« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Reid Aide: Bush Ignoring Will of Congress, Public on Permanent Iraq Presence
The reactions to President Bush's forthcoming long-term security guarantees to Iraq just keep on piling in. Here's Jim Manley, spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Democratic leader in the Senate. He's reacting in particular to General Lute's statement that Bush doesn't need Congressional buy-in for any security deal with Maliki:
"Nearly six years into the war, the President still fails to understand that 'go-it-alone' is a not a successful strategy. Just as he ignored facts and the world community in getting us into this war and is ignoring the demands of Congress and the American people to get us out, President Bush is now trying to unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security -- an area [where] the President has absolutely zero credibility."
Speaking of going it alone, it's worth noting that with the end to the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation -- which Maliki heralded in a televised address -- the remaining members of the Coalition of the Willing will no longer have a legal basis for staying in Iraq. After 2008, it's just us and the Iraqis. (And the insurgents. And the Mahdi Army. And the other militias. And whatever al-Qaeda in Iraq remains.)
Comments (16)
mike wrote on November 27, 2007 5:54 PM:Under Guliani murder rates in New York went up by over 3000 in 2001 alone while he was mayor. You call that protecting America?
v. popvli wrote on November 27, 2007 6:10 PM:Oh - but he will protect you now!
So if now - why not then?
Rudy Guliani was too busy before 9-11 protecting the interests of Bernie Kerik who is now under federal indictment.
He knew about his mafia connections and kickbacks.
He was protecting his friend - a pedophile preist.
He got kickbacks from the company that made defective radios that firemen had to use.
He was seeing another women while married.
No wonder Guliani did not protect Americans before 9-11.
ok, mike. we know you don't like giuliani. you've been posting the same talking points in your every comment. fact is, not many of his supporters hang out here, so you're not making any waves. and another fact is, this article has nothing to do with rudy giuliani. so maybe you could keep your comments topical.
Steve5117 wrote on November 27, 2007 6:10 PM:Mike, it is ok to post on different threads but don't keep pasting the same crap on different threads.
midwestblue wrote on November 27, 2007 6:13 PM:Am I missing something here? How does Bush have total authority to enter into this so-called agreement? Can he just make these commitments with our money and our troops and no one can do anything about it? If, for example, he wanted to make an agreement with Israel that we would give them ten billion in aid for the next twenty years, can he do that with no repercussions? Harry Reid's spokesperson can sputter and spout about how bad Bush is, but what's Reid going to do about it? I just don't understand how this can be.
JW wrote on November 27, 2007 6:14 PM:Why on earth didn't Reid call a press conference himself, and loudly make this precise point? Isn't that part of his job description? To enlighten the electorate about the shortcomings of his party's political enemies?
Instead, he all but mutters under his breath.
Even worse, he lets his mouthpiece come on all tough on his behalf. I've read where Reid has a boxing background. You sure couldn't tell it by looking at him today, though.
The "don't rock the boaters" will bust your ass every time.
Namtillaku wrote on November 27, 2007 6:14 PM:All of it is a game. These comments by Manley, to the silence of the Dems who were bashed by Klein & Time Magazine. ALL a game.
P J Evans wrote on November 27, 2007 6:29 PM:There is a certain amount of irony in this coming out of Reid's office, since Reid isn't doing too badly at ignoring the will of the public himself.
LiberalTarian wrote on November 27, 2007 8:07 PM:What? Bush EVER cared what 97% of the US public thought?
yardape wrote on November 28, 2007 12:52 AM:The Dems' silence is deafening. The major candidates all publicly oppose this, but not Reid or Pelosi, who appear complicit. If we're lucky, the Iraqis will scuttle this for us.
Me_again wrote on November 28, 2007 7:23 AM:Ahhhh are we suppost to pretend that Ackerman DOESN'T know that Bush was building BILLION dollar military bases in Iraq? And that congressional Dems didn't know it either?
Can Talking Points Memo please not pretend ignorance here when we get enough of that crap from our US media.
OF course as we all know the Saudis did kick all US military members out of Saudi Arabia so as Paul Wolfowitz said the US would set up permanent bases in Iraq and this is hardly news.
Hell, even Hillary Clinton has given her undying devotion to big oil contributors with her promise to protect OUR VITAL NATION interest in the region, and how better than to keep Iraq oil under US control than staff those billion dollar US military bases - it's not like Iraq has any war planes and needs a runway is it?
Excuse me, but why would Bush build billion dollar military bases and a billion dollar US embassy if he were not planning a forever occupation of Iraq, which Wolfowitz said was "swimming in oil". This is not news, we've known it for a very long time. And now TALKING POINTS MEMO wants to pretend that a long term occupation is recent news and that somehow Dems didn't know Bush was building long term occupation structures in Iraq. It's bad enough we get this shit from the national media, the WP, all the TV networks and Time Magazine too but now we're getting it from TMP as well.
Ferruge wrote on November 28, 2007 8:47 AM:Namtillaku nails it. I'm sure Reid is keeping quiet because he has some vote-trading deal in the works where the President and the Repubs get exactly what they want in exchange for the Dems not getting anything they want.
Oh, and also, gotta keep our powder dry, in case something truly important comes up.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 28, 2007 9:13 AM:Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . . .
I am guessing that Bush's arguement will be that there were no Senators present, so he is good to go . . .
Michael wrote on November 28, 2007 9:14 AM:This is so silly on the part of dems. Just cut off funding, its as simple as that. Why don't these idiots get it? This should be a non-story.
midwestblue wrote on November 28, 2007 10:02 AM:From Antiwar.com, written by Justin Raimondo:
Uncle_Meat wrote on November 28, 2007 1:39 PM:"Of course, the Senate could reconvene, at the pleasure of Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, and debate, in an emergency session, the U.S.-Iraqi declaration and the prospect of a permanent U.S. presence – but the Democrats (at the leadership level) don't consider this a matter of great urgency."
@ Me_again on November 28, 2007 7:23 AM:
Thank you. As much as I like this site, that really needed to be said. The entire Congress (with very few exceptions) is ignoring the will of the people, not just Bush and his "side of the aisle".
texasvietvet wrote on November 28, 2007 9:23 PM:Here's a novel idea.
IMPEACH THE LYING BASTARD AND SHOW him WHO IS BOSS.
Buck Fush
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".
Sinclair Lewis