Here We Go, Significant Legislator

[William33 110]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.

The bleak assessment -- the most pointed yet from Reid -- came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.

Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to bring peace to Iraq. (Watch how Democrats want to 'wind down the war' )

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nevada.

Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. (Watch how Reid's words have angered some )

The exchange came before the House voted to endorse legislation it passed last month that would fund the war in Iraq but require combat missions to end by September 2008. The Senate passed similar, less-sweeping legislation that would set a nonbinding goal of bringing combat troops home by March 31, 2008.

"Our troops won the war clearly, cleanly and quickly," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. "But now they are stuck in a civil war," and the only solution is a political and diplomatic compromise. "And there is no soldier who can get that done," he added.

The House voted mostly along party lines to insist congressional negotiators trying to reconcile the House and Senate bills retain the firm timetable. One Republican -- Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland -- sided with 214 Democrats in voting in favor of the 2008 deadline. Nine Democrats broke ranks and voted alongside 190 Republicans against setting a timetable.

Despite the vote, which was orchestrated by Republicans to try to embarrass Democrats, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

Bush pledged to veto either measure and said troops were being harmed by Congress' failure to deliver the funds quickly.

The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June. The Army is taking "prudent measures" aimed at ensuring that delays in the bill financing the war do not harm troop readiness, according to instructions sent to Army commanders and budget officials April 14.

While $70 billion that Congress provided in September for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has mostly run out, the Army has told department officials to slow the purchase of nonessential repair parts and other supplies, restrict the use of government charge cards and limit travel.

The Army also will delay contracts for facilities repair and environmental restoration, according to instructions from Army Comptroller Nelson Ford. He said the accounting moves are similar to those enacted last year when the Republican-led Congress did not deliver a war funding bill to Bush until mid-June.

More stringent steps would be taken in May, such as a hiring freeze and firing temporary employees, but exceptions are made for any war-related activities or anything that "would result immediately in the degradation of readiness standards" for troops in Iraq or those slated for deployment.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the Democrats' stance "disturbing" and all but dared Reid to cut off funding for the war.

"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to de-fund the war," she said.

Reid has left that possibility open. The majority leader supports separate legislation that would cut off funding for combat missions after March 2008. The proposal would allow money to be spent on such efforts as counterterrorism and training Iraqi security forces.

Reid and other Democrats were initially reluctant to discuss such draconian measures to end the war, but no longer.

"I'm not sure much is impossible legislatively," Reid said Thursday. "The American people have indicated . . . that they are fed up with what's going on."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20...q.ap/index.html

[William33 110]

Bump, for political comments!!

Plenty of those here!!!

[GaryC 7]

Bump, for political comments!!

Plenty of those here!!!

Reid is an idiot. Is that a political comment?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Bump, for political comments!!

Plenty of those here!!!

Reid is an idiot. Is that a political comment?

Nah, just a statement of the obvious, in the category of "Rain is wet."

[pedroh 21]

Bump, for political comments!!

Plenty of those here!!!

Reid is an idiot. Is that a political comment?

Nah, just a statement of the obvious, in the category of "Rain is wet."

stop emboldening the enemy.. they think we dont know that yet

[Hornet 2]

Saying he's an idiot is too kind!

What if he was a Senator in April 1942? When we really were losing WWII at that time of the war.

You may talk about it in Private meetings, but you DON'T say it to the media!!

I say drop his azz in the middle of the Sunni Triangle.

[homesick_american 1]

OK...to the people who think the war isn't lost...how do you see us possibly winning it at this point?

In my mind the only winning option we had was not going in there in the first place. With a power vacuum Iraq was always going to erupt, but now people blame US for it. That sucks.

[Hornet 2]

The only part of the war we are losing IS the War in the HEADLINES! It's the only comparable thing with Vietnam, is that if we lose, we'll lose it at home and in the media. We've won and will win every battle but the media and a 10 second attention span society will lose it!!

We already won the war anyway! What's going on now is a security battle and a small insurgent war. All they can do is plant IED's!!! How is that winning?? They only have the ability to operate in a few areas. Most of the country is quiet and improving.

The media and the Democrats in Congress now would of had us begging for terms with Japan and Germany...

Whether you agreed to go to war or not, we can't just quit now!

Reid might as well be a modern day Tokyo Rose.