Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
USA TODAY: "Life quickly gets a lot harder for White House"
Yes, Joseph and friends,
I do realize that none of this will change the private cooperation between Bush and the Congress, or between the Republicans and Democrats.
But, it's notable that this article had emanated from USA TODAY.
A/G
--------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-21-showdown-analysis_N.htm
Life quickly gets a lot harder for White House
Analysis by Susan Page and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Less than 100 days into the new Congress, Capitol Hill's Democratic leaders have set in motion two constitutional confrontations with a White House unaccustomed to such challenges.
•A House Judiciary subcommittee authorized subpoenas Wednesday to force several of President Bush's closest aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors. The Senate Judiciary Committee will follow suit today, said that panel's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
•The Senate and House have held a series of debates and votes on opposing Bush's plans to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Another may come before week's end: House leaders are trying to pass a bill that ties continued funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to a September 2008 deadline for troop withdrawal. Bush is threatening a veto.
Both moves raise constitutional questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government and underscore how much the atmosphere in the nation's capital has changed since voters gave Democrats control of Congress.
"It's like night and day," says Ken Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff for President Reagan. "You're dealing with your ability to control the agenda, to control hearings, to control subpoenas."
The president, nearly immune from criticism in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, faces challenges to his authority on matters ranging from the hiring and firing of officials to the waging of war.
"We're going to ask hard questions; we're going to demand reliable information and report to the American people," said the Senate's deputy Democratic leader, Rich Durbin of Illinois. "And if the president makes it more difficult, it will be an issue."
Congress is pressing the White House on other fronts:
•The House of Representatives voted last week to overturn Bush's 2001 executive order permitting former presidents to keep their papers secret indefinitely. The House passed the bill 333-93 with more than enough bipartisan support to override a threatened veto.
•Congressional committees have convened a string of hearings to grill administration officials and give Bush critics a forum. Among them: Valerie Plame, who testified last week about the administration's leak of her identity as a clandestine CIA officer.
The battle over the U.S. attorneys illustrates how Democratic control of congressional committees and their agenda can put the White House on the defensive. Bush's offer to have his aides, including longtime confidant Karl Rove, talk to congressional committees in private and not under oath was hooted down by Democrats. "We could meet at the local pub," scoffed House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.
Even more ominous for Bush, Republicans put up only a half-hearted battle on his behalf.
When the House Judiciary subcommittee members authorized subpoenas, Republicans didn't insist on a roll-call vote — the standard way for members of Congress to stand up and be counted on an issue. "We didn't want to embarrass the Democrats, and they didn't want to embarrass us," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.
The vote authorized Conyers to subpoena Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, who resigned last week as chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It also authorized Conyers to demand White House and Justice Department documents about the eight fired federal prosecutors.
At issue: whether political factors played a role in the firings and why Justice officials gave Congress changing explanations about them.
Conyers said he doesn't intend to issue subpoenas right away. Both sides are clearly hoping for a compromise that will head off a showdown in the courts. Durbin said congressional lawyers are researching legal options: "Trust me, it's all being done."
Bush and his defenders contend that requiring White House aides to testify could discourage them from offering their most candid advice.
"There is an important principle, and that is that political leaders and public officials want to be able to have communication and get advice from close advisers," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said on Fox News.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking Democratic leader in the House, once worked in the White House as an adviser to President Clinton. He said he's not buying the Bush administration's claim of executive privilege. He argued that the privilege is generally cited to protect national security and candid advice that the president receives from his counselors.
"But they've told us that the president wasn't involved here," Emanuel said. So, he said, aides shouldn't have a problem testifying about their own actions — "unless the president was more involved than they're telling us."
Analysts who have studied executive privilege said that a political accommodation is more likely than a drawn-out court fight. "Somebody blinks," said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University and author of Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy and Accountability.
"This is only the first step in the dance," Duberstein agreed.
Others aren't as optimistic. "We could end up in court with the Supreme Court having to decide this constitutional confrontation," Cornyn said.
----------------------
My guess? There will be a "drawn-out court fight," simply because it would last well beyond Bush's remaining tenure in the White House. Anybody disagree?
A/G
----
|
