Reid Dismisses Warner/Lugar Iraq Measure As Toothless
Harry Reid spokesperson Jim Manley just emailed me a response to the amendment introduced today by GOP Senators John Warner and Dick Lugar that asks the President to come up with an Iraq plan by the end of this year:
Senator Reid appreciates these two former Chairmen coming forward and expressing their clear discontent with the Administration’s policies in Iraq.They clearly recognize there is no purely military solution in Iraq and that the war, on its current course, is making this nation less secure.
But they put a lot of faith in the President that he will voluntarily change course and voluntarily begin to reduce the large U.S. combat footprint in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Senator Reid is not as confident in the President’s willingness to change course voluntarily. In the fifth year of the war, we need strong legislation that compels the President to change course, change the mission, and begin the reduction of U.S. troops. That’s what Reed/Levin does. It is binding legislation, and that is the approach he prefers.
That's what we've been saying.
But is Reid going to keep the Senate in session until McConnell "lets" them vote on Levin-Reed? Keep the debate going and force the GOP to defned Bush and his toxic war? Postpone the vote until after the recess if he's not willing to cancel the recess?
Or when McConnell stamps his little foot and says "no vote" is Reid just going to have another futile cloture vote? Ask him that. I'm looking for some teeth here.
July 13, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It's a reverse Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where the Senate must stay in session, repeat the same motion, till the media start to report about it. Once public attention is drawn to the filibuster tactics of the Republicans, the senators know their constituents are watching, and must agree to a vote. The polls are so clear on public desire for action and disapproval for the war, the Dems can't loose, unless they do it to themselves.
July 13, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if anyone knows "toothless," it's Harry Reid. Frankly, I'm surprised he finally got one right.
July 13, 2007 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid knows a whole hell of a lot more about how Congress functions, and how to get things done, than do you.
I'm tired of you politically-illiterate twits gratuitously bashing the Democrats, as if the Congress consists only of Democrats.
The foot-draggers, those who are obstructing, are not the Democrats. If you must bash -- which is stupid in any event -- then do it to the foot-dragging, obstructive REPUBLICANS.
July 14, 2007 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
None of this fighting makes any sense to me. The president vetoed the last funding bill Congress sent to him. So they sent him another one? Why didn't they just let the veto stand? What's wrong with letting the president de-fund his own stupid war?
At any rate, we should be talking very seriously about impeachment now. Once Bush and Cheney have been impeached, many of America's problems will be far simpler to sort out.
July 14, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on. Harry Reid is as close to worthless as you can get.
"If you must bash -- which is stupid in any event..."
"I'm tired of you politically-illiterate twits..."
Bashing is OK when you do it, though, right?
July 14, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Per hrebendorf: "Why didn't they just let the veto stand? What's wrong with letting the president de-fund his own stupid war?"
That is precisely why so many of us are critical of the Majority Leader...even though, at the same time, we all realize the limitations imposed by Senate rules and a razor-thin (to non-existent) majority..
I think Reid should have been more vocal about the President's oft-voiced threat to VETO the funding bill before the Congress acted by countering his every speech with a threat that if he (Bush) used the Veto, he was thwarting the will of the American voters and was guilty of putting U.S. troops in a hazardous situation.
He should have served notice that a 'veto' would mean no more funding bill and stuck with it.
July 15, 2007 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
And, another thing, hrebendorf, RE impeachment...I am 110-percent in favor of making Pelosi the first woman to serve as President of the USA...BUT, if we can not get enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto, how do you suggest we could convince the 2/3 of Senators needed to convict on impeachment.
The 'little king' and his top crony are revelling in that fact, and, 'w' loves to 'rub' Reid's nose in it over such impotence. Don't you think it shows in the smirk's every public appearance?
July 15, 2007 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Thought I had already asked, but don't see it in the previously posted comments...
Mr. Sargent's story is headed "...Warner/Levin..." shouldn't that be referring to "WARNER/LUGAR" instead?
Or, otherwise, what am I missing?
July 15, 2007 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take your mind off conviction for a second and imagine the wondrous spectacle of a trial of Dubya and Dirty Dick.
Do you really think this pair's virtues would come out of such a trial unimpaired? How would the defenders look you think?
Ahh to dream of such a thing.
Best, Terry
July 15, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink