Harry Reid: The Clock is Ticking, Mr. President (Huff Post)

[longship]

Harry Reid has a blog entry at Huff Post. Here it is in its entirety:

The Clock is Ticking, Mr. President

Harry Reid 19 Dec 2006

Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:

1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)

2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to that country.

3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.

I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.

It's been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to change the course and bring our troops home. Since then, the President has been on a fact finding tour of his own administration -- apparently ignoring the facts presented by those in the military who know best. The President needs to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of this deadly civil war.

Let this settle everything down about where Harry stands on Iraq. I am now 100% sure that his recent statement about the surge, offering it as an option if it's used in conjunction with a committment to bring the troops home in four months, was a rope-a-dope. This is why I deliberately did not enter into the commentary until I could hear what boxer Harry had to say on the subject.

People at DU sometimes jump to conclusions. However, in this case I feel that the brouhaha apparently did some real good. If it gets Harry to respond this quickly, in the blogosphere no less, that's good. Good show, DUers.

Harry's on our side. I feel strongly that he always has been.

Thank you, Senator Reid.

[jgraz]

1. Exactly -- the conditions he placed on the "Surge" were impossible for * to meet

Sometimes these guys actually DO know how to do their jobs better than we do...

[Erika]

2. Harry Reid gets it. n/t

[longship]

3. Damn straight he gets it.

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

8. including the PROPER word

Shia. "Shiite" is a made-up, BS word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiite&redirect=no

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. Thanks for the reminder. There is no quicker way to show contempt and ingnorance for any group of

people than to mispronounce their heritage. MKJ

[Patchuli]

4. I appreciate Mr. Reid's good works

but I'm not too pleased with this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2655033

[ninkasi]

5. I won't pretend to know what he meant earlier

but apparently, he has listened to we, the people. That in itself is a wonderful thing. How long has it been since our leaders have listened to us? I applaud that, and believe he deserves credit for his stand.

[rollopollo]

6. That is progress

...but it doesn't answer the central question which is: Are Democrats willing to vote against a military spending authorization bill. As far as I know, that's the only way they can trump Bush, and bring the war to an end. To me, that will be the true gut-check moment for Reid et. al. (you know there will be a hue and cry from the Right that Democrats are 'abandoning the troops' by doing so)

[mzmolly]

12. That act doesn't "trump Bush."

Cutting funds would just mean more vulnerable soldiers.

[rollopollo]

15. That's how it would be spun

...by the Right. But in reality, it means the President has to call the troops home.
--
Some background:

Dennis Kucinich: In Campbell v. Clinton, a case in US District Court in 1999, twenty six members of Congress, including myself, sued President Clinton for continuing to prosecute the war against Serbia without a declaration of war. The Court ruled in favor of the Administration because it could find no constitutional impasse existed between the Legislative and the Executive branch requiring judicial intervention. Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces. The 'Implied Consent' Theory of Presidential War Power Is Again Validated. Military Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 202, September 1999 Geoffrey S. Corn. South Texas College.

Congress can debate and pass legislation for redeployment, phased redeployment, or an over the horizon presence. Congress can vote for a resolution to end the war and a resolution to bring the troops home. However, none of this will have any legal effect. Each appropriations approval was a vote to continue the Iraq war.

The Campbell case makes it clear that as long as Congress continues to fund the war, it cannot simultaneously argue that its will is being usurped with respect to the war powers. Each appropriations vote gives the President "implied consent" to continue the war. So it is clear that this war is not only the President's. This war belongs to Congress as well, to Democrats and Republicans alike, in the House and in the Senate. And, unless and until Congress decides to force a new direction by cutting off funds, the United States will continue to occupy Iraq and have a destabilizing presence in the Middle East region.

[mzmolly]

17. Bush had congressional authorization.

Apples and oranges, sorry.

[rollopollo]

18. Sorry? LOL

Constitution 101: Congress controls the purse strings. The authorization has nothing to do with financing the war, nor does it require congress to automatically approve supplemental spending bills.

A number of Democrats have already caved on this issue, due to its political unpopularity. However, there's still reason to believe that clauses will be added to the bill that will require accountability and conditions for withdrawal.

--
The war spending bill “is going to be the turning point for a new direction,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D- Ill., the architect of the Democrats’ takeover of the House this November.

He said the bill will impose conditions which Bush will be forced to accept if he wants the money, such as a commission to investigate funds unaccounted for or allegedly wasted in Iraq.
--

Hope you understand this. I can't make it any simpler. Sorry.

[mzmolly]

19. I hope YOU can.

I understand we'll have room to bargain, but you seem to forget who we're bargaining with.

[Skidmore]

7. The rebellion of the generals has handed Reid and Pelosi

additional leverage, too. Time to cage the neocons and their wars.

[madokie]

9. off to the great page my friend

you have to be my friend because we think so much alike OK, sorry
very few boxers are good boxers only because of brut strength most times it because of smarts, I see Hookem Harry are a strategist, 'bout the time you might think you have an advantage on him he will whip your ass, the your's here are not directed at you directly, again ok.

[JNelson6563]

10. Give 'em hell Harry!

:kick:

[longship]

13. Morning kick.

:kick:

[Junkdrawer]

14. I too hope this means Reid is backtracking from his statement on ABC's "This Week"...

I was afraid of the following trap:

Bush never agrees to any of the "Out of Iraq" parts of the ISG while Democrats allow Bush all the soft time line, escalation parts of the ISG.

[Geek_Girl]

16. Give em Hell Harry

:dem: