WASHINGTON, April 20, 2007
Senator Reid On Iraq: "This War Is Lost"
Democratic Majority Leader Says Troop Buildup Is Not Working
-
Play CBS Video Video Reid: Iraq War Is Lost CBS News RAW: At a White House summit over troop funding, Senate majority leader Harry Reid said the Iraq war has been lost and the troop surge has been ineffective.
-
Video War Fund Delay 'Unacceptable' CBS News RAW: President Bush urged lawmakers to pass an emergency Iraq war funding bill and asked that Democrats drop demands for a "precipitous" withdrawal of U.S. troops.
-
-
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. speaks at a news conference in Washington D.C. during a summit on the Iraq war, April 20, 2007. (CBS)
-
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., right, accompanied by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., left, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, about Iraq. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
-
President Bush, accompanied by members of military families, gestures while making remarks on the Iraq war supplemental, Monday, April 16, 2007, in the East Room of the White House. (AP)
-
-
Interactive Iraq: 4 Years Later The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive New Plan For Iraq Key elements of the plan, excerpts from the president's speech, reaction and more.
"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.
The White House called Reid's remarks "disturbing" and a slap at troops who are risking their lives.
Senior Republican Senator and White House hopeful John McCain also lashed out Thursday at Reid's comments.
At a news conference before a fund-raiser at a Las Vegas casino, McCain blasted the Nevada senator, saying his comments would hurt troop morale.
"It seems to me Sen. Reid has lost all sense of priority," he said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says if Reid has the courage of his convictions, he'll try to cut off all war funding.
Democrats who lack the votes for that appear set to send President Bush a war-funding measure with a non-binding timeline for pulling out the troops. Bush still intends to veto it.
The president is scheduled to go to Michigan Friday to again speak out for a war-funding bill with no strings attached.
Anti-war liberals in the House are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.
Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.
The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.
Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, a Democratic Party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.
Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.
The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.
Rep. Hank Johnson, a first-term Democrat who represents a district in Georgia that is strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they cannot pull the caucus long enough to act against Bush.
"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove the American people we can govern," he said.
Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.
The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.
With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, 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.
On Thursday, Pelosi summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberal members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.
Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.
"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 28
- next
See all 560 CommentsThere has been no cowardice, no 'loss of spine', on either side of the aisle in Congress, neither Republican nor Democrat. There has been no loss of fortitude on the part of the U.S. military. There has been a failure of Executive branch leadership.
Our government requires dissent and debate to function properly. Senator Reid has every right to represent his constituents, and so does Senator McConnell. Our troops know how our government works, and they talk to their families and friends about American opinions. The Bush Administration should not be hiding behind the troops to escape scrutiny.
Senator Reid, meet Jane Fonda. Jane, meet Senator Reid!
Look at the problems that Bush has cause with "axis of evil" and "bring it on" and "mission accomplished".
I may agree with Reid's conclusion about the military operation as it is being conducted but his statement about the war being lost with support the troops as a photo opp backdrop is not the way that I would've wanted him to express it.
People say that they want straight talking politicians and then punish them when they speak their minds. We need to decide what we want. We can not have this duality and expect to make any progress on issues.
Posted by freedomisnot at 02:09 AM : Apr 22, 2007
And I still disagree. I don't believe it hurts our troops at all. Anyway I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. Time for sleep. (yawn) Night.
Again we are off point the issue is Congress making remarks that could hurt our troops in country. I do not agree with that now or ever.While I do respect your service it does not give you a pass on political issues.
Thank you, but I came directly back to my base each time, just like I left from it directly each time. Very few of the people I worked with and for knew I was gone anywhere other then on emergency leave back home and that's all they still know as far as I know. Still I do remember it wasn't always fun back home when I really was on leave when people found out I volunteered to join. But it really wasn't as bad. There were both good and bad people in the civilian world about it mostly because I came from a very small town. There were as many people who wouldn't let me pay for my beer in the bar as there were who gave me dirty looks when I was in uniform.
Oh and there are a lot of people who don't agree with me on many things. I try not to let it bother me though as it scre*ws up my BP. lol!
Year of service?
Unit insignia?
Branch of Service?
Posted by freedomisnot at 01:18 AM : Apr 22, 2007
And you?!
Sir,
I respect your service to our country. But I do not agree with your opinions. I can say with reasonable certanty that the treatment you recieved upon returning from service in SEA was not to your satisfaction. I am ashamed of that as an American though I was just a child.
And I would like to formally thank you for facing the threat many would not admit existed.
It is a hard thing to face an enemy that hides in civilian populations, wears no uniform, and has no "rules of engagement", no retribution for breached rules, blows up innocent civilians to make a political point, chopps off the head of opposition leaders their family friends and loved ones, Geniva convintion HAH what a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do ever call me a liar just because I don't agree with you. It's cheap.
Year of service?
Unit insignia?
Branch of Service?
Posted by freedomisnot at 01:18 AM : Apr 22, 2007
My permanent duty station was a SAC missile Base In North Dakota, the 321SMW at Grand Forks AFB. I was on active duty from 1973 to 1977. I went TDY to South Vietnam twice in the winter of 74-75. What I did there, where exactly I went there and the exact dates of when I was there are none of your da*mn business.
The only conclusion you leave me with is that you are not being truthful. A man who went through the struggle of the Vietnam War would have much more knowledge and insight.If you choose to defend your position answer some questions-
Where were you stationed?
Year of service?
Unit insignia?
Branch of Service?
Doesn't matter though. The words still apply today when it comes to criticizing the president. The very time you want the most open discussions, in public and in Congress, is during a war, because a war is far and away the single most serious and important thing a nation ever engages in. It is literally life and death. So it is not treasonable to dissent with the government during time of war, rather it would be treasonable not to if you honestly disagree. This does not show our enemy that we are not united, but rather it shows them that, even in this most dangerous of times for us and the world, we can still practice our freedoms. That we are THAT good of a nation. That real. That free. That sends a much more impressive message. Not that we're indecisive, but rather that we're still united in our core beliefs of freedom. It shows our strength, not our weakness.
President Bush is Commander In Chief but he does not directly command troops. Through the Joint Chiefs and Secratary of Def. he is advised of current and upcoming missions.Teddy was a great Pres. but the political atmosphere of his day are very different from the asymetrical threat we face today. Nice Quote though.
Posted by freedomisnot at 12:27 AM : Apr 22, 2007
Yes. Absolutely. Because they are showing dissent to Bush and that in no possible way can harm our troops.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States (R) 1918
Why are we not unified ? The Press has done a horrible job of accurate reporting. War correspondents must be a thing of the past.The insurance premiums and lawsuits must be preventing the brave few who will accurately report the events from reporting the news we truly need to hear.From what I have read (accurate or not) most of the press never get outside the wire they live in the "Green Zone" and send Iraq's to gather info to send to the news wire. What a crock.......
Disscusion of the war is part of what makes our Democracy work and the free exchange of ideas of all Americans is important.The disscution should not take place in a forum that allows our enemies any insight into our thoughts.
Now,, countries in the UAE (Sunni's) are supplying, arming, & sending soldiers trained in Iraq to help the Taliban
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 28
- next
See all 560 Comments