Harry Reid: No, We Won't Compromise With GOP On Iraq
This is coming a bit out of nowhere. Via Atrios, Harry Reid is now throwing down the gauntlet on Iraq:
After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.
"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.
By declaring this, Reid is pulling back a public comment made by Levin on Monday, in which he suggested that he'd be willing to drop the date-certain in his proposal in exchange for some Republican support. As the AP explains, "Reid's hardline stance reflects a calculation by Democrats that Levin's proposal probably would have failed either way."
Reid got off a pretty good line, too. Speaking of the continued support his colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to give to Bush's war, he joked: "I think they've decided definitely they want this to be the Senate Republicans' war, not just Bush's. They're jealous."
Comments (21)
P J Evans wrote on September 18, 2007 6:10 PM:Reid is still not together on this. He apparently wants one of those unanimous-consent agreements that the GOoPers have suckered him with before. From a comment by pow wow at FireDogLake:
Much more importantly, Harry Reid also just stated that he has directed the floor staffs of both parties to work to create a “sidetrack” unanimous consent agreement for Iraq-related bills that would thus not be made a part of, or amended to, the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. The aim would be, Reid said, to agree to a “finite number” of Democratic Iraq bills and an equal number of Republican Iraq bills (whether 60 votes will be required for passage of each bill may also be a part of the UC being negotiated, I assume, but Reid didn’t say).
Reid indicated that only if agreement on such a “sidetrack” UC is not reached, will Iraq bills be offered as amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill itself. The Republicans, of course, have every incentive to reach the “sidetrack” agreement Harry Reid is so helpfully offering them, so that the powerful leverage that the Defense Authorization Bill represents will not be available to the Democrats [leverage in anticipation of a veto by Bush if the Democrats get any Iraq amendments added to that bill, by forcing Bush to veto the overall, massive Defense Authorization bill in order to stop individual amendments - rather than picking them off one by one, as a “sidetrack” UC will allow].
This is the course of action Reid telegraphed last Wednesday to a reporter, and it is now being implemented, if not actually a done deal.
Mitch Gore wrote on September 18, 2007 6:22 PM:Great, so the side-track UC agreements will be meaningless and Bush gets his blank-check in the Defense bill. Great. Way to get hustled again Reid.
john mccutchen wrote on September 18, 2007 6:48 PM:Give em hell Harry!
The GOP was never going to compromise and anti-war Dems would never accept a compromise Republicans might agree to
Could there be some new polling data out there?
Or is Reid just trying to toy with everyone?
Gray wrote on September 18, 2007 7:04 PM:Even Beltway pundits are almost united in their view that Dems have no spine. Maybe Harry just read some newspapers.
JEP wrote on September 18, 2007 7:09 PM:Comments at TPM!!!
Wow, my bad week just turned around.
JMHO, (Ok, so I've never had a humble opinion) Reid's hardline stance may also be a reflection of the latest polls that say Bush's support and Petraeus' credibility both took a three point hit in response to Petboy's anemic stage production.
Only in the deepest red areas did Bush get a bump, but that self-deluded bunch are so desperate for good news, they will grasp at any straw they are offered.
The recent resignation announcements give a great deal of validity to the assumption that "they" all know something we don't. And as that worm turns, and the polls unveil the turning, we will see our Democratic leaders takng advantage of the changes.
Just watch Leahy. He's the fulcrum it is all tilting on, Reid is just the voice of it. Leahy is the balance.
And his slowly unfolding process is beginning to pay off.
I find it very curious how many "them weak-kneed Dems" comments have proliferated on the blogs lately. we had an honest batch of Dmeocratic Party critics before the last election, and they had every right to conmplain about the way the Dems failed to hold the Republicans accountable.
But this new batch of crybabies seem much more like Republicans trying to be evil geniuses.
I don't know about the rest of the lurkers around here, but they aren't fooling me.
Since when do beltway poundits say anything we agree with?
Boy howdy, that was a good one.
Gregg wrote on September 18, 2007 7:33 PM:No mystery. Everyone came back from a weekend home and said, "My folks are still mad as hell, maybe madder."
On the Clock wrote on September 18, 2007 7:59 PM:I still think the bigger turnaround this week (so far) has been Salazar's. Soldiers on the ground in Iraq were asking him to defund the war. He wouldn't have given this a whole lotta thought if were grunts saying this. Officers must have been telling him this, too. Four years and three tours without enough troops, equipment or a central government to fight for will do that to a person.
Mitch Gore wrote on September 18, 2007 8:14 PM:
"JEP wrote on September 18, 2007 7:09 PM:
I find it very curious how many "them weak-kneed Dems" comments have proliferated on the blogs lately. we had an honest batch of Dmeocratic Party critics before the last election, and they had every right to conmplain about the way the Dems failed to hold the Republicans accountable.
But this new batch of crybabies seem much more like Republicans trying to be evil geniuses."
ROFL. Take the tinfoil off JEP. Many of us Democratic activists WITHIN the party are plenty peeved over legitmate things like the FISA capitulation bill, the BlueDog dems constantly screwing the party and the nation over, etc.
The is a HUGE segment of the party rank and file who have legitimate reasons why we are peeved at the like of courage in Congress. The folding on the DoD funding veto several months ago is a perfect example. Why didn't they send the same bill back and make every GOPer and Bush vote against it and veto it again and again?
Joel Patterson wrote on September 18, 2007 8:32 PM:Atta boy, Harry.
Let's make Susan Collins and John Sununu vote to fund this damned war, again and again and again.
The Democratic leaders who can get us out of this war will earn my undying support for years to come.
I've been half expecting this. It seemed to me like Reid just went to too much trouble to set up a fight this month (staging that all-night debate last summer then using it as a pretext to pull the defense appropriations bill from the floor) to turn around and not have one. So I kind of figured the initial show of conciliation could be a lot about being able to say "Hey, we tried," if Republicans wouldn't budge. Of course there was always a chance, albeit a small one, that some middle ground might actually be found -- may still be, for that matter. So the timing could have something to do with Warner withdrawing support for Webb's bill or some other similar development that hasn't made the news.
Anyway I wouldn't completely rule out that some sort of compromise might still be in the offing. But I do imagine that we'll get something out of the deal, one way or another, however it plays out.
Candyce wrote on September 18, 2007 9:04 PM:I have to think he was looking for compromise behind the scenes after vacation and it just wasn't happening. That snark of his at the end indicates to me he finally just said, "screw 'em." I have always understood that the fragile majority had to be weighed against the wishes of the constituents, and if compromise could be found, or if the Republicans would come around, there had to be time to seek that. Obviously, that was never going to happen. Perhaps we knew that, but I think it was still his job to at least try to find the common ground. Something happened in the last couple of days to make Reid finally give up on compromise and use his muscle.
Captain Nemo wrote on September 18, 2007 9:50 PM:It is still not clear why the Democrats are working so hard to get a compromise, or a funding bill. They are in the catbird seat. All they have to do is wait and let the Bush administration come to them with a request for continued funding of the Iraq war. Then they can lay down their pre-conditions.
It is the Bush administration that should be seeking a compromise.
In view of all the resignations from the Bush administration, and announcements by Republicans in Congress that they will not seek re-election, it is hard to see why the Democrats are so weak.
oleeb wrote on September 19, 2007 10:24 AM:I don't trust anything that comes out of Reid's mouth. Why? Look at his track record. It is nothing but one compromise favoring the Republicans after capitulation followed by surrender.
Has anyone noticed that all the articles about how Democrats are deciding what to do are filled with words describing how the D's want it all to "look" as opposed what their convictions are about anything or what they intend to achieve other than appearances?
Until I see something different occur I will consider this latest dance by Reid nothing but more posturing in advance of the inevitable surrender by an impotent leader and a pack of Democrats who don't have any courage or convictions they are willing to fight for. I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen it too many times to believe things will be different now. This is why Congress' approval ratings are worse than Bush's. At least he has the balls to proceed on his belief (twisted and odious as it is).
CK MacLeod wrote on September 19, 2007 11:35 AM:Like the rest of the more experienced Dem politicians, Reid acts as though he's as blind to the consequences of his surrender proposals as the far left of the party (and commenters here), but he'd much rather hold onto the wasting asset of war opposition than actually find himself, along with the rest of the party, actually being held responsible for the aftermath of ceding the field to the extremists and Iran.
He's seen polls rise and fall, knows as well as anyone how polls and poll results can be spun, and also has his eye on the "told-you-so" and "will-tell-you-so" questions, as opposed to the generalized "do you like peace and love or war and hatred?" main questions. In other words, expect another month or so of time-wasting deliberations just for show, another political operation at which Harry Reid is truly a master.
colonpowwow wrote on September 19, 2007 12:20 PM:CK MacLeod
Nobody I've ever talked to on "the far left" as you put it, is in any way blind to the inevitable conseqences of "Bush's ill-advised, bungled, and now unwinnable attempt at an imperialistic power grab" as I put it.
We've opened the gates of Hell there, and only a new approach led by diplomatic-minded pols on both sides of the aisle has any chance of making this mess turn out in any sense reasonable. Where are the diplomatic-minded people from the extreme right? Or even in the Republican Party.
Well, maybe one more election where their Republican azzez are handed to them and the war industry syncopants across the aisle won't even be necessary.
Oh, and nice try at applying the Fox News spin of the Dems trying to lead the limiting of our losses to "surrender." What a tiresome "insight" that is.
CK MacLeod wrote on September 19, 2007 12:53 PM:"Diplomatic-minded pols on both sides of the aisle" are going to flick which particular "reasonable" switch? That's not a plan, a program, or a responsible position, it's a vague fantasy of the kind that finds a home in the schizo-political zone where there's no difference between the situation in Iraq now and 12 months ago, no likely difference between Iraq and the region under current conditions vs the wake of a US retreat, and where the same region was a happy 3rd world paradise of no compelling interest to anyone else until BushCo came to power.
For now, the Democrats remain virtually irrelevant except to the extent to which they make things harder, and they like it that way. It frees them to engage in absurd and jaw-droppingly hypocritical political theater that appears to entertain some large section of their base, but his minimal or no connection to anything they'll ever have to take responsibility for.
colonpowwow wrote on September 19, 2007 1:11 PM:I share your cynicism about most politicians blinded and in the throes of the imminent ascension to their desired 2008 plum.
That said, I must quibble with your revisionist history. The Democrats immediately endorsed the ISG (Baker-Hamilton) Plan(made by the committee Rudy ducked out on) five days after it was presented (by Howard Dean on the DNC website). It is, by any definition, "a plan." Warts and all, it is still as good a politically acceptable solution as has been put forth to date.
Bush is the one who torpedoed it (despite 70% public approval for it) and decided to escalate things to the point where he can now cut and run from the problem next year.
Well, at least he's covered his azz on this (he thinks smirkingly).
Daryl wrote on September 19, 2007 2:16 PM:Candyce:
Great point. I think that it gets lost on the blogosphere sometimes. As you say he did his job. He tried every avenue to build broad bipartisan support to end the war and Repubs rejected him at every turn. Now Reid is throwing it right back in their face.
This isn't aimed at Bush. This is for November 2008. Reid is going to hang Bush, Cheney and Iraq around Congressional Repub necks everyday until the polls open. They either get a clue or to paraphrase George Will "they will be picking up the pieces of the Repub part with a tweezer."
Support Reid and the GOP base revolts. Stick with Bush and the party collapses.I think Harry might be onto something.
CK MacLeod wrote on September 19, 2007 2:48 PM:
The ISG report didn't offer a real plan. It offered a typical committee-made hodgepodge whose most salient recommendations were based on wishes, not facts (e.g., successful diplomatic initiatives with Syria and Iran), which have been adopted where they made sense (e.g., a surge of forces to help secure Baghdad), or which were obsolete or rendered so within days, weeks, or months of having been advanced.
At the current rate, the Democrats and the to them all-important opinion polls may have caught up by some time next year with the events of 2007.
Anyone on the left who has faith that Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton will at that point be standing by their stated anti-war convictions, and the dreams and beliefs of the anti-war base, needs to look up their just as forcefully stated convictions in support of the original invasion, back in 2002. If the polls tell them it's to their advantage to claim always to have been in favor of the Petraeus strategy, that's what they'll be claiming, no matter what rhetorical acrobatics it requires of them.
