Reid Admits He COULD Block Iraq Funds - But He WON'T

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

On Friday, Ed Schultz challenged Harry Reid's bogus excuse that Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to end the war.

Mega-kudos to Schultz for getting Reid to admit that he could - even single-handedly - keep the Iraq funding bill off the floor and thereby end the war, even without 60 votes. So why won't he?

Here's the audio courtesy of TheBlueHighwayMan.

Schultz: But Senator don't you have the power to say you're not going to get the money even without 60 votes?

Reid: Sure we have the power on anything to stop the money, that's what it's all about, that's why we have three separate branches of government.

But the thing we have to do is make sure we do it the right way. It's not a question of all or nothing, it's a question of making sure we do the right thing.

What Feingold and I have pushed and we're going to continue to do that... get all the troops to start redeploying immediately, get all the troops out of there by June except those needed for counterterrorism, protecting our assets we have there, and a limited force for training Iraqis. That's what Fenigold and I believe should happen, we're going to continue to push that. The majority of the Democrats support it, but not all the Democrats.

Schultz: But you could say we're not bringing this to the floor, the funding's over, correct?

Reid [very slowly]: Yes, we could do that, yes.

When you listen to Reid here, it's as though he never once thought about his power to keep Iraq funding off the floor.

Schultz: Why don't you do that, the American people want you to do that?

Reid: Ed, it's a situation where we have to do what is right... I say that Feingold and Reid are right. We say there should be immediate redeployment, set a deadline that everybody should be out except a limited number. That means they're gonna have to have some money... the troops there fighting counterterrorism, which we need, that is going to be some money, we have to do that.

Of course Schultz is right to push for a funding cutoff, which has the support of 40% of America.

But if Reid truly believes in keeping some troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism, he is making a huge strategic mistake, one Bush would never do - he's negotiating with himself.

Reid could get the result he wants by using his power as Majority Leader to block all funding for Iraq. Then when Bush gets concerned, Reid can persuade Bush to agree to the compromise he describes above.

Of course Bush could refuse to compromise, in which case Bush would have to steal money from other accounts to keep the occupation going on his terms. And then Democrats would have one more reason to impeach him - and they would have the support of 73% of America.

So Harry, if you want to negotiate with Bush, start by blocking all funds - and make Bush compromise to meet your terms.

It's called Hardball - and it's what we expect of anyone who wants to call himself a Democratic Leader.


something for our representatives in government to ponder

  • shakerdog's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Some basic definitions of a public official's job description for your esteamed collegues to ponder!
These qualities seem to be getting little attention these days from where a majority of voters sit, in wonderment that these have seemingly vanished within our government.

There are important reasons that voters value fiscal responsibility in their elected officials. Managing public money is a matter of public trust, and a charge that should not be taken lightly. But what is fiscal responsibility? My definition involves three components: wisely managing resources, preparing for the future, and avoiding debt.

Honesty is the human quality of communicating and acting truthfully related to truth as a value. This includes listening, and any action in the human repertoire — as well as speaking.
Superficially, honesty means simply,stating facts and views as best one truly believes them to be. It includes both honesty to others, and to oneself (see: self-deception) and about ones own motives and inner reality. Dishonesty, at times, has the ability to cause misfortune to the person who lied.
Quality of honesty applies to all behaviors. One cannot refuse to consider factual information, for example, in an unbiased manner and still claim that one's knowledge, belief, or position is an attempt to be truthful. Such a belief is clearly a product of one's desires and simply has nothing to do with the human ability to know. Basing one's positions on what one wants — rather than unbiased evidence gathering — is dishonest even when good intentions can be cited — after all even villains could cite good intentions and intended glory for a select group of people. Clearly then, an unbiased approach to the truth is a requirement of honesty.

Integrity is a characteristic that belongs to people who are self-actualized. Knowing oneself heightens a person's integrity. According to Abraham Maslow, having integrity can take a very long time to reach and is very hard to obtain. It's at the top of Maslow's pyramid. Before reaching self-actualization and having integrity, you have to first have needs like food and water, love and care from friends and family, and especially self-confidence. It's the basing of one's actions on an internally consistent framework of principles. Depth of principles and adherence of each level to the next are key determining factors. One is said to have integrity to the extent that everything they do and believe is based on the same core set of values. While those values may change, it is their consistency with each other and with the person's actions that determine their integrity. The concept of integrity is directly linked to responsibility in that implementation spawning from principles is designed with a specific outcome in mind. When the action fails to achieve the desired effect, a change of principles is indicated. Accountability is achieved when a faulty principle is identified and changed to produce a more useful action.

Social responsibility is an ethical or ideological theory that an entity whether it is a government, corporation, organization or individual has a responsibility to society. This responsibility can be "negative," in that it is a responsibility to refrain from acting (resistance stance) or it can be "positive," meaning there is a responsibility to act(proactive stance). While primarily associated with business and governmental practices, activist groups and local communities can also be associated with social responsibility, not only business or governmental entities.
There is a large inequality in the means and roles of different entities to fulfill their claimed responsibility. This would imply the different entities have different responsibilities, insomuch as states should ensure the civil rights of their citizens, that corporations should respect and encourage the human rights of their employees and that citizens should abide with written laws. But social responsibility can mean more than these examples. Many NGOs accept that their role and the responsibility of their members as citizens is to help improve society by taking a proactive stance in their societal roles. It can also imply that corporations have an implicit obligation to give back to society (such as is claimed as part of corporate social responsibility and/or stakeholder theory).
Social responsibility is voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law(legal responsibility). It involves an idea that it is better to be proactive toward a problem rather than reactive to a problem. Social responsibility means eliminating corrupt, irresponsible or unethical behavior that might bring harm to the community, its people, or the environment before the behavior happens.

Respect is an assumption of good faith and competence in another person or in the whole of oneself. Depth of integrity, trust, complementary moral values, and skill are necessary components.
Respect adds general reliability to social interactions. It enables people to work together in a complimentary fashion, instead of each person having to understand or even agree with every in a good place respect is very important to the community because people must have respect to get along with other people
Respect also encompases the ability of elected officials to listen to what a majority of voters is calling for and respect that they know and understand the ramifications as well as you.

Daniel Becker

Separate branches of government?

Not since 2000. Only one man rules Senator Reid. In a democracy many voices and groups should have a say. Remember your oath of office? This President was given powers which are your responsibility under the Constitution. Are all branches lawless?

Remember the mandate of the 2006 election to get out of Iraq? Or is that "branch of government" called the voters not important?

Not only does Reid have the power but the Dems could filibuster

  • KZeese's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Not only does Reid and Pelosi have the power to stop the funding, but the Democratically controlled Senate has the power. The filibuster works both ways. Just as the Republicans are demanding 60 votes for changes in Iraq strategy (changes that do not even end the occupation), the Democrats can demand 60 votes to continue the Iraq occupation and continue the funding of the war. See


Reid Admits He COULD Block Iraq Funds - But He WON'T

  • Sport2069's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

What does it take for us to realize the democrat elite, controlling our democratic party policies, just doesn't care about making the right decisions, but what they wish that is best for their benefits and re-election to office.
Our democratic leaders no longer worry about during the wishes of the core voters, but what is best in order to benefit them politically and help them be re-elected.
The democrats are playing their cards for support of the moderate republicans and the Jewish organizations like AIPAC, for their political funds and votes.
The wealthy, oil companies , corporations and other conservative organizations have their foot planted well into the door, for getting the democrats to approve their policies that benefit them and the h... with what is best for Americans.
Before the 2006 election the democrats said they could do nothing to stop the policies of Bush because they were the minority, and let Bush & republicans fill our supreme with the far-right-wing-conservative judges in the history of our country. They signed onto the war with Iraq, and I now believe they have to know more then they have confess to. They let Bush and the republican destory our constitution, freedom, democracy, jobs, health system, retirement sytem while letting him illegally spying on Americans as he wished.
We then gave them the majority in the 2006 election of the House and Senate and what have they done for us and our country, not a d... thing.
They have passed bills to give Bush more illegal spying ability on Americans, they pass billions of tax dollars for Bush to not only continue the war in Iraq, but the ability to expand the war in what Bush called "the surge" , while lying to us saying they wish to stop the war. They have voted for republican-Lieberman's bill that called Iran's republican guards terrorist, knowing d... well it would give Cheney and Bush what they needed to attack and nuke Iran, Syria and whatever country they wish.
They have voted for a bill to censor's free speech by Pelosi and she personally condemn Pete Stark for his statement about Bush, while letting Bush, Cheney and the republicans call democrats and other Americans; supporters of terrorist, aiding Al Quaeda and giving aid and support to the enemy. They have let Rush, Fox ?news? (joke), Ann Couler and other republicans say or call democrats any name they wish, tell others that democrats should be killed, send out of this nation, blown up because they do not support Bush&Cheney's illegal criminal policies and actions.
Bush's administration has not even bother to investigate to the fullest capability they have, to find the person(s) sending anthrax to the office of Harry Reid and other democrats, or any other personal attacks on them.
But, Bush has the ability to find a child 10 - 12 years old that happen to say something on the internet, that he took as a threat toward him, in no time at all.
Democratic voters must have been asleep for the last 12 plus years, in order to allow our party to be taken over and run by this group of a moderate to conversative republicans.
Our democrats no longer wish for demonstrations, because we are also demonstrating against their lack of actions in stopping Bush, Cheney and the republicans destruction of our country.
Notice not a mention in the news about the anti-war demonstrations, anti-spying demonstrations, anti-torture demonstrations, but look at the coverage a republican receives when he condemns a democrat even when it is BS, or the coverage of O.J. even when he blinks.


  • Ben R.'s picture
    Ben R.
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

They should give him double what he asks for but stipulate it can only be used for the purposes of withdrawl. It would be a condition of the bill - if the money is used for any other purpose it is a violation of federal law and easy grounds for impeachment or later prosecution.

Bush can veto it or accept it; either way the Democrats win. They'll appear to be doing something that enjoys broad public support and can't be blamed if the troops are underfunded.

Ronald Adams

  • Ronald Adams's picture
    Ronald Adams
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I can't kick your butt out of office but I sure as hell can pray against you getting back in. All you need to do is what the Constitution tells you to do. A government by the people, for the people. If you don't follow that you could break this country, which is pretty well broken now. Thanks to your pathetic playing God.