The Tuesday Group: Progress in Iraq or Else

I feel the excitement.

The New York Times breathlessly reports on a White House meeting between "moderate Republicans" and President Bush.

The "moderates" gave Bush warning that things better improve in Iraq or else -- meaning that he can no longer count on their support if definitive signs of progress aren't seen soon.

It's the moment the libs have been waiting for. Until now, they could only count on the likes of Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith to turn their backs on Bush and to strongly oppose a strategy for victory in Iraq.

According to The Times, that's changing. The "moderates" put Bush on notice that they're ready to jump ship.

WASHINGTON, May 9 -- Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.

“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”

Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.

Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.

So what really happened?

It was a session for the Tuesday Group to vent and to threaten that their patience was about to run out.

OK, fine.

But for now, the "moderates" said they will "maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush."

In effect, nothing has changed substantially. This meeting wasn't like when Richard Nixon was told that Republicans had abandoned him.

I think The Times wants to paint this meeting as a similar turning point.

I don't know that it is.

Perhaps one could consider it a turning point that points toward the possibility of reaching a turning point. At present, there's still a ways to go before arriving at that stage.

Of course, the libs would like this meeting with exchanges of frank and candid information and opinions to indicate that President Bush is isolated from his allies. They'd like that because it would be politically advantageous for them, putting party and personal power ahead of country.

White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. “The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a “persistent push” by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.

What's the big deal about congressmen being honest with President Bush?

I believe that Bush did welcome the feedback. Is that so hard to believe?

The lib media and the Dems like to depict Bush and his inner circle as increasingly alienated from their party and the rest of the country. They're especially thrilled to cite fissures within the Republican Party.

They like to stress that Bush's approval rating is as bad as Jimmy Carter's, one of the worst presidents the country has ever known.

In effect, the Dems and their mouthpieces in the lib media are rooting for Bush to fail and, subsequently, for THE COUNTRY to be defeated. They are hoping for things to go poorly in Iraq. They're seeking a surrender strategy.

How twisted!

...While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, “if we pulled out all the stops.”

...Senators vigorously questioned Mr. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Pentagon’s announcement on Tuesday of potentially mobilizing 35,000 more troops by December. Mr. Gates said the decision to send those forces to Iraq was not “foreordained,” adding that a decision would be made after the September review.

“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.

It's a blessing that Specter and his impatient buddies weren't in office during World War II.

If they had been, they probably would have wanted to surrender in that war, too.

If these so-called "moderate Republicans" join the defeatist Dems and do abandon the President, then the Left will have plenty to celebrate -- a humanitarian disaster in Iraq and the region, an emboldened victorious enemy, and a greater likelihood of terrorism at home.

Who would want to be part of the Tuesday Group if that's what it eventually achieves?
__________________________

President Bush promises another veto if the Dems fail to send him a clean funding bill.

WASHINGTON -- As Democratic leaders feud with the White House on Iraq war spending, lawmakers from both parties are working quietly to break the impasse.

So far, no luck.

Of the dozen or so members in Congress attempting to strike a bipartisan compromise on the war, few have come forward with concrete plans — perhaps out of reluctance to champion a proposal until they know it can succeed. None of the proposals put in plain view have picked up steam.

"We'll see what happens," said Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala. "A lot of us are coming together across the aisle. We're under the radar now, but we're meeting."

In the meantime, House members will vote Thursday on a new Iraq bill hotly contested by the White House, opposed by nearly all Republicans and unlikely to survive in the Senate.