Not only has Senator Reid issued a smackdown of Bush’s veto threat by challenging him to come up with his own alternative to this latest failure of a strategy, but he has also apparently rounded up enough support to call for a “change of course” and a timetable for withdrawal on the compromise Iraq and Afghanistan funding bill that, on the surface, makes Bush look the damn fool.
According to the articles released:
Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.
In remarks prepared for delivery, 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.”
Now, it does remain to be seen what will happen if the compromise bill is vetoed, however Reid has been nothing short of stellar throughout these past few weeks. Of course, the fact that polls are showing an increasing support for cutting off funding altogether or to tie the funding to a timeline. Or it could be helped by the fact that it is painfully obvious that there has been a tremendous worsening of the violence, the latest “wall” idea is an absolute embarassoment not to mention the fact that the administration has already backed off it.
But in the battle to push the debate in Congress and the actions of America closer to an exit strategy, Reid has now not only hung tough in the face of blistering blathering by the right wing noise machine, the administration’s mouthpieces and the talking meatsticks. He has said that the “war is lost”. He has not backed down – calling for a tougher bill co-sponsored by Senator Feingold that would flat out call for a withdrawal of all combat troops by next year. And he has held his caucus together despite tremendous odds and factors to pass a bill (and the compromise version) which seems to be better than the one passed by the House.
In addition, the article quotes Reid today as saying:
“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.
—snip—
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.”
Not only this, but Reid dared Bush (as the republicans have done to the Democrats so many times before) to come up with another alternative if he doesn’t like what Congress has passed, saying:
“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.”
Of course, “clap harder” hasn’t worked yet, and since McCain said that he too has no “Plan B” it is the republicans who are not only backed into a corner, defending an unpopular and failure of an occupation, but do not have any alternatives – alternatives that the American public is SCREAMING for.
To quote a great movie, “it looks like the foot’s on the other hand now”.
Bush has looked more and more like the bumbling idiot that he is since he first threatened to veto a bill that gives him all the money he wanted. As for our Senate Majority Leader – you have to hand it to him. He took the onslaught of this administration’s and country’s propaganda machine over the past few weeks, chewed it up and spit it back in their face. And even better – he is still standing and has the support of the American people. Even more than before this bill was first passed.
There is a new set of rules in Washington DC. Whether Bush likes it or not, the rules were set by the American people back in November. And the Democrats in Congress are doing, in Bush’s words, a “heckuva job” so far in trying to extricate us from this colossal disaster.
also in orange
What do you think of the move to add the minimum wage hike to the supplemental?
well…it would have been nice if it could get passed in a clean bill by itself. Being that attaching unrelated things to other bills has become the norm, rather than the exception, I am happier that things that the American public is in favor of are being attached.
Short answer – in theory, I don’t like it. Practically, it may be the only way to get it passed in the Senate at this juncture.
your thoughts?
my thought is that if Bush signs this instead of vetoing it, he might actually get that elusive Broder bounce. And the war will go on.
the war will go on no matter what happens to this bill. l’m very pleased they haven’t backed down, and in essence have strengthened the language, by my reading.
l’m hopeful that what we’re seeing here is the beginning of a backbone in congress.
he has to veto it, if only in his own twisted version of reality….it’s inconceivable that he will do otherwise. in order for him to sign and ignore it would require yet another signing statement, and that is highly likely to add to the shit-storm already surrounding him. send it back again with more definitive constraints, time lines, benchmarks, etc.
reid also said the president is in a state of denial….and l especially like this part:
very interesting wording, imo…impeachment may have entered the building. we shall see if it has a place at the table.
the whole world thinks he won’t sign it. If I were Bush, I would sign it.
Then I’d say, ‘I increased the minimum wage, gave money to vets, gave money to the Gulf Coast, and now leave me alone to fight my war until April 2008.
Come April he can deal with the situation.
It’s a total win-win-win for the President and he’d be a fool to veto it.
Just sayin’.
signing statement
that’s the only way he signs it.
he’s more than proven himself to be a fool.
I agree with you. But he is a fool. A stubborn fool. That is why I think he will veto. He is too stubborn to do something that can ONLY help him.
the only downside is that he would totally screw congressional republicans that he asked to oppose the bill. But, hey, stuff like that didn’t stop Clinton.
…NOT veto now. If he does, the media theme is that he’s backed down. As long as the timetable is “binding,” I think he WILL veto. My concern was that this wouldn’t get into the bill. But binding is problematic. Because it appears the initial withdrawal IS binding, but the completion date is advisory.
The minimum wage addition sucks. imo.
There was some article over on Big Orange this morning (or maybe last night) at the top of the recommended list that purported to show that Harry Reid didn’t know what he was doing, because he didn’t understand some scientific doubletalk term or another. I didn’t worry about reading it, because quite frankly as far as I can tell Reid knows exactly what he’s doing, and building a logical case based on a faulty premise can never come to any good.
…(and if) Bush vetoes. Will enough Dems stand firm then? Or will some Blue Dogs and some Senate weaklings, fearing the spin, choose to go with something Bush will sign so they won’t get painted as “weak on defense”?
I’ve changed my mind on this a few times and think that if Bush vetoes, then he may end up getting a clean bill for a short period of time, then a series of other bills that discuss timelines, etc.
I don’t know that there would be a clean bill for full funding – even the Blue Dogs have to see the change in their districts over the past few weeks (ok, that is a guess, but since support for cutting funding and tying it to a timeline have gotten a ton of support I am guessing)….
what are your thoughts?
…about whether Bush will veto or not. I’m going 50-50 on that right now.
A clean bill would be a disaster. The cudgel comes from combining funding with timetables. Separate them and we lose most if not all of our leverage.
Armando/BTD is right that defunding, period, would be the best approach. But that is, unfortunately, wishful thinking, the ideal, but impossible. I would bet 20% of elected Dems would refuse to go along with the Dem leadership if it chose not to send a supplemental bill up to the White House. Therefore, while I agree with BTD that it would be the best move, it’s politically unpalatable to a large enough sector of the Dems that it can never happen.
Right now, we depend on a Bush veto, or upon Bush actually beginning a withdrawal along the lines that the conferees apparently are headed. (I hate knowing that it may be another six months before we start withdrawing, and I hope there is “in the streets” pressure for that if Bush does not veto.
Right now, it’s a waiting game.