two e-mails to supporters this week, asking them to send donations to defy her attacks and help Edwards ・a former North Carolina senator ・meet his goal of raising $9 million in the second quarter ending Saturday. The first e-mail from campaign adviser Joe Trippi showed a clip of Coulter on ABC's "Good Morning America," where she said Monday that she wished Edwards would be killed by terrorists.
When Coulter appeared Tuesday on MSNBC's "Hardball," Elizabeth Edwards called in to ask Coulter to stop making personal attacks on her husband. The exchanged deteriorated, with Coulter shouting over Mrs. Edwards and demanding that the campaign stop using her name to raise money if they want her to stop personal attacks.
Mrs. Edwards followed up with an e-mail to supporters Wednesday morning that included a clip of their exchange and a donation request. The campaign said they raised more money this week than from any previous e-mail campaign, but declined to give a total.
"I think when they engage in these attacks and use the language of hate, it's very important to stand up," Edwards said. "What happens if you are silent when this kind of hateful language is used ・not just by her, but by anyone ・hate gets a foothold."
Edwards pointed out that Coulter's attacks haven't been limited to him, but also included his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Coulter has made fun of Hillary Rodham Clinton's legs and compared Barack Obama to terrorists because his middle name is Hussein.
"What she said about Senator Clinton and Senator Obama is outrageous," Edwards said. "And somebody has to stand up when she makes these kind of attacks."
CIA details Cold War skulduggery
The documents were initially referred to as "skeletons" by Mr Schlesinger's successor at the CIA, William Colby. They were later nicknamed the "family jewels" and have been referred to as such ever since.
Immigration Deal Irks Some Kennedy Allies
But his concessions to get there have alienated liberals who in the past have counted him as their strongest champion. A showdown test vote is scheduled Tuesday, and the Senate could pass ・or reject ・the bill by week's end.
Traditional Kennedy allies are mystified and angry at the Massachusetts senator's willingness to accept Republican-backed measures such as subjecting illegal immigrants to steep fines and trips home, separating immigrants from relatives and letting new guest workers stay only for short periods of time with little chance of citizenship.
"I think that in his heart, he's where I'm at, but he wants to see a deal move forward and he's willing to take certain steps that I might not be willing to take," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who abandoned the deal just before it was announced because it scrapped many immigrants' ability to come to the U.S. based solely on family ties.
"In the pursuit of moving us along, he's probably swallowed hard on some things that he himself would not have accepted" otherwise, Menendez added.
It's a familiar spot for Kennedy, 75, whose standing as a liberal firebrand during his 45 years in the Senate belies his history of partnering with Republicans on major domestic agenda items.
He's done so twice before with President Bush, on the No Child Left Behind education law and a broad Medicare prescription drug overhaul. In both cases, Kennedy was accused by liberals of compromising too much in the interests of a deal.
"You can hold to rigid positions in the United States Senate ・and I respect that ・and get nothing done, or you can try and find common ground," Kennedy said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He regards an immigration overhaul as the civil rights imperative of the 21st century, and sees the same legacies of prejudice and discrimination standing in the way. Legalizing 12 million unlawful immigrants "is worth the fight," Kennedy said.
Kennedy's pragmatic history and his expertise ・he maneuvered a broad immigration overhaul through the Senate in 1965, during his second term ・has earned him Bush's trust.
"Senator Kennedy is one of the best legislative senators there is. He can get the job done. I know firsthand, because we reformed our education system," Bush said at a March news conference in Mexico.
Some activists who revere Kennedy privately voice a sense of betrayal at the lengths to which he has been willing to go in search of a deal.
The AFL-CIO condemned the bill last week, and its leaders have harsh words for the senator they trusted to shepherd a historic immigration measure.
"I am angry," said Ed Sullivan, president of the labor federation's building and construction trades department, and a Massachusetts native who describes Kennedy as a "good friend." "We can't understand how our senators would support this."
Sullivan said Kennedy's intentions were good, but his pragmatism drew him into a bad deal.
"I think he's locked in. He's a legislator that likes to pass legislation," Sullivan said.
In early March, representatives of liberal groups angrily cautioned Kennedy against starting negotiations with Bush's team and a group of senators led by conservative Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., on an immigration compromise that could attract GOP support. Kennedy contended it was the only way to craft a bill that would survive.
Months later, just before Kennedy went before news cameras to announce his breakthrough immigration deal with Republicans and the White House, some of them complained he had agreed to a shabby bargain that would rip families apart and sentence millions more immigrants to exploitation from abusive employers.
"We were saying, 'Senator, we think you're going too far,"' said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "He told us, 'You're not going far enough. If you want to get this done, you've got to get real. I've been around this place 40 years. This is the best we can do. If you want to get it done, follow me."'
He may have sounded unshakable, but Kennedy admits to some moments of doubt during the roller coaster process of crafting the bill.
"Of course there are times when we really wonder whether it continues to make sense to engage in this," Kennedy said. "It's a battle."
Ultimately, though, he said, "I believe in the legislation. The alternative to this is nothing, and that's, I think, completely unacceptable."
Kennedy's involvement has made the immigration deal more difficult for some Republicans to stomach. Conservative critics of the plan brand it the "Kennedy-Bush amnesty" program, and invoke the Massachusetts senator's name to paint it as a far-left solution.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has weathered bitter criticism back home for supporting the measure. NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration group, ran ads last week that juxtaposed Lott's picture next to Kennedy's and said Lott had "joined with Ted Kennedy in strong-arming senators to support amnesty for millions of illegals, many of whom have already taken jobs from Mississippi workers."
Kyl called working with Kennedy "a real education."
"He's a tough bargainer. He's a real strong advocate for some points of view with which I disagree, but I have found him to be a man of his word, and on the emotional and difficult issue of immigration reform, that's a big deal," Kyl said.
The Third Party Factor
If he runs for president ・something he said he has no plans to do ・his candidacy could greatly affect the outcome of the 2008 election.
The last time there was an equally visible third party candidate was in 1992 when billionaire Ross Perot ran. He won 19 percent of the vote, taking votes away from President George H. W. Bush and helping President Bill Clinton win.
Ed Rollins, political director for President Ronald Reagan and co-manager of Perot's 1992 campaign, said millions of voters were eager to learn about an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats.
"I don't think it's a bad thing to have someone else in the process," Rollins told Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. "And I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to have someone like Mike Bloomberg, who can self-fund and basically talk about major issues bothering voters in this country. And more and more Americans today, particularly young people, haven't ・aren't choosing either party. They say they're an independent, and they want to stay an independent, and they want independent choices."
Some are already pushing for an alternate candidate. Unity08 is a group that is dedicated to getting a third-party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Actor Sam Waterston, the group's spokesperson, said that Unity08 was hoping appeal to voters disenchanted with both Republicans and Democrats.
"The basic inspiration for Unity08 is the fact that the system itself for choosing our leaders is broken, and everybody knows it," he said. "This presidential campaign is unlike any in almost 100 years, it's very, very open ・so there's a very large opportunity."
Waterston cited a new Newsweek poll that 57 percent say the two-party system does not do a good job addressing issues important to Americans.
When asked if he thought Bloomberg would be a good candidate for his party's ticket, Waterston said the voters of Unity08 would choose who should represent them but that the New York mayor shared many of the same values.
"It is one of the names that has been talked about in regard to Unity08," Waterston said. "It seems to me that it's very telling about the condition of the process right now that he would choose to become an independent, having tried being a Democrat, and having tried being a Republican."
The Newsweek poll, however, found that, if Americans want a third party candidate, Bloomberg may not be the one. Sixty-five percent said that if Bloomberg runs they are "not too likely" or "not at all likely" to vote for him.
If Bloomberg were to launch a presidential campaign, which party of candidate would he take the most votes from?
"There's no question the Republicans and Rudy Giuliani, in particular, would be hurt most by the entry of Mike Bloomberg," said former Democratic New York Mayor Ed Koch, who supports Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House.
Koch said all the talk about Bloomberg has already illuminated former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's weaknesses.
"Rudy Giuliani is already doing what he always does," Koch said. "He becomes angry and upset and mean-spirited. He's already attacked Bloomberg by saying, 'What do you mean you ran the city like a business? I did that.'"
Rollins said a Bloomberg candidacy could hurt the entire Republican party.
"We're down to about 25 percent self-identified Republicans," he said. "We don't want a candidate to take away those 14 or 15 points that are probably more moderate Republicans, and I think to a certain extent a Bloomberg can do that."
John Harris of politico.com, however, said that Bloomberg ・or another third party candidate ・might hurt the Democrats more than Republicans.
"The larger environment right now overwhelmingly favors Democrats ・unpopular war, unpopular president, increasingly unpopular party on the Republican side," Harris said. "A Bloomberg candidacy or some other third party candidacy lends a big sort of volatile, unpredictable factor in that. So I'd have to say it's the Democrats who shouldn't want that."
Forget Votes, Now They're Running For Cash
Next weekend marks the end of the latest fundraising period, covering April through June, and the new finance reports will set a benchmark by which to measure the campaigns. Candidates in the crowded field raised a combined $133.5 million over the first three months of the year.
The latest numbers could further cement Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., as the masters of political money. In the January-March period, those two White House hopefuls combined to raise more than $50 million; each is believed on track to match or exceed their first-quarter total.
For Republicans, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are at the top of the money race. But the picture is blurred by the potential entry Fred Thompson, the actor and former senator from Tennessee.
A look at the fundraising picture ahead of the latest reporting period, which ends June 30:
McCain's stance in support of President Bush's immigration policies has hurt his fundraising. But the Arizona senator has packed his schedule with an average of more than one fundraiser a day this month in hopes of approaching the $13.6 million he raised in the first quarter.
Edwards' campaign says he will fall $5 million short of his $14 million first-quarter total. On Friday, the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee sent an appeal to donors that sets a $9 million goal for April through June. While that message probably is an attempt lower expectations, no one disputes that Edwards will fail to keep pace with the earlier total.
Clinton's campaign promises to match her $26 million haul from the first quarter. She is ending the current reporting period with fundraisers in Chicago, New York and Miami. On Sunday, she planned a large gathering of Indian-American supporters and then a more intimate event hosted by Charles Dolan, the founder and chairman of Cablevision Systems Corp., a New York area cable TV provider. The event of this upcoming week is on Tuesday in New York, hosted by billionaire Warren Buffet and a who's who of investment bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity investors. They include Morgan Stanley's chief executive, John Mack, a fundraiser for President Bush in 2004.
Obama, who raised $25.7 million from January through March, could surpass that total, though aides say they have no chance of beating Clinton. Obama amassed a stunning list of 104,000 donors in the first three months and since has expanded that base. Buffet has offered to raise money for Obama, too, and is expected to do an event for him soon, but not this month.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, led all Republicans with $20 million last quarter. He might fall short of that tally as the campaign tries to expand its list of 30,000 donors from the first quarter. On Sunday, Romney planned to rent Fenway Park for a barbecue for donors. Aides expected to take in at least $1 million from an event Monday at the TD Banknorth Garden, where the Boston Bruins and Celtics play. A similar fundraiser in January amassed more than $6 million.
Giuliani, who raised $16.1 million last quarter, is expected to be in the same range this time. The former New York City mayor is ending the month with several fundraisers in California.
It would be difficult ・but not impossible, some Democrats say ・for either Clinton or Obama to match Bush's second-quarter mark of $35 million in 2003 as he marched unopposed to the Republican nomination.
Clinton "has locked down the institutional Democratic Party money," said Democratic strategist Anita Dunn, who is not aligned with a candidate in the 2008 race. "And Obama is proving there is actually a universe out there, beyond that, and a very potent one."
Edwards' aides say they are satisfied raising $9 million, with a goal of $40 million by the Iowa caucuses, the leadoff state, in January.
The $14 million that Edwards raised early this year doubled the amount he took in during the comparable period in 2003, when he made his first presidential bid. The $9 million target set by the campaign is twice the amount Edwards raised in the second quarter of 2003.
"This is not about outraising our opponents in a meaningless fundraising arms race or what any of the other campaigns are doing around us," said Edwards' spokesman, Eric Schultz. "This is about executing our plan, which is raising enough money to push our message in the critical early states, and building strong operations around the country."
But Edwards will have to show progress to keep his donors involved.
He had led in polls in Iowa, but those surveys have tightened. What's more, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who raised $6.2 million last quarter, could surpass that total and draw within striking distance of Edwards. That would vault Richardson's standing in the contest at Edwards' expense.
Among Republicans, the candidate with the most at stake is McCain. He began the year as the GOP front-runner, yet now trails in national and state polls.
He recast his money operation after his third-place finish in the January-March period. But just as he was stepping up his effort, the Senate began to debate changes in immigration law. In the Republican field, McCain is the only candidate who supports the legislation, which conservatives have panned.
Over the years, McCain has taken policy positions that, at times, have been in conflict with his own party. A spokesman, Brian Jones, acknowledged that the senator's stands "present some challenges in terms of fundraising."
"You have to work harder for the dollars," Jones said.
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, who is not involved in the presidential contest, said he believes McCain's campaign is "hanging by the fingertips." But he said that even if McCain stumbles, he has a chance to recover.
"John McCain has the political capital with the media that before they write him off they will give him the benefit of the doubt," he said.
Jones dismissed any suggestion of impending gloom: "We will have the resources necessary to communicate John McCain's message. There is nothing in this campaign that we have not been able to do for lack of funds."
Romney Staff Involved In 2 Investigations
A Romney campaign aide is also under investigation by police in Massachusetts for allegedly impersonating a state trooper, according to a published report.
The aide, Jay Garrity, allegedly called a Wilmington, Mass., company on a cell phone last month and threatened to cite the driver of a company van for driving erratically in the Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston, according to a story in Friday's Boston Globe.
In a recorded phone call to the plumbing company, a man identifies himself as "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State Police," according to the newspaper, which obtained a copy of the tape. There is no Trooper Garrity at the state police barracks that patrols the tunnel, a state police spokesman said.
Garrity was not working for the Romney campaign the day of the alleged call, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said.
A spokesman for the Suffolk District Attorney confirmed that there is an investigation into the phone call.
In the New Hampshire incident, ConserveNH President Paul Nagy wrote a letter to Attorney General Kelly Ayotte asking her to check if Romney aides illegally stopped a New York Times reporter, checked his license plate against a database and overstepped their role.
"We want attention to the indiscretion," said Nagy, who said he is not supporting a candidate. "I think there is a bunch of arrogance involved in this. We just don't do that to guests when they visit our state during the presidential primary season."
One of ConserveNH's founder, Patrick Hynes, works for McCain's political action committee, Straight Talk America.
Nagy said the letter was sent independently of the McCain campaign and said he was unaware that Hynes is on McCain's payroll.
"I know nothing about that. I could not tell you who any of the members of the board are supporting," said Nagy, who is a critic of McCain's immigration plan.
McCain's New Hampshire spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker denied any connection between the campaign and the letter.
Romney's campaign on Wednesday denied a report that aides pulled over Times reporter Mark Leibovich, who was trailing the former Massachusetts governor's caravan in New Hampshire, checked his license plates and told him to leave.
"I can confirm that we were asked to look into the matter," said Jane Young, chief of the criminal justice bureau at the Attorney General's Office. "We are officially looking into the matter."
Romney does not have state-provided protection or a Secret Service detail. However, he does travel between appearances in a motorcade of black sport utility vehicles, and his aides wear earpieces.
New Hampshire law does not allow private citizens to access to license plate databases, nor allow them to pull over fellow citizens.
Romney spokesman Matt Rhoades said the campaign did not stop Leibovich and did not run the license plate.
Romney's campaign said the group became lost on back roads after a May 29 stop at Harvey's Bakery in Dover. A construction detour confused them, the cars stopped, and the staffer walked back to chat with the unknown car.
Will NYC Mayors Rivalry Go National?
When he first ran for mayor in 2001, it was Giuliani's endorsement that gave Bloomberg the boost he needed to win.
Though the two men continue to speak highly of one another in public, Giuliani said he was "disappointed" at Bloomberg's decision to leave the Republican Party.
For his part, Bloomberg has nixed some of Giuliani's most prized city development projects and has recently made some not-so-subtle allusions to his disdain for having to deal with the budget deficit Giuliani left behind as mayor, The New York Times reports.
Even before 9/11 raised Giuliani's toughness quotient to near-superhero status, Giuliani was best-known for his no-nonsense attitude and uncompromising position against crime. Bloomberg shares Giuliani's bluntness trait that can be deadly if mishandled on the campaign trail.
"It's not about charm because he doesn't quite qualify on that front," Republican political strategist Ed Rollins said of Bloomberg. "It's about competence, and that's what he's going to make his campaign about."
Giuliani continues to lead among Republican candidates in national polls ・but in New York City, it's a different story.
A May New York Daily News poll found that New Yorkers think Bloomberg is a better mayor than Giuliani was, and they prefer the sound of "President Bloomberg" to "President Giuliani."
There is precedent for a New Yorker vs. New Yorker presidential election. In 1944, FDR won a fourth term by defeating Thomas Dewey, who was the state's governor at the time.
But if two is an acceptable number of Emerald State candidates, could three be too many?
If Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Giuliani win their respective nominations and Bloomberg enters the race, the 2008 campaign would become a three-way contest among Yankees fans.
That might raise some eyebrows in the other 49 states, but CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield says it might not be such a big deal after all.
"New York City used to be the whipping boy of about half the country in terms of its politics [and] in terms of its culture, Greenfield said. "I think the fact that New York is now the safest big city in America and the fact that Michael Bloomberg really has governed as a nonpartisan makes the whole New York issue in national politics a lot different than it would have been say 20 years ago."
Bloomberg enjoys the luxury of not having to make up his mind until after the chaotic primary season. But if Giuliani and Clinton win their respective nominations, it might be difficult for him to enter the race, not only because of the "New York overload" issue, but also since it could be more difficult for him to carve out a big enough slice of the political center against two candidates who are considered centrists on many issues.
But New Yorkers can still dream, can't they?
"Just the idea of three presidential candidates vying to see who gets to be the first to serve bagels and lox on a Sunday ・that alone might be worth seeing all these folks in the race,"
Giuliani Regrets Joining Iraq Study Group
The former New York mayor has tried to tamp down criticism in recent days after Newsday reported that Giuliani was a no-show for two of the group's meetings and instead attended paid public appearances.
"I thought it would work, but then after a month or two I realized the idea that I was possibly going to run for president would be inconsistent with that," Giuliani said during a campaign stop in Iowa.
Giuliani said the main reason he quit was that it "didn't seem that I would really be able to keep the thing focused on a bipartisan, nonpolitical resolution."
The group was headed by James A. Baker III, secretary of state under the first President Bush and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana. Among its members were former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and one-time Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta.
The group issued an unanimous report calling for a gradual troop pullback in Iraq without setting firm timetables and more regional diplomacy. Its bipartisan work was hailed by members of both parties.
Giuliani, who often speaks of his leadership skills, said he decided the group was the wrong place for him.
的t was a mistake because I had an active political career that could interfere with the way in which the recommendations of the commission would be viewed,・he said. All of the other members of the commission have had distinguished public careers, but none of them were prospective candidates for office.・
Giuliani campaigned in Iowa for the first time since announcing that he would skip the August straw poll, an early test of political strength. His appearance came after a series of setbacks and surprises prompted reporters' questions that overshadowed his speech on fiscal conservatism.
The chairman of Giuliani's campaign in South Carolina, Thomas Ravenel, was indicted on cocaine charges. Giuliani named former state GOP chairman Barry Wynn as a replacement.
"Any federal indictment is a very serious case," Giuliani said. "I don't know anything about it. There's no light I can shed on it. He stepped down as having anything to do with the campaign."
Giuliani also faced questions about his New York successor, Michael Bloomberg, who announced that he had switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, increasing speculation that he would run for president as an independent.
"I like Mike very much," Giuliani said. "I am disappointed that he left the Republican Party. I still respect what he has done as mayor."
Pressed about the prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy, Giuliani said: "He says he's not running, so I've got to take him at his word. If he does run, he has every right to do it."
Giuliani has campaigned in Iowa fewer times than the other GOP contenders. Though he leads in some national polls, a new survey in Iowa showed him trailing rival Mitt Romney and running about even with unannounced candidate Fred Thompson.
"We can compete here realistically," Giuliani said. "We haven't spent a lot of time here because we've been spending a lot of time putting it together. Once we do spend a lot of time here, I think you are going to see those polls change quite dramatically."
Democrats Court Anti-War Crowd
In separate speeches before liberal activists, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards each stressed differences that set them apart in a field of Democratic White House aspirants who say they would bring U.S. troops home.
Obama pointed out he opposed the war from the beginning; Richardson said that unlike his rivals, he would pull out every troop from Iraq and Edwards pressed his fellow candidates still in Congress to force an end to the war.
"For me it's simple," Edwards said in an excerpt provided by his campaign. "No more pontificating. No more vacillating. No more triangulating. No more broken promises. No more pats on the head. No more we'll-get-around-to-it-next-time. No more taking half a loaf."
Obama said he warned his rivals and others serving in Congress in 2002 not to authorize the war. He was serving in the Illinois state Legislature at the time and won election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
"We knew back then this war was a mistake," Obama said in excerpts prepared for delivery provided by his campaign, casting himself in solidarity with more than 3,000 activists expected to show up. "We knew back then that it was dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. We knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Richardson, making slow progress in the race but trying to break out into the top tier of candidates, tried to differentiate himself by stressing that he would leave "zero troops" in Iraq. He pointed out that his leading opponents have supported legislation that would leave behind an undetermined number of residual forces to train and equip Iraqi forces, among other things.
"With all due respect to my outstanding Democratic colleagues ・Senators Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden ・they all voted for timeline legislation that had loopholes," the New Mexico governor said. "Those loopholes allow this president, or any president, to leave an undetermined number of troops in Iraq indefinitely. And this is the same legislation that former Senator Edwards says we should send back and back to the president over and over again until he signs it."
Richardson would leave a small Marine contingent behind in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy. But, he said, "if the embassy is not safe, then they're all coming home, too."
He announced a Web site for supporters of his plan to sign a petition backing it ・Notroopsleftbehind.com.
Activists at the conference organized by the Campaign For America's Future are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. A year ago, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was booed at the conference for opposing a set date for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq.
In a separate speech to a union members Tuesday, Clinton said a residual force was necessary to fight terrorism and defend Americans, but combat troops should start coming home now.
If the Iraqi government won't do its part, "we should not continue to support them," Clinton told a presidential forum hosted by the powerful American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews pressed Clinton at the labor forum on her thoughts about whether former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be pardoned. Clinton artfully dodged: "I think there will be enough to be said about that without me adding to it."
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in March of lying to investigators and obstructing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiry into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. A federal judge said last week he will not delay a 2 1/2-year prison sentence for Libby in the case.
Obama and Edwards were scheduled to speak midday Tuesday, while Clinton and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich were scheduled to speak Wednesday.
White House Conference Center Evacuated
The building was reopened about 90 minutes later.
Washington police were checking out the vehicle, which was driven by a member of the delegation that was staying across the street from the White House at the Blair House, according to Kim Bruce, spokeswoman for the Secret Service.
Inside the White House, President George W. Bush was apparently sticking to his schedule of the day.
Police blocked off streets, but pedestrians were allowed to keep walking in some areas near the White House.
Security in the area already had been heightened because of Olmert's visit to Washington.
The evacuated building was the White House conference center, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. The conference center temporarily houses the White House press corps during a renovation in the West Wing.
Agreed: Something Needs To Change In Iraq
Appearing on Face the Nation, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that members of his party believe judgment of the surge's effectiveness should be withheld until Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, deliver a progress report to Congress.
"I think the proper time to really make a serious evaluation of the direction we ought to head is in September," McConnell said.
Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have said that the outlook for Iraq is a mixed picture but is not hopeless. Polls show, however, that public support for the war among Americans is dwindling, and violence in Iraq shows no signs of slowing.
Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said now is the time to go a different direction.
Although President Bush vetoed legislation passed by congressional Democrats setting a timetable for withdrawal, Levin said his party will try again to begin an American troop withdrawal. This time, he said, Democrats will be successful because they have support from more frustrated Republicans.
"We are going to be offering an amendment which will, in one form or another, set a timetable for the reduction of American troops starting in about 120 days," Levin told Bob Schieffer. "We have got to change this course. We have got to change the Iraqi mentality [of] thinking that they have got some kind of an open-ended commitment, which is what the president promised them a few months ago."
McConnell said he expects a change in policy to come, but he said he wants to see how the surge strategy works.
"I don't think we'll have the same level of troops, in all likelihood, that we have now," he said. "The Iraqis will have to step up, not only on the political side, but on the military side, to a greater extent."
It is the Iraqi government, McConnell said, that deserves the lions share of the blame for the chaos in Iraq.
"The Iraqi government, so far, has been a big disappointment," he said. "They've not done the things that they know they need to do to hold their country together."
But, former Congressman and chair of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton, told Schieffer that U.S. forces can't withdraw from Iraq until Iraqi forces can take over responsibility for security.
"Our primary mission today is the surge," Hamilton said. "We're not going to get out of Iraq unless we train better than we have the Iraqi forces and let them take over some of the responsibilities we now have."
McConnell said he thinks there is growing support for the recommendations made by Hamilton and James Baker in the Iraq Study Group report.
Released last year, the report stressed more dialog with regional powers like Syria and Iran while maintaining a strong military presence at Iraq's borders. It recommended against a troop surge.
"There is still no military solution to Iraq," Hamilton said on Face the Nation. "The military plays a hugely important role, but you must have vigorous, robust efforts to get a national reconciliation."
Both Levin and McConnell said that the Iraqi government has failed to live up to its part of the bargain and hasn't assumed control of the country.
"What's required here is for the President of the United States to tell the Iraqi leaders that we're going to begin to reduce our troops as the message to them that the responsibility for their own country is in their hands, not ours," Levin said.
The Iraqi congress is also thinking of taking a two-month summer vacation.
"You cannot do that while our troops are dying and being wounded and your troops are dying and being wounded and your people are being blown up," Levin said.
Dems Call For Better Fuel Efficiency
"America deserves more fuel efficient cars," Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington said. But she added "the only way consumers are going to get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress."
It's widely expected the Senate will approve some sort of increase in auto fuel economy as part of an energy bill it hopes to finish in the coming weeks.
The Senate bill would require automakers to increase the fuel economy of new cars, SUVs and pickups beginning in 2020 to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. It currently is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks.
But a group of senators close to the auto industry ・both Democrats and Republicans ・argue that carmakers can't meet that steep of an increase, especially for SUVS and small trucks. They will try to get approval this week for a more modest boost in the federal requirement to 36 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for SUVs and pickups by 2025.
Bush has said he opposes Congress setting any new arbitrary numerical fuel economy standard.
Cantwell said Democrats want to "take our energy policy in a new direction."
"America's strength lies in our ability to invent new and better ways of doing things," she said. "The challenge we face now is transforming America's energy policy ・one that is well over 50 years old and too reliant of fossil fuels ・to one that will make America a global leader again in energy technology and get us off our over-dependence on foreign oil."
US Iraq troop surge 'starts now'
Clinton, Romney Are Wealthiest Candidates
According to financial disclosure forms made public Thursday, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton hold two accounts, each valued at somewhere between $5 and $25 million. One is an old-fashioned bank account; the other is a blind trust.
The reports indicate that when it comes to family wealth, Clinton is the wealthiest of the members of Congress running for president. Of all the presidential candidates, only Mitt Romney, whose assets are between $190 million and $250 million, may lay claim to being more affluent.
Republican Sen. John McCain's family wealth is almost exclusively held by his wife, Cindy. An heiress to a major beer distribution company, Cindy McCain has several trust funds, money markets and other accounts, some more than $1 million.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his wife, Michelle, reported assets ranging from $460,000 to $1.1 million. Those assets don't include options in Tree House Foods, a food distribution firm on whose board Michelle Obama served. Michelle Obama stepped down from the board recently.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., listed as one of his major assets a cottage in County Galway, Ireland, worth between $100,001 and $250,000. He reported earning rent from the cottage of between $5,001 and $15,000. His wife, Jackie, has money market funds, IRAs and stock in companies, including Blockbuster Inc.
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., listed bank accounts and life insurance policies worth between $19,000 and $110,000. He receives a teaching stipend from Widener University where he has been an adjunct law professor since 1991. His wife teaches at the Delaware Technical and Community College.
Most of the presidential candidates serving in the Senate reported income from books. Obama was the most successful, reporting $572,490 in royalties for one book and an advance for a second. Hillary Clinton's own book profits are declining, years after her "Living History" became a best-seller in 2003. She reported royalties of $350,000 for the book last year. Dodd received a $30,000 advance for "Letter from Nuremberg." His father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.
Most of the presidential candidates filed financial disclosures last month to the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Government Ethics. Among the leading candidates, however, Clinton, McCain and Romney received extensions because the Office of Government Ethics wants them to open up their blind trusts.
The reports filed with the Senate by Clinton and McCain list the blind trusts, but don't disclose what is in them.
Former President Clinton upped his speechmaking money from the previous year, garnering some $10.2 million in payments, compared with about $7.5 million the year before.
The Clintons had a much more pedestrian income when he ran for president in 1992. If Sen. Clinton's 2008 presidential bid is successful, they will enter the White House a very rich couple.
Six years out of power, Bill Clinton can still raise huge sums with a personal appearance. He made a staggering $450,000 for a single September speech in London, at a Fortune Forum event, as well as $200,000 for an April appearance in the Bahamas to speak to IBM, and another $200,000 for a New York speech to General Motors.
The former president's earnings must be reported as the spouse of a senator. Disclosure rules do not require him to reveal everything. He received an advance from Random House for an unpublished manuscript, but is only required to say that it was greater than $1,000.
He also did not have to say how much he earns as a partner with Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund, a Los Angeles-based investment firm.
Clinton Gets Campaign Link To Latinos
In a joint news conference, the New York senator said she appreciates Menendez' support and called him "the embodiment of the American dream."
"The support of Latino Americans is especially important to me because these days require us to bring our country together," Clinton said.
Menendez, a Cuban-American and former member of the House leadership, was appointed in December 2005 to fill the Senate seat of Gov.-elect Jon Corzine. Menendez was re-elected in 2006, defeating Thomas Kean Jr., the son of the former Republican governor, in a hard-fought and expensive race.
Clinton raised money and campaigned for Menendez during his re-election bid.
Menendez is one of just three Hispanics in the Senate, along with Republican Mel Martinez of Florida and Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado.
Menendez said he trusts Clinton to get the United States out of a "mismanaged and misguided" war in Iraq.
"As someone who voted against the Iraq war, it is my judgment that Sen. Clinton is the leader best able to move us forward and out of this war," he said.
Clinton has been widely criticized for her vote to authorize the war in 2002. On the campaign trail, she has promised to end the conflict if elected president.
The Menendez endorsement follows that of another prominent Hispanic Democrat, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Both California and New Jersey are among several large states hosting primaries on Feb. 5, 2008.
Gonzales No-Confidence Vote Dies In Senate
The 53-38 vote fell seven short of the 60 votes required under U.S. Senate rules to move the nonbinding resolution to a formal debate. In bringing it up, Democrats dared Republicans to vote their true feelings about the attorney general, who had alienated even the White House's strongest defenders by bungling the firings of eight federal prosecutors and claiming dozens of times that he did not recall details of their departures.
Republicans did not defend him, but most voted on constitutional grounds against moving the resolution to formal consideration and accused Democrats of trying to prod Gonzales from office. That development seemed unlikely in the short term. Gonzales dismissed the rhetorical ruckus on Capitol Hill, and President George W. Bush continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser.
"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.
"This process has been drug out a long time," Bush added. "It's political."
The attorney general said he was paying no attention to the rhetoric in Congress.
"I am not focusing on what the Senate is doing," Gonzales said at a nuclear terrorism conference in Miami. "I am going to be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice."
Democrats and Republicans have widely criticized Gonzales for botching the firings of the prosecutors, claiming not to know who ordered the dismissals and causing the Justice Department to fall into disarray as a result. Lawmakers of both parties also have long complained that Gonzales allowed Justice to violate civil liberties on a host of other issues ・such as by carrying out Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
It's all about political symbolism, since only the president can decide if Gonzales stays or goes, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports. A lot of Republicans are unhappy with Gonzales, but say this "no-confidence" vote was a stunt.
One veteran Republican said Gonzales had spent his political capital in the Senate.
"There is no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter voted to move the resolution forward, but he said many of his GOP colleagues would not because they feared political retribution.
Democrats said it was only fair to put senators on record for or against Gonzales, particularly since five Republican senators have demanded the attorney general's resignation and many more have said in public comments that they had lost confidence in him.
"If senators cast their vote with their conscience, they would speak with near unanimity that there is no confidence in the attorney general," said the resolution's author, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer. "Their united voice would undoubtedly dislodge the attorney general from the post that he should no longer hold."
Sen. Trent Lott, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, said it is inappropriate for the Senate to hold forth on a member of the president's cabinet, and that doing so would boomerang.
"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing," Lott said. "Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything."
Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn't Stop
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.
"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.
Lieberman, who has been one of Congress's most outspoken supporters of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies, said that continuing the fight in Iraq and confronting Iran are necessary for achieving a wider peace in the Middle East.
If the U.S. does not act against Iran, "they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home," Lieberman said.
He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.
"By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," he said.
The Senator said he was not calling for an end to the limited diplomatic efforts that are underway between Washington and Tehran.
"We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them," Lieberman said. "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."
Dean: Only A Democrat Will End Iraq War
He noted his party has made little progress toward ending the war, the cause, he said, that returned them to power.
"The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again."
Dean put the blame for the lack of progress squarely on the White House and congressional Republicans for blocking his party's attempt at tying war funding to deadlines for troop withdrawals.
"We have to face the reality that Republicans in Congress are standing with President Bush as he stubbornly wields his veto pen," Dean charged. In response, he proposed that the "one way to truly ensure we end this war" was to elect a Democrat as president in 2008.
A former presidential candidate himself, Dean contrasted the field of Democratic and Republican candidates who participated in separate party debates earlier this week, saying only Democrats would end the war.
Democrats also seek to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, restore damaged relationships with other countries, and provide the military with "the resources they need," Dean said.
Bush Poll Numbers Match All-Time Low
The survey, released Thursday, reflects widespread discontent over how Mr. Bush is handling the war in Iraq, efforts against terrorism and domestic issues. It also underscores challenges Republican presidential and congressional candidates will confront next year when they face voters who seem to be clamoring for change.
Only 32 percent said they were satisfied with how Mr. Bush is handling his job overall, the same low point AP-Ipsos polling measured last January and a drop of 3 percentage points since May.
Mr. Bush still wins approval from seven in 10 Republicans, though that is near his historic low for GOP support. Only a quarter of those initially identifying themselves as independents expressed satisfaction with the president, along with 8 percent of Democrats.
On issue after issue, approval of Mr. Bush's efforts matched previous all-time lows in the survey.
Twenty-eight percent were satisfied with his handling of the war in Iraq, down 5 percentage points in a month. Two in three Republicans said they approved.
Only a third overall approved of how Mr. Bush is handling domestic issues like health care, with the same proportion expressing satisfaction with his job on foreign policy and the war on terror. And 37 percent said they approved of his handling of the economy. Support in all categories dropped slightly since May.
In another indication of the public's bleak mood, only 21 percent said they believe things in the U.S. are heading in the right direction, the worst mark since the AP-Ipsos poll began in December 2003.
Women, older people, and those with low incomes were especially discontent. Only three in 10 conservatives and similar numbers of white evangelicals ・usually strong GOP supporters ・expressed satisfaction with the country's direction.
Bush: "Russia Is Not An Enemy"
Mr. Bush, in an interview with The Associated Press and other reporters, said that no U.S. military response was required after Putin warned that Russia would take steps in response to plans to deploy a U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
"Russia is not an enemy," Mr. Bush said, sitting in a sun-drenched garden in the resort town hosting the Group of Eight summit Wednesday. "There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with Russia. Russia is not a threat."
Mr. Bush and Putin will meet later Wednesday at the opening of the summit of industrialized nations. Asked if he anticipated a tense encounter, Mr. Bush replied: "Could be. I don't think so ... I'll work to see that it's not a tense meeting."
Putin had rattled nerves in Europe with his weekend declaration that he would retarget missiles on Europe in response to the missile defense shield. "I don't think Vladimir Putin intends to attack Europe," Mr. Bush said.
Later in the day, Mr. Bush cited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that it was "too late" to stop Iran's nuclear program as justification for basing a shield in Europe.
"Therefore, let's build a missile defense system," Mr. Bush said, adding that it was time to return to the U.N. Security Council to tighten pressure on Iran to give up its suspected weapons program.
The president says the missile defense system, which would be based in Eastern Europe, is designed to keep rogue states like Iran and North Korea, from being able to fire a missile that would hit Europe, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod
The meeting, in this picturesque vacation town on the Baltic coast, already has been the subject of violent protests: Weekend rioting in nearby Rostock was called Germany's worst in decades as anti-globalization protesters hurled rocks and bottles at police.
And Wednesday, a motley band of more than 800 protesters ・some sporting fluorescent wigs and clown noses ・scampered through woods and open fields past police patrols Wednesday to reach the barbed-wire topped fence sealing off the Group of Eight summit.
Organizers of the various protest groups claimed victory for getting as far as the barrier, despite being doused by police water cannons and occasionally tackled as they blocked several roads ・including the route from the airport as leaders were flying in for the first day of the summit.
"We have successfully taken over all roads leading to Heiligendamm," said Christoph Kleine of the Block G-8 group. "We are very happy with that."
Germany has deployed 16,000 police and have forbidden demonstrations within a four-mile radius of the summit location. In addition, there is seven miles of fences with razor wire surrounding the resort, CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante.
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Chastise Bush
Similar Plotlines In Dem Debate Sequel
This is the summer of sequels at the box office and Sunday's Democratic presidential debate fit right in. The scenery and local audience in New Hampshire was far different than these candidates addressed in South Carolina last month and the dramatic tension reached a slightly higher level. But the basic plotlines remained unchanged.
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards cast himself once again in the role of the aggressive progressive, determined to claim the party's anti-war, anti-Bush mantle, mostly at the expense of front-runner Hillary Clinton. The senator from New York stuck to her script, refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq and parting ways with Edwards on the war on terrorism. And Barack Obama stayed true to his practical idealism, with a twist of added policy heft and quick wit thrown in.
Just minutes into the debate, the three found themselves in a sharp exchange over the war in Iraq and terrorism when Clinton pointedly disagreed with Edwards' characterization of the war on terror as a "bumper sticker" and a mere "political slogan." Clinton not only refused to endorse that view, she came dangerously close -- for a Democratic candidate -- to complimenting the Bush administration. "I believe we are safer than we were" before 9/11, she said before adding: "we are not yet safe enough."
As it has been for nearly the past four years though, it was the war which provided most of the spark and starkly demonstrated one of the major fault lines in the Democratic race.
While Clinton and Obama sought to explain their recent votes against the Iraq funding bill, Edwards struck hard, criticizing both of the senators for "quietly" opposing the administration's policy on timelines for withdrawal, insisting: "it's the difference between leading and following."
For her part, Clinton sought to cast the war as a unifying issue where Democrats have the upper hand, despite nuances in their approach. Noting that nearly all the Republican presidential candidates support the war, Clinton said, "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major."
But it was Obama who took offense at Edwards' line, refusing to cede any ground in the staunch anti-war camp. Alluding to Edwards' original vote for the war, the senator from Illinois told Edwards: "The fact is that I opposed this war from the start, so you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."
Edwards returned to the original authorization for the war when he and Clinton were both asked to explain how they felt comfortable enough to vote for it when they did not read the entire National Intelligence Estimate first. Clinton tried to brush past the issue, saying she had enough information while Edwards explained in more detail, adding: "one difference we do have is I think I was wrong."
Edwards, Clinton And Obama Spar On Iraq
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush's global war on terrorism a "political slogan, a bumper sticker, that's all it is" in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.
As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists."
Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said that the administration's war in Iraq had detracted from efforts to root out terrorists.
"We live in a more dangerous world partly as a consequence of this president's actions," Obama said.
The candidates sought to highlight their own differences on the war in Iraq.
Obama told Edwards, who voted in October 2002 to authorize the war in Iraq but now says that the vote was a mistake: "John, you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."
Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote but had voiced opposition to the war resolution at the time.
Edwards conceded, "He was right, I was wrong" on opposing the war from the beginning. And Edwards sought to highlight his change of heart on his vote with Clinton's continuing refusal to disavow her vote for the war resolution.
Said Clinton: "That was a sincere vote."
She again declined to say her vote was wrong.
Both Edwards and Clinton agreed that they voted for the war resolution in 2002 without reading an intelligence report on Iraq that was available to them. Both said they sought other information and believed they were thoroughly briefed.
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the war on Iraq should not just be blamed on Bush, but on the Congress that authorized it.
U.S. troops "never should have been sent there in the first place," he said. Rather than debate timetables and benchmarks, the Democratic-controlled Congress should "just say no money, the war's over," he said.
Kucinich called on other debate partners who were members of Congress to remember that voters had given Democrats control of both House and Senate last November largely in response to opposition to the war.
To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.
But Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."
The candidates squared off as a new national poll found Clinton maintaining a significant lead over her rivals. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found the former first lady leading the field with 42 percent support among adults, compared with 27 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.
The debate took place in the first primary state.
The Iraq war was the main focus, as it was during Democrats' first debate, in late April in Orangeburg, S.C. Polls show the war has become deeply unpopular among voters and especially among Democratic activists, who vote heavily in primaries.
Iraq Dominates N.H. Democrats' Convention
In a warm-up to a nationally televised New Hampshire debate on Sunday, Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson promoted themselves as the ones with the vision and answers for solving Iraq through diplomacy.
"The only way which you can have a prospect of ending a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence is to separate the combatants and give them a political way forward," said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"Instead of talking about a surge in military power, how about a surge in diplomacy," said Dodd.
Kucinich, whose campaign signs feature a peace sign, pushed his core message: "Peace is inevitable if we have a president who is willing," he said.
Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador, declared an ambitious to-do list as president. "First. Day one ・announce that America is going to get out of Iraq," he said. "How do we do that? With diplomacy."
Speaking later in the afternoon, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel spoke of punishment, not diplomacy. The quickest way to end the war is to make it illegal, he said.
"Make the continuation of the war a felony and if you disobey you go to jail for five years," he said.
Gravel also was the only candidate to openly criticize his fellow Democrats ・though not by name ・by saying those who voted to authorize the Iraq war as members of Congress aren't qualified to lead the country, even if they now regret the vote.
"I don't buy that for a-half-a-second. If that is true then they shouldn't be president because they're incompetent," he said.
The four candidates who spoke in the morning drew plenty of cheers, applause and standing ovations as they praised state Democrats for raising the minimum wage, passing civil unions and a smoking ban. They spent plenty of time talking about energy and the environment, health care, education and social issues near to Democrats' hearts like abortion rights.
In a speech declaring the creation of an administration for green buildings and universal health care for all, Kucinich won the morning's heartiest response by taking a swipe at the vice president.
"It is time to impeach Vice President Cheney," he shouted as the crowd whistled, cheered, clapped and got to its feet. Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney over the Iraq war.
"That's why I'm going to carry New Hampshire," Kucinich said later to reporters. "The response you see today is the response I'm getting all over the country. I'm just waiting to be discovered by you."
While Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich showed up for the convention, the top three Democratic candidates ・Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards sent surrogates to represent them.
Dodd, Biden and Richardson were scheduled to spend Saturday evening at a fundraising dinner for Iowa Democrats before returning to New Hampshire for the debate Sunday. Clinton and Edwards also were to attend the same dinner. Obama was in California on Saturday.
Bush Calls For Global Emissions Pact
Mr. Bush urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases.
The proposal was welcomed by the leaders of Britain and Germany, who have been critical of the U.S. approach.
"I think it is positive, and the U.S. president's speech makes it clear that no one can avoid the question of global warming any more," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in Berlin. "This is common ground on which to act."
Mr. Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries. After setting a goal, the nations would be free to develop their own strategies to meet the target.
The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Mr. Bush will be on the spot.
The United States has refused to ratify the landmark 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from that first round of cuts. Mr. Bush rejected the Kyoto approach, as well as the latest German proposal for what happens after 2012.
"The United States takes this issue seriously," Mr. Bush said. "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."
Environmental groups were quick to criticize Mr. Bush's plan.
Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder called the proposal "a complete charade. It is an attempt to make the Bush administration look like it takes global warming seriously without actually doing anything to curb emissions."
National Environmental Trust president Philip Clapp said, "This is a transparent effort to divert attention from the president's refusal to accept any emissions reductions proposals at next week's G-8 summit. After sitting out talks on global warming for years, the Bush administration doesn't have very much credibility with other governments on the issue. "
And, Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Bush administration has a "do-nothing" policy on global warming despite U.S. allies' best efforts to spur U.S. reductions.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the Bush plan "a big step forward."
"For the first time America's saying it wants to be part of a global deal," Blair said in Johannesburg, South Africa, speaking to Sky News. "For the first time it's setting its own domestic targets. For the first time it's saying it wants a global target for the reduction of emissions, and therefore for the first time I think the opportunity for a proper global deal."
Gore: Bush Leads "Assault On Reason"
In his new book, "The Assault on Reason," he argues that the foundations of the republic are threatened by today's politics of fear, as practiced by the Bush administration.
The former ・and some contend future ・presidential candidate laid out some of his arguments Wednesday to The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith.
The book's subtitle sheds more light on its contents: "How the Politics of Fear, Secrecy, and Blind Faith Subvert Wise Decision Making, Degrade Our Democracy, and Put Our Country and Our World in Peril."
The interview touched on whether Gore, who's also an environmentalist and Oscar-winner might, indeed, seek the Oval Office again.
Gore laughed and pulled away, saying, "No, no!" when Smith asked him to put on a "Gore '08" campaign-style button that Smith had picked up at a Gore lecture Tuesday night at George Washington University. "I don't want to invite that kind of speculation, but thank you," Gore said.
Finally, Smith held the button up to Gore's lapel, saying he wanted to see what it looked like and a seemingly reluctant Gore held still, saying with a chuckle, "Yeah, OK. OK."
But Gore was very serious when taking the administration to task for its refusal to go along with proposed European Union targets to reduce greenhouse gases.
"That's an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world," Gore said. "We are the largest source of global warming pollution. We are the natural leader of the world. All of the other countries in the G-8 are unified and support taking action to save the planet's environment for us as human beings. And President Bush is opposed to it and is blocking any progress.
"We are putting 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere today and every day. This is a moral issue, and the fact that our country is not providing leadership and, worse, is blocking progress, should be an issue that brings protesters out, that brings people to speak their minds, loudly and clearly and forcefully on this."
Gore added he would certainly sign on to the EU goals if he were president.
In a portion of the book quoted by Smith, Gore writes: "We are less safe because of (President Bush's) policy. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us than any leader of our country in all the years of our existence as a nation. He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack because of his arrogance and willfulness."
Those words, Gore told Smith, are "accurate. And I think that the deeper problem is how we have, as Americans, allowed the implementation of policies that have led to 150,000 troops being trapped in a civil war (in Iraq), just to pick one example. There are many."
In that regard, Gore points fingers at Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I criticize both parties and the system as a whole," he told Smith. "I say in the book, very clearly, that it's too simple and too partisan to simply place the blame on President Bush, because we have a Congress and free speech and independent courts and checks and balances, a free press. We are all responsible for the decisions we make.
"And if this administration persuades the Congress to vote in favor of invading a country that didn't attack us, it is important for us to look at the reasons why that was acceptable to the Congress.
"At the time of that vote, more than two-thirds of the American people had been given the impression ・and believed it ・that Saddam Hussein was the man who attacked us on 9/11. That wasn't true. And the fact that that case was made is bad, but what's much worse is that the immune system of democracy, our natural defenses against such gross errors, failed to work, and we have to address these underlying problems. Because whether it's the invasion of Iraq or the climate crisis or other crisis, there's lots of evidence available ahead of time that should be used to show that we should make a different decision."
Gore speaks in the book of an electorate he sees as disengaged.
"I think," he told Smith, "that's related to the fact that the American people don't feel as if they have a way to make their voices heard, to make their votes count. And for all the work on campaign finance reform ・and I've always supported it ・I do think it sometimes misses the elephant in the middle of the room, which is, as long as politicians in both parties have to rely on huge sums of money to buy 30-second television commercials, which is the principle means of communication in our democracy between candidates and voters now, then they're going to go to the people who reliably have that money year in and year out, and the special interests (and the lobbyists who represent them) dominate that group."
In the book, he advocates federal funding for elections.
To read an excerpt of "The Assault on Reason," click here.
To watch the Smith interview, click here.
Bush Orders Tougher Sanctions On Sudan
"I promise this to the people of Darfur: the United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world," the president said.
The sanctions target government-run companies involved in Sudan's oil industry and three individuals, including a rebel leader suspected of being involved in the violence in Darfur.
"For too long the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder and rape of innocent civilians," the president said. "My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide.
"The world has a responsibility to put an end to it," Mr. Bush said.
The president had been prepared to impose the sanctions last month, but held off to give U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon more time to find a diplomatic end to the four-year crisis in Darfur where more than 200,000 people have been killed.
Ban said at the United Nations on Tuesday that he still needed more time to promote political negotiations and persuade the Sudanese government to accept more peacekeepers. Asked whether the U.S. sanctions would complicate his job of getting Sudan to agree to a larger U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force, Ban said: "We will have to see."
Sudan's government criticized Mr. Bush's action. "We believe this decision is unfair and untimely," Sudan's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq told The Associated Press. He urged the rest of the world to ignore the U.S. move.
Beyond the new U.S. sanctions, Mr. Bush directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to draft a proposed U.N. resolution to strengthen international pressure on the Sudanese government of President Omar al-Bashir.
Save Darfur Coalition director David Rubenstein welcomed the sanctions, but said they might be too little, too late.
"President Bush must not give further months to determine whether these outlines measures work ・the Darfuri people don't have that much time," he said. "The president must set a short and firm deadline for fundamental changes in Sudanese behavior, and prepare now to implement immediately further measures should Khartoum continue to stonewall."
Mr. Bush said he delayed imposing sanctions last month to allow more time for diplomacy, but that al-Bashir has continued to make empty promises of cooperation while obstructing international efforts to end the crisis.
"One day after I spoke, they bombed a meeting of rebel commanders designed to discuss a possible peace deal with the government," the president said. "In the following weeks he used his army and government-sponsored militias to attack rebels and civilians in south Darfur. He's taken no steps to disarm these militias in the year since the Darfur peace agreement was signed. Senior officials continue to oppose the deployment of the U.N. peacekeeping force.
"The result is that the dire security situation on the ground in Darfur has not changed," Mr. Bush said.
"The President's multi-track policy of imposing unilateral U.S. sanctions along with international sanctions while supporting U.N. and African Union peacekeeping forces with humanitarian, financial and military assistance, provides a moral high ground that has a better chance of stopping the brutal bloodshed in Darfur."
Bush: Iraqi, Afghan Wars "Our Destiny"
Speaking under overcast skies after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and meeting privately at the White House with the families of some fallen servicemen and women, Mr. Bush called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a part of the nation's destiny. He said they follow a rich tradition of similar American sacrifices throughout this country's history.
As people across the U.S. marked the day of remembrance, violence continued in Iraq where a suicide car bomber struck a busy commercial district in central Baghdad, killing at least 21 people and damaging a shrine revered by Sunnis and Shiites alike.
Speaking of the more than 368,000 buried through history at Arlington National Cemetery, Mr. Bush said, "Nothing said today will ease your pain. But each of you needs to know our country thanks you and we embrace you and we will never forget the terrible loss you have suffered."
"The greatest memorial to our fallen troops cannot be found in the words we say or the places we gather," he added. "The more lasting tribute is all around us."
A man holding a sign that said "Bring home our troops" stood at the bridge as the Bush's motorcade traveled over the Potomac River on its way to the cemetery. There, the president was greeted by tourists waving at his motorcade.
Troops with rifles fitted with bayonets stood at attention as his motorcade drove through rows of white tombstones, each marked with a tiny American flag. Smoke from cannon fire rose over the cemetery.
Bush laid a wreath of red, white and blue flowers at the Tomb of the Unknowns and stood, his hand covering his heart, during a drum roll and Taps. First Lady Laura Bush stood nearby with relatives of fallen troops.
In his speech, Mr. Bush said the freedoms that people enjoy in this country today "came at a great cost and they will surive only so long as there are those who are willing to protect them."
The president said that even after four years, many young men and women still volunteer for the U.S. armed forces.
"We've heard of 174 Marines recently, almost a quarter of battalion, who asked to have their enlistments extended," Mr. Bush said. "They want to serve their nation."
"Those who serve are not fatalists or cynics," he added. "They know that one day this war will end, as all wars do. Our duty is to make sure this war was worth the sacrifice" and that the fighting men and women succeeded ・and "where tyrants and terrorists are frustrated and foiled ... where our nation is more secure from attack."
"This is our country's calling," Mr. Bush said. "It's our country's destiny."
"On this day of memory, we mourn brave citizens who laid their lives down for our freedom," he said. "May we always honor them, may we always embrace them and may we always be faithful to who they were and what they fought for."
At least 3,452 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginining of the war in Iraq in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 325 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department.
Wolfowitz blames media for exit
Bush Signs Iraq Spending Bill
Bush signed the bill into law at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, where he is spending part of the Memorial Day weekend. In announcing the signing, White House spokesman Tony Fratto noted that it came 109 days after Bush sent his emergency spending request to Congress.
Bush had rejected an earlier bill because it contained a timetable for withdrawing troops. While the measure he signed establishes political goals for the Iraqi government and ties U.S. reconstruction aid to so-called benchmarks, Bush retains authority over the funds regardless of how the government in Baghdad performs.
Rather than mandate arbitrary timetables for troop withdrawals or micromanage our military commanders, this legislation enables our servicemen and women to follow the judgment of commanders on the ground,・Bush said in a statement.
This important bill also provides a clear roadmap to help the Iraqis secure their country and strengthen their young democracy,・he said. 的raqis need to demonstrate measurable progress on a series of benchmarks for improved security, political reconciliation and governance. These tasks will be difficult for this young democracy, but we are confident they will continue to make progress on the goals they have set for themselves.・
The president's signature on this measure, however, doesn't end debate on Capitol Hill over the administration's war policy ・a dispute that will heat up again this fall.
I think the president's policy is going to begin to unravel now,・said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who expressed disappointment that the bill did not force an end to U.S. participation in the conflict.
Democrats say the drive to bring U.S. troops home is far from over.
We're going to keep coming back and coming back,・said Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell predicted a change, and said Bush would show the way.
I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it,・McConnell said. in other words, I think he, himself, has certainly indicated he's not happy with where we are. And I think we are looking for a new direction in the fall.・
McConnell also emphasized that the Iraqis need to make progress. we've given the Iraqi government an opportunity here to have a normal country. And so far, they've been a great disappointment to members of the Senate on both sides,・he said.
The war spending bill provides about $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30 and billions in domestic projects, including more than $6 billion for hurricane relief. The House voted 280-142 Thursday night to pass the bill, followed by a 80-14 vote in the Senate.
Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the bill.
的 fully support our troops・but the measure 吐ails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,・said Clinton, D-N.Y.
Enough is enough,・Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.・
Their votes continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.
Sen. John McCain, a GOP presidential contender, said the two Democrats were embracing a policy of surrender.・
This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda,・said McCain, R-Ariz. MoveOn.org is a grass-roots anti-war group that rose to prominence in last year's elections.
Thursday's legislative action capped weeks of negotiations with the White House, which agreed to accept some $17 billion more than Bush had requested as long as there were no restrictions on the military campaign.
In the months ahead, lawmakers will vote repeatedly on whether U.S. troops should stay and whether Bush has the authority to continue the war. The Democratic strategy is intended to ratchet up pressure on the president, as well as on moderate Republicans who have grown tired of defending Bush administration policy in a deeply unpopular war.
The Senate will go first when it considers a defense policy bill authorizing $649 billion in military spending in 2008. The proposed bill, approved this week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, cut $12 billion from the administration's $142 billion war-related request to fund other programs, including an increase in the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.
The most critical votes on the war are expected to be cast in September, when the House and Senate debate war funding for 2008. The September votes probably will come after Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Congress whether Bush's troop buildup plan is working. Also due by September is an independent assessment of progress made by the Iraqi government.
The U.S. has spent more than $300 billion on Iraq military operations so far, according to the congressional Government Accountability Office.
Bush Presses Ahead On Iraq Plan
During a Rose Garden news conference Thursday, Mr. Bush addressed the unpopular war and the relentless violence.
The president expressed satisfaction with the new Iraq bill, which does not include a timetable for troop withdrawal, adding that the bill "also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real process in return for America's continued support."
Resolute as he appeared, the president hinted strongly at a backup "Plan B," reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. Modeled on last year's Baker-Hamilton report, it would call for more regional diplomatic contact, as well as a drawdown and repurposing of U.S. troops away from policing sectarian violence.
This is the same plan Mr. Bush largely ignored when it was first published last December, Axelrod reports.
Congress, trying to leave town by week's end for a Memorial Day holiday, was to vote on a $120 billion bill to keep military operations afloat through September.
The House planned to vote Thursday with the Senate to follow suit by week's end.
The reformed legislation does not set the deadline for U.S. troop withdrawals many Democrats wanted. Unable to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override one presidential veto because of such a deadline ・or the threat of another ・Democratic leaders announced Tuesday they would proceed to provide money for the war anyway because they wanted to support the troops.
Despite giving in to the president on timetables, some Democrats in Congress told Axelrod they will revisit the issue again this summer.
The legislation would help to pay for the president's recent troop buildup designed to secure Baghdad and other volatile areas. "This summer is going to be a critical time for the new strategy," Mr. Bush said. He said the last five brigades ・about 15,000 troops ・of his buildup are scheduled to arrive in Baghdad next month.
"We are going to expect heavy fighting in the next weeks and months and we can expect American and Iraqi casualties," Mr. Bush said.
The president also said that the strategy he is now following includes many of the recommendations issued last December by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana recommendations at first generally ignored by the administration.
The Democrats Back Down On Iraq
The decision by congressional Democrats to back off their demand for troop withdrawal deadlines in the Iraq spending bill was seen by the morning newspapers as a defeat for anti-war Democrats and a rare victory for the White House.
The New York Times called it "a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war."
The compromise agreement will include benchmarks the Iraqi government must meet in order to continue to receive U.S. reconstruction aid ・although President Bush will be allowed to waive those restrictions. It was also expected to include unrelated spending for Democratic priorities like a minimum wage hike and Gulf Coast hurricane relief.
Still, the Washington Post said the president would be required "to surrender virtually none of his war authority," and called the final bill "a victory" for Mr. Bush "in a debate that has roiled Congress for months."
Meanwhile, the Post also reports that work is nearing completion on a new, "post-surge" strategy for Iraq that stresses a political solution to the country's sectarian violence over a military one.
The classified plan is being worked on by top U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq, and scheduled to be finished by May 31. Its main goal, the Post says, is to negotiate agreements between rival factions in Iraq from the national level down to the local level.
"In essence, it is as much about the political deals needed to defuse a civil war as about the military operations aimed at quelling a complex insurgency," the Post said, citing officials with knowledge of the plan.
The plan calls for maintaining elevated U.S. troop levels into 2008, while also significantly increasing the size of the Iraq army.
Whither Ethics Reform?
Democrats took control of Congress in January promising an overhaul of lobbying rules following a series of ethics scandals. But since becoming the majority party, they're finding that changing the way politics is conducted on Capitol Hill is easier said than done.
The New York Times reports that House Democratic leaders are running into resistance from "balky lawmakers" and "fending off accusations that a prominent member is flouting new ethics rules."
The Times says Democrats were forced to back off a promise to double the current one-year ban on lobbying by lawmakers once they leave office. They're also struggling to pass a bill that would require lobbyists to reveal campaign donations they collect and deliver, or "bundle," to lawmakers.
Even some rules changes they have managed to pass "appear to have done little to alter business as usual." Only a party-line vote spared powerful Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania a censure for violating a new ethics rule that bans members from "swapping pork for votes."
The Times says Republicans, who were pounded by Democrats in the last election over charges of corruption, are reveling in the reversal of fortune.
Hospitals' Deadly Secrets Revealed
One of the most closely guarded secrets in American medicine will soon be made public.
USA Today reports that thanks to a bold federal initiative, hospital death rates will be disclosed on a government Web site starting in June.
Most hospitals have guarded their death rates as closely as "the formulas for Kentucky Fried Chicken and Coke." But next month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin posting a comparison of death rates for heart attack and heart failure at more than 4,000 U.S. hospitals on its Web site, Hospital Compare.
According to confidential data obtained by USA Today, the government's analysis contains some alarming findings suggesting that which hospital you choose may be a life or death decision. For example, the study found 42 hospitals where patients were more likely to die from heart attacks and heart failure than those who went elsewhere. At one hospital, the heart attack death rate was 24 percent, which topped the national rate by nearly 10 percentage points.
Agreement Nears On Iraq Funding Bill
Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion, originally resisted by the White house, for Democratic domestic priorities such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought.
The deal would be considered a victory for President Bush because there are no deadlines for troop withdrawals, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. But that victory may be fleeting, as more and more Democrats and Republicans are considering September as an unwritten deadline, Attkisson reports.
After a bruising veto struggle over war funding, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush's signature by Friday.
Despite the concession, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Mr. Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq "where he won't get a blank check."
Reid and other Democrats pointed to a provision that would set standards for the Iraqi government in developing a more democratic society. U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward meeting the goals, but Mr. Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.
He said Democrats would look to a different defense bill later this summer to "continue our battle ・and that's what it is ・to represent the American people like they want us to represent them, to change the course of the war in Iraq."
Republicans said that after weeks of struggle, they had forced Democrats to give up their demand for a date to withdraw the troops.
"I'm optimistic that we will achieve the following: a full four-month funding bill without surrender dates. I think there's a good chance of that," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process."
Republicans paid a price, too, in terms of billions of dollars in domestic spending that Democrats wrung from them and the administration.
Officials said the final details of the measure remained in flux. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intended to present the proposal to her rank and file at an evening meeting.
In all, officials said the measure included about $17 billion more than Mr. Bush initially requested. Of the $17 billion, about $9 billion would go for defense-related items and veterans' health care. The balance would be for other domestic programs.
Jimmy Carter To Bush: Never Mind
Speaking on NBC's "Today," Mr. Carter appeared to retreat from a statement he made to Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in which he said: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." The comment was in a story published in the newspaper Saturday.
Mr. Carter said Monday that when he made the comment, he was responding to a question comparing the Bush administration's foreign policy to that of Richard Nixon.
"I think this administration's foreign policy compared to president Nixon's was much worse," Mr. Carter said. But he said he did not mean to call it the worst in history.
"No, that's not what I wanted to say. I wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history but just with President Nixon."
Deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto, with Mr. Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, said Monday: "I think it just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words. I'll just leave it at that."
The White House on Sunday dismissed Mr. Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after his harsh criticism. In response, Carter said: "Well, I don't claim to have any relevancy. I have a completely unofficial capacity. The only thing I lead is the Carter Center."
After the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette story appeared, Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo had confirmed his comments to The Associated Press.
"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me," the newspaper quoted Carter as saying.
During a speech in March at George Washington University, Carter made similarly strong statements against the Bush administration's foreign policy record, CBSNews.com's Jennifer Hoar reported.
"Since (Bill) Clinton left office, over the last six years, not one single day [has been devoted to] overtures to peace agreements," Carter said. "The current policy is leading to an immoral outcome."
In his comments Monday, Mr. Carter said he has not been timid about sharing his opinions directly with the president and other world leaders, but said he has been careful not to level personal criticism against Mr. Bush.
In the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette interview Mr. Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."
Mr. Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Mr. Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Mr. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Mr. Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.
"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Mr. Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
White House Calls Carter "Irrelevant"
Carter was quoted Saturday as saying "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."
The Democrat said Bush had overseen an "overt reversal of America's basic values" as expressed by previous administrations, including that of his own farther, former President George H.W. Bush.
"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Sunday from Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.
"I think it's unfortunate," Fratto said. "And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."
Carter made the comments to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions.
Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate.
Carter: Bush Admin. Is "Worst In History"
The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.
"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."
Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."
Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.
"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as unprecedented.
"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president," Brinkley said. "When you call somebody the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."
Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."
"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
White House Rejects Dems' Iraq Offer
"Timelines for withdrawal are just not the right way to go, and that cannot be the basis for funding our troops," said Joshua Bolten, White House chief of staff, after a nearly 90-minute meeting on Capitol Hill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they offered to grant Bush the authority to waive the deadlines. They said they also suggested they would drop billions of dollars in proposed domestic spending that Bush opposed, in exchange for his acceptance of identifying a withdrawal date.
The offer marked the Democrats' first major concessions in a weekslong battle with the White House on war funding.
"To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. "I really did expect that the president would accept some accountability for what we're trying to accomplish here."
At stake is more than $90 billion the president says is needed to cover the costs of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The Democratic-controlled Congress on May 1 sent Bush a bill that would have paid for the war but also would have demanded that troops start coming home by Oct. 1. Bush vetoed the measure that same day.
The U.S. has spent more than $300 billion on Iraq military operations so far, according to a report Friday by the Government Accountability Office.
For their part, the administration and congressional Republicans said they were willing to consider legislation that sets standards for the Iraqi government and possibly restricts U.S. aid if Baghdad fails to live up to its promises.
The White House listed the 16 benchmarks it would demand of the Iraqi government ・such as laws to divide oil money and disarming militias, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. For the first time, in this offer, if the benchmarks are not met by mid-September, Iraq would lose $2.1 billion in economic aid.
In question, however, is whether the White House will accept binding consequences if the Iraqi government fails. Bush's aides say the president should be able to waive those restrictions ・an offer Democrats have said is too weak.
According to GOP and Democratic aides, Pelosi and Reid did not reject Bolten's suggestion of setting benchmarks, but also did not embrace it. Their focus was identifying a date U.S. troops will leave Iraq, the aides said.
Also not ruled out is that Democrats will send Bush next week another bill he might reject.
"I was a little surprised that (the) Democratic leaders, at least so far, seem so dug in on that position" of setting a timetable, Bolten said. "Because it's a position that ... the president vetoed and which was sustained in" both chambers.
The Democrats' insistence on a timetable comes as the party is under substantial pressure not to cede ground on the unpopular and costly war, in its fifth year. Particularly in the House, where a large number of members were elected last fall on anti-war platforms, many Democratic rank-and-file say they would oppose any legislation that does not advance the idea of bringing troops home.
"It is clear that the difference between the Democrats and the president is the issue of accountability," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "He will not accept any accountability or responsibility for what has happened there."
Attending the rare meeting on Capitol Hill was Bolten, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley and White House budget director Rob Portman, as well as Reid, Pelosi, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Reps. Jerry Lewis and David Obey. Lewis, R-Calif., is the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee and Obey, D-Wis., is chairman.
House Republican Leader John Boehner, who also attended, mocked the Democrats for offering to eliminate domestic spending ・money they once defended as crucial ・in exchange for troop withdrawals.
"What a principled stand to take when we're talking about our men and women in uniform in Iraq taking on the enemy in a war that I think most Americans want to win," said Boehner, R-Ohio.
Pelosi said negotiations with the White House were not dead, but she and Reid made it clear they would proceed in drafting a new bill to be voted on next week.
The Democrats declined to say what their next bill will look like in light of Friday's meeting. But they insisted, as they have done for weeks, that nothing ・including a timetable on the war ・was off the table.
"Our troops will be funded," she said.
Wolfowitz On His Way Out At World Bank
Wolfowitz agreed to resign, effective June 30, after the bank's executive directors issued a statement saying they accept his assurances that he "acted ethically and in good faith" when he arranged a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend, reports CBS News radio correspondent Bill Whitney.
His departure ends a two-year run at the development bank that was marked by controversy from the start, given his previous role as a major architect of the Iraq war when he served as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon.
Wolfowitz was all but forced out, however, by the finding of a special bank panel that he violated conflict-of-interest rules in his handling of the 2005 pay package of bank employee Shaha Riza.
The controversy, which gripped the bank for a month, was seen as a growing liability that threatened to tarnish the poverty-fighting institution's reputation and hobble its ability to persuade countries around the world to contribute billions of dollars to provide financial assistance to poor nations.
By tradition, the World Bank has been run by an American. The Bush administration keenly wanted to keep that decades-old practice firmly intact as the board dealt with Wolfowitz's fate. The United States is the bank's largest shareholder and its biggest financial contributor.
The White House said it would have a new candidate to announce soon, allowing for an orderly transition.
Earlier Thursday, President Bush had seemed resigned to the likelihood that Wolfowitz would lose his job over the conflict-of-interest charges. "I regret that it's come to this," Bush said.
In its statement, the bank's board said it was clear that a number of people had erred in reviewing Riza's pay package.
Wolfowitz, who had fought the pressure to resign for weeks, had sought a recognition from the bank that he did not bear sole responsibility for the matter. In his own statement Thursday, Wolfowitz said he was pleased that the board "accepted my assurance that I acted ethically and in good faith in what I believed were the best interests of the institution, including protecting the rights of a valued staff member."
Now, he said, it was in the best interest of the board that its mission "be carried forward under new leadership."
The board's statement made no mention of any financial arrangements related to Wolfowitz's departure, nor did it address Riza's future.
As a result of the controversy, the board pledged to review the World Bank's ethics policies, noting that "the bank's systems did not prove robust to the strain under which they were placed."
Wolfowitz waged a vigorous battle to save his job and maintained he had acted in good faith.
European nations had led the charge for Wolfowitz to resign. Those calls were backed by many on the bank's staff, former bank officials, aid groups and some Democratic politicians.
Until near the end, the Bush administration had professed support for Wolfowitz. But in a shift on Tuesday, the White House indicated for the first time it was open to his departure. It was the same day Wolfowitz made a last-ditch plea to save his job before the board.
Among those mentioned as a possible replacement for Wolfowitz are former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who was Bush's former trade chief; Robert Kimmitt, the No. 2 at the Treasury Department; Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson; former Republican Congressman Jim Leach and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; and Stanley Fischer, who once worked at the International Monetary Fund and is now with the Bank of Israel.
Riza worked for the bank before Wolfowitz took over as president in June 2005. She was moved to the State Department to avoid a conflict of interest but stayed on the bank's payroll. Her salary went from close to $133,000 to $180,000. With subsequent raises, it eventually rose to $193,590. The panel concluded that the salary increase Riza received "at Mr. Wolfowitz's direction was in excess of the range" allowed under bank rules.
Wolfowitz "placed himself in a conflict of interest situation" when he became involved in the terms and details of Riza's assignment and pay package and "he should have withdrawn from any decision-making in the matter," the panel said. Under Wolfowitz's contract as well as the code of conduct for board officials, he was required to avoid any conflict of interest, the report said.
The panel acknowledged that the informal advice Wolfowitz received from the bank's ethics committee "was not a model of clarity."
Still, the entire episode involving Wolfowitz's handling of the pay package "underscores that there is a crisis in the leadership of the bank," the panel said.
Before taking over the bank nearly two years ago, Wolfowitz was the No. 2 official at the Pentagon and played a lead role in mapping the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Bush tapped Wolfowitz for the job, a move that was approved by the bank's board even though Europeans didn't like him because of his role in the Iraq war.
The 185-nation World Bank, created in 1945 to rebuild Europe after World War II, provides more than $20 billion a year for projects such as building dams and roads, bolstering education and fighting disease. The bank's centerpiece program offers interest-free loans to the poorest countries.
Senate Rejects Bill Cutting War Funds
The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding ・an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.
The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."
Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."
The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.
"We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war," said Reid, D-Nev.
Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.
"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."
But other Democrats said the move was necessary.
"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Senate vote on Feingold's legislation was one of several expected Wednesday, as the Democratic-controlled Congress struggles to clear legislation for Mr. Bush's signature by the end of next week to continue U.S. military operations through Sept. 30.
The House last week passed legislation funding the war on two separate, 60-day installments.
The Senate must take the next step by passing its own measure. Given the political forces at work, that legislation will be a placeholder, its only purpose to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise.
As a result, officials said Tuesday that Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had discussed jointly advancing a bill so barebones that it would contain no funds and do little more than express congressional support for the troops.
Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days.
Wednesday's votes on Feingold and other proposals "will provide strong guidance to our conferees and help shape the conference negotiations we have ahead of us," said Reid.
In addition to Feingold's measure, members were expected to vote on legislation by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would threaten billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on certain military and political reforms.
Reid said he would oppose Warner's measure because it doesn't go far enough; the proposal would allow the president to waive the restriction on foreign aid.
"It is nothing," said Reid.
Levin pulled from the floor his proposal to set an Oct. 1 date to begin troop withdrawals, but allow the president to waive that requirement. He had pitched the idea with the expectation that the president would accept it because of the waiver; but, Levin said Wednesday he had been advised by the White House that the president would veto the measure regardless.
Bush Chooses "War Czar"
It was a difficult job to fill, given the unpopularity of the war, now in its fifth year, and uncertainty about how much power the war coordinator would have. The search was complicated by demands from Congress to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and scant public support for the war. The White House tried for weeks to fill the position and approached numerous candidates before settling on Lute.
In the newly created position, Lute would serve as an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, and would also maintain his military status and rank as a three-star Army general, according to a Pentagon official.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Mr. Bush had not yet made an announcement.
Creation of the new job comes as the administration tries to use a combat troop buildup in Iraq to bring a degree of calm so political reconciliation can take hold.
The White House has sought a war coordinator to eliminate conflicts among the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies ・and to speak for the president when new entanglements arise from the war zone.
The addition will help Stephen Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, who monitors hot spots around the world.
Mr. Bush's move is part of a lengthy reshuffling of war leaders. Yet critics have questioned whether a new coordinator will help so late in the Bush presidency, and may even add confusion in the chain of command.
Lute's appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
Until now, Hadley and other West Wing officials have tried to keep turf-conscious agencies marching in the same direction on military, political and reconstruction fronts in Iraq. Meanwhile, the public's patience for the war has long eroded, and lawmakers, including members of Mr. Bush's own party, are pushing a harder line to ensure that the Iraqi government is making progress toward self-governance.
The Bush administration has avoided the term "war czar." Lute's title would be assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation.
Lute became director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September. Before that, he served for more than two years as director of operations at U.S. Central Command, during which he oversaw combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other regions.
A West Point graduate, Lute has had an extensive military career. He saw combat in the 1991 Gulf War.
From 1998 to 2000 he commanded the Second Cavalry Regiment. He served next as the executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 14 months before joining the First Infantry Division in Schweinfurt, Germany, as the assistant division commander. He also served in Kosovo for 6 months in 2002 before being assigned to U.S. European Command in January 2003.
Rice: No "New Cold War" With Russia
"I don't throw around terms like 'new Cold War,"' Rice said on her way to Moscow for a visit amid growing tensions underlined by President Vladimir Putin's increasing criticism of the United States. "It is a big, complicated relationship, but it is not one that is anything like the implacable hostility" that clouded ties between the United States and the Soviet Union.
"It is not an easy time in the relationship, but it is also not, I think, a time in which cataclysmic things are affecting the relationship or catastrophic things are happening in the relationship," Rice told reporters aboard her plane. "But it is critically important to use this time to enhance those things that are going well and to work on those things that are not going well."
Washington's relations with Moscow are troubled by sharp disagreements on specific issues ・in particular the U.S. proposal to place elements of a missile defense system in former Soviet satellite countries ・and by a clear rise in the Kremlin's suspicion of American intentions worldwide.
Russian officials bristle at U.S. criticism of a perceived Kremlin rollback of democracy and complain that Washington is interfering in the country's internal affairs by funding pro-democracy groups. Russia also accuses the U.S. of trying to dominate international affairs.
In an address on the anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, Putin last week denounced "disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich."
Rice suggested Russian officials' sometimes emotionally charged wording of their complaints is not constructive, saying she has urged her counterparts to avoid "rhetoric that suggests the relationship is one of hostility."
She couched criticism of Russia's democratic progress under Putin with a caveat alluding to the country's troubled history.
"This is a big and complex place that is going through a major historic transformation ... things are not going to change overnight, but frankly we would like to see them change faster than they are changing, and for the better," Rice said.
Waiting In The Wings: Al Gore
"I don't plan to run," he said on The Daily Show, a phrase he has repeated several times.
But diehard fans are unconvinced, reports CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker.
"Al Gore is the most qualified," said Adam Belanoff.
Belanoff joined the Los Angeles chapter of "draftgore.com," a nationwide group pushing the seemingly impossible: to get former Vice President Al Gore to run for president ・again.
"If enough people out there say 'Run Al, we believe you,' I think he'll throw his hat in the ring," said Heather Allyn, a Draft Gore member.
Their Web site boasts 70,000 signatures on its Draft Gore petition.
The L.A. group meets once a month at an outdoor market. While others dine, they strategize.
"We need to be a fast response type of campaign," Patrick McGovern told Whitaker.
"I'm not convinced by any of the other candidates by a mile," said Derek Bevil, another Draft Gore member.
Eighty-four year old Hilda Rolfe's first vote was for FDR, when the country was at war.
"Right now I feel the same way, that this country is in terrible trouble," said Rolfe.
When Al Gore says he doesn't plan to run, the folks at draftgore.com say that's not the same as saying he definitely won't run. Plans change, and with 18 months until Election Day, he still has time to change his mind.
"In a way he's a cult figure," Josh Kraushaar of politico.com tells Whitaker. "He wouldn't have any trouble raising money immediately if he decided to jump into the race."
That's a big change from the days when he was mocked as a boring fanatic.
"You know why I call him ozone man?" asked the first President George Bush years ago.
Now he's the star of an Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." He's so hot he's cheered on one of the coolest shows on TV. Here's a recent exchange between Mr. Gore and Daily Show host Jon Stewart:
JS: "Al Gore walks into a Hollywood movie producer's office and says I've got an idea for a film combining the mainstream appeal of climate science with the non-stop action of Al Gore giving a lecture."
AG: "You forgot the slide show."
Gore says his movie was a hit because the time was right. Draftgore.com says the time couldn't be better for Al Gore to run for president.
Ex-General: Iraq Hurting National Guard
Delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address, Montano said the strain means it will take longer for Greensburg, Kan., to recover from a devastating tornado that leveled the town a week ago.
"Crucial equipment used by the Guard for disaster relief is now in Iraq instead of standing ready to respond to crises here at home," said Montano, who was once adjutant general of the New Mexico National Guard.
"When the tornado struck Kansas last week, the Guard had half the number of Humvees and large trucks they usually would have at their disposal," Montano said. "The recovery process now will take longer."
Montano echoed Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, who clashed with the Bush administration this week. " I don't think there is any question if you are missing trucks, Humvees and helicopters that the response (to the tornado) is going to be slower," she said Monday. "The real victims here will be the residents of Greensburg, because the recovery will be at a slower pace."Sebelius later said the Guard was adequately equipped to handle the disaster, though possible flooding in another part of the state would have forced her to make hard choices about where to send aid.
Judge OKs Immunity For Ex-Justice Aide
Goodling, who served as the department's White House liaison, has refused to discuss the firings without a guarantee that she will not be prosecuted. Congress agreed to the deal, Justice Department investigators reluctantly agreed to not oppose it and U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan gave it final approval Friday.
"Monica Goodling may not refuse to testify," Hogan began his brief order, which said that Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything other than perjury in connection with her testimony.
Lawmakers want to question Goodling as part of an inquiry into whether the Justice Department played politics with the hiring and firing of department officials. What began as an inquiry into whether U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons has grown to include the role of the White House in the firings and whether the Justice Department officials misled Congress about them.
Goodling's lawyer has said that, with an immunity deal, she would cooperate and testify honestly.
Justice spokesman Dean Boyd confirmed earlier this month that the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility were investigating Goodling's role in hiring career attorneys ・an unusual responsibility for her to have had.
Investigators are trying to determine whether Goodling "may have taken prohibited considerations into account during such review," Boyd told the AP. "Whether or not the allegation is true is currently the subject of the OIG/OPR investigation."
Three government officials with knowledge of the investigation said Goodling appears to have sought information about party affiliation while vetting applicants for assistant U.S. attorneys' jobs. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
House Defies Bush On Iraq Funding
The 221-205 vote, largely along party lines, sent the measure to a cool reception in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is seeking compromise with the White House and Republicans on a funding bill.
Under increasing political pressure from Republicans, Mr. Bush also signalled flexibility, offering to accept a spending bill that sets out standards for the Iraqi government to meet.
Time's running out, because the longer we wait the more strain we're going to put on the military,・said the president, who previously had insisted on what he termed a war funding bill.
Mr. Bush and key lawmakers have stepped up expressions of frustration with the government in Baghdad in recent weeks, and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh spent his day in a series of meetings with key senators appealing for patience.
In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Saleh said the purpose of the meetings was to convey the 妬mperative of success against terrorism and extremism・in the Middle East.
Despite Mr. Bush's ability to sustain his vetoes in Congress ・the House upheld his rejection of a troop withdrawal timetable last week ・Democrats called for votes on two separate bills Thursday that challenged him on the war.
Democrats are not going to give the president a blank check for a war without end,・vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
The key is deciding what happens if Iraqis don't meet the standards set, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.
Democrats want consequences for failure, but the president won't go that far yet, although he has instructed top aides to negotiate with Congress on that point, Axelrod reports.
The first measure would have required the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within nine months. It fell, 255-171, with 59 Democrats joining almost all Republicans in opposition.
This war is a terrible tragedy and it is time to bring it to an end,・said Rep. James McGovern, leading advocate of the bill to establish a nine-month withdrawal timetable. For four long, deadly years, this administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about Iraq,・said the Massachusetts Democrat.
Republicans argued that a withdrawal would be disastrous.
Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform,・said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
A few hours later, the House passed legislation providing funds for the war grudgingly, in two installments. The first portion would cover costs until Aug. 1 ・$42.8 billion to buy equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces.
Under the bill, it would take a summertime vote by Congress to free an additional $52.8 billion, the money needed to cover costs through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.
We reject that idea. It won't work,・the president declared after a meeting with military leaders at the Pentagon.
Democratic officials, speaking privately, said Pelosi had agreed to allow the vote on the withdrawal measure in the hope that her rank-and-file would then unite behind the funding bill.
But in an increasingly complex political environment, even that measure was deemed to be dead on arrival in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow advantage and the rules give Republicans leverage to block legislation.
White House Vows Another Iraq Veto
White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday that the Democrats' latest version of the measure is unacceptable.
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Mr. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Mr. Bush.
Asked directly if Mr. Bush would veto the House bill in its current form, Snow said, "Yes."
The veto threat came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out hope that troops could begin withdrawing if the Iraqi government makes progress by fall.
Gates told a Senate committee that if violence in Iraq declines enough to allow the government to move forward, including steps toward political reconciliation, the U.S. could begin pulling troops out.
The Pentagon, said Gates, is "looking for the direction of events ・we don't have to have it all locked in place and everything complete ... If (we) see some very positive progress and it looks like things are heading in the right direction, then that's the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of those forces."
He added that "getting the level of violence in Iraq to point where the political process can go forward and seeing some progress in reconciliation sets the stage for us to begin withdrawing our units ... and allowing those security responsibilities to be assumed by the Iraqis."
Senators pressed Gates on reports that commanders in Iraq may want to wait until next April to make an assessment of the buildup. But Gates insisted that the evaluation will be in September, although he added that he didn't know what the result would be.
"What are the prospects for having some light at the end of the tunnel, to see some encouragement which would enable the Congress to have the fortitude to support the president and go beyond September and the full funding of the $500 billion?" asked Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Gates replied, "I think that the honest answer is, Senator, that I don't know."
Gates also told the panel that proposals for a short-term funding bill would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just doesn't "have the agility to manage a two month appropriation."
"I essentially have 10,000 faucets all running money," Gates said. "Turning them on and off with precision and on a day-to-day basis, or even a month-to-month basis, gets very difficult." And, he said that if Congress votes again in July, but rejects the funding bill, "I would have to shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in August and September because I wouldn't have the money to pay salaries."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said White House chief of staff Josh Bolten had "another good meeting" with Senate leaders on the matter.
"We remain hopeful we can achieve a deal, and the president's chief of staff remains open to meeting with anyone, anytime, anywhere to bring closure to this process," she said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., emerged from the closed-door meeting to say no deal was struck.
Bolten's meeting Wednesday with Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lasted about an hour, and revealed a slightly different tone and approach in the Senate than in the House, said a senior administration official who was in the session and spoke on condition of anonymity to speak more freely about private discussions.
The talk was mostly about the process of getting a bill through both chambers and to the president, but there also were some substantive discussions about content that the official would not detail. The White House's view is that Democrats in the Senate and House need to better coordinate where they want to go with a bill, but this is not preventing Bolten from talking about specifics in the meantime, the official said.
Mr. Bush vetoed an earlier bill because it set deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.
The short-term funding bill is backed by House Democrats, but is unlikely to survive the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and several of them do not support funding the war in brief installments.
House Democrats Pitch New Iraq Plan
If, as expected, members agree to back the plan, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early as this week. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., was first disclosed Thursday by The Associated Press.
White House spokesman Tony Snow on Tuesday called the approach "just bad management."
Snow said the Democratic plan may delay the deployments of some personnel and prolong others, and though he didn't mention the word veto, he made clear that President Bush wants his full funding bill enacted soon, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.
Congressional Republicans immediately dismissed the Democratic proposal as unfairly rationing funds needed in combat and said their members would not support it.
Democrats "should not treat our men and women in uniform like they are children who are getting a monthly allowance," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader.
Added Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., after a GOP caucus meeting Tuesday: "It's a irresponsible approach. You do not fund wars 60 days at a time."
House Democrats want to provide a bill that supports the troops, but not give Mr. Bush a blank check. Further complicating matters, several House liberals oppose funding the war at all, while other more conservative Democrats are reluctant to tie strings to a bill needed by the troops.
The new version is likely to meet resistance in the Senate. Several Senate Democrats said they would oppose a short-term funding bill because it leaves open the question of whether troops will get the resources they need after July.
"There's the question of why it wasn't fully funded," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
If the House version of the bill fails in conference with the Senate, Democratic leaders say their members will have other chances to affect Iraq policy. Party leaders have pointed to the 2008 defense authorization bill, which helps to set Pentagon policy, as well as the 2008 appropriations bills.
However, that plan could meet resistance by members reluctant to watch their carefully crafted bills sink under a presidential veto. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has drafted a defense authorization bill that requires U.S. officials to report on progress made on the war. But according to a panel aide familiar with the draft, the bill so far does not include a tough mandate to end the war.
Queen attends White House dinner
Rangel: Bush Must Compromise On Iraq
"Our leadership had hoped that, meeting with the president, that we could see some compromise," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said on Face The Nation. "But as long as the president refuses to do anything except stay the course, then we, in the House ... would constantly send a message to the president that we want him to come up with some idea to withdraw the troops."
Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, says there is no way his party is giving up its fight, even though President Bush vetoed the first bill that called for bringing the troops home from Iraq in October.
"It would be ridiculous to think that we're going to just drop this fight," Rangel said. "This is not our fight. This is the American people's fight. They asked us to send a message to the president."
Last week, Bush vetoed a $124 billion bill to provided money for Iraq and Afghanistan operations in part because it required troops to begin returning home by Oct. 1, saying the fixed date is unworkable.
Also last week, presidential candidate Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., called for a repeal of the authorization the Congress gave the president to go to Iraq.
"Well, I think, frankly, it made her look foolish," former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Bob Schieffer. "If she's serious about it, then move to cut off the funds. If they can't cut off the funds, then let's get on with trying to win the war. But I think this middle zone of politics while young Americans die is very bad for the country."
Congress can continue to try to push forward a timetable, Gingrich said, but the president will veto it every time. He said it's more important to get money to the troops when the United States remains the war, otherwise their safety and morale will be undermined.
"We should always make certain that those dedicated, brave people are protected no matter what," Rangel said. "And if you don't believe this country is strong enough to make certain that they can safely return home, then we're not being realistic."
But Rangel said the American people have showed how they feel about the war with the 2006 elections and it's time to think about how to leave. He said the U.S. should reach out to friends in Europe and the Middle East and work for a peaceful solution.
"We must follow the people's mandate and do everything that we can to send a message to President Bush that we want to stop the war and we want to bring the troops home," he said. "So if you want to talk about repealing his authority or cutting the funds or setting a timetable, whatever has to be done, he has to stop listening to Dick Cheney."
Most importantly, Rangel said it's time for Americans to stop being placed in the middle of what he called a civil war.
"These people have been fighting each other for centuries," Rangel said. "Who in the devil thinks that we know enough or we're sophisticated enough to stop the civil war that exists there?"
Deadlock: Bush, Dems Demand New Iraq Bill
Bush and Congress have been talking about how to agree on a bill to finance combat operations through September. The president demands the money without strings attached, but Democrats say Bush eventually must accept some conditions on the U.S. commitment to the unpopular war.
Both sides say they want compromise. But it's clear each is still trying to gain the upper hand, reports CBS News correspondent Joie Chen.
的t is clear that at this early point in the negotiations, nothing is off the table,・Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Friday.
Some Republicans are also calling for benchmarks, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine has put forth a plan that sets six benchmarks, including full Iraqi control of its military, a law to disarm militias, and a plan to distribute oil revenue. There's a four month deadline to meet the benchmarks and failure would trigger a phased troop withdrawal ・starting with those troops most recently deployed as part of the president's surge.
I know the president has argued against any consequences associated with the benchmark, but I think the time has come to insure that the Iraqi government understands that the military surge was designed to give the government the opportunity to negotiate these political compromises that will achieve national reconciliation,・she told Axelrod.
Earlier this week, Bush vetoed a $124 billion bill that would have provided money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin returning home by Oct. 1.
"I vetoed the bill Congress sent me because it set a fixed date to begin to pull out of Iraq, imposed unworkable conditions on our military commanders and included billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
Sen. Charles Schumer said Bush's veto would not deter Democrats from finding other ways to achieve their two goals of fully supporting the troops while dramatically changing the U.S. mission in Iraq.
"Mr. President, we know you oppose the resolution that Congress sent you last week, but on behalf of the American people and our soldiers, we ask you to work with us to find a way to both fund the troops and change the mission," Schumer said Saturday in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
Bush said that while Republicans and Democrats will not always agree on the war, the consequences of failure in Iraq are clear.
"If we were to leave Iraq before the government can defend itself, there would be a security vacuum in the country," Bush warned. "Extremists from all factions could compete to fill that vacuum, causing sectarian killing to multiply on a horrific scale."
Schumer said Democrats won't back down in their push to persuade Bush to change U.S. policy in Iraq so American troops can get out of the business of policing a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.
"I know how strongly the president feels that he is right, but if he looked at the facts on the ground, he would come to the conclusion that most Americans have ・we need a change in direction," Schumer said.
The president urged Congress to give the new war strategy he announced in January a chance to work.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is leading the military buildup of 21,500 more U.S. troops in Iraq. The administration hopes the extra security provided by the troops in Baghdad and Anbar Province will give the Iraqis time to mend sectarian fractures within the government and resolve other reconciliation issues.
Sen. Snowe, on a trip to Baghdad with other lawmakers, said she is not convinced that the Iraqi leaders have a sense of urgency about achieving political reconciliation. She said she told Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the country's most powerful Shiite political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, that the Iraqi parliament should refrain from taking a recess this summer.
"As we are doing the military surge, we should have a political surge by the government," Snowe said on a conference call with reporters.
"They (U.S. troops) should not be on the front lines while the parliament is at recess for two months," she said.
Standoff On Iraq Funding Bill Continues
Mr. Bush and Congress have been discussing a possible compromise on a war spending bill needed to finance combat operations through September. The president demands the money without strings attached, and so far has found strong Republican support. But Democrats say the president eventually will have to accept some conditions on the U.S. commitment in Iraq because of the war's unpopularity among voters.
For the first time, Mr. Bush dispatched his top aides to Capitol Hill this week to sit down with Democratic leaders to discuss the war.
"It has taken almost 4 1/2 years, but it appears the president finally is willing to consider what most Americans and members of Congress have long known: We must change course in Iraq and move toward a strategy that will make our country more secure," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement released Friday.
Negotiations are expected to continue early next week, but it's unclear is whether a compromise can be struck.
In a flash of defiance, House Democratic leaders on Thursday weighed a proposal that would guarantee the war money only through July. After that, Congress could block additional money from being spent if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals.
The proposal, not yet endorsed and outlined for only a few members, would be a direct challenge to the president and could prompt another presidential veto. Earlier this week, Mr. Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have provided money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, views a short-term funding bill as a nonstarter, said spokesman Brian Kennedy.
"We don't consider this a serious compromise," Kennedy said Friday. "It will create gridlock in Washington at a time when the troops need support fast, which is the functional equivalent of the 'slow-bleed' approach Democrats started with four months ago. They appear to be moving backward, not forward."
Democrats contend they will provide troops the resources they need and will send Mr. Bush a bill by the end of the month. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to fund war operations until about July, although the lack of cash would cause problems in other areas.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., suggested the short-term funding bill in a closed-door leadership meet Thursday. Under Obey's proposal, members would vote separately on whether to fund some of the domestic spending in the Iraq bill that Bush opposed, such as agricultural assistance.
The plan was described by Democratic aides who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plan. According to a senior Democratic leadership aide, the plan has not been endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or in the Senate.
The move likely would appease a large number of House Democrats who are reluctant to vote for a war spending bill unless it moves toward getting troops out of Iraq. Such a plan would signal to caucus members that the speaker was not willing to back down to the president and, at the same time, support the troops.
While the House could narrowly pass the measure, it is unlikely to find similar backing in the Senate, where some leading Democrats say they want to fund the war through September.
One option for Pelosi would be to pass the bill only to agree to drop it later when it must be negotiated in the Senate.
Numerous other ideas are being floated in the Senate, most of which involve some combination of goals the Iraqi government must reach. The key impasse, however, is whether to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met.
Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd of West Virginia proposed a measure to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Under the bill, President Bush would be required in October to seek Congress' blessing to continue operations in Iraq.
"If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Clinton, a presidential contender for 2008.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino immediately shot down Clinton's proposal as "troubling" in light of ongoing negotiations.
"Here we go again," Perino said in a statement. "The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar. Welcome to politics, '08-style."
Obama Under Secret Service Protection
Representatives of Obama's campaign confirmed to CBS News' Steve Chaggaris that the senator is under Secret Service protection, but would not elaborate further.
Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff authorized protection for Obama after consultations with the congressional advisory committee.
Zahren would not provide details of what led to the extra security, but said, "I'm not aware it was based on any threat."
Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has a Secret Service detail that is provided to all former first ladies.
In the last election, Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards received their protection in February 2004 as they were competing for the party's nomination. Obama's detail comes nine months before the first votes are cast.
Federal law allows candidates to seek protection if they meet a series of standards, including public prominence as measured by polls and fundraising.
In a February interview with 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft, Obama's wife, Michelle, addressed the possibility that her husband could be the target of an assassination attempt. "I don't lose sleep over it because the realities are that, you know, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station, you know," she said. "So you can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen. We just weren't raised that way."
In a Feb. 12 interview with The Associated Press, Obama dismissed concerns about his own security but would not answer directly when asked if he had received death threats. The Rev. Jesse Jackson drew early Secret Service protection because of violent threats during his campaigns for president in the 1980s.
"I face the same security issues as anybody," the senator told the AP. "We're comfortable with the steps we have taken."
Bush Vetoes Iraq Funding Bill
In only the second veto of his presidency, Mr. Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."
Democrats made a last-minute plea for Mr. Bush to sign the bill, knowing their request would be ignored. "The president has put our troops in the middle of a civil war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Reality on the ground proves what we all know: A change of course is needed."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the legislation "respects the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war."
A Senate Democrat says they've pushed their demand for troop deadlines as far as they can, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. Democrats know they don't have the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.
Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Mr. Bush will meet with congressional leaders ・Democrats and Republicans alike ・on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.
Mr. Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.
He said the need to act is urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.
"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Mr. Bush said.
He vetoed the bill immediately upon his return to the White House from a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq.
Earlier on Tuesday, Democratic congressional leaders sent Mr. Bush legislation setting timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. The move came on the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the war.
The Democratic leaders staged a special ceremony to send the legislation ・already approved by both the House and Senate ・on its way to the White House.
On Wednesday, Mr. Bush is to meet at the White House with congressional leaders from both parties, including Reid, D-Nev., and Pelosi, D-Calif., to begin discussing follow-up spending legislation.
"This legislation honors the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," Pelosi said at the ceremony in the Capitol. She said that provisions of the measure respect "the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war."
Said Reid: "After more than four years of a failed policy, it's time for Iraq to take responsibility for its own future. Today, right now, we renew our call to President Bush: There is still time to listen. There is still time to sign this bill and change course in Iraq."
Some Republicans say they would support tying benchmarks to the more than $5 billion provided to Iraq in foreign aid, but nothing that would tie the hands of military commanders. It's not clear whether the White House is open to this approach, either. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said over the weekend that Mr. Bush would not sign a bill containing any penalties for the Iraqi government.
"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Clinton Drops Rodham
When it comes to running for president, she is "Hillary Clinton," according to her campaign Web site. But when it comes to her official Senate releases, she is still "Hillary Rodham Clinton."
The Clinton camp appeared to be at a loss to come up with an explanation when the Albany Times Union newspaper asked about it.
"I haven't, I haven't," Clinton said with laugh when asked about her apparent name change.
A strategic decision? Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told the newspaper: "That's a fair question, but there's no plan behind it."
The name game has been going on for some time in Clinton's world.
When Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton in 1975, she kept using her maiden name as he pursued his political career in Arkansas and she built her reputation as a lawyer in Little Rock. But, in the wake of his loss in a re-election race for governor, she began using "Hillary Clinton." He won back the governorship.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton" became the standard in 1993 as the Clintons moved into the White House. She continued to use that when she ran for the U.S. Senate from New York in 2000.
Rice: Bush Will Not Give In On Iraq Bill
Rice's comments cast fresh doubt on a potential compromise between the Democratic-led Congress and the White House in getting money to U.S. troops.
Also, with a regional conference on Iraq set to begin Thursday in Egypt, Rice raised the possibility of a rare direct encounter between high-level U.S. and Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is expected to lead his country's delegation.
"I would not rule it out," Rice told Bob Schieffer. "We will be there not to talk about U.S.-Iranian issues, but to talk about Iraq, and how Iraq's neighbors can help to stabilize Iraq, and I won't rule it out."
In Washington this week, Bush plans to veto a $124.2 billion war spending bill that includes a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. In a second version, Democratic leaders may scrap the timetable but work with Republican lawmakers on benchmarks: ordering the Iraqi government to fulfill promises on allocating oil resources, amending its constitution and expanding democratic participation.
Rice said the president would not agree to a plan that penalizes Baghdad if the Iraqi government fall shorts. To do so, she said, would restrain the abilities of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
"Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq?" Rice said. "That's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."
Rice said that the Iraqi government is not moving forward fast enough, but "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have a plan and a way forward."
Benchmarks have emerged as a possible rallying point as U.S. leaders seek to show they are holding the Iraq government accountable. But establishing goals without consequences may seem pointless to many Democratic lawmakers, who want an aggressive change in policy.
"The benchmarks ・the Iraqis agreed to it, the president agreed it," said Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who also appeared on Face The Nation. "We're saying to them, well, let's put some teeth into the benchmarks."
Rice said it makes sense to give Iraq's leaders time to meet the goals they have set. She said Bush has made clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that people in the United States have limited patience.
In their push to link U.S. money or troop support to Iraqi performance, however, Democrats must negotiate with Republicans. On their own, Democratic lawmakers do not have the votes to override Bush's veto.
Bush is expected the veto the existing war bill by Tuesday, then meet Wednesday with congressional leaders on the next steps.
"If he vetoes this bill, he's cut off the money, but obviously, we're going to pass another bill," Murtha said. "I'd like to see two months ... Fund it for two months instead of a year. And then look at it again."
Meanwhile, Rice said will not appear in person before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about the Bush administration's prewar intelligence. Rice said she already has addressed claims that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger.
The committee voted 21-10 last week to issue a subpoena to compel her testimony.
Asked about the possibility of being held in contempt by the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Rice said, "That's the chairman's prerogative. I respect the oversight ・the oversight responsibilities of Congress ・but I frankly think this one has been looked at and looked at and looked at."
Clinton Pounces On "Mission Accomplished"
Addressing delegates at the California State Democratic Party convention, Clinton said that if elected president in 2008, she would end the war. The New York senator also promised to "treat all Americans with dignity and equality no matter who you are and who you love." The pledge was clear bow to California's politically active and influential gay community.
Taking on Bush's policies, Clinton contended the president has ignored scientific evidence on global warming and stem cell research while also dismissing the concerns of the middle class. She said his administration had "lied" about the effects of toxic dust at the World Trade Center site in New York after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Her voice raspy from days of campaigning, Clinton brought delegates to their feet when she said she wished she could turn the clock back to a different time.
"Somebody said to me that he wished we could just rewind the 21st century and just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration, with all their mistakes and misjudgments," she said to cheers. "People are ready for leaders who understand it is our votes who put them in power, our tax dollars that pay the bills."
She lambasted the "Mission Accomplished" speech nearly four years ago, in which Bush declared an end to major military actions in Iraq. He made the comment while on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the California coast.
That speech, Clinton said, was "one of the most shameful episodes in American history. ... The only mission he accomplished was the re-election of Republicans."
California is poised to play a greater role in the presidential nominating process, having recently moved its primary to Feb. 5 to join several other large states in holding contests that day.
Most of the top Democratic presidential contenders planned to address the convention during the weekend.
Delegates were to hear Clinton's main rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, later Saturday afternoon, in addition to Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson were on Sunday's schedule.
Clinton's speech was well-received among the generally left-leaning delegates who typically attend this state's Democratic gatherings.
Four years ago, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean ・then a little-known figure in the 2004 Democratic field ・thrilled convention delegates with his fiery denunciation of the war. His rivals at the time, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who eventually won the nomination, were loudly booed for defending their 2002 vote to authorize the war.
Clinton cast the same vote in 2002, but met with only sporadic heckling during her speech.
Some candidates who attended South Carolina's party convention Saturday said they thought the United States has lost its global standing during Bush's presidency. America, they said, needs a Democratic commander in chief to restore its place in the world.
"We are today internationally and domestically a nation that is no longer a leader," Richardson said.
Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said the world needs to see that "America can be a force for good."
"What their perception is that America is a bully and we only care about our short-term interests," Edwards said. "The starting place is to end the bleeding sore that is the war in Iraq."
Richardson, Edwards and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said they would make ending the war a priority.
"The American people are looking for us as Democrats," said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "They're looking for someone literally, not figuratively, to restore America's place in the world."
Bush Vows Continued Vetoes On Funding Bill
Speaking a day after the Democratic-controlled Congress approved legislation that requires that a troop drawdown begin by Oct. 1, Mr. Bush said ・as expected ・he will veto it because of that demand.
But at a Camp David news conference with Japan's prime minister, Mr. Bush said he's optimistic a deal can be worked out to get funding for the U.S. troops in Iraq, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.
"I'm optimistic we can get a bill, a good bill and a bill that satisfies all our objectives," he said.
He invited congressional leaders to come to the White House to discuss a new piece of legislation that does not include a timetable. But he made clear that if Democrats insist on including timetables again, he will not hesitate to bring out his veto pen.
"If they want to try again that which I've said is unacceptable, of course I won't accept it," the president said during the news conference with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "I hope it won't come to that."
Passage of the Iraq spending legislation in both houses was not by big enough margins to override a presidential veto. So lawmakers and the White House immediately began talking about negotiations for a follow-up bill.
Democratic leaders said they hoped to have a new bill ready by June 1. Several Democratic officials have said the next measure likely will jettison the withdrawal timetable, but may include consequences if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks, such as expanding democratic participation and allocating oil resources.
Mr. Bush has set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but has opposed attaching any timeframe to them or any actions if they are not met.
Senate leaders said Friday that the bill should go to Mr. Bush early next week. The White House has not said whether Mr. Bush plans a quiet veto or a public ceremony.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged Mr. Bush on Friday to "carefully read this bill."
"He will see it fully provides for our troops and gives them a strategy worthy of their sacrifices," Reid said. "Failing to sign this bill would deny our troops the resources and strategy they need."
The bill would provide $124.2 billion, more than $90 billion of which would go for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats added billions more for domestic programs, and while most of the debate focused on the troop withdrawal issue, some of the extra spending also has drawn Mr. Bush's ire.
The legislation requires a troop withdrawal to begin July 1 if Mr. Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political agreements; otherwise, it calls for the withdrawal to start by Oct. 1.
While the beginning of a withdrawal is mandated, the balance of the pullback is merely advisory, to take place by April 1, 2008.
Troops could remain after that date to conduct counterterrorism missions, protect U.S. facilities and personnel and train Iraqi security forces.
Iraq Dominates Dems' Presidential Debate
