« Ware Doesn't Appear To Have Heckled, But Shows Bias in CNN Interview | Main | "All right, we'll call it a draw." »

Reids plans to cut funds for Iraq War

Harry Reid is determined to force a withdrawal from Iraq by next year even if it means cutting off the funds, according to Ann Flaherty of the Associated Press:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement.


Reid's new strategy faces an uphill battle because many of his colleagues see yanking funds as a dangerous last resort. The proposal increases the stakes on the debate and marks a new era for the Democratic leadership once reluctant to talk about Congress' power of the purse.

"In the face of the administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who signed on Monday as a co-sponsor of Reid's proposal with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines.


Read it all at the above link.

I must admit the Defeat Caucus is petulantly pugnacious in pursuit of their pusillanimous perfidy. It speaks ill of modern America that such men dare show their faces in public, much less hold high office.



TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reids plans to cut funds for Iraq War:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto, Obama says

Comments (28)

Does it also speak ill of m... (Below threshold)
trizzle:

Does it also speak ill of modern America that Reid is essentially speaking for a majority of Americans? I mean, isn't that what representative government is all about?

*snorts*Only if a ... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

*snorts*

Only if a Democrat's in office, apparently. Given that when the Republicans have a majority in Congress, none of you ever agree that /they/ have a mandate.

Reid speaks for and represe... (Below threshold)
914:

Reid speaks for and represents no one but His land deal partners and Himself!

When the antiwar crowd invo... (Below threshold)

When the antiwar crowd invokes public opinion in defense of their craven position, it brings up two questions: 1) Just what polls are they citing? and 2) Does this mean they now agree invading Iraq was the right thing to do since it was supported by an overwhelming majority at the time?

Jim,There is no wa... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Jim,

There is no way in hell that the Dem leadership is going to allow the Republicans to campaign without the Iraq War as a backdrop.

Feel free to use my thesis in a future post.

What Harry SAYS is for schmucks.

well, gee, if the repubs ha... (Below threshold)
zandar:

well, gee, if the repubs had the majority again and a liberal president was waging a open-ended war against poverty instead of an open-ended war against enemy combatants, how would they to stop it? The purse strings, of course. But wait, you whine, what about the safety of our troops?

Ask impoverished Americans how safe they feel at night knowing their president could care less because they aren't sitting on any oil reserves. They've been suffering inexcusably high crime rates, ridiculously expensive or nonexistent health care, an education system designed to ensure their failure, the steady decline in the value of their income dollar and a deteriorating infrastructure for- well, for freakin' ever.

Stop the waste. bring that money home and fix our people's problems first before trying to "fix" (ha!) other countries first. And you know very well that the sooner the day comes that there is no more money to support the troops, the sooner they come home. Money runs the game, remember? End of story. Anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool or a liar.

the proposal will be not a ... (Below threshold)
Frank:

the proposal will be not a referendum on defeat but one on incompetence. it will be about no longer leaving the fate and lives of our brave soldiers in the hands of those who care not for their well-being and cannot devise a strategy to bring the peace. after all, according to henry K, military victory is no longer an possibility (wasn't he recently an advisor to the asshat-in-chief)?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/19/iraq.kissinger/index.html

Post like this prove the ab... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Post like this prove the absolute irrelavance of the right. Do you guys seriously think that, other than your deluded selves, the American people trust George Bush to do ANYTHING right. Jesus!!!To support this president and his catastrophic policies now you gotta be suffering from some serious mental illness or be such a wimpy submissive that you have to fall in line with what Hannity tells you is right.

Bush has destroyed the conservative movement, the republican party and is intent on destroying our country. Why don't you folks grow a set and stand up for what is right for America.

It is clear that a majority... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

It is clear that a majority of Americans were not happy with the progress in Iraq at the time of the last election, true.

It is not nearly so clear that a majority of Americans want to force defeat on a set schedule.

If that were true, Pelosi would not have needed so much pork to force through a bill by a very narrow margin.

Knowing this, the Dim's are passing eyewash for the loonie left, who are easily fooled.

well, gee, if the repubs... (Below threshold)

well, gee, if the repubs had the majority again and a liberal president was waging a open-ended war against poverty instead of an open-ended war against enemy combatants, how would they to stop it? The purse strings, of course. But wait, you whine, what about the safety of our troops?


Good try zandar! Does this mean if a Democrat is president he/she/it is no longer commander in chief and must rely on congress to fire missiles at aspirin factories and assassinate camels? The last time I checked the President isn't Commander in Chief of the welfare department no matter how much the welfare dependent parasitic left wishes it was the case but the President is Commander in Chief of the military.

I agree with Robert. It wa... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I agree with Robert. It was clear the majority of Americans were unhappy with the way the war effort was being managed. It is my understanding the majority of Americans are not comfortable with pulling the monetary rug out from under the troops - as it is perceived. Zandar, I am surprised that you feel the money being "wasted" in Iraq will solve the problems of poverty, health care, violence, etc. I think if you look at past performance, it is more of a matter WHERE you want your money WASTED. And, of course, that is your preogative.

Polls show a majority of Am... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Polls show a majority of Americans do not like the income tax, so the democratic leadership is closing the IRS.

Polls show a majority of Americans do not want to pay for Medicaid, so the demoratic leadership is stopping funding the program.

Polls show a majority to Americans want out of Social Security, so the program will be stopped.

Should I go on? Or do the dimmers still not get what a republic is?

The dimmers are playing politics with the troops. Plain and simple. ww

Well said ww.Of co... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Well said ww.

Of course it is the MO of the Democratic Leadership to only follow the polls they feel are the most important.

There is dissent, and then ... (Below threshold)

There is dissent, and then there is a childish, tantrum-like insistence that your desire hold sway, evidence to the contrary be damned. In the eyes of the public, Harry Reid is rapidly transforming himself from any semblence of the former to cartoonish assumption of the latter persona.

Far be it for a politician, especially one of the Democrat persuasion, to have any shame (let alone sanity!).

harry reid and the rest of ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

harry reid and the rest of those fagget demoshits need to have their balls examined under a microscope...effing pussies!!

Don't worry about the trait... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Don't worry about the traitorous politicians. Worry about the people who 'voted' them into office. Politicians do it for money and ego, voters do it out of pure stupidity.

Unfortunately we have a cit... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Unfortunately we have a citizen majority that "ask what their country can do for them", so sad. ww

We had laws at one time tha... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

We had laws at one time that people who committed crimes went to jail and their ill gotten gains was conficated and returned to the (people) state treasury. Now we have states that make hero's and leaders of the criminals and keep them in office for life. Can anyone say Masshole and leaving Las Vegas aka the chicken ranch?
Democrat or Republican, that is what your children and grandchildren will have to live under, criminals. Not rich, screw you.

Cut the purse strings, now,... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Cut the purse strings, now, don't wait.

Tell McCain and his buddy Bush the merchants in Baghdad know that their little PR trip was just a media blitz.

How dare these people CONTNUE to lie to us. How dare they.

Mike Pence from Indiana dared to say the Shorja district is a safe, bustling place full of hopeful and warmly welcoming Iraqis -- "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime". What kind of drugs are these people taking? What kind of drugs are the people who still support these traitors taking? How dare you?

SOme trip.......150 soldiers with 20 armored humvees, 3 black hawk helicopteres circling overhead, traffic redirected from the area, sharpshooters on rooftops and all wore vests. Juat a f*[email protected] stroll in the park.

You know, when the Presiden... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You know, when the President goes anywhere in the US, similar protection is provided.

Just saying.
-=Mikr

There is dissent, and th... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

There is dissent, and then there is a childish, tantrum-like insistence that your desire hold sway, evidence to the contrary be damned.

I thought this comment was describing George W Bush when I read the first sentence.

Bush appears unable to comprehend that the Democrats now control both the Senate and the House. If he wants a funding bill for the Iraq War he's going to have to forge a compromise with the Democrats that can gain a majority of votes in both houses. Without a deadline for withdrawal that's going to be exceedingly difficult.

In the meantime, Bush's effort to paint the Democrats as abandoning our troops in the field isn't resonating with the American people at all. People are not flooding the Congress with angry calls and letters demanding that they sign off on an open ended funding bill for the war. The polls show a solid majority are behind the Democratic plan. The Democrats can continue to pursue this strategy without paying any sort of political price.

As for John McCain, I think his actions raise questions about whether the he is losing the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy anymore. John McCain is a great American, a true patriot and war hero whom I supported (with cash) in the 2000 campaign. But now he looks lethargic and worn out and his statements (like Petraeus riding in an "unarmed humvee") are utterly nonsensical. I'm sure he sees that his campaign is faltering and his chances to become President dwindle by the day as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. There isn't a single day that goes by where I don't regret how the Bushies sandbagged McCain in South Carolina, but I also think it's high time for him to step aside and let someone else lead the country now.

Civil Behavior:Def... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Civil Behavior:

Defund the war? Go for it!

Have you got the votes to do it? Would you like to make a little side bet on the outcome?

Didn't think so!

Larkin, dear: ... (Below threshold)

Larkin, dear:

Since you seem to be too affected by BDS to pick up the key point, here it is ...

Bush is the President and free to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit. Pelosi is not the President, and is barred by the Logan Act from conducting an alternate foreign policy.

To borrow (and turn on its head) a witticism from one of your heroes:

"It's the Constitution, stupid!"

It is my understanding t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It is my understanding the majority of Americans are not comfortable with pulling the monetary rug out from under the troops

Your understanding is incorrect.

"Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?"

Not Far Enough/About Right: 70%

The Congress is now debating future funding for the war in Iraq. Would you like to see your congressional representative vote FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008?"

Vote For: 59%

Pelosi is not the Presid... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Pelosi is not the President, and is barred by the Logan Act from conducting an alternate foreign policy.

Good point, langtry! But I missed your post where you also tore into the Republican delegation that visited Syria just before Pelosi did. Can you please point me to that?

The polls show a solid m... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The polls show a solid majority are behind the Democratic plan.

Bush is polling higher than the Congress.

Just saying.

Good point, langtry! But I missed your post where you also tore into the Republican delegation that visited Syria just before Pelosi did. Can you please point me to that?

Feel free to point to the members of the minority party claiming they were engaging in an alternate foreign policy.

We have the LEADERSHIP of the majority party saying that.
-=Mike

Feel free to point to th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Feel free to point to the members of the minority party claiming they were engaging in an alternate foreign policy.

Right, I'm sure they were just there for the lamb.

The more money the liberal ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

The more money the liberal dirtycrats can denigh to the GIs the more they can have for their pork projects just typical of their trecerous demacrats




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy