If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
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" Video)
"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.
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.
And every passing day makes it clearer and clearer. I don't know how I'd handle this as an elected official. I guess Reid does...
I love that our politicians want to help create a bigger mess.
We'll still be over there, and Afghanistan, and Japan, and Europe, and everywhere else in the world where we store troops and pretend to police the world... regardless of whatever politicans ever do.
The thing I simply just don't get is why the Middle East.
We've been "fixing" things there for decades, and still we don't get even 30% of our oil from that region - so it's not because of oil.
There are problems in South America, Africa, and eastern Asia - yet we're not over there bumbling through some mess. They have natural resources in those continents... Actually, I believe we get more oil from a couple of South American countries than all of the Middle East. So again, it's not because of oil. And it's not because there's no place else with human tragedies...
Anyone have a clue, why we pick on Arabs? Is it a racist thing, and our leaders just hate that region the most?
__________________
bzb - SBN's resident DJ
2006 Ducati SuperSport 800 - Carbon fiber fender & heel guards, 14T front sprocket, CA integrated tail light, fender elim, air box mod, cut DP cans, Sargent seat
I find it a little interesting that in the course of a few months they have changed the verancular from Democratic and Republican Parties to Democrat and Republican. Very subtle and sudden shift!
As for Reed, I think he should choose his words more carefully lest he use up the perceived good will of the American intentions. I think it's far past time that the Congress wake up to their duties of oversight.
__________________ There no need to ascribe to conspiracy that which can be attributed to indifference.
i dont see why we dont stay in there forever. its not like we dont have any money to pay for it. hell we can always fall back on china. oh wait we have a massive trade deficit already.
btw, i love it when jon stewart plays the clips of dumbsfeld saying something like "could last 6 days, maybe 6 weeks...i doubt.....6 months"
yeah we want this guy as secretary of defense, i think ill vote for bush again. hes a great decider.
but this isnt nothing more than neocon fuel for "the demoncraps lost us this war" shit you KNOW they're already puking.
I love that our politicians want to help create a bigger mess.
We'll still be over there, and Afghanistan, and Japan, and Europe, and everywhere else in the world where we store troops and pretend to police the world... regardless of whatever politicans ever do.
The thing I simply just don't get is why the Middle East.
We've been "fixing" things there for decades, and still we don't get even 30% of our oil from that region - so it's not because of oil.
There are problems in South America, Africa, and eastern Asia - yet we're not over there bumbling through some mess. They have natural resources in those continents... Actually, I believe we get more oil from a couple of South American countries than all of the Middle East. So again, it's not because of oil. And it's not because there's no place else with human tragedies...
Anyone have a clue, why we pick on Arabs? Is it a racist thing, and our leaders just hate that region the most?
A lot of it has to do with protecting Israel. We don't have an equivalent ally that we have committed to in any of those other places, certainly not one that is endangered like Israel is and has been. Note, please, that I am not making a judgement here as to whether or not we *should* be protecting Israel, just that we are.
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
158,000 miles (so far)
A lot of it has to do with protecting Israel. We don't have an equivalent ally that we have committed to in any of those other places, certainly not one that is endangered like Israel is and has been. Note, please, that I am not making a judgement here as to whether or not we *should* be protecting Israel, just that we are.
PhilB
Maybe. I think Israel (just in the past year) has shown they are completely capable of defending themselves, though.
Even ignoring that, if "a lot" has to do with Israel, what's the rest? There are crazy Muslim extremists in Africa, too...
__________________
bzb - SBN's resident DJ
2006 Ducati SuperSport 800 - Carbon fiber fender & heel guards, 14T front sprocket, CA integrated tail light, fender elim, air box mod, cut DP cans, Sargent seat
Reid: "The War is Lost"
its not like we dont have any money to pay for it. hell we can always fall back on china. oh wait we have a massive trade deficit already.
Linear Mode
