Bush invites Dems to meet about Iraq

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - President Bush said Tuesday he wants to talk with Democrats about the standoff over war funding, but made it clear he will not embrace any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Democrats questioned the point of a meeting if the president won't negotiate.

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

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

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

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

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) reacted coolly to Bush's offer.

"Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions," they said in a joint statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq [link]

[Pro Street]

so, he wants to meet in hops they will change their mind, but has outright said e won't.

bipartisan cooperation?

[smokie700]

well doesn't teh left believe in talking and that by opening teh lines of communication there can be positive results?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

so, he wants to meet in hops they will change their mind, but has outright said e won't.

bipartisan cooperation?

Are you criticizing him for this?

[grembert]

I hope Bush decides to compromise somewhat on Iraq. With the recent news coming out of that country, he is about to run out of options.

According to just about every survey, most Americans are in favor of some kind of timetable/withdrawal date.

If Bush and these Democrats would look more at some diplomatic solutions, such as pressuring the Iraqi government to take more action to stop the violence, it would help unite our country about how to proceed.

[goldenponderbob]

This chess game has a few pieces missing.

If Nancy controls the dough George needs,
George cannot set the rules.

The people who invented our nation were pretty smart
about how that works. And I'll bet Nancy has studied
Article I.

The only thing that could sway would be if the Shiites
who hold power, beg Nancy to keep up the funding.

If they still require U.S security to keep the Sunnis
from winning the all-out civil war (or whatever the
media is calling it today), the time to make their
case is now, and the person they need to impress
is Nancy.

Bush and his pentagon pals are, or should be, merely
pawns in this game.

This could be the endgame beginning; let's hope.

goldenponderbob

[DosEquis]

Its nice of him to call a meeting. I would be impressed if they made a deal, some sort of compromise such as removing some/most of the pork that is not military related, maybe changing up the criteria for the time table put in there.

I have a feeling it is going to turn into him pitching his same shit he has been talking for 2 months now. Then after the meeting he is going to say SEE I TRIED BIPARTISANSHIP when they don't agree and he doesnt get what he wants.

[grembert]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Its nice of him to call a meeting. I would be impressed if they made a deal, some sort of compromise such as removing some/most of the pork that is not military related, maybe changing up the criteria for the time table put in there.

I have a feeling it is going to turn into him pitching his same shit he has been talking for 2 months now. Then after the meeting he is going to say SEE I TRIED BIPARTISANSHIP when they don't agree and he doesnt get what he wants.

You might be right. Bush may want to only look like he is compromising. He has more to lose by not compromising than do the Democrats.

I hope the Democrats push the issue of getting the Iraqi government to share the oil wealth - that is one of the reasons for violence on the part of the Sunni.

[SoFlaJDM]

why on earth would bush want to do this? negotiating with the enemy is a