Bush comes up empty -- empty on immigration, empty on Iraq, empty, empty, empty -- total, complete,

Talk about Bush's legacy. Instead of putting his presidential papers

in a library, they'll be filed in a trashcan.

---

Bush Comes Up Empty

By Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, June 13, 2007; 1:28 PM

It used to be that he didn't even have to ask. Republican lawmakers

fell in line behind President Bush, pretty much no matter where he was

heading.

Not anymore. Bush went to Capitol Hill at lunchtime yesterday to

beseech senators from his own party to help him revive the near-dead

immigration bill -- his last best chance at a significant legacy other

than the war in Iraq.

They gave him a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, listened politely,

then sent him home with nothing to show for his efforts.

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "In a rare visit to

Capitol Hill, President Bush pressed Republican senators yesterday to

resurrect the compromise overhaul of the nation's immigration laws,

but many of the senators instead demanded that his administration

first show a more determined commitment to border security. . . .

"He and senior administration officials painted the meeting -- coming

five days after the collapse on the Senate floor of the tenuous

compromise on immigration -- as a rescue session. Bush made an

impassioned plea for the legislation, saying 'the status quo is

unacceptable.' . . .

"Although senators described the meeting as cordial, even jovial, they

also said the president's efforts to rally GOP support did not win any

converts. . . .

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) marveled at the

president's passion and commitment. But, he added: 'We didn't expect

anyone to stand up and holler that they had an epiphany.'

"And, apparently, nobody did."

Nicole Gaouette and Maura Reynolds write in the Los Angeles Times:

"Republican senators on Tuesday told President Bush that his

administration's lack of credibility in the fight against illegal

immigration was a major hindrance to passing overhaul legislation, and

they urged him to ask for emergency funds to ramp up enforcement."

Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny write in the New York Times: "In a trip to

Georgia two weeks ago, Mr. Bush angered critics of the bill when he

suggested opponents were spreading 'empty political rhetoric trying to

frighten our citizens.' But those who attended the lunch said that the

questions to the president and the exchanges were cordial and

substantive and that the president did not take aim at conservatives

who helped torpedo the legislation last week.

"'He made clear that he wasn't there to threaten anybody or do

anything that would be hostile to anybody who disagrees with him,'

said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading opponent of the bill.

'He was there to appeal to our sense of commitment to do the right

thing.'

"But like several others, Mr. Sessions said that he had not been won

over by Mr. Bush and that he would oppose any move to bring the

legislation back quickly for a vote."

David Espo writes for the Associated Press: "One Republican widely

viewed as a potential convert, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, said he

was not yet persuaded. 'At the end of the day, I've got to be able to

sit down and know myself that we are going to secure our border,' he

said. 'Today, I do not feel that way.'"

Stephen Collinson writes for AFP: "Asked whether Bush had made any

breakthroughs, Republican Senator Bob Bennett said simply 'No.'"

David Gergen told NBC's David Gregory: "George W. Bush has reached the

point where he's neither loved nor feared by people in his own party.

And that leaves him in a very weakened state."

Kinder, Gentler, Less Effective

Susan Milligan writes in the Boston Globe: "The president, often

accused of dominating the conversation when lawmakers in both parties

are summoned to the White House to discuss policy, was gracious and

open to hearing senators' concerns, according to those who attended

the luncheon yesterday.

"Instead of using threats or demanding the loyalty the president

prizes, Bush used charm, allowing them to vent their objections and

answering a few questions."

Jay Newton-Small writes for Time: "Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions stood

up at Tuesday's lunch for Senate Republicans and baldly told President

George W. Bush what was wrong with his immigration proposal: it would

give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrations, it would reduce

illegal immigration by only 13%, and it doesn't go far enough to

enforce border security. Bush acknowledged that Sessions, like many

conservative Republicans, has serious issues with the immigration

bill, but he also managed to diffuse the tension over the issue that

has split his party for the last two years. 'Even though we disagree

on this bill, I look forward to being in Alabama,' Bush joked to

Sessions, whose fundraiser the President is due to attend in Alabama

on Friday, and the room burst out laughing."

But did Bush bring anything new to the table? Evidently not.

Newton-Small writes: "Bush spent half his time at lunch listening to

senators like Sessions complain and the other half making an

impassioned plea, telling senators that the immigration problem has

become one of national security. He also told the room about Marc

Mares, the president of the Coast Guard Academy class of 2007, where

Bush delivered commencement remarks on May 23. Even though Mares'

grandfather might well have entered the country illegally, his

grandson was well on his way to a life of distinguished public

service. (It is a story Bush has mentioned in several speeches about

immigration since.)"

Changes in the Making?

Dave Montgomery writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "A bipartisan group

of senators who produced the bill met later Tuesday to discuss a

package of amendments that they hoped would break the deadlock and

persuade Reid to reopen debate.

"Several leaders of the group, known as the 'grand bargainers,'

expressed optimism that they were closing in on agreement and could

get the bill back onto the floor before Congress leaves for its Fourth

of July recess."

Stephen Dinan writes in the Washington Times: "One idea that seemed to

gain immediate traction among the Republicans was for Mr. Bush to send

up a new emergency-spending bill to fund border security.

"'If we're really going to get support for this bill from the American

people there's got to be some restoration of trust,' said Sen. Saxby

Chambliss, Georgia Republican, who sent a letter with fellow Georgia

Republican Johnny Isakson proposing the spending bill. 'There's got to

be some effort shown on the part of the administration before I think

there's going to be a sufficient number of folks deciding to move this

bill forward.' . . .

"'The president said I'm willing to find something that will build

confidence, and so I think that is something that may come as a new

outcome as a result of this conversation,' said Sen. Mel Martinez,

Florida Republican.

"The White House, though open to the idea, was noncommittal.

"'There were some ideas that were raised during the meeting, and the

president and members of his administration will consider them,' said

Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman."

Of course, any major change that makes the deal more palatable to

Republicans risks losing Democratic support.

Poll Watch

Bush's political powerlessness comes into clearer focus when you

consider that, according to many polls, the underlying principles of

the immigration bill are widely supported by the American public. As

unpopular and mistrusted as he is, he can neither twist arms

effectively nor pierce the wall of sound from the nativist noise

machine.

Janet Hook writes in the Los Angeles Times: "A strong majority of

Americans -- including nearly two-thirds of Republicans -- favor

allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines,

learn English and meet other requirements, a new Los Angeles Times/

Bloomberg poll has found.

"That is a striking show of support for a primary element of an

immigration overhaul bill that has stalled in the Senate amid

conservative opposition. . . .

"The immigration bill, a top priority for the White House, is

languishing at a time when Bush's approval rating has hit a new low:

The poll found 34% approved of the job the president is doing, the

lowest level registered by the Los Angeles Times poll throughout his

time in office."

More from the poll results: "Bush's approval numbers remain little

changed from those found in a L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll last April,

but they indicate an overall trend of decline. The strength of

discontent in the country with the president is very high -- the

proportion of those who strongly disapprove of his job as President is

-- at 44% -- nearly three times greater than the proportion of those

who strongly approve. . . .

"Bush has seen the biggest decline in his overall job rating among the

core of his own party -- Republicans and conservatives. His approval

has dropped thirteen points among those who identify with the GOP,

falling from 83% last September to 70% today, while those who

disapprove have correspondingly increased from 13% to nearly a quarter

today."

(Iraq is Bush's biggest albatross; the Times poll finds that a "68%

majority -- including four out of 10 Republicans -- would like to see

troops begin coming home within the next year or sooner.")

Going to the Blogs?

Mike Allen and Carrie Budoff write in the Politico: "Facing the

prospect of an embarrassing defeat, the White House has developed a

plan to save the immigration bill by trying to ratchet up outside

pressure on Congress, prodding reluctant corporate allies to be more

vocal and confronting conservative critics through blogs and talk

radio.

"The White House has done outreach to liberal religious and Hispanic

groups and, at the suggestion of chief political strategist Karl Rove,

made more use of the blogosphere on immigration than it has on any

issue since President Bush took office, aides said. . . .

"Aides said it was Rove's idea to focus on blogs. After vetting by

policy experts, responses have been posted on a wide range of blogs

under the names of Kerrie Rushton and Nicholas Thompson, both

associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives, which

falls under Rove's domain."

Subpoena Time

Dan Eggen and Paul Kane report for The Washington Post: "The House and

Senate Judiciary panels issued subpoenas today for former White House

counsel Harriet Miers and others, escalating the legal showdown

between Democrats in Congress and the Bush administration over the

Justice Department's firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

"The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for testimony and

documents from Miers, while the Senate Judiciary panel issued

subpoenas demanding the same from Sara M. Taylor, former White House

political director. Both panels also issued separate subpoenas for

White House documents related to the dismissals.

"'By refusing to cooperate with congressional committees, the White

House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation,' said

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate panel. 'The

White House cannot have it both ways -- it cannot stonewall

congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and

witnesses while claiming nothing improper occurred.'"

The subpoenas come a day after newly released Justice Department

documents revealed more about Taylor and Miers's involvement in the

firings.

Eggen writes in the Washington Post: "Several high-ranking White House

officials were closely involved in crafting a public response to the

uproar over the firing of a group of U.S. attorneys, according to

documents released late yesterday.

"Then-White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and aides to presidential

adviser Karl Rove were deeply enmeshed in debates over how to respond

to the controversy as early as mid-January, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein

(D-Calif.) questioned the spate of prosecutor departures in a Senate

floor speech, according to e-mails that the Justice Department turned

over to the House and Senate judiciary committees. . . .

"The 46 pages of e-mails show that Miers and others -- including her

deputy, William Kelley, and the White House political affairs director

at the time, Sara M. Taylor -- were involved in spirited and sometimes

angry e-mail exchanges as the secretive firings operation began to

unravel in public. Many of the exchanges also included D. Kyle

Sampson, who coordinated the firings as Gonzales's chief of staff.

"White House officials appeared to be particularly concerned about the

political fallout over the firing of prosecutor Bud Cummins of Little

Rock, who was replaced by Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide. On Feb. 16,

for example, Taylor sharply criticized the testimony of Deputy

Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, who had told the Senate Judiciary

Committee that Cummins was removed to make way for Griffin. The

subject line of the e-mails read: 'McNulty Strikes Again.'"

Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor write for McClatchy Newspapers: "'Tim

was put in a horrible position; hung out to dry w/ no heads up,'

Taylor lashed out in the e-mail, which was sent from a Republican

Party account rather than from her White House e-mail address. 'This

is not good for his long-term career.'"

Bush and the Law

Jess Bravin writes in the Wall Street Journal: "The Bush

administration's effort to create a separate legal system for the war

on terrorism may be foundering.

"Consistent resistance from the U.S. legal establishment has led to

court rulings against the government in a series of cases over the

past three years involving enemy combatants held both on the American

mainland and the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As a result, the

approach promoted by President Bush may not outlast his presidency.

What to do with some 385 detainees now in Guantanamo may be one of the

first questions -- along with how to handle the Iraq war -- that a new

president will have to tackle in January 2009.

"Skeptical civilian and military courts, using language both sweeping

and technical, have blocked the government's contention that to fight

terrorism the president can invoke military powers that supersede

traditional legal protections. None of these setbacks has resulted in

the immediate release of prisoners, but they raise questions about the

long-term viability of the legal regime."

Bravin traces the problem back to "a tactical decision, made soon

after 9/11, in which the administration chose not to ask Congress for

permission to try alleged terrorists before military tribunals or

indefinitely detain Americans arrested at home. Instead, the

administration asserted that such powers were inherently assigned to

the president by the Constitution. . . .

"Since 9/11, the president has argued that fighting terrorism is like

fighting a war: As commander in chief of the armed forces, the

president has irreducible authority to direct troops on the

battlefield, which the administration argued includes related powers,

such as the detention, interrogation and military trial of enemy

prisoners. Yet unlike conventional war, the terrorist threat means the

battlefield is everywhere -- in the cities and suburbs of the U.S. as

much as in Afghanistan. Thus, the administration believed, the

president could treat a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago as if he were

an armed guerrilla attacking American forces overseas."

Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times that the administration

adopted the position "that supporters of Al Qaeda represented a novel

sort of threat and required a new approach. They are neither soldiers

nor civilians, the administration said, and the president should be

entitled to have the military detain them indefinitely whether they

are captured abroad or in the United States."

But there was another way.

"Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra who represents men held

at Guantanamo, said it was nonsensical and counterproductive to go to

war against a group of terrorists. He offered an analogy.

"'The Colombian drug cartel has airplanes and bombs and boats, and it

shoots down American airplanes,' Professor Freedman said. 'They're

criminals. You can't go to war against the Colombian drug cartel. If

you could, then when they shot down an American military airplane,

they wouldn't be guilty of anything. They'd have combat immunity.'

"Supporters of the administration say that analogies like that are not

only na