Battle Over President's Budget Begins Today; Interview With John Edwards
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: To our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, and it's happening right now. As violence rages in Iraq, the battle over the president's budget begins here in Washington today. It could and probably will pour billions more into the war. Would it also hurt health care at home? I'll speak about that with the Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may battle for the African- American voters. But some African-Americans are warning don't take our votes for granted. I'll speak about that with the Reverend Al Sharpton this hour. And Arnold Schwarzenegger caught on tape with more stunning revelations. What did he say this time? I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. What can you buy for about $3 trillion? The president's new budget is now out and it takes four hefty volumes to show you where your money is going. The president's budget would add billions to fight the war in Iraq. Does that come at the expense of social programs here at home? Democrats say it's filled with debt and deception. And even some Republicans are betting against this budget's chances in a Democratic controlled Congress. Let's go live to our White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux. She's checking all the fine print -- Suzanne.</s>SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's a budget that the president and his top economic advisers say is more detailed and transparent when it comes to the costs of the war on terror. But, again, it is a big question whether or not it is going to be able to pass Congressional leadership, a Democratically-controlled Congress. And, Wolf, the numbers are really staggering.</s>MALVEAUX (voice-over): It's our money and President Bush wants to spend almost $3 trillion of it. It's a staggering figure that's hard for any of us to imagine. But consider this. After you crunch all of the numbers, it's estimated that the total cost for the war on terror will approach $800 billion within the next two years. President Bush says the increases he's seeking in the new budget are justified.</s>GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs.</s>MALVEAUX: The breakdown -- more than $93 billion additional for this year's war operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of $70 billion already approved. More than $140 billion for 2008. And an 11 percent increase in the Pentagon budget. Mr. Bush insists the country can afford to boost military spending, while balancing the budget in five years without raising taxes, a claim members of Congress, now controlled by the Democrats, quickly dismissed.</s>SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: That's why I say this budget is a combination of deception and debt in a way that's disconnected from reality.</s>REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The day of the blank check for the president and the war is over.</s>MALVEAUX: The president's budget aims at paying for the military increases by cutting out more than $95 billion in other areas over the next five years, including sharply reducing or eliminating more than 140 government programs, for a savings of $12 billion; and squeezing $78 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid, health programs for the elderly and poor.</s>ROB PORTMAN, WHITE HOUSE BUDGET DIRECTOR: Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, they are now more than half of the budget. And what the president proposes is actually less than a 1 percentage point reduction in Medicare over five or 10 years.</s>MALVEAUX: And the president's budget, of course, asks for less war costs, considerably, in 2009, just $50 billion, and asks for no money the following year. But the president says this is no indication of a timetable for the end of the war or for bringing American troops home -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Numbers so huge it's amazing. Suzanne, thank you. Meanwhile, a series of bloody bombings ripped through Baghdad today, killing at least 35 people and wounding more than 120 others. One of the blasts went off near a children's hospital, killing nine people. And this follows a truck bombing which took a terrible toll this weekend. As Iraqis clean up and try to cope, some are saying it's America's fault. And joining us now, our correspondent in Baghdad, Michael Ware -- Michael, they seem to be blaming, at least some elements in the Iraqi government, the United States for this massacre over the weekend that killed more than 100 Iraqis, wounded more than 300 others, horrendous pictures. It looks like the worst suicide bombing over the past three and-a-half years. What's going on?</s>MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, I mean this was a massive truck bomb in a crowded marketplace on Saturday evening that killed at least 128, and, as you say, wounded more than 300. Now, the great irony is that there's elements, Shia elements within the government, that are blaming the U.S. for creating this security situation or poor security situation that they say has created an environment that is allowing al Qaeda and others to launch these attacks. This feeds a common conspiracy, particularly among Shia, that says America is so all powerful and all pervasive, al Qaeda could not conduct these bombings if America was not complicit. We're not hearing that echoed in the wake of this bombing by elements of this government.</s>BLITZER: Because what they're saying is by the United States pressuring the Iraqi government to clamp down on Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, in effect, that's making the Shiites in these marketplace areas and elsewhere in Baghdad, even more vulnerable.</s>WARE: Yes, they're arguing that this has increased the Shia public's exposure. I mean the government has never been able to underwrite people's security, nor has the U.S. military. So more and more in these days of civil war, they've turned to their own neighborhood or to the local militias. Now, what these people are saying is that on the eve of what's perceived as a massive American led operation, which, indeed, it is not, many of these militias have evaporated, or their leadership has taken its troops or its fighters off the streets, thereby creating a vacuum which is being filled by these bombers. Hence, they ultimately blame America for these deaths.</s>BLITZER: Michael Ware reporting for us from Baghdad. Michael, thanks.</s>WARE: Thank you, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: And as opposition to the war intensifies among the American public, there's a stunning new development within the U.S. military. A court-martial began today for a U.S. Army officer who refused to ship out with his unit to Iraq. Let's get some details from our Brian Todd -- Brian.</s>BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, First Lieutenant Ehren Watada took a stand about seven months ago. He's now facing a jury likely to comprise young officers like himself in a case that even his family doesn't expect to go well for him.</s>TODD (voice-over): As his former unit takes casualties in Iraq, Ehren Watada puts his freedom on the line at Fort Lewis, Washington. Watada, considered an exemplary soldier until last June, when he became the first commissioned officer to refuse to go to Iraq. The reason? 1</s>ST LT. EHREN WATADA, U.S. ARMY: It is my conclusion that war is not only morally wrong, but is, in fact, illegal.</s>TODD: Watada is not a so-called conscientious objector. While he believes the Iraq War is illegal, he did say he was willing to fight in Afghanistan. The Army declined and Watada is now being court-martialed for failing to deploy with his unit, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials. That last charge, for all the public statements he's made against the Bush administration since last June.</s>WATADA: I felt betrayed by my leadership.</s>TODD: But the judge has already ruled that Watada's central defense, that the war is illegal, is a political question and can't be ruled on by this military court. Then there's the challenge of jury selection. By rule, it has to be a panel of peers, likely Army lieutenants.</s>EUGENE FIDELL, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MILITARY JUSTICE: It's highly improbable that this jury will include no one who's been there. So I think the jury selection is going to be an interesting exercise because obviously it's a concern if you have people who have had the actual experience to go to Iraq.</s>TODD: The case has made Watada a poster boy for the anti-war movement, some of whom are protesting near Fort Lewis as his trial gets underway.</s>TODD: But Watada is said to be resented by some inside Fort Lewis, where he held a desk job until recently. His family tells CNN they expect this court-martial to be over by Thursday. If convicted, he could face four years in a military prison -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: We'll watch it together with you, Brian. Thanks very much. Let's go to New York and Jack Cafferty -- this is going to be a big case at Fort Lewis up in Washington.</s>CAFFERTY: I don't think it's going to be that big a deal. When you're wearing the uniform, you're not allowed to decide whether the war you're ordered to fight in is moral or not. You follow your orders and you go where your unit goes and that's just the way the military -- I mean how would it be if every soldier was allowed to say well, I'll fight in Afghanistan, but I won't fight in Iraq, or I'll go here but I don't think I should go there, because I don't like the way those people -- I mean that's nonsense. He's dead. Senate rebuke on Iraq is loud and unclear. That's how one newspaper headline put the story today. The Senate spending all of this time talking about these resolutions criticizing President Bush's plans to escalate the war in Iraq. Republicans are threatening to block the vote. One Democrat calls that threat obstructionism and they just blather on and on and on. But when it comes right down to it, all this debate and fussing are about non-binding resolutions. They really don't mean anything in terms of the conduct of the war. They're just sort of a way to register a complaint. President Bush is the commander-in-chief. The country is at war. He's probably within his rights to do pretty much whatever he wants in terms of adding troops, withdrawing troops, moving troops, whatever. He is the commander-in-chief. In the meantime, the hopes of a new Congress coming in, getting right to work on this nation's problems, are being held captive by these resolutions, just like the entire country has been held captive by this war for almost four years now. Nothing that's important to our citizens here is being addressed. Instead, we get posturing and speechifying and bloviating or, as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. The question is this -- how important is it for the Senate to pass a resolution opposing President Bush's troop increase plan in Iraq? E-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile -- Wolf, whatever they're going to do, I wish they would just get on with it.</s>BLITZER: Usually they don't do it that quickly here in Washington. It takes a lot of time.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. We'll wait.</s>BLITZER: Jack, thank you.</s>CAFFERTY: All right.</s>BLITZER: Still to come, my interview with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. I'll ask him about his call for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, his ambitious health care plan and raising your taxes. That's coming up. Also, with a growing roster of Democratic candidates, are African-Americans facing a growing divide, especially when it comes to frontrunners like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Former presidential candidate Al Sharpton, he's stopping by live right here in THE SITUATION ROOM to talk about it. And a massive slaughter underway right now as Britain tries to contain Europe's huge outbreak of bird flu. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.