The below, I received in my email:
Perturbed Reid Scolds ABC’s Tapper for Questioning Withdrawal ABC’s Jake Tapper on Thursday night raised the prediction “genocide” will result after a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, a forecast Tapper put to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a Capitol Hill news conference: “Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?” Reid didn’t respond to the point, leading Tapper to retort in the exchange played on World News: “You didn’t answer my question.” A perturbed Reid, presumably not used to challenging questions from the Washington press corps, chastised Tapper: “This isn’t a debate. We’re answering questions.” Tapper then repeated his question — “Will the Iraqis be safer?” — but Reid ignored him and moved on: “Anyone else have a question?” Tapper’s story ran a night after Wednesday’s World News featured a report from Terry McCarthy in Iraq on how General David Petraeus, commander of all multi-national forces in Iraq, “is still very optimistic about the military battle, if the politicians give him enough time.”
ABC’s Jake Tapper on Thursday night raised the prediction “genocide” will result after a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, a forecast Tapper put to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a Capitol Hill news conference: “Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?” Reid didn’t respond to the point, leading Tapper to retort in the exchange played on World News: “You didn’t answer my question.” A perturbed Reid, presumably not used to challenging questions from the Washington press corps, chastised Tapper: “This isn’t a debate. We’re answering questions.” Tapper then repeated his question — “Will the Iraqis be safer?” — but Reid ignored him and moved on: “Anyone else have a question?”
Tapper’s story ran a night after Wednesday’s World News featured a report from Terry McCarthy in Iraq on how General David Petraeus, commander of all multi-national forces in Iraq, “is still very optimistic about the military battle, if the politicians give him enough time.” See the July 11 CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org
[This item was posted, with video, Thursday night on the MRC’s blog. The video will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert, but in the meantime, to watch the Real or Windows Media video, or listen to the MP3 audio, go to: newsbusters.org ]
On his “Political Punch” blog, Tapper posted a transcript of the entire exchange with Reid: blogs.abcnews.com
Tapper’s July 12 World News story was pegged to the House passage of a resolution calling on troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin within four months, a measure to be taken up next week by the Senate. Following a pro and a con soundbite on the resolution, Tapper showed his exchange with Reid:
JAKE TAPPER: Some foreign policy experts predict that such a U.S. withdrawal could unleash genocide against innocent Iraqis. It’s a subject Democrats do not want to discuss.
mb”,”\u003cbr\> \n [Edit jump] \u003cbr\> TAPPER: With all due respect, \nSenator, you didn't answer my question. \u003cbr\> REID: \nThis isn't a debate. We're answering questions. \u003cbr\> \n TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer? \u003cbr\> REID: \nAnyone else have a question? \u003cbr\> TAPPER: This \nweek's renewed push to withdraw troops, two months before General Petraeus \nreports to Congress on the progress of the surge strategy, has Republicans \nsaying these votes are more about politics than national security…. \u003c/font\>\u003c/span\>\u003c/p\>\n\u003cp\>\u003cspan\>\u003cfont face\u003d\”Times New Roman\” size\u003d\”3\”\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/span\>\u003c/p\>\n\u003cp\>\u003ccenter\>\u003ca href\u003d\”#113c05094a39b695_top\”\>\u003cimg border\u003d\”0\” src\u003d\”http://www.mrc.org/images/backtop.gif\” align\u003d\”right\”\>\u003c/a\>\u003c/center\>\u003c/p\>\u003cp\> \u003c/p\>\u003cfont face\u003d\”Arial\” size\u003d\”2\”\>\u003cp align\u003d\”center\”\>\u003cimg border\u003d\”0\” src\u003d\”http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/cyberimages/cyberno2.gif\” align\u003d\”left\”\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/font\>\u003ca name\u003d\”113c05094a39b695_2\”\>\u003cfont color\u003d\”#000080\” face\u003d\”Verdana\” size\u003d\”3\”\>\u003cb\>CNN \nHighlights Small Left-Wing 'Stop \u003cbr\>\nRacism' Immigration Protest \n\u003c/b\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/a\>\n\n\u003cp\>\u003cspan\>\u003cfont face\u003d\”Times New Roman\” size\u003d\”3\”\> \n It doesn't seem to matter how small it is, a left-wing protest can always draw \na national network TV camera. On CNN's Newsroom program on Wednesday morning, \nthe network founded by Ted "Call No One Foreign" Turner presented a northern \nVirginia controversy over illegal immigrants through a familiar lens — highlighting \na few hundred protesters charging racism in the supposedly outrageous demand \nthat government officials have the right to inquire into the immigration status \nof potential illegal aliens in police custody. \u003c/font\>\u003c/span\>\u003c/p\>\n\u003cp\>\u003cspan\>\u003cfont face\u003d\”Times New Roman\” size\u003d\”3\”\> \n A Republican proposal before the Prince William County Board, modified and \nsoftened after consulting with county police and legal counsel, was approved \nunanimously on Tuesday night — but mysteriously, the story by Brian Todd \non Wednesday morning was never updated (it also ran late Tuesday). The Washington \nPost story from Nick Miroff on Wednesday is here: “,1] ); //–>TAPPER TO REID AT PRESS CONFERENCE: Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?
REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don’t want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe.
TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn’t answer my question.
REID: This isn’t a debate. We’re answering questions.
TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?
REID: Anyone else have a question?
TAPPER: This week’s renewed push to withdraw troops, two months before General Petraeus reports to Congress on the progress of the surge strategy, has Republicans saying these votes are more about politics than national security….
I find it “curious” that Reid said that he was answering questions but refused to answer a few asked of him. Could it be that Reid will only answer questions which point to and support his low ratings…LOWER than GWB’s?
What is Reid hiding and where is his substantiations to his claims when it is clear to the world that the words Reid speaks is contrary to the reports we hear from the Boots On The Ground?
And this is the report Terry McCarthy made from Iraq:
On ABC’s World News on Wednesday night, reporter Terry McCarthy gave time to how moves in Washington, DC to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq will undermine progress against al Qaeda. Reporter Terry McCarthy, who traveled with General David Petraeus in the Sunni Triangle’s al Qaeda stronghold south of Baghdad, highlighted how the commander of all forces in Iraq “is still very optimistic about the military battle, if the politicians give him enough time.” McCarthy asked him: “Are you concerned that the U.S. political clock could start ticking too fast and undermine security here? Undermine confidence here?” Petraeus replied that “obviously, that’s in the back of our minds. And there is not a great deal we can do about it, other than to continue to press forward.” McCarthy concluded: “The fields south of Baghdad are still a major battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But increasingly, Petraeus knows the most important battle in the Iraq war is being fought out in Washington.”
[This item was posted Wednesday night on the MRC’s blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
A transcript of McCarthy’s story on the July 11 World News:
REPORTER TERRY MCCARTHY, NARRATING VIDEO FROM A HELICOPTER: Rich farmland along the Tigris River. From the air, it looks peaceful. But this is the so-called triangle of death, the Sunni belt south of Baghdad full of al Qaeda extremists, enemy number one for General David Petraeus.
GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS: The enemy in Iraq that is causing the horrific attacks, that is igniting the sectarian violence, that is causing the mass casualties and damaging the infrastructure, by and large is al Qaeda.
MCCARTHY: This is al Qaeda territory, about 20 miles south of Baghdad and a major production area for car bombs. The primary mission of the U.S. military here is to turn the local population against al Qaeda and stop those car bombs making their way to Baghdad. Turning the local population against al Qaeda takes time. And that is one commodity that General Petraeus is running out of. He knows that Congress wants to draw down U.S. troops because they’re losing faith in the Iraqi government.
PETRAEUS: No one is happy with where they are right now. We all share that frustration, frankly that disappointment.
MCCARTHY: Despite all this, Petraeus is still very optimistic about the military battle, if the politicians give him enough time.
MCCARTHY TO PETRAEUS: Are you concerned that the U.S. political clock could start ticking too fast and undermine security here? Undermine confidence here?
PETRAEUS: Obviously, that’s in the back of our minds. And there is not a great deal we can do about it, other than to continue to press forward.
MCCARTHY: The fields south of Baghdad are still a major battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But increasingly, Petraeus knows the most important battle in the Iraq war is being fought out in Washington. Terry McCarthy, ABC News, Patrol Base Murray, central Iraq.
Such a grand title for an article, yes? Ralph Peters of the NY Post says it very well.
EVEN as our troops make serious progress against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and other extremists, Congress – including Republican members – is sending the terrorists a message: “Don’t lose heart, we’ll save you!” Iraq’s a mess. Got it. The Bush administration has made so many mistakes I stopped counting a year ago. But we’ve finally got a general in Baghdad – Dave Petraeus – who’s doing things right. Iraqi politicians are still disgracing themselves, but our troops are killing America’s enemies – with the help of our former enemies.
Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is suffering a humiliating defeat, as fellow Sunni Muslims turn against the fanatics and help them find the martyrdom they advertise. Yet for purely political reasons – next year’s elections – cowards on Capitol Hill are spurning the courage of our troops on the ground.
The frantic political gamesmanship in Congress would nauseate a ghoul. Pols desperate for any cover and concealment they can get have dragged the Iraq Study Group plan from the grave.
Masterminded by former Secretary of State Jim “Have Your Hugged Your Saudi Prince Today?” Baker, the report is a blueprint for a return to yesteryear’s dictator-smooching policy (which helped create al Qaeda – thanks, Jimbo!).
That Baker report reminds me of cheap horror films where the zombies just keep coming back – except that zombies retain a measure of integrity.
But if Republicans are rushing to desert our troops and spit on the graves of heroes, the Democratic Party at least has been consistent – they’ve supported our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.
So I’ll tell you what happens: massacres. And while I have nothing against Shia militiamen and Sunni insurgents killing each other 24/7, the overwhelming number of victims will be innocent women, children and the elderly.
Why anyone with any kind of intelligence levels are listening to a group of people whose approval ratings is HALF of GWB’s is a odious concept.
BlandlyUrbane of DeMediacratic Nation has some things to say as well.
Perhaps bringing up the laws which are being violated by the “Quit Iraq” caucus is in order.
Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or “punish” its own Members. This authority of the institution of the House to discipline a Member for “disorderly Behaviour” is in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, and is a device or procedure designed not so much as merely a punishment of the individual Member, but rather ultimately as a measure to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings and its reputation.
Congressional discipline of a Member by the House of Representatives is done by the House itself, without the necessity of Senate concurrence, and may take several forms. The most common forms of discipline in the House are now “expulsion,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” although the House may also discipline its Members in others ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges. In addition to such sanctions imposed by the full House of Representatives, the standing committee in the House dealing with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal Committee reproach in the form of a “Letter of Reproval” for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives. Additionally, such Committee has also expressed its disapproval of conduct in informal letters and communications to Members.
The House may generally discipline its Members for violations of statutory law, including crimes; for violations of internal congressional rules; or for any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. Thus, each House of Congress has disciplined its own Members for conduct which has not necessarily violated any specific rule or law, but which was found to breach its privileges, demonstrate contempt for the institution, or which was found to discredit the House or Senate. When the most severe sanction of expulsion has been employed in the House, however, the conduct has historically involved either disloyalty to the United States Government, or the violation of a criminal law involving the abuse of one’s official position, such as bribery.
United States Code
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Section 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
Madame Traitor Pelosi has also violated The Logan Act:
Did Nancy Pelosi Violate the Logan Act?
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
That is the complete text of the Logan Act, passed by the U.S. Congress on January 30, 1799, and in force to this day.
Did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and others) violate that act during a much-publicized, self-authorized trip to Syria?
The answer, like the law itself, is simple and straightforward: Yes.
Nancy Pelosi qualifies as “any citizen of the United States,” with no exemption as Speaker of the House.
Nancy Pelosi acted “without authority of the United States,” which, in matters of foreign policy, resides solely and exclusively in the executive branch of the U.S. Government, meaning the President of the United States and his designees. The President of the United States specifically disapproved of the Pelosi trip to Syria, asked her not to go and criticized her thereafter.
Nancy Pelosi directly commenced “correspondence or intercourse” with officers and agents of a foreign government.
Nancy Pelosi, by her own statements, intended and attempted to influence the “measures or conduct” of that foreign government. Those measures and that conduct directly relate to disputes or controversies with the United States (and its allies).
That the measures and conduct of Syria are among the worst of nations is of considerable concern from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but is irrelevant from the standpoint of the Logan Act, which does not grade the behavior of countries or delineate among them for the purposes of its strictures.
That Speaker Pelosi says she said nothing on her trip that differs from the positions of the President is also irrelevant, from the standpoint of the law, and either woefully ignorant or ignorant and spiteful, from the standpoint of international relations.
The current policy of the U.S., as made by the executive branch, is to isolate Syria. That may be right; it may be wrong; it may not even matter. It is not, however, anywhere within Speaker Pelosi’s prerogative to tangibly interfere or even interpose herself by meeting directly with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the purposes of any “diplomacy.”
Pelosi’s defenders make much of the fact that she is Speaker of the House of Representatives and only behind the Vice President in order of succession to the Presidency. That may get heads nodding on television talk shows, but falls with a thud against the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, recognizing the “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” or “the decision of the executive is conclusive.”
(Contrary to the mistaken assertions of some, presidential succession is not specified in the Constitution, but in statutory law made by Congress, subject to change, as it has changed in the past. No Speaker has ever succeeded to the Presidency. Even if one ever does, that will never make the legislative branch the executive branch or allow anyone in the legislative branch to adventure past the separation of powers that is one of the cornerstones of our government.)
It is far more pertinent to ask another question regarding Pelosi’s role as Speaker of the House. What does it say to this country that she openly violates a law made by the very legislative body of which she is the putative leader? If she disagrees with the law, for any reason, it is her job to try to change it, not to violate it, no matter how much she may disagree with the foreign policy positions of a duly-elected President.
The Logan Act may be old and no one ever before prosecuted for violating it. But it is neither ill-founded nor archaic, particularly in a time of world unrest and significant domestic tension regarding U.S. policy toward that unrest. The law does not preclude all legislators’ discussions with foreign leaders, such as fact-finding, but only those which have the unauthorized intent to influence those leaders.
As recently as September 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House issued a memo to all members and officers that cautioned against activities that implicate the Logan Act, albeit intended as a warning to outgoing members. Similarly, in February 2006, the Congressional Research Service prepared a survey of the Logan Act for Congress. While neither document is particularly respectful of the law, there should at least be no one in Congress claiming not to understand it (including Speaker Pelosi’s Republican fellow travelers).
There is no question that many Americans and many in Congress disagree strenuously with foreign policy positions of the Bush Administration. Any and all, including Speaker Pelosi, may say so, loudly and often, in Congress, in the public square. But none of us, including Speaker Pelosi, has the right to conduct any foreign policy, without specific authorization of the President.
Now, Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are openly discussing a diplomatic trip to “dialogue” with Iran. In the Byzantine world of foreign relations, that’s like trying to dismantle a nuke wearing only a head scarf for protection.
The Washington Post called Speaker Pelosi’s mission to Syria “foolish.” Vice President Cheney called it “bad behavior.” We call it felony
I wasn’t going to post this but I feel compelled. It goes to show the world how DUMB some in the Halls of CONgress are. And Reid, the dumbest of all and the owner of the LOWEST approval rating of a CONgress Critter in the history of our nation, has hired someone dumber than he is. Hard to believe? Check this out. I won’t point out the dumb “thing”. If you spot it, place it in the comments section.
The Buck Stops Here
The Politico reports on some back and forth between Senate Republicans and Democrats over lobbying and ethics legislation:
[Sen. Jim] DeMint [R., S.C.] says he supports the lobbying reform provisions in the package. But he isn’t likely to budge until he gets a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the new Senate rules on earmarks won’t be watered down or deleted from the final bill.
The earmark provision is a change in Senate rules, which DeMint argues shouldn’t be part of any conference committee with the House.
“The House has no reason to tinker with Senate rules,” said Wesley Denton, DeMint’s spokesman. “The only reason to want to put them in conference is because they intend to change them.”
Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, calls those assertions “phony as a two-dollar bill.”
Give Reid credit. Not many employers would give such a big break to a Taco Bell clerk.
Bush: Will he stay the course as others run? “America good! Al Qaeda bad!” – A trader in the Qatana bazaar, Ramadi, Iraq
Rich Lowry…NY Post
THIS is a sentiment that the Iraqi trader felt safe to utter as a visiting U.S. gen eral passed by, according to John Burns of The New York Times, only after a furtive glance “up and down the narrow refuse-strewn street to check who might be listening.” In a microcosm, this is the reason why we’re finally making progress against al Qaeda in Iraq: The protection afforded by American combat power has made it possible for Iraqis in Sunni areas to turn against the terror group.
In a global struggle against Islamic extremism, it is an incontestably welcome development that ordinary Sunnis in the Arab heartland are spurning al Qaeda. The extremist group has been on a campaign of savagery in Iraq that has discredited its own cause. The grassroots revolt against it means that it is within our reach to deny al Qaeda its most important current geopolitical objective, which is plunging Iraq into a bloody chaos in which it can thrive.
But a group of Republican senators have picked precisely this moment to call for deconstructing the troop surge that has begun to give us the upper hand against al Qaeda. They thus reveal a key dishonesty in the debate over the war: Everyone professes to want to fight al Qaeda in Iraq – as opposed to policing the sectarian war – but the number of politicians willing to support the means to that end is ever-dwindling.
…fear success in the War In Iraq.
This week, Democrats on Capitol Hill are expected to present several different bills meant to undermine the war in Iraq. I fear that it will be difficult for Americans to discern the facts, as members on the Hill (including some Republicans) will revisit past failures and lament unfortunate losses rather than undertake a serious critique of the new counterinsurgency strategy.
Why? Because for some members of Congress, there is a growing fear that Gen. David Petraeus just might have a winning strategy in Iraq.
So sad to be them, eh?
Iraqnophobia is such a lethal psychosis.
The Two Muppeteers, Reid and Pelosi, are at it again. I guess they firmly desire to further their plunge into obscurity and place their names in The Book of All Time Losers. What are their approval ratings now? And why do they cater to the Vocal Minority on a continual basis? Your answer(s) are as good as my own. I just know that the two largest losers in the history of the United Stataes CONgress will introduce further loser mentality in the hopes to raise themselves above the primordial ooze in which they are drowning in at the moment.
From The Crypt:
Pelosi, Reid to announce new push to end Iraq war
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.
Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.
Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.
Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This “deauthorization” proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.
In addition, House Democrats will push proposals to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as a “readiness” initiative similar to that authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). The Webb proposal would limit deployments of U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq by requiring the Pentagon to keep military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in the combat zone.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee and a leader of the anti-war movement, is planning to offer his own new measures as part of the Defense spending bill.
Pelosi has been quietly meeting with various factions within the Democratic Caucus this week on the Iraq initiative, including Blue Dog conservatives skittish about being seen as anti-military, and the Out of Iraq Caucus, whose members have pushed hard for an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Both Pelosi and Reid have come to the conclusion that President Bush’s plan for a “surge” in the number of U.S. troops inside Iraq, has failed and that Democrats, despite losing their showdown with Bush and the Republicans over the recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, must continue to force votes to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is supposed to report back to Congress in September on the state of the “surge,” but Democrats have decided not to wait for his report.
“The surge is a failure, it isn’t working,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the new initiative. “We just can’t leave American soldiers out there dying and not do anything.”
Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus attended a meeting with Pelosi, other Democratic leaders and the Blue Dog lawmakers today.
After the meeting, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democratic leaders “are working to build a consensus” within the Caucus on the Iraq proposals, but promised votes all next month on the issue. Hoyer said no date had been scheduled at this time for any of these votes, although the Defense spending bill is set to reach the House floor in mid-July.
Harry Reid, the Senate’s majority leader and resident Uriah Heep, affected ‘umble and syrupy sadness about the Senate’s inability to pass the immigration bill that he pulled from the floor last Thursday evening for a transparently meretricious reason. Saying the Senate’s time was too precious to expend on what would have been limited debate on a limited number of Republican amendments to the bill, Reid vowed: “Everyone that’s been home, there are two issues that are foremost in their minds: Number one is the Iraq War and number two are gas prices. We’re going to deal with that as soon as we finish with this immigration legislation.”
Reid. No one is listening to you. Go home and retire. Do the world a favor.
Previous post here:
NY Post here:
REID SETS THE PACE FOR DEFEAT IN IRAQ
June 22, 2007 — THE ISSUE: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attack on Gens. Pace and Petraeus.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s remarks are not just ill-timed, they’re unconscionable (“Harry-Kiri Reid,” Editorial, June 17).
It’s only in the last few days that the final brigade combat team responsible for implementing the “surge” of U.S. forces in Iraq has been deployed.
As such, Reid’s comments would be akin to Gen. Eisenhower having been disparaged by foes of FDR while our forces were still on the beaches during D-Day.
No political leader during World War II would have dared to utter such remarks, to the delight of our enemies, at so perilous a time.
That Reid could make such comments without complete condemnation by members of the Democratic Party, especially its presidential candidates, is staggering. Their so-called support of the troops rings hollow.
West Chester, Pa.
I hope Reid and Nancy Pelosi are watching the civil war in Gaza very carefully. This is what happens when you unilaterally withdraw, re-deploy, disengage or whatever the word of the week is, before winning the war and peace and having a stable, strong government and well-trained security forces loyal to the government in place.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah forces were all too weak, dysfunctional or corrupt to stand up against Hamas.
Now Israel will have to go back into Gaza and pay in blood and lives for the same real estate again.
When the left wing and the peace movement get their way in war, the body count goes up.
Once again, The Post has it backward.
Supporting the troops means not sending them into a preemptive and unnecessary war without the proper body and vehicle armor they need, not slashing their benefits behind their backs and ensuring they have medical care when they come home.
Supporting the troops means not extending their deployments or cutting short their leaves, not using a back-door draft to keep more bodies on the front line and not sacrificing their lives, limbs and minds.
Reid is right. He’s not playing games with words as The Post and the GOP do regularly. He’s being truthful and honest – something President Bush & Co. have no use for.
Reid’s disparaging remarks do not damage those intrepid defenders of America who have spent their lives in the service of this country, nor do they injure our troops in the field.
The generals and soldiers they lead are more far-sighted than the hapless Democratic leader who has his eyes only on the 2008 presidential campaign.
Our battle against Islamist terrorists will continue even if we have Reid and other near-sighted politicians biting at our ankles.
Their concentration on the short-term political benefits of bashing Bush and American commanders over the Iraq effort is seen clearly as a transparent attempt to politicize a deadly serious commitment.
Reference this link and these posts in particular here, here and here. After reading those, read this article from the NY Post.Democrats claim to “support the troops,” but they never seem to tire of bashing them and their leaders in the field.
Take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Last week, he attacked outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace as “incompetent” and had similar disparaging remarks about Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Coalition forces in Iraq.
In nearly six months’ time, Reid and his House partner-in-crime, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have managed to plunge Congress’ approval ratings below even the near-historic low levels that President Bush is registering.
Yes, Reid is a duly elected leader of Congress. Yes, he has every right to weigh in on the effectiveness of America’s military leaders.
But in doing so, he is also undermining officers in the field – and, by extension, the troops that serve them.
In the process he does his country a disservice.
That’s especially true in his criticism of Petraeus.
On Thursday, Reid backpedaled a bit, but continued to slam Petraeus for not being “candid” about Iraq. Seems anyone who refuses to join Reid in proclaiming America’s defeat there lacks “candor.”
In fact, Petraeus has said consistently – including at hearings that were the basis of Reid’s own vote to confirm him – that a full assessment of the “surge” and progress in Iraq won’t be possible until at least the fall.
If Reid is intent on doing to the Democratic Party what he’s already done to Congress – i.e., drive down its popularity – he’s more than welcome.
But to the extent that his comments embolden the enemy to kill American troops, they surely are not helpful.
Words have consequences.
Abroad, as well as at home.
Consequences. A term “alien” to the Leftinistra and has been for years. The Leftinistra NEVER take responsibility for their own actions. It is always someone else’s fault or they were misunderstood or they didn’t say “it” quite right or it is a vast right-wing conspiracy or Europe hates us and so do we…yadayadayadayada, so on and so forth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The Leftinistra should adopt Flip Wilson’s character Geraldine, “The devil made me do it.”
I wonder who they are blaming now that Congress’s approval ratings are well below that of the Hated GWB and they are the lowest in the history of the United States.
And this is how others feel:
Bagdad Reid offers himself up as a punching bag by opening his big mouth time and again and showing the American people that we, the conservatives are right when we say:
#1. Democrats cannot be trusted on National Security.
#2. Democrats “claims” to support the troops are not followed up with their words and actions.
Democrats do not take Lieberman to task because Lieberman is RIGHT.
It is also nice to see a liberal website point out how weak Harry “Baghdad” Reid really is.
Baghdad Reid is nothing more than a punching bag