Reid may move to cut Iraq war funds

[GaryC 7]

I really hope that the Dems do this. Anyone that signs on to this will loose big time next year.

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement.

Reid's new strategy faces an uphill battle because many of his colleagues see yanking funds as a dangerous last resort. The proposal increases the stakes on the debate and marks a new era for the Democratic leadership once reluctant to talk about Congress' power of the purse.

"In the face of the administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who signed on Monday as a co-sponsor of Reid's proposal with Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis.

The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines.

"It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Vice President ####### Cheney said Monday at a fundraising luncheon for Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala.

Also Monday, President Bush conferred by secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the pace of a nearly seven-week-old security crackdown. Extra troops from both countries are aiming to calm Baghdad and troubled Anbar Province, and some initial improvement has been reported.

Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council, said the leaders agreed that the effort "must be carried out until lasting success can be achieved." Al-Maliki repeated his promise to pass legislation seen as key to moving Sunnis and Shiites from battling each other to political compromise.

In recent weeks, the House and Senate voted separately to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set an end date for combat in Iraq. The House proposal orders all combat troops out of Iraq as of Aug. 31, 2008, whereas the Senate orders some troops to leave right away with the nonbinding goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008.

The House and Senate are working on a final proposal that can be sent to the president by the end of the month.

Bush has said several times he would veto the measure, and Republicans say they'll back him. On Monday, 154 House Republicans sent Bush a letter promising to stick with him in opposition to the legislation.

Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation.

Reid said Monday that if that happens, he will join forces with Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it.

Reid has previously stopped short of embracing Feingold's position. When asked whether he would ever consider pulling funds for the troops, Reid said Congress would provide troops what they needed to be safe.

Reid's latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008.

"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement.

The White House and congressional Democrats had promised in January to work together when Democrats took over control of Congress. Since then, however, the two sides have found little agreement when it comes to the war. They traded barbs over the weekend and on Monday, when the White House said Democrats were denying the military what it needed to do its job.

"It appears they're still content to work on a bill that does not have serious plans to fund troops or make Iraq, America and the world more secure, but rather attempts at forcing us into giving up in Iraq without regard to the consequences of failure," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Reid's proposal is unlikely to pass. But Democrats say they believe with each passing week — as the violence in Iraq continues and voters grow increasingly tired of the war — they pick up additional support.

The Senate last week passed its anti-war proposal by a 50-48 vote after winning support from Sens. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., and Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb., who just two weeks prior had opposed a similar measure.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said if legislation to cut off funding for the war fails, Reid will try again with the hopes of getting new supporters. "It is the next in a series of steps to try to ratchet up the pressure to try to get the administration to change its policies," he said.

The bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill, Manley said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The dems are all talk.

[William33 110]

Cut and run? Wrong answer. How about a gradual scale back, with very intense training for local military and police?

Even if conducted at US military bases here in the US? We went there, uprooted their status quo lives and now want to cut and run? Unacceptable!

We should aggressively train the Iraqi's, then do a gradual withdrawal, with an increase of local responsibility.

With Reid's perspective in mind, will this all be for naught? Shameful indeed!!

Edited April 3, 2007 by William33

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm... this amounts to shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

The war was fundamentally a mistake, but rather than stand by their original (bad) choice - they want to pull the funding out of it and leave the job half done. Worse than that - they will end up increasing the power of neighbouring Iran, who is now the new "public enemy number 1".

Still just as bad are all these rumblings that we must go to war with Iran. Do people not get tired with war, with making one bad decision after another? We're already paying for Iraq on credit, and are still trying to keep Afghanistan from falling back into the hands of the totalitarian theocrats. And now we want to add Iran to the mix too - just crazy.

[William33 110]

Worse than that - they will end up increasing the power of neighbouring Iran, who is now the new "public enemy number 1".

This is an extremely presumptuous perspective, and frankly incorrect. Iraq and the insurgent populous are definitely enemy number one at this stage. That will not change until we stabilize the situation there, train the locals and then propose a staged withdrawal based upon that plan.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Worse than that - they will end up increasing the power of neighbouring Iran, who is now the new "public enemy number 1".

This is an extremely presumptuous perspective, and frankly incorrect. Iraq and the insurgent populous are definitely enemy number one at this stage. That will not change until we stabilize the situation there, train the locals and then propose a staged withdrawal based upon that plan.

But a pullout kind of negates the possiblity of that happening - laying the blame on the population and the new Iraqi government for not being able to control (with their corrupt police force, and minimal armed forces) decades old sectarian and tribal animosities that have flourished since Saddam was deposed seems pretty shitty in my view.

[William33 110]

Worse than that - they will end up increasing the power of neighbouring Iran, who is now the new "public enemy number 1".

This is an extremely presumptuous perspective, and frankly incorrect. Iraq and the insurgent populous are definitely enemy number one at this stage. That will not change until we stabilize the situation there, train the locals and then propose a staged withdrawal based upon that plan.

But a pullout kind of negates the possiblity of that happening - laying the blame on the population and the new Iraqi government for not being able to control (with their corrupt police force, and minimal armed forces) decades old sectarian and tribal animosities that have flourished since Saddam was deposed seems pretty shitty in my view.

Fundamentally, I agree with your position. Although, all young democratic governments and other types, deal with massive corruption initially, it does eventually improve. Likely, many years of trouble ahead.

With respect to the current Iraq situation, I am referring to the insurgent populous, that seemingly control the IED and other terrorist events occurring daily in Iraq

As I stated before, a staged pullout is appropriate, with proper and intensive training for those remaining. Specifically, the Iraqi military and police, Perfect? No. Offering hope for their country? Absolutely!!!

[GaryC 7]

I agree that Iran is going to be Public enemy #1 for one real reason. They are funding at least some of the insurgancy. Many of the more powerful EID's have been tied to them and they are doing everything they can to fuel a civil war there. They hope that if they keep Iraq destabilized we will eventually loose our nerve (Reid and his friends) and leave. Then they can walk in and take over. That has been their plan for some time now and the Dems are playing into their hands.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree that Iran is going to be Public enemy #1 for one real reason. They are funding at least some of the insurgancy. Many of the more powerful EID's have been tied to them and they are doing everything they can to fuel a civil war there. They hope that if they keep Iraq destabilized we will eventually loose our nerve (Reid and his friends) and leave. Then they can walk in and take over. That has been their plan for some time now and the Dems are playing into their hands.

I think we "played into their hands" when we declared war on Iraq. Set a chain of events into motion...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I stated before, a staged pullout is appropriate, with proper and intensive training for those remaining. Specifically, the Iraqi military and police, Perfect? No. Offering hope for their country? Absolutely!!!

True - but is a year enough time to adequately do the job?

Bearing in mind that Afghanistan still can't stand on its own two feet, and that's the older war...

[William33 110]

I agree that Iran is going to be Public enemy #1 for one real reason. They are funding at least some of the insurgancy. Many of the more powerful EID's have been tied to them and they are doing everything they can to fuel a civil war there. They hope that if they keep Iraq destabilized we will eventually loose our nerve (Reid and his friends) and leave. Then they can walk in and take over. That has been their plan for some time now and the Dems are playing into their hands.

I think we "played into their hands" when we declared war on Iraq. Set a chain of events into motion...

I disagree on both levels. Unless you agree with the prophecies of "Nostradamus", predicting world war III originating in the Middle East, then these theories are unsupported.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree that Iran is going to be Public enemy #1 for one real reason. They are funding at least some of the insurgancy. Many of the more powerful EID's have been tied to them and they are doing everything they can to fuel a civil war there. They hope that if they keep Iraq destabilized we will eventually loose our nerve (Reid and his friends) and leave. Then they can walk in and take over. That has been their plan for some time now and the Dems are playing into their hands.

I think we "played into their hands" when we declared war on Iraq. Set a chain of events into motion...

I disagree on both levels. Unless you agree with the prophecies of "Nostradamus", predicting world war III originating in the Middle East, then these theories are unsupported.

Umm... no... a destabilized Iraq is Iran's gain. Isn't that why the US supported Saddam originally - to use him as a buffer against the neighboring country?

[William33 110]

I agree that Iran is going to be Public enemy #1 for one real reason. They are funding at least some of the insurgancy. Many of the more powerful EID's have been tied to them and they are doing everything they can to fuel a civil war there. They hope that if they keep Iraq destabilized we will eventually loose our nerve (Reid and his friends) and leave. Then they can walk in and take over. That has been their plan for some time now and the Dems are playing into their hands.

I think we "played into their hands" when we declared war on Iraq. Set a chain of events into motion...

I disagree on both levels. Unless you agree with the prophecies of "Nostradamus", predicting world war III originating in the Middle East, then these theories are unsupported.

Umm... no... a destabilized Iraq is Iran's gain. Isn't that why the US supported Saddam originally - to use him as a buffer against the neighboring country?

True, to a point. Back in the early 80's, while we still reeled from the US Embassy Iran hostage crisis, we supported Iraq big-time, with intent to destabilize Iran.

After a while, Iran became secondary to Iraq and Saddam's murderous activity and alleged nuclear ambition.

Will Iran be enemy number one? Perhaps later on. Now it is the insurgency in Iraq.

By the way, does anyone believe that the Iranian leader was a student captor of US Diplomats in Iran in 1979?

I do. Research the photos, uncanny resemblance.

[GaryC 7]

I think we "played into their hands" when we declared war on Iraq. Set a chain of events into motion...

No, I don't agree with that. Iran seized upon an oportunity when they saw it. It is really the only thing I fault Bush for. I still think the war was the right thing to do but Bush screwed up by not taking Iran into consideration when they had the Iraq war won. They kept acting like the insurgency was home grown when in reality it was being fueled by Iran. Remember that blue mosque that started the real sectarian fighting? There is very strong evidence that Iran did that just to get the violence started again. I firmly believe that if Iran had stayed out of things Iraq would be a lot more stable today and our troops would be coming home as victors right now.

[William33 110]

Gary,

You believe that Iran is ultimately behind the insurgency? Ridiculous.

The insurgents have been proven to hail from Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere.

Iran is acting on opportunity. The weak bastards that they are.