Reid Wants To Make A Pact (at Daily Kos)

[acmavm]

Reid Wants To Make A Pact
by BarbinMD
Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:43:05 PM PDT

It sounds like the Democratic leadership isn't bothering to wait for the Petraeus White House report on all that so-called progress in Iraq before caving to George Bush:

Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."

http://www.dailykos.com/

Boy, that Harry is a man of steel, isn't he?

[rateyes]

1. Here we go again. Talk tough,

and then cave in. S.O.P.

[gaiilonfong]

2. DITTO

I am so over this DO NOTHING leadership....well it really isn't leadership.

[rateyes]

3. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[depakid]

41. That's been his MO from day 1.

And I don't see him changing. Makes you sort of pine for Daschle.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. You do realize nothing gets done without the Republicans, right?

There's A) a filibuster and B) a veto. Since we can't get around EITHER of those, and since, unlike DU, most Americans do NOT approve defunding the war completely, finding a compromise amenable to Senate Republicans is the only way to make anything happen.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rateyes]

7. If, like happened before, the Dems vote for funding

BUT WITH A STRICT TIMETABLE, and Bush vetoes, and sends the bill back, and the veto is not overridden, then it's the REPUBLICANS who end up defunding the war. The Democrats control the agenda. We do not have to kiss Republican ass to do the right thing.

Sometimes, leadership means getting ahead of the crowd and leading the way by example.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. You've been around DU - fat lot of good that did with the party faithful.

You're right - what they did before was ABSOLUTELY the right thing, and they got blasted for it by anti-war zealots. But in the same vein, since they can't stop the way - and since nothing short of that will please that crowd - they probably should do the same thing.

[rateyes]

11. What they did before....

sending the bill with the timetable up was the right thing. The wrong thing was not sending it back up, but rather writing a blank check...which they are getting ready to do again. And, when they do, this "anti-war zealot" will blast them again.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. That type of action has never been supported by the public.

See case in point - Newt Gingrich, circa 1995.

[rateyes]

13. Well, Vash, you're going to get it your way...

and, we'll still be in Iraq this time next year, and another 1500 troops will be dead, and many more wounded...and, we'll be in war with Iran. But, hey, as long as the Democrats hold a majority, that's all that matters.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. It's not my way.

MY WAY was electing Al Gore, and then John Kerry, as THAT is the only way we'd not be in this mess. Bush is going to do what he wants to do, and none of your bullshit emotional strawmen are going to change that. Congressional Democrats CANNOT END THE WAR. They never could. They never promised that they could. Period.

[rateyes]

15. OK, so you've already decided that the war is going to go on

so, we have to keep on funding it. Gotcha.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I didn't make that decision - Bush made that decision.

And he's made it very clear that nothing is going to make him remove the troops from Iraq. And frankly, he's got the power to back that up. As Commander-in-Chief, he could keep the war going well beyond his last day in office. There is nothing Congress can do to stop it.

So, yes, we DO have to keep funding it. I fully believe this madman will keep going with or without more money. And I'm sorry, but I do not want to put our troops in that predicament for what amounts to a political gain.

[rateyes]

17. I understand exactly where you are coming from...

Bush has neutered the Democrats. We can't do a thing. We just have to take it. That's the political realities.

That's your position.

I disagree with it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Actually, the founding fathers neutered today's Democrats.

They're the ones who set up the system. That is the political reality.

Please stop twisting my statements to put words in my mouth.

[rateyes]

19. The PEOPLE gave CONGRESS the SOLE

authority to declare war. The Constitution had to be RATIFIED before it took effect. What the Congress AUTHORIZED they can DEAUTHORIZE (if they have the political courage to consider what's RIGHT over what's POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT). I suggest you get the document called the US Constitution out and read it.

Then, go and state your position to Breeze54

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1703483

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Yes, but the Constitution names the President Commander-in-Chief as well.

Perhaps you should read the FULL Constitution.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

This portion of the Constitution has been used to justify military action without a declaration of war. Even IWR was not a formal declaration of war, something we still have not done since World War II. Furthermore, even if you WOULD call IWR a formal war declaration, we are NOT currently at war with the state of Iraq. We are not fighting their formally recognized military forces - we are fighting insurgents. Therefore, in a strict legal sense, this is a police action and/or military aid situation, neither of which require a declaration of war.

Again, keep your overly emotional strawmen to yourself. The only emotional argument that is going to somehow going to give Congressional Democrats the ability to change the war in Iraq is one that changes the minds of the majority of American citizens and Congressional Republicans into believing that both Bush and Cheney must be impeached and removed from office simultaneously, and that's just not going to happen.

[rateyes]

22. Perhaps you need to read this part....

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES MADE, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION;

--------------------------

Commander in Chief or NOT, Bush is bound by the Constitution to recognize the UN Charter (the mother of all treaties) as part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Bush went to war in Iraq without approval from the UN Security Council, a provision made part of our supreme law by the UN Charter. Bush also went to war preemptively, for the purpose of regime change, lying to the American people that Iraq posed an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the security of the US...also illegal according to the UN Charter which the Constitution makes part of the supreme law of our land.

Bush talks about the passage of the UN Resolution as being authorization...it wasn't. He also points to the AUMF in Iraq as his authority from Congress to keep this WAR going. Hell, he even calls Iraq part of the WAR on Terror.

John Edwards has stated the same position I've stated, that the Congress should have kept sending the same bill up to Dubya until he signed it. If he didn't sign it, then it would be HIS FAULT that the troops didn't get the funds they needed.

-----------

Now, you can call my argument EMOTIONAL STRAWMEN all you want. But, I don't believe that's the case and I WILL NOT KEEP IT TO MYSELF, thank you very much.


Again, what the Congress authorized, they can deauthorize. And, I will not, simply because they are Democrats, give them a pass for saying they are going to one thing, and then turning around and doing another.

And, you're damned straight...I'm EMOTIONAL about it...doesn't make my argument a STRAWMAN argument, and it doesn't make your argument legitimate.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Good idea with the UN thing, however

The UN did not pass a resolution saying we couldn't go into Iraq either. That would've been impossible to pass because Bush holds veto powers over the UN as well, by being a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The only thing we didn't do is get the UN's blessing to invade Iraq, something that Bush did not need. So that argument is null and void.

And, as I stated before, Congress doesn't have anything to deauthorize. We're not at war with a sovereign nation. We are not fighting the official military of the Iraqi government - we're fighting insurgents. So, as I stated before, rescinding IWR won't do a damn thing.

I also find it rather convenient that Edwards voted along with IWR when he was in office, and now that he doesn't have to go on record with a vote or have constituents to deal with, he can say he wouldn't vote to fund the war. Very, very convenient for him to have such an about face now that he's appealing to a different set of people, ie the base of the Democratic Party and not the people of the red state of North Carolina.

Once again, we have no valid argument from you except an emotional one, which unfortunately, does not tread legal water.

[rateyes]

29. Nice try. Doesn't work....

Bush DID NEED the UN's blessing to invade Iraq LEGALLY. He did not get it, and therefore the Iraq War is illegal. In fact, Bush TRIED to get that authorization from the UN and when he saw that he wasn't going to get it, had the motion pulled. Your argument that the UN didn't tell the U.S. NOT to invade Iraq is just silly. They didn't HAVE to tell the US not to invade. The UN CHARTER ALREADY TOLD US THAT. According to that part of our supreme law, unless we are given the UN's OK to invade, invasion is illegal. My argument stands, and you declaring it null and void doesn't make it so.

Congress passed the AUMF---that AUTHORIZATION to Use Military Force. Don't tell me that they don't have anything to deauthorize. They can vote to repeal the AUMF (something BTW, Hillary Clinton has introduced...of course, since HRC voted for the authorization, according to you, that's just political theatre.)

Edwards saying what he said was GOING ON RECORD. He obviously won't win your vote with it, but he publicly stated his position, which is the same one I'm stating.

Once again, you put down as invalid what is valid, because you want to defend the actions of the Democratic leadership, and because you truly believe what you say is true.

But, you're declaring my argument "invalid" doesn't make it so.

[rfranklin]

8. The Republicans are looking for re-election cover...

They will support no timetables and there will be a token withdrawal of troops (5,000 is the number they seem to favor) which is ridiculous. Reid and the others are also worrying about the elections, but they have completely misread the mood of the American electorate and are being seen once again as wimpy and not worthy of leadership.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Again, we can't push through timetables without the Republicans.

That said, what, exactly would your plan be? Because they aren't misreading the American public when it comes to the idea of just pulling funding for the war altogether.

[calimary]

23. Quite true, BUT...you do realize the republi-CONS are currently

negotiating from a position of extreme weakness - ie: larry craig.

A really tough and shrewd Dem leader might try to exploit that a little to bend those fuckers to OUR view.

Some sort of tit-for-tat - we won't go on the offensive about MR. POTTY PARTY (or, YOUR "john in the john") if you cooperate. Otherwise, we're gonna slam you with it.

Harry, DAMMIT, YOU have the power and the agenda-setting authority here. AND the momentum. ALL the negative publicity is THEIRS, not ours. All that pathetic "oh, they're ALL worthless, they're ALL corrupt..." spinmeister crap isn't sticking. YOU have the right-of-way to run things and determine their course. USE IT, fuckhead. We out here in Voter Land worked like hell all last year to give it to you. Why do you insist on letting us down?

I think it's time for a little more ruthlessness at this moment. Reid may NEVER get a better opportunity. If your enemy suddenly steps on a thorn, that's the time to squirt lemon juice and pour salt on the ground wherever he steps. YES. Kick 'em when they're down. They'd do it to you in a heartbeat if larry craig were OUR problem.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. I'm sorry, I fail to see our leverage on Craig.

Quite frankly, we're far better off with him staying in office and running for re-election. Idaho has a Republican governor and would be very, very unlikely to beat any other Republican they'd nominate. So, yes, the Craig situation does look bad for them, but harping on it doesn't exactly work in our favor. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, so I'd be very open to see another point of view here.

Reid may, indeed, have the momentum, but he doesn't have powers beyond agenda setting, which he is using properly, by putting this debate back on the agenda and by having a GAO report to release in the first place. If Republicans were still in charge, we wouldn't even be talking about this now, nor would we have Republicans working WITH us to do SOMETHING to reduce our commitment in Iraq at all. It might not be the brass ring you want, but this is still the best way to go.

[Yukari Yakumo]

39. Craig provides no leverage for us.

Sen. Craig is planning to announce his resignation Saturday. And for most part, the Repuke leadership has dumped him and likely forced him out.

[frylock]

26. that never seemed to stop the republicans..

that excuse really doesn't fly. sorry.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Republicans owned the White House.

We do not.

If you don't see the ocean of difference that makes, there's nothing I can do for you.

[frylock]

28. just as there as nothing i can do for you..

my old man used to tell me that you can wish in one hand and shit in the other. Guess which one will fill up faster? You go on and keep hoping and wishing that the dems will grow a spine. Indys like myself have grown sick and damned tired of the process.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. And are you doing anything to actually change the process?

Or are you content with sitting in the balcony, like the hecklers from the Muppet Show, bitching and moaning about how everything sucks instead of getting off your ass and doing something about it?

Last I checked, the lack of a spine isn't the problem - it's the winner-take-all system that's the problem. So you either work within the system or you work to change the system. So are you changing the system or shitting in your hand?

[GeorgeGist]

32. The Democrats have no reason to veto or fillibuster ...

a bill to fund the troops redeployment. End of story.

[Larkspur]

6. Harry "Weak Tea" Reid strikes again

By caving into Bush again, the Dem leaders are now war criminals along with Bush and Cheney.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmp]

31. Reid, Pelosi & Bush are partners in war crimes.

They can save the excuses for Vash ... he seems to be buying them.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. On edit, timidity, thine name is Congressional Dems.

MKJ

[paulk]

34. how is seeking a comprimise with anti-war Republicans

"caving to George Bush"?

[jmp]

37. Because it doesn't end the war.

Kicking the can down the road is gutless. People are dying needlessly every day because the Democratic leadership in Congress refuses to end this mess.

[paulk]

40. only in the alternate reality of Democratic Underground

can the Democratic leadership "end this mess".

[cosmicdot]

35. here's a direct link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/31/0435/53025

[GeorgeGist]

36. 734, 5

reads and recs. How Sad. Now back to Larry.

[illinoisprogressive]

38. wonder how he'll feel once tuesday comes with all the senators and their stories of home.