PDA

View Full Version : Reid: Bush in Denial on Iraq...



Nickdfresh
04-23-2007, 08:02 PM
CBS/AP) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that President Bush is in "denial" and alone in believing things are getting better in Iraq, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss

Reid said the Democratic-controlled Congress will defy White House veto threats and pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1.

The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.

Reid said that under the legislation the troops that remain after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."

Reid spoke a few hours after Mr. Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats will pass. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said.

Mr. Bush made his comments to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with senior military leaders, including his top general in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

Taken together, Reid's speech and Mr. Bush's comments inaugurated a week of extraordinary confrontation between the president and the new Democratic-controlled Congress over a war that has taken the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

Reid drew criticism from the president and others last week when he said the war in Iraq had been lost.

The Nevada Democrat did not repeat the assertion in his prepared speech, saying that "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."

Reid said that in addition to the timetable, the legislation will establish standards for the Iraqi government to meet in terms of "making progress on security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much."

The measure also would launch diplomatic, economic and political policy changes, Reid said.

Negotiators for the House and Senate arranged a late-afternoon meeting to ratify the timetable that Reid laid out. The demand for a change in course will be attached to a funding bill that is needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reid said Mr. Bush was in "a state of denial" over the war, and likened him to another commander in chief four decades ago. "I remember when President Johnson, trying to save his political legacy, initiated the first of many surges into Vietnam in 1965," he said.

Reid said thousands more U.S. troops died in Vietnam as a result. Now, he said, Mr. Bush "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality — and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours."

Reid also challenged the president to present an alternative if, as expected, he vetoes the Democratic legislation.

The president said that Petraeus will go to Capitol Hill to tell lawmakers what's going right in Iraq — and what's not.

"It's a tough time, as the general will tell Congress," Mr. Bush said. Still, the president insisted, progress is being made in Iraq as more U.S. troops head into the country to provide security.

There is no doubt that Republicans in Congress have the votes to sustain Mr. Bush's threatened veto.

That would require Congress to approve a second funding bill quickly to avoid significant disruptions in military operations.

Reid's speech blended an attack on Mr. Bush, an appeal for patience to the anti-war voters who last fall gave Democrats control and an attempt to shape the post-veto debate.

"I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January," he said.

"But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war," Reid said.

Reid said Democrats have sought Republican support for their attempts to force the president to change course. "Only the president is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party."

Looking beyond Mr. Bush's expected veto, he said, "If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve."

Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Mr. Bush repeatedly said there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he ordered last winter.

"The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial," said Reid.

Democratic officials have also said they intend to add a minimum wage increase to the war funding bill. Key lawmakers announced agreement late last week on a package of business tax breaks to accompany the boost in the wage floor, which would total $2.10 cents an hour in three equal installments.

Apart from the clash over war policy, Mr. Bush has pledged to veto the funding bill if Democrats go ahead with plans to include billions of dollars in domestic spending.


© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/politics/main2717564.shtml) All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

LoungeMachine
04-23-2007, 08:25 PM
Actually, the truth is we already "won" the "war".

What we LOST [past tense] was the peace.

The Occupation has been a disaster. Just as Bush Sr, Powell, Schwartzkopf, and others predicted.

The war ended once we captured Baghdad, disbanded the Army, and arrested Saddam.

Had we planned what to do next BEFORE The Cowboy shot our wad, we wouldnt be losing more US Service Men and Women for no reason.

This OCCUPATION cannot, CANNOT, be "won" militarily. On this everyone but Chimpy and Brie agree....

We can however LOSE the occupation in the world's eye.



One soldier at a time.




Just imagine having 2-3 Virginia Techs occur EVERY FUCKING DAY.


God DAMN those of you who still support this occupation.

BigBadBrian
04-24-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine


This OCCUPATION cannot, CANNOT, be "won" militarily. On this everyone but Chimpy and Brie agree....



Quit putting words in my mouth. You'd do better to try and come up with a coherent thought of your own.

Nickdfresh
04-24-2007, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
...You'd do better to try and come up with a coherent thought of your own.

LOL I've yet to see anything of the sort in your last-1000 posts other than Bush-enabling and cliches...

LoungeMachine
04-24-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Quit putting words in my mouth. You'd do better to try and come up with a coherent thought of your own.


You said the occupation and surge were a good idea.

You said we SHOULD still be there.

Now you're back peddling?

BTW, I just posted MY thoughts on the thread topic..... have you?

Do YOU have a coherent thought on the subject? any subject?

I've gone back and read your previous 3 pages of Front Line posts and can't find a SINGLE post that isn't a cut-n-paste or an insult to posters.


This is how you act while I'm gone?

You're such a child, Brie. seriously. :rolleyes:

BigBadBrian
04-24-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You said the occupation and surge were a good idea.

You said we SHOULD still be there.

Now you're back peddling?



Back-peddling? No.

I said the INVASION was a good idea, and still do.

I knew you couldn't remember about the surge, and therefore are wrong. Here is what my opinion on the surge was, in case you conveniently forgot. (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1084395#post1084395)

You must've liked that "coherent post" thing I threw at you. Maybe when we get a thread without nothing but insults I'll post one. I haven't seen a credible, coherent reply around here (with maybe the exception from Elly or kb) in quite awhile.

:cool:

DEMON CUNT
04-24-2007, 11:00 AM
Ha ha!

Look at BigBland slowly step away from the President that he once loved so much. How sad!

Here BigBland actually provides a fine demonstration of backpedalling. In this case defined as: "to retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude."

knuckleboner
04-24-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine


God DAMN those of you who still support this occupation.


umm...i kinda support the occupation.


and i was one of those adamently opposed to the war. even if saddam had WMD, i was still extremely wary of a pre-emptive strike. you and i both know that while "freeing oppressed people" is a good thing, it had nothing to do with our actual reasons for going to war.

and seeing as how i was completely unconvinced of the administration's case that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from iraq, WMD or not, i didn't support the invasion.


however, at this point, the reason we went to war is good to debate for our future actions/inactions. but it doesn't really help iraq.

right now, we have a civil war (by any other name) in iraq that we're largely responsible for. people were oppressed under saddam. but they knew if they kept their heads down and their mouths shut, that they could at least go to the market to get a loaf of bread without fear of being killed in an explosion. now, not the case.

we're responsible for that. does it mean we should police iraq forever? no. and i don't have a bright-line timeframe for when we're done there. but we owe them something. at least a plan.

and so, i'm still opposed to the decision to go to war. but now i'm also opposed to an immediate and total troop withdrawl.

BigBadBrian
04-24-2007, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
umm...i kinda support the occupation.


and i was one of those adamently opposed to the war. even if saddam had WMD, i was still extremely wary of a pre-emptive strike. you and i both know that while "freeing oppressed people" is a good thing, it had nothing to do with our actual reasons for going to war.

and seeing as how i was completely unconvinced of the administration's case that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from iraq, WMD or not, i didn't support the invasion.


however, at this point, the reason we went to war is good to debate for our future actions/inactions. but it doesn't really help iraq.

right now, we have a civil war (by any other name) in iraq that we're largely responsible for. people were oppressed under saddam. but they knew if they kept their heads down and their mouths shut, that they could at least go to the market to get a loaf of bread without fear of being killed in an explosion. now, not the case.

we're responsible for that. does it mean we should police iraq forever? no. and i don't have a bright-line timeframe for when we're done there. but we owe them something. at least a plan.

and so, i'm still opposed to the decision to go to war. but now i'm also opposed to an immediate and total troop withdrawl.

The Crate and Barrel plan...if you break you own it (or have to fix it).

:D

BigBadBrian
04-24-2007, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Ha ha!

Look at BigBland slowly step away from the President that he once loved so much. How sad!

Here BigBland actually provides a fine demonstration of backpedalling. In this case defined as: "to retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude."

The only one that ever said...

...oh, never mind, you wouldn't understand.

:gulp:

DEMON CUNT
04-24-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only one that ever said...

...oh, never mind, you wouldn't understand.

:gulp:

Har har!

BigBland answers an accusation of backpedalling with even more backpedalling!

Now that's some classic BigBland!

Go Dummy! Go!

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/Photos/2007/01/joel-spolsky-backpedals.jpg
Whhhheeeeee!

Nickdfresh
04-24-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
umm...i kinda support the occupation.


and i was one of those adamently opposed to the war. even if saddam had WMD, i was still extremely wary of a pre-emptive strike. you and i both know that while "freeing oppressed people" is a good thing, it had nothing to do with our actual reasons for going to war.

and seeing as how i was completely unconvinced of the administration's case that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from iraq, WMD or not, i didn't support the invasion.


however, at this point, the reason we went to war is good to debate for our future actions/inactions. but it doesn't really help iraq.

right now, we have a civil war (by any other name) in iraq that we're largely responsible for. people were oppressed under saddam. but they knew if they kept their heads down and their mouths shut, that they could at least go to the market to get a loaf of bread without fear of being killed in an explosion. now, not the case.

we're responsible for that. does it mean we should police iraq forever? no. and i don't have a bright-line timeframe for when we're done there. but we owe them something. at least a plan.

and so, i'm still opposed to the decision to go to war. but now i'm also opposed to an immediate and total troop withdrawl.

Exactly. Even if Saddam had some chemicals, so what? They were deployed against the Iranians, who also have chems...

He wasn't giving anything to terrorists... Another complete Orwellian reinvention of logic...

Of course, he didn't even have that!

ODShowtime
04-24-2007, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Har har!

BigBland answers an accusation of backpedalling with even more backpedalling!


This thread is great. It's like watching a bunch of piranhas tearing up a chihuahua.