A ‘defining pivotal moment’ in the Iraq debate?

May 10, 2007

Indicative of the growing unrest among congressional Republicans on the president’s war policy, multiple news reports note that 11 House Republicans met with Bush and his senior aides in the White House on Tuesday for an “unvarnished” conversation.

House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

The meeting, which ran for an hour and a half Tuesday afternoon, was disclosed by participants yesterday as the House prepared to vote this evening on a spending bill that could cut funding for the Iraq war as early as July. GOP moderates told Bush they would stay united against the latest effort by House Democrats to end U.S. involvement in the war. Even Senate Democrats called the House measure unrealistic.

But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out. The meeting, organized by Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), one of the co-chairs of the moderate “Tuesday Group,” included Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Todd R. Platts (Pa.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.).

“It was a very remarkable, candid conversation,” Davis said. “People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance, and we took it.”

NBC’s Tim Russert, who said the meeting “may have been a defining pivotal moment” in the Iraq debate, reported that one of the GOP lawmakers told Bush, “My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President…. The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus.”

At first blush, it’s fairly encouraging to see 11 GOP House members march up to the White House to express their displeasure directly to the president. But the more I think about it, the less optimistic I am.

First, it’s worth remembering that these 11 are apparently the most concerned about getting Bush to dramatically change course — and yet they’re also going to take Bush’s side when it comes to spending measures. They voted with the GOP on the Dems’ first spending measure (with a withdrawal timeline), and they’re going to vote with the GOP on Dems’ phased funding package today or tomorrow.

Their “candid” remarks to the president may have been sincere, but I suspect everyone — the White House, their colleagues, the voters, the media — will start taking these guys seriously when their votes start coinciding with their threats.

Second, 11 possible GOP defectors aren’t enough to scare the Bush gang. The president seems inclined to veto anything that isn’t a blank check. Even if all 11 of these “moderates” buck the party and start voting with the Dems, that’s not enough to change anything — the House will still need a two-thirds majority to override a veto, as will the Senate. When 60 Republicans from the House and 15 from the Senate show up on Bush’s doorstep, then the White House will start taking them seriously. Until then, not so much.

And third, I wonder just how much of this is political gamesmanship for some worried congressional Republicans who suspect Bush might cost them their jobs. It appears that the 11 House Republicans who attended the meeting were relatively anxious to dish yesterday, with reports on the “private” meeting appearing on NBC, and in the WaPo and NYT. Is that because they want the public to know the GOP is divided, or because they want the voters back home to perceive them as independently minded?

As for now, I’m skeptical. If congressional Republicans want to prove their discontent over the war, they’ll have to do more than just chat with Bush about how nervous they are.

As always, I think your analysis is spot-on. Although I can’t imagine Bush would be happy with news saying reThugs consider anything he says as lackig credibility, their actions will tell us if this has any meaning beyond window dressing.

  • Add to that: what does it mean to say “it has to come from Petraeus”? Bush and Cheney will just tell him what to say. And if he doesn’t give a mushy-sounding version of ‘there’s progress,’ he’ll be quietly pushed aside and we’ll get true-believer Odierno running the whole strategy.

  • I’m leaning towards “or because they want the voters back home to perceive them as independently minded”

    When I read about this, it sounded great but as I read more I think everyone’s been Spectred.

  • .

    These Republicans are much more concerned with their political futures than those involved in this clusterfuck.

    I’ll believe their sincerity is for the soldiers when they vote with the Dem majority.

    And, IF they vote with the Dems, that might encourage other Republicans to break ranks and vote the right way.

  • I must be even more cynical than you. When I see Tim Russert breaking a story of this type, a very loud chorus of voices breaks out in my head, asking: “Who leaked this to him, and more importantly, why?”

    Also, it was a very long time ago that I abandoned all hope that anyone saying anything to Bush, no matter how “unvarnished”, could make the slightest difference to his actions.

    Besides, recent history seems to have pretty much proved that just because a bunch of Republicans talk tough to Bush — in public or in private — doesn’t mean that they have the slightest intention of being caught dead voting against him in any way.

    So, as far as I’m concerned, the big news here is that someone who attended that meeting (maybe everyone?) wants us to believe that Bush’s bubble just got pricked. They want us to believe that something will now be different.

    That almost seems to be sufficient reason to believe that it won’t.

  • It appears that the difference is that the Congress only wants to kill another 300 ~ 500 American servicemen while the Whitehouse wants to go on killing them indefinitely. In both cases our ‘leaders’ are quite happy to kill our children for personal political advantage.

  • nothing has changed until they put their money where there mouths are….

  • Russert broke this news rather breathlessly, and it’s difficult to know whether he was more excited about having been leaked to than he was about the content of the meeting.

    I, too, just assumed that Petraeus would be outfitted with a Charlie MCarthy mechanism, but be spared the indignity of actually sitting on Bush’s (or Cheney’s) knee to deliver his WH-approved assessments.

    The meeting was meaningless, given that it came with a promise of continuing support on a number of fronts; if you don’t like what’s happening, going along with the policy does nothing to change it, and only allows the Decider to continue as usual. It was just more empty rhetoric, which much of the constituency has to be able to see right through.

    Had these 11 Congressmen gone up there to deliver the message that they will no longer support the policies, and would be voting for the latest funding bill, that would have been news. And, contrary to the notion that even an additional 11 would not have been a concern to Bush because it would not reach the needed override level, it could only have encouraged more who’ve been out grazing in the sheep pen to break free and do the right thing.

    Almost time for the Conzales hearing – hope that covers some new ground today!

  • “But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow ”

    If this was a serious debate about changing course in Iraq, I wonder if the lawmakers deliberately timed it when the Big Dick wasn’t even the country.

    Probably no one wanted their larynx crushed for having a “lack of faith”.

  • So Tim Russert, after being mauled on PBS by Bill Moyers who exposed him for being a Republican lapdog….

    … goes back to being a Republican lapdog. So what else is new?

    Obviously this was a Republican leak intended to show that there is “thoughtful debate” within the ranks and not blind rubber-stamping.

  • sarabeth nailed it – this is win-win Rethug PR. for the endangered 11, they can now go home and sell their independence from Bush on the war to their districts. for Bush/Snow, they can now rebut any bubble talk – “see, we listen to dissent!” but it is painless and costless to all, as the R’s choose to talk, rather than vote, with courage, and their numbers are small enough that Bush need not change course one iota.

  • From the WaPo article: “Davis, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, also presented Bush dismal polling figures to dramatize just how perilous the party’s position is, participants said.”

    Pretty much sums it up about what this really is all about for these “moderate Republicans”. It is not about our troops, their deaths, their blood, their suffering. It is not about winning the War, or beating the terrorists. It is all about their election prospects. Period.

  • Another example of ‘dingbat kabuki’.

    It must have been like taking a meeting with President Travis Bickle.

    “”You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talkin’ to? You talkin’ to me? Well I’m the only one here.”

  • I can’t let comment #3 go unchallenged. It’s clearly unencumbered by the thought process, and it’s even worse than the nonsense that I always find on the wingnut blogs. It’s so refreshing to hear that it’s all the fault of the Jews and the Pope. How original!

    One of the good things about The Carpetbagger Report is the usual high quality of the comments, even though they aren’t edited. I suppose that the occasional comment #3 is the price we pay to get to hear from CB’s intelligent regulars.

    Time for someone to put on a clean brown shirt, #3. The one that you’re wearing stinks.

  • I’m not impressed. Bush should be threatened with impeachment. We’ve reached a point where a president needs to be impeached as a lesson to future presidents.

    But we’re not going to do that. Impeachment is “off the board.” It’s off because it wouldn’t be NICE. How embarrassing, nailing the amiable dunce for taking the nation to war on lies. Bush doesn’t matter. There won’t be an impeachment because WE can’t handle it. How could we impeach the same imbecile we voted into office twice!

    No, we must continue muddling through, wasting money and lives, until a new president is elected. We can’t hurt the Commander Guy’s feelings, or admit we are a nation of ignorant, gullible fools.

    To borrow a quote, it’s the kind of thing that makes Jesus drink himself to sleep at night.

  • Someone once said something along the lines of “if you provide comfort and support to a terrorist, then in the eyes of America, you are a terrorist.” Although I’d love to credit that bit of commentary to an intelligent individual, the words were spoken by the current occupant of the WH.

    Now—given the credible fact that the current occupant of the WH is, by definition, a terrorist (one who seeks to control others through deceits, lies, fear, and the threat of violence), I suppose we might consider these “allegedly-brave Republicans” to be terrorists themselves—and cowardly terrorists, at that….

  • If this is all true, the Dems should amend very slightly the recently vetoed war funding bill, put it back before the house, and put these people to the test.

    You see, if the surge “works”, we can start bringing soldiers home in say, November. If the surge doesn’t work, we’re apparently going to need another change of strategy… which will be what?

    Well, if Congress finally has a say, it will be to bring the troops home. So make the commitment to do it now.

  • As long as the Republicans at the meeting refer to Bush as “Mr. President” instead of “listen up, you willfully ignorant alcoholic Texas yahoo”, the conversation is not “unvarnished”.

  • It’s only the beginning of a prolonged GOP death scene with increasing buckets of tears and gnashing of teeth as the political devastation wrought by George Bush comes evident to those Repubs facing 08 elections.

  • Go Bush go. Drive the wooden stake right though the heart of the Republican Party. Please make more public appearances. Show everyone what an ass you are.

    Clue to Dems. Show ads of Bush. Yell it out loud. Bush and the GOP are the same. All members of the GOP are just like Bush.

    Geez, this is so hard.

  • Show Bush, show voting records (particularly on the war issues) of the GOP congressfolk, show numbers of dead and injured in Iraq.

  • It’s a Republican CYA smokescreen ~ nothing more, nothing less.

    Taking it seriously furthers their purposes . . .

  • Yes, encouraging that they had a face off with the prez but discouraging in that the topic was the impact on GOP politics. It seems to me that this group may be more worried about their own asses rather than the Country as a whole. No mention of mistakes, deaths, costs etc. Sad-Sad-Sad. But, that’s what the GOP is all about-power and politics.

  • Who gives a damn what these wet dishrags pretending to be political leaders say? It’s what they do that defines them, and on the “here’s what I do” level, there is no difference whatsoever between a moderate Republican and a rabid right winger, because the moderate will always vote as the right winger scares them into. What happened to the “50-60” Republicans who were against the surge?

  • What’s that famous Bushism, “fool me once… can’t get fooled again?”

    I think I’ll just ignore this latest “revelation” just like kids ignore their parents when they say, “I really mean it this time!” Threats are meaningless until you take away the keys.

    As others have noted, the source of Rs nervousness is political, not what’s right or wrong or even sensible. In a representative government I guess there’s some validity to that, but not much in the way of integrity or leadership. These people backed Bush unquestioningly until it threatened their own holds on power. Pretty sick.

  • There needs to be an ad campaign—a global ad campaign, at that—showing Bush and his faux-cowboy mentality: “Hi. I’m George, and I just vetoed war funding. Whatcha gonna do about it? Huh?”

    Or maybe something along the lines of: “Georege Bush—you’ve just vetoed a war funding bill that offered you more money than even you wanted to ask for. What are you going to do next?”

    “I’M GOIN’ TO DIZ-NEE WORLD! YIPPEE KI YAY! AIR ASSAULT!!!”

    It’s not enough to simply discredit these buffoons any more. They do it to themselves on such a regular basis that the People have become desensitized to it. We need to ridicule these mrons. Make fun of them. Turn them into “the missing ring” under Barnum and Bailey’s “big top.” “Leno” and “Letterman” these doofuses under the glaring light of daytime.

    Attack on all fronts….

  • Oh looky. More “Mavericks.” Only this bunch of cretins are more blatant in expressing their fear of having to get real jobs.

    What’s that old saw about laying down with dogs? The GOPers didn’t just lay down with BushBrat, they performed several acts that Santorum dreams about, they did it for years and now they crawl up to their master and whimper about the polls in their districts (never mind the soldiers).

    Newsflash, harlots: If you vote against this bill you’re screwed any way. Opposing candiates are already writing the attack ads, they’re just waiting to get your voting record. Saying “But I talked to the president,” won’t do anything but make you look a bigger shitheel. Enjoy the ride to The Newt Gingrich Home for Tapped Out Hacks!

  • First: Bush is totally unaffected and will do what he wants without any consideration of their opinions.
    Second: These Republicans had to know this in advance or else they are stupid and incompetent. They got together and thought this would be a good way to get public attention because they fear re-election. These are the rubber stamp congress people who have been silent for the past 6yrs. Now they want to appear as people who will stand up against presidential policy at a time when Bush is heading for failure anyway. OOOH, how brave. especially Emerson from MO who I call a phony.

    • Comments are closed.