Reid Open To "Compromise" With GOPers On Date-Certain Withdrawal From Iraq
Today's Washington Post has an interview with Harry Reid in which he suggests that he's now prepared to compromise with Republicans on Iraq:
LAS VEGAS -- Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.
"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."
Is Reid really saying that this fall he'll be flexible -- again -- on the question of funding the war without timetables? Seems like it.
Of course, Reid has already "compromised" with Republicans on Iraq by agreeing to fund the war through September with no withdrawal timetables, and look where that has gotten us.
That said, it's really hard to know what to make of this. His apparent openness to future funding without a date-certain for withdrawal, won't exactly buoy Congress' sinking approval ratings.
A charitable way to look at this is that it's a "Devil in the details" kind of situation. Come September, Reid -- aside from peripheral measures such as the troop rest measure -- would appear to have basically only two choices before him on the larger question of war funding: Refuse to fund the war unless the funding is attached to a withdrawal timeline, or agree to fund it without a date-certain. If Reid is only saying he's willing to compromise right now and has no intention of doing the latter, no biggie.
But if he does end up doing the latter, of course, Reid will catch Hell. It really is hard to imagine that the Dem leadership would do that, but after the FISA fiasco, it's anyone's guess what's next.
It won't be clear what this really means until it's translated into legislative details, but either way, it's hard to see what saying this right now accomplishes, aside from signaling weakness. Some clarification on what exactly Reid is saying here would be welcome.
Late Update: Reid's spokesman responds to our request for clarification.
Comments (39)
Anonymous wrote on August 31, 2007 11:27 AM:Harry, if you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
greg wrote on August 31, 2007 11:33 AM:indeed. it's unthinkable that they'd compromise on something that 60% of the American people want. Simply put, a majority wants withdrawal timelines tied to funding. End of story.
onceler wrote on August 31, 2007 11:37 AM:what a joke Harry Reid is. his refusal to actually lead the Dems in the Senate to resist Bush has already resulted in compromise after compromise. what more can they compromise? what exactly does he think the Republicans are going to offer him when they know perfectly well he can't keep his own people in line to vote against Bush's wishes? what a weak, weak leader his is, why won't the Dems replace him???
Chuck wrote on August 31, 2007 11:41 AM:If you still believe in the democratic process in America, you are a naive idiot that just can't face the truth. I learned good cop/bad cop as a child in Detroit. At the end of the day, they (Dems and Repubs) are just two guys in their cruiser; one pretending he is "more progressive" than the other so much so that he even fools himself.
dhs wrote on August 31, 2007 11:51 AM:The Democratic Party is self-destructing on their so-called "centrist" philosophy. What do they gain by compromising with the Republicans against the wishes of the majority of Americans? The lose their own base and gain little, if anything, from the Republican camp.
The Democrats do not have to pass any legislation to end the funding. The political landscape has changed, but the Democrats are looking to the past, not the future. The "centrist" philosophy worked in the 90's for Bill Clinton, but it has cost the Democrats heavily in the new century.
It is time for both parties to recognize that the political climate has changed radically.
P J Evans wrote on August 31, 2007 12:24 PM:My opinion of this is unprintable (it'd scorch paper).
If Reid isn't getting the message that we've been sending in our mail, phone calls, polls, whatever, that we need to get out of Iraq NOW, then he's not a leader and needs to resign. And take DiFi along, please.
Stuart Shaffer wrote on August 31, 2007 12:27 PM:The 'surge' is working -- in Washington, which is the only place it was ever intended to work.
H.H. McCool wrote on August 31, 2007 12:31 PM:chuck is right! dhs is right! as i stated in a post yesterday, we cannot stop the war and save the country from the neo-fascist neo-cons until we save the democratic party from harry reid, hillary clinton and the stealth repubenrons of the DLC.
gcs wrote on August 31, 2007 12:35 PM:Reid can go fuck himself as far as I'm concerned. Hey Harry, give me a call when you get up off your knees and grow a goddamned pair you pussy.
Vietnam Vet wrote on August 31, 2007 12:36 PM:It's time to replace Reid. He has become RINO like Joe Lieberman as far as Iraq is concerned. If he has his way we will be in Iraq for another decade.
There is no compromising with Republicans on Iraq.
All we opponents of indefinite continuation of the war in Iraq want is for our Democratic "leaders" to stand up to Bush and begin withdrawing our troops ASAP.
Of 58,000 US soldiers killed in Vietnam, 30,000 were killed after our leadership had concluded that the war was not winnable militarily.
oleeb wrote on August 31, 2007 12:40 PM:Open to compromise my ass! It's more like open to capitulation---again.
Jeff wrote on August 31, 2007 12:45 PM:Yet another example of the battered wife syndrome that is crippling the Democratic party.
We need people in leadership positions who haven't been so traumatized by the last 14 years that they start looking for compromise BEFORE negotiations begin. If Harry Reid were selling a house, he would start things off by dropping the price before he even gets an offer.
Michael Caine wrote on August 31, 2007 12:49 PM:Looks like its time to get a new Majority Leader of the Senate.
Mitch wrote on August 31, 2007 12:49 PM:"Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline."
The dissenting GOP position is the same as Bush's, i.e., we want the war to end someday. So now Reid's position is also the same as that of Bush.
Dave in ME wrote on August 31, 2007 12:51 PM:You can't stand up for what the majority of the country wants and are worried about the wrath of Commander 28%? Then get the fuck out of the Majority Leader position and allow someone with conviction to take over.
ohiomeister wrote on August 31, 2007 12:52 PM:I think he's probably trying to draw some proposals out of the GOP WINO caucus that the WINOs would actually support.
The WINOs are probably still all talk, but Harry and some Dems either aren't willing to stop funding by themselves or at least don't prefer to do so without some bipartisan cover, so he is trying to encourage them to give him some actual legislation or ideas that they would vote for.
It's probably a good idea from his perspective, as it would be easier to end the war with a bill with some teeth that had bipartisan support than by cutting off funding and having to endlessly rebut the stupid cutting-off-the-troops argument that the MSM can't quote enough times from the far right.
The other tricky thing is that I think Reid would have to cut off funding on his own basically, since an actual bill to cut off funding would fail. He would have to just table any funding bills. Does that sound right? Greg?
ohiomeister wrote on August 31, 2007 12:55 PM:As per the end of my last comment, what exactly is it that all of the angry commenters want Reid to do?
(Be specific about the # of votes required to do whatever it is you want, since I still don't think we can count on any GOP support whatsoever at this point for either cutting funding or setting a date certain for withdrawal.)
moondancer wrote on August 31, 2007 12:59 PM:Pussy
Fred Furney wrote on August 31, 2007 1:01 PM:Step down Harry!
Offcial A wrote on August 31, 2007 1:06 PM:So, they are begin bargaining with, "My asking price is..."? Think Bushco will be so forthcoming? Great negotiating skills, Harry.
I recently changed my registration from (D) after three and a half decades. This is a team of losers. They like to punt on second down.
By the way, Harry, whatever happened to that Phase II investigation you shut down the Senate over a couple years back?
Losers.
JimBob wrote on August 31, 2007 1:09 PM:Gee, the Dems are open to compromise? Get out the K-Y Jelly, and color me asTONished!
JimBob wrote on August 31, 2007 1:10 PM:ohiomeister, it's quite simple. Stop paying for the ongoing invasion of Iraq.
ColumbiaDuck wrote on August 31, 2007 1:11 PM:I'm a little curious where all the angry posters think Reid is going to get the votes to end the war as the Republicans have shown no willingness to part from their President. Last time they tried to end a GOP filibuster, the Dems got 52 votes - they needed 60 (and they'll need 67 to override a veto).
So instead of blaming Reid for getting 48 democrats and one independent to vote to change course, shouldn't we focus our attention on the 47 Republicans who like the war just fine the way it is?
Official A wrote on August 31, 2007 1:20 PM:Harry "Wide Stance" Reid is offering to play a little footsy with the guy in the next stall, eh? I think it's time for Progressives to bust these political perverts.
That sound we hear is the sound of the Democratic Party going down the drain.
CTHankster wrote on August 31, 2007 1:21 PM:My theory: Bush used warrantless domestic wiretapping to get blackmail dirt on a load of Democrats. Like J. Edgar Hoover used to have folders that came in handy when necessary.
Just a theory for Democratic cowardice and disregard for the public clamor for change.
Of course, maybe they just are cowards and worthless hacks and no blackmail files are necesaary to get them to sell out the electorate (and the fate of the country, for that matter).
Official A wrote on August 31, 2007 1:27 PM:"I'm a little curious where all the angry posters think Reid is going to get the votes to end the war"
A simple majority in the House of Representatives can cut off war funding. The president can't veto a spendding bill that never reaches his desk.
In truth. if the Democrats wanted us out of Iraq, we'd be out already. They pretend they want us out but just can't muster the votes, but none of the Presidential contenders in Congress except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich has lifted a finger to influnece their colleagues to cut off funding.
The Party is nearly devoid of leadership. It's sickening.
bohdi wrote on August 31, 2007 1:28 PM:Reid communicates nothing but constant weakness and impotence. Both in his demeanor and in nearly everything he says. A pathetic,lying weak-ass politician who needs to be railroaded out of office immediately. Not that leadership counts that much anymore in a clown culture obsessed with prurient sex and hooker celebrities but just imagine if if a Howard Dean or a Robert Kennedy or a Kucinich were leading the party and had a pulpit from which to speak and act? This country gets what it deserves. Under cover of Larry Craig among other nonissues Cheney is doing an end run and prepping for the inevitable bombing and mass killing of Iranians and no one in the Media or in Amerika seems remotely concerned. A pathetic,listless,endlessly stupid and subservient culture of greedy,fat,viscious 'citizens'. Rome revisited.
ColumbiaDuck wrote on August 31, 2007 1:34 PM:You do realize that it would take money to bring troops home? Without additional funding, they'd just be stuck there, hoping for a ride on Halliburton's plane. The fact is that cutting off funding is not practical.
Anonymous wrote on August 31, 2007 1:44 PM:bohdi wrote: "A pathetic,listless,endlessly stupid and subservient culture of greedy,fat,viscious 'citizens'. Rome revisited.
"
Not too sure about viscious. Visciousness requires effort. But all the other points we agree on.
Official A wrote on August 31, 2007 1:51 PM:Authorize funding for the return. Let the Republicans vote against it, if they dare. If it passes and Bush vetoes it, the Republicans in Congress will have to vote to susttain the veto. Then they will all have voted against our troops.
We certainly seem anxious to find excuses for enabling Bush, and not very interested in working to influence the way this whole issue is marketed to the American people.
dfong63 wrote on August 31, 2007 2:17 PM:no more excuses, Harry. it's time to deliver. if you can't, then at least go down fighting. the American people want out of Iraq, and if you won't stand up to Bush, you're as guilty as he is.
Street Smart wrote on August 31, 2007 2:55 PM:I see that defense industry cash ooozing into the pockets of the spineless opportunists in DC. They figure that we're all going to vote Dem anyway, just to stop the domestic abuses of power. Maybe we should start demanding commitments on rule of law, voting issues, living wage, unionization, health care and energy. We can use those as wedge issues to push the Blue Dogs and DINO's out and rebuild the party to respond to people, not power.
Weston Cain wrote on August 31, 2007 3:12 PM:Follow the money............or the "gotchas".
That's just what the Democrats and the country need right now: more compromising with the administration and the GOP. Someone call David Broder -- we have entered the "post-partisan" era!
Go U.S. Americans!
ColumbiaDuck wrote on August 31, 2007 3:47 PM:And the veto will be sustained, Official A, because again we won't have 67 votes to override it, getting us exactly ... no where. Gosh that kabuki could take months - months that could have been used to actually withdrawal troops if we can come to some agreement with the WINOs. (Or at least force them to show their true colors).
to paraphrase David Obey - do you have a magic wand?
Brian wrote on August 31, 2007 4:28 PM:If the Dems don't get some backbone and force the beginnings of a withdrawal from Iraq before GW leaves office I will probably vote Republican for president in 2008 (holding my nose), or not vote at all for the office of President.
There is NO WAY the Dems should approve an additional $50,000,000,000 for this occupation!!
dndobson wrote on August 31, 2007 4:35 PM:If Reid actually gets a veto proof funding bill that calls for withdrawal - any withdrawal - then I'll forgive him.
But I worry he is letting himself get set up again to be punked. He keeps on believing that the Senate Republicans are operating in good faith - and they aren't.
Official A wrote on August 31, 2007 5:14 PM:ColumbiaDuck wrote: "And the veto will be sustained, Official A, because again we won't have 67 votes to override it"
So Bush, supported by Republicans and fake Democrats in Congress, successfully vetoes a bill designed to bring the troops out of harm's way and leaves them stranded in Iraq becuase he can't have his way? Republicans can use that story line against Democrats only if the Democrats let them. Which they probably will, if history is any judge. It's pitiful. Dems need to learn how to use do basic PR, apparently.
What you are basically saying is that Democrats can do the will of the people who elected them only by letting Bush have his way. Gosh, that strategy has worked so well so far, why change now?
The Republic is doomed.
runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk
