Also see below:     
Transcript of Bush Speech    [

    House OKs Subpoenas for Top Bush Aides
    By Laurie Kellman
    The Associated Press

    Wednesday 21 March 2007

    A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

    By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

    The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.

    "The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

    "There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

    The panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.

    The panel also voted to compel the production of documents related to the firings from those officials and Gonzales, Fielding and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton. Fielding a day earlier refused to provide Congress internal White House communications on the subject.

    The full Judiciary Committee would authorize the subpoenas if Chairman John Conyers of Michigan chose to do so.

    The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

    Authorizing the subopenas "does provide this body the leverage needed to negotiate from a position of strenghth," said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.

    Republicans called the authorization premature, though some GOP members said they would consider voting to approve the subpoenas if Conyers promises to issue them only if he has evidence of wrongdoing.

    Conyers agreed. "This (authority) will not be used in a way that will make you regret your vote."

    Several Republicans said, "No" during the voice vote, but no roll call was taken.

    For his part, Bush remained resolute.

    Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

    "Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday.

    Democrats promptly rejected the threat. The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to approve subpoenas for the same officials on Thursday.

    "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

    Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.

    If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court - ultimately the Supreme Court - in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

    Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel's former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.

    "It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.

    Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

    "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

    Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

    "He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

    Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

    But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

    The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

    In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

    Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

    "What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.

    The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Bush's desk.

    In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times, one of the eight, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "I appreciate his gratitude for my service - this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me."

 

---

    Transcript of Bush Speech
    t r u t h o u t | Transcript

    Tuesday 20 March 2007

    President Bush: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms. The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing, and in some cases incomplete. Neither the attorney general nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We're determined to correct the problem.

    Today I am also announcing the following steps my administration is taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the Congress.

    First, the attorney general and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons.

    Second, we're giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S attorneys.

    In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department has provided the Congress more than 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department documents, including those reflecting direct communications with White House staff. This in itself is an extraordinary level of disclosure of an internal agency and White House communications.

    Third, I recognize there's significant interest in the role the White House played in resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The president relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.

    Yet in this case I recognize the importance of members of Congress having - the importance Congress have placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts.

    In addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and e-mails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff, related to this issue.

    These extraordinary steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.

    Initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available.

    I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

    If we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it's important to maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term.

    The start of a second term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the idea was rejected and was not pursued.

    Second, it is common for me, members of my staff and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties and from other citizens, and we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud causes, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.

    I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who've resigned. I appreciate your service to the country, and while I strongly support the attorney general's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle. Now my hope (is) that the United States Congress will act appropriately. My administration has made a very reasonable proposal.

    It's not too late for Democrats to drop the partisanship and work together. Democrats now have to choose whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business.

    There's too many important issues, from funding our troops to comprehensive immigration reform to balancing the budget, for us to accomplish on behalf of the American people.

    Thank you for your time. Now I'll answer a couple of questions.

    Deb.

    Question: Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?

    Bush: Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've - (chuckles) - I've put forth a reasonable proposal for people to be comfortable with the decisions and how they were made. How Gonzales and his team will be testifying - we have made available people on my staff to be interviewed, and we've made an unprecedented number of documents available.

    Question: So you're convinced personally?

    Bush: There's no indication whatsoever after reviews by the White House staff that anybody did anything improper.

    Mike.

    Question: Is today's offer from Mr. Fielding your best and final offer on this? Are you going to go to the mat in protecting the principle that you talked about? And why not, you know, since you say nothing wrong was done by your staff, why not just clear the air and let Karl Rove and other senior aids testify in public under oath?

    Bush: Well -

    Question: There has been a precedent for previous administrations doing that.

    Bush: Some have; some haven't. My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for presidents to get good decisions.

    Michael, I'm worried about precedents that would make it difficult for somebody to walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here's what's on my mind. And if you haul somebody up in front of Congress and put them in oath and, you know, all the klieg lights and all the questioning, it - to me, it makes it very difficult for a president to get good advice.

    On the other hand, I understand there is a need for information- sharing on this, and I put forth what I thought was rational proposal. And the proposal I put forward is the proposal.

    Question: And then you'll go to the mat. You'll take this to court then.

    Bush: Absolutely. I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. If they truly are interested in information - in other words, if they want to find out what went on between the White House and the Justice Department, they need to read all the emails we released. If they're truly interested in finding out what took place, I have proposed a way for them to find out what took place.

    My concern is they would rather be involved with, you know, partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points.

    And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one, and I mean it really is a way for people to get information. We'll just find out what's on their mind.

    Kelly O?

    Question: Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were actively investigating Republicans: in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly impeded or stopped those investigations?

    And, sir, if I may also ask about the attorney general. He does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective?

    Bush: Mm-hm. Yeah, he's got support with me. I support the attorney general. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him; I still do. He's going to go up to Capitol Hill and he's going to explain the very thing - questions you asked.

    You know, I've heard all these allegations and rumors, and people just need to hear the truth. And they're going to go up and explain the truth.

    Question: In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations and those U.S. attorneys were removed.

    Does that not give the appearance -

    Bush: Well, I - it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts and let them explain to you. It's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

    Listen. First of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. I named them all. And the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted, that eight of the 93 would no longer serve. And they will go up and make the explanations as to why.

    I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are - I put them in there in the first place. They're decent people. They - you know, they serve at our pleasure. And yet now they're being held up in the - to the scrutiny of all this.

    And it's just - what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it got. But that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.

    And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in an open forum for everybody to see.

    If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points or to, you know, put the klieg lights out there, which will harm the president's ability to get good information, Michael, is - is - is - is - is - I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate. And if information is the desire, there's a great way forward. If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be - will really be evident for the American people to see.

    Listen, thank you, all, for your interest.