Harry Reid: 'I'm Not Confident' Afghanistan Is Going To Work (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is unsure whether the war in Afghanistan is going to be a success and says the United States can't afford to keep spending billions of dollars on the effort.

In an interview on Thursday, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Reid whether he was confident that the war was going to "work, in the end." Reid expressed serious doubts.

"I'm not confident that it's going to work," he replied. "I'm happy to see that -- I have talked to General Petraeus in the room next door here a couple of weeks ago, and he thinks things are going well. I have great respect for him. I hope it's going well."

The United States is spending more than $100 billion a year in Afghanistan, amounting to about $2 billion a week.

"[T]he American people have, and rightfully so, a very short attention span. We cannot continue to keep dumping this money," said Reid, adding, "Think of what that would do for renewable energy for this country."

WATCH:

The military plans to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July, with an end to combat operations in 2014. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top military commanders have said they expect some troops to remain there beyond that date.

The Defense Department received $513 billion in funding in the FY 2011 continuing resolution passed by Congress this week, approximately $5 billion above last year's level. Another $158 billion is provided for overseas contingency operations (emergency funding). The war in Afghanistan will receive $108 billion of that funding, while the war in Iraq will receive $50 billion.

"The military, Wolf, spends $700 billion a year on what they do, $550 billion just to keep the door open at the Pentagon, plus $150 billion in war fighting," said Reid. "That's a lot of money for the American people to support."

In contrast, in May 2010, when then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced an amendment calling for a flexible timeline for withdrawing from the war in Afghanistan, Reid issued a statement saying, "In light of the President’s strategy and the recent progress, now is not the time to change course."

Comments

[shythots]

10:41 PM on 04/16/2011

1 - Didn't he say the same thing about Iraq? Reports now seem that we have been successful, without his or the democratic party's help.
2 - What else can you expect from a person who didn't support our military in Iraq?
3 - Can you expect anything else from a person who held the military hostage during the 2010-11 budget discussions?
Come on people....THINK!!!!!!!

[vanserculo]

11:43 PM on 04/15/2011

Can anyone tell me how Harry Reid, who only worked a couple of years at a Law Firm right after he got out of Law School (his own words) amassed a fortune said to be about $300,000,000 on his government paycheck? And we think he's dumb?

[vanserculo]

11:31 PM on 04/15/2011

Finally Reid got something right--but for the wrong reasons.

Get our troops out! And if the Afghanis "act up", nuke them back to the days of Saladin. OOPs! My mistake. That's where they are now. So, just nuke them. Or at least take away all their rocks so they can't stone pregnant women.

[Deb Jesser]

11:03 AM on 04/16/2011

Saladin was never in Afghanistan, not once.

[rancho]

11:16 PM on 04/15/2011

Ending this imperialist action in Afghanistan would probably balance the budget without any cuts to anything.
Besides, it would save lives and make us look better in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[ewldest]

11:32 AM on 04/16/2011

Absolutely. Unfortunately, simple logic seems beyond the grasp of the corporate-owned politicos who run this country. Look how long it has taken Reid to get to even as cautious a remark as this, amounting to 'hey, maybe we're spending way too much money on this?' We are bankrupting ourselves to make a handful of corporations wealthier.

[f0rTyLeGz]

11:05 PM on 04/15/2011

What is the MISSION? Does anyone believe that any group or person who is living in Afghanistan is a threat to America's national security? They have no army, navy, no planes, no tanks, no satellites, or drones. And we are spending 200 million a day there!

[Card-Carrying American]

11:50 PM on 04/15/2011

The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they hosted and protected al Qaeda who planned and launched the 9/11 attacks. There's little reason to think giving the Taliban another chance to rule Afghanistan would result in anything different.

-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518

[f0rTyLeGz]

12:51 AM on 04/16/2011

Thanks for your reply. That is true. However, the possibllity of a terrorist attack is NOT a threat to our national security. The Taliban is not the same as the communists or the Nazis. The are ... for the most part... a religious cult of uneducated young men, who would have a hard time getting themselves out of their country. They are not a threat to our way of life. Your fear of them taking over Afghanistan and striking us again as they did on 911 is what being "terrorized" means. We are spending 200 million dollars a day to make sure that doesn't happen. It is NOT worth it.

[scaramouche]

11:02 PM on 04/15/2011

You're not sure Harry? How about thinking about folks who are not sure whether they will vote for you again? There is one thing you can be sure of Harry: if our ass is still in Afghanistan when election time comes, your ass will be kicked out - and so will the asses of the other asses who support this misguided exercise of futlity. Can I make it more plain? Are you still not sure? Ok, one more hint. Your favorite general, Petreaus, and his opinions, has become irrelevent. He no longer casts a shadow wide enough for you to hide behind.

[vanserculo]

11:44 PM on 04/15/2011

Abe Lincoln would have had Petreaus shot for incompetence. He's a fawner--a yes man.

[Deb Jesser]

11:07 AM on 04/16/2011

Or, like McClellen, he could run for President.

[david5000]

10:44 PM on 04/15/2011

What's in it for us ?

We have been losing men and fortune in Afghanistan and Iraq, why? simply to grease the war machine?

It takes a single signature from the president and both wars will be shut down within a couple of month.

And the savings would take care of 2/3 of the deficit.

[vanserculo]

11:37 PM on 04/15/2011

So why doesn't the "Boy" President do it. It would pass Congress in a heartbeat. You may think GW got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. If you do, answer this question: Who said:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to attack Saddam Hussein's laboratories manufacturing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction." Slick Willy Clinton, December 17, 1998, long before GW was on the job. He said it when he was not busy "Staining" the Oval Office.

That's why all Democrats are afflicted with the newly discovered Lying Gene, "PINNOCCHIOTIS DEMOCRATUS."

[Card-Carrying American]

11:53 PM on 04/15/2011

Actually, it wouldn't pass Congress. An attempt was made in Congress recently to remove authorization for force in Afghanistan. It went down in flames. It was Representative Kucinich's H. Con. Res. 28 and it was defeated by a wide and bipartisan margin.

-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518

[david5000]

04:32 AM on 04/16/2011

We don't know exactly who is giving the orders, surely it's not the president.

We are not privy to what's going on and why we are there.

But then again, the suggestion box in the white house is getting very large as any rebel in any part of the world sends suggestions and requests bombing raids and if the rebel is in a country that has oil, he gets his wish.

Now even the French out of all people have found the courage to invade countries, they replaced their white flags with red ones. it's an upside world.

[grf67]

10:32 PM on 04/15/2011

Stupid - of course it will not work. Anyone with a brain in the country knows that. Bring our forces home from the middle east and cut defense by 200 billion and fight the real threat, the economy.

[vanserculo]

11:38 PM on 04/15/2011

Amen!

[realitytrumpsbull]

10:31 PM on 04/15/2011

I think it would be nice to see our troops come home. But, ultimately, we've got our 535 elected officials, plus the Obama administration, elected and appointed to carry out our decidering in this matter. A lot of people question the continued occupation of Afghanistan, especially in the light of the fact that no one's yet been able to produce one Osama Bin Laden, and there's the small issue of the supposed existence of over a trillion dollars' worth of gold and other precious metals buried in thim thar hills.   Much ado is made about the amount of money being spent on the military in light of all of this, as well as the question of the ultimate purpose of the whole thing, as to whether it's really an effort to put the Afghans in charge of their own country, or whether the final result will be some kind of perpetual protectorate etc.  If we spent the $100B/yr instead on making the United States an energy-independent country, they would probably also be able to save however many billions are being expended on continuing the Iraq occupation as well, because the US would then no longer need imported oil. So, the saga continues, the worm churns, stay tuned for the next exciting chapter....but don't get your hopes up.

[vanserculo]

11:47 PM on 04/15/2011

Didn't the "Boy" President boast that Ben Laden wouldn't last a minute after he was elected President. How come no one can spot a 6' 6" Arab in Afghanistan? I'll bet Barry's Birth Certificate is harder to find.

[rmspaintman]

10:23 PM on 04/15/2011

your from Nevada and just now learning what a sucker bet is?

[TexasPatriot1776]

10:16 PM on 04/15/2011

"The War is Lost" Dingy Harry Reid.

[nothingchanges]

10:11 PM on 04/15/2011

If the US had a sustainable energy policy, we wouldn't need foreign oil, 9/11 never would have happened, and all those billions of war dollars wouldn't have been wasted. Not to mention the human costs. Chances are, we wouldn't even have suffered this "great recession".

This is the result of putting corporate profits ahead of the good of the nation, and nothing changes. Congress still puts corporate profits ahead of the good of the nation, we import more oil than ever, and are involved in three wars for that profit the very few, at the detriment of millions.

Other countries did it, (became energy independent) why can't we?

[vanserculo]

11:39 PM on 04/15/2011

Energy independent? Then why are China, England, France, Italy and Germany drilling in the Gulf, about 175 miles off the coast of Cuba; and why did our "Boy" President give Brazil $2 billion to drill in the Gulf?

[getoffmedz]

10:06 PM on 04/15/2011

Afghanistan is an unwise, non-winnable legacy war that must be ceased without delay. Not next year or the next.

The natural gas, the minerals and the strategic location is already spoken for. Intervening in a tribal has no benefit to our country.

This war was simply another dirty trick left by the previous administration to damage this one and our once great country.

Time to go, NOW.

[getoffmedz]

10:08 PM on 04/15/2011

"Intervenin­g in a tribal WAR . . . " whoops

[Vincent Gormley]

10:26 PM on 04/15/2011

Thank you my friend. It is an untenable situation and amounts to a continually devouring sinkhole. We should never have gone in, but that's water under the bridge. We must cut our losses and get out. Bring the troops home and allow them to heal and be with their loved ones. Then get them back into their communities, and together focus on rebuilding our country.

[Needawinner]

09:53 PM on 04/15/2011

Good for you Harry ---it only took you 10 1/2 years

[vanserculo]

11:40 PM on 04/15/2011

Harry had to wait until the "Boy" President had it translated into English from Swahili.

[Needawinner]

08:05 AM on 04/16/2011

So you are one of these professional posters who just started another name---how many names have you used on this site? Also, how much do you earn for a post, a reply and starting a thread?

[NotesFromME]

09:50 PM on 04/15/2011

Petraeus is full of crap. Do you think a 4-Star "can-do" general is ever going to admit that things are at a stalemate, AT BEST? He is a solid commander, but he is the "miracle worker" that talked helped the President into the "surge." Time for the politicos to order a phased pullout in accordance with the original schedule. Cut your losses and get out.