Reid: Dems Won't Soften Iraq Timelines

Associated Press:

After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.

The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.

Read the whole story: Associated Press

Comments

[Ammobob]

Democrats Backing Down On Iraq -- For Now
The Democrats have signaled retreat once again on their push to abandon Iraq, deciding that they have to wait until next summer to regain momentum on timelines for withdrawal. Instead, they will focus on creating obstacles for the Pentagon in its efforts to maintain necessary troop levels, although that effort appears to be failing as well:

Democrats' Iraq Push on Hold

Reid Plans Spring Effort to Set June 2008 Pullout Deadline

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A03

Unable to garner enough Republican support, Senate Democratic leaders said yesterday that they are abandoning a bipartisan effort to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by next spring.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said that Democrats had been willing to make the troop withdrawal a "goal" in order to attract GOP support, but it never materialized. Instead, Reid will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801889.html

[willo]

Reid should be fired. He's a lily livered windbag. I think he's a closet republican.

[kmccaskill]

wake up dems

Hypocrite Hillary(DC Experience Matters?JFK & Bill HAD LIL

This Video Is Showing That Hillary is a hypocrite for saying obama has no experience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBy3AKn_2Fk

[lookingAhead]

Beep to late you are already caving in. Sorry read but your talk is cheap and can't be believe any more. People are starting to tune you out as much as Bush. We want action not non binding crap and lip service. Stop wasting our tax money on your BS.

[jaschrod]

And the time lines are, maybe 2020? What a government, corrupt republicans, and weak ass democrats.

[Warmglobe]

Yes....bro­adcast to the enemy exactly when we will leave...th­at makes sense doesn't it?

[loki]

You dont have to soften when you do what Bush tells you.

[Hastings]

Question - Why don't the Democracts take an up or down vote on Iraq?
Answer - We don't have the votes to override a veto.
Translation - Are you kidding, there is no way we are going to go on the record by voting for surrender. Besides this is way too good of a partisan wedge issue. Heck, if we didn't have this issue what would we use to stir up the Bush haters in the peanut gallery.

[SmolderingRuin]

Hang tough, Harry. Bwahahaha.

[researcher]

If you believe him I got a bridge to sell cheap but needs some minor (well ok major) repair but hey don’t fix it Americans don’t care about bridges just oil.

Nancy and Reid are in over their heads. Nancy go home and be grandmother you have set the women back in politics 50 years.

Reid go back to Vegas and gamble like the rest of the retirees.

Now taking bets that the demos will fold.

Got to hand it to bush and Cheney (the alpha dogs) play the demos like they are their B.......s well you know what alpha dogs demand of the other dogs.

americans ready to give up your love affair with the two party system? did not think so.

[Steamboater]

Reid changes his mind every other day. What a waste he is.

[hugs4u]

Reid needs the balls to just not give any bill with fundings at all.

[DatelessNerd]

This article is misleading, when it claims that Democrats lack the votes to bring the troops home.

While they don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto, they do have the votes to prevent the appropriation from coming to a vote, thereby cutting off funds. It only takes 41 senators.

If George W. Bush can deny funding (via a veto), why don't the Democrats?

Actually, that's a rhetorical question. They're using it as a 2008 sales pitch, to get a "veto-proof majority" in Congress--send your donations today!

[scooperss]

The day after they voted to fund the war I got a begging e-mail. Every time one of the dems opens his/her mouth to explain why they can't end the war all that comes out is *veto proof majority*.

Well gee, I was brought up with the attitude that you don't say you CAN'T do something until you've tried to do it.

[Ginzaman]

What deadlines? All you care about is winning in 2008.

[leftLibertarian]

One can't compromise with sociopaths like bush and cheney.

No compromise: Impeach the criminals bush and cheney.

[rivrgrrl]

Harry, have you finally figured out the Republicans won't break from bush and bush will never capitulate? Time to take a stand and then hold your ground.

Put it all on the Rs, let them be the ones holding back progress. The people will see it for what it is. Just as the Rs are holding up 85 various legislative pieces right now, they will continue to block all efforts and be shown as the obstructionists that they are.

Of course, the sheeples will have to be informed of this, so Ds, get the message out there before rove's rats get their's out first.

[CaptainVideo]

The Democrats should keep bringing up resolutions seeking to reduce the U.S. presence and forcing the Republicans to filibuster them again and again. This will prove to the American people by the next election that the Democrats want to end the war and the Republicans want to keep it going. With a Democratic President and a larger majority in Congress, the Democrats can end this war.

[CaptainVideo]

Such a strategy will also show that almost all of the "moderate" Republicans who make noises about reducing our presence in Iraq, when it comes to a vote, will support Bush.