Reid: GOP Protecting Bush Not Troops

(CBS/AP)  Senate Republicans who blocked a vote on setting a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are more interested in protecting the president than protecting American troops, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"Even Iraqis, by a 70 percent margin, think that Americans in Iraq are doing more harm than good," he said. "So getting the Americans out of Iraq ... I think, would lessen chaos rather than increase it."

The legislation stalled Wednesday after a 52-47 vote fell eight votes short of the 60 that Democrats needed to advance it. Reid kept the Senate all night Tuesday to try to force some movement on the issue.

Critics have charged the Democratic leader with failing to compromise after he ended debate early Wednesday morning, but Reid said he only wanted to force an up-or-down vote.

"I offered on many occasions – not one, two, three, four occasions – many occasions said, 'Let's vote on all the Iraq amendments, all of them, and have a simple majority for them.' The Republicans wouldn't let us," Reid said. "They would not let us vote on the Iraq amendment because they are more interested, minus Olympia Snowe and a few others, they're more interested in protecting the president than they are protecting the troops."

Reid said Democrats do not want to withdraw troops precipitously, but rather set a timetable where forces would be redeployed by May 1, 2008. The U.S. military would then focus on counterterrorism, protecting American assets in the Middle East and training Iraqi troops, Reid said.

Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, was one of four Republicans who broke with her party and voted Wednesday with the Democrats. She said Congress and the president need to reach a compromise and start to bring troops home in anticipation of an assessment to be given by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.

"The president needs to understand that September 15 is going to be a serious deadline for change in our mission," she said on Face The Nation. "If you look where we are today, I mean, it's been eight months since the election, where the American people repudiated the stay-the-course in Iraq, rejected the open-ended, unconditional commitment by the president in Iraq."

Snowe said that Congress, which has a 14 percent approval rating, isn't reflecting the views of the American people.

"Here we are 8 months later, who would've believed that we would be now committing additional troops of more than 30,000 and the Iraqi government has yet to achieve one political benchmark to reconcile their country," she said. "And more outrageously that they plan to take the month of August off while our men and women dying in the field. So we're making the military sacrifice, our brave men and women yet they are unable to make a political sacrifice to achieve what only they can achieve in the end and that is to reconcile their country and to take charge of their own destiny."

But at the same time, Snowe said Reid should be more willing to compromise, even though Republicans blocked a straight-majority vote.

"Right now is the pivotal time with respect to our policy in Iraq," she said. "We should be sending an unconditional message that this is the final window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to initiate the political benchmarks that they view to be essential to national reconciliation."

[fegner]

On July 19, the Washington Post revealed that the Bush administration was unafraid of contempt citations. Should Congress certify a contempt citation to U.S. attorney Jeffrey Taylor's office, it would be Taylor's duty under federal law to bring the matter before a grand jury -- but the White House will direct him not to.

...Karen Tumulty, Time magazine's national political correspondent, said that with the Post article "the phrase [contempt of Congress] takes on new meaning ... There's no way to challenge the President's assertion of executive privilege, because, well, the President has asserted executive privilege."

...Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., called the decision "deeply disturbing" and said that "this President and Vice President seek to override the independence of law enforcement and manipulate our valued system of checks and balances. This is another demonstration of the lawless and unchecked path the President, the Vice President and their loyal aides have taken us down."

[randalds]

PARROT GET HOLD OF YOUR FEAR: ARE YOU PROPOSING AN INVASION OF PAKISTAN? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. IN FACT IT MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA. WHEN IT HAPPENS IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE YOU GELLYFISH, AND AGAIN TALK BACKWARDS, GOING YELLOW IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY THOUGH YOU ARE HALF WAY AROUND THE THE WORLD FROM THE REAL ENEMY, EXCEPT THE HOME GROWN TERRORISTS WHO ARE LIKELY TO ROAST YOUR SORRY BUT ON A SUBWAY OR BUS IN THE NEAR FUTURE. HOW MANY MORE HAVE TO DIE: I estimate about 500,000 TERRORISTS AND THEIR SUPPORT GROUPS. IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT STAND FOR YOUR BELLY ACHING AND WHINING. WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TERRORISTS ATTACK US IN THE FIELDS OF PENNSYLVANIA, NEW YORK CITY,AND WASHINGTON DC.
Posted by doctorwho4 at 10:01 AM : Jul 23, 2007

I hereby nominate the above post as the single most incredibly ignorant post on here...ever. I don't know what he's smoking, but I want his dealers name.....

[randalds]

Wouldn't it be great? A world without Muslims, and a world where blacks were slaves again. Let's elect bush for eternity. Let's make our nation wealthy with ill-gotten oil, even though 20 people will be the ones controlling it all. Won't it be great to not think about anything and let our beloved Bush just rule us all. Then we can live out our happy christian lives (ie: evangelicals only, cause everyone else is going to hell according to bush) and give 10% of our meager wages to the church (that's what the bible wants, right?). We'll just stone anyone with an alternate point of view and claim everyone as witches. It'll be great. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, you two are the best!
Posted by festes81 at 12:59 PM : Jul 23, 2007

I think you just described Bush's wet dream.

[gramto7]

It passed in a 97-0 vote after Lieberman agreed to include a provision that ***nothing in his measure "shall be construed to authorize*** the use of armed forces against Iran."

Somehow this doesn't sound like authorizing a war to me. I could be reading it wrong. Can someone explain to me where Lars gets his info that Congress authorized n Iranian war?

[kansas1946]

You know, I am really looking forward to November 2008, and not only because it marks the end (almost) of one of, if not the worst, presidential reign in history, but the senate and house races should be really interesting. I would really like to see some strong independents come out this go around. I think they would do really well. From what I can gather from the polls, Americans are not too turned on with either party, but like Republicans less. At any rate, it should be fun. These politicians run around like chickens worrying about losing votes and that behaviour is exactly what loses them votes. Look at McCain. Six years ago, people were crazy about him because he stood for what he personally believed, regardless of party. Now, no one can stand him, even the Republicans that he sold his soul to.

[yevrah4]

You leftovers are just too negative from getting your Ar$e$ kicked by George Bush and you're not seeing the possibilities that lie ahead. First of all, don't worry about the war Hillary will hop on AF1 and go over there and her and Billy Jeff will have it all worked out in a jiffy. Second, while she's there she can round up all the camels and deal them off as futures; look what she did with 1 grand with cattle futures, just think what she could do with all those camels. Harry
reid can sell off the sand dunes for oil and we'll all sit around and hold hands and sing kumbiya. BLLEEEECh

[j4401]

To: willclem1

I appreciate your comments. But remember, the only reason we are in Iraq is so the greedy ones can control the oil. That is why we went there and it is why they will try to stay there, all at expense of our federal tax-dollars and most importantly, our children.

[bareemperor]

blah

[willclem]

It%u2019s a rather sordid day when a group of Republican adults accept the ideology of the President, whose idea to invade a country without any valid reason, OTHER THAN OIL, has resulted in the deaths of over 3,600 U.S. Military Personnel, wounded over 27,000, over 30,000 with traumatic injuries that they must suffer forever. In addition over 600,000 [from 2006 research ] innocent Iraqi citizens have lost their lives, over 2,000,000 have lost their homes. . In contrast, the Republicans have ignored the requests by their constituents to follow a NEW DIRECTION. Their constituents have asked that the troops be brought out of harm%u2019s way - still the ignoring factor remains alive with the Republican members %u2014all with the resemblance of UNITY.

By stressing the fact that the %u201Cwar%u201D cannot be won militarily, yet not approaching a political solution, reeks volumes about the facts already known by most %u2013the invasion of Iraq included intended permanency of remaining in Iraq forever.

Is it not possible that a few Republican members have the fortitude to ignore the overly stressed President%u2019s ideology and revert to breaking with UNITY and vote according to their own preference instead of leeching out with weakness toward WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS -

[lars008-2009]

Lars008,,, Don't you mean, Victory at anyone's cost but yours ???? --- ENLIST
Posted by j-whitman at 03:47 PM : Jul 23, 2007

it will cost every non muslim skippy...

especially if fascist nazi terrorislam wins...