OK... We'll Be Watching... 'Reid's Inner Circle Shifts Strategy On Iraq'

[WillyT]

Reid's Inner Circle Shifts Strategy On Iraq

<snip>

According to several sources, the majority of these consultants were touting the efficacy of a compromise with Republicans on Iraq legislation as recently as last week. Reid, himself, put on a full court press to recruit opposition support. The majority leader called and visited Republican senators in their offices and actively lobbied them on the Senate floor. "He kept looking for cracks," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told the Huffington Post. But "it became clear that the Republicans were not prepared to break with the President."

This past Monday, Reid's tactics changed. Rather than petition for a bipartisan approach, he decided instead to push Iraq legislation that - echoing war-critic demands - called for an immediate withdrawal of a large number of troops and a firm deadline for a nearly-complete redeployment. According to party insiders who spoke to the Huffington Post, there is now almost complete unanimity among Reid's circle that this is the best way forward. "If the money is going to the President it is important that Democrats show they are trying to get the troops out of Iraq," a well-connected foreign policy advisor told the Huffington Post. "They need to have the fight. It's more than just appeasing anti-war constituents."

Reflecting this strategy, Sens. Carl Levin, D-MI, and Jack Reed, D-RI, scrapped an amendment they had worked on that included a non-binding goal for troop withdrawal in favor of a mandatory deadline of nine months. Meanwhile, the last hope that Reid's advisers had of pushing through war legislation - Sen. Jim Webb's, D-VA, amendment requiring that troops be given equal time at home as they spend deployed abroad - died at the hands of a filibuster on Wednesday evening.

The defeat was disappointing but not unexpected. According to those who have worked with the majority leader, the goal will now be to find as many avenues as possible to paint the Republicans as the party that ignored the troops and prolonged the war. "There has to be a continual drumbeat to end the war," said one high ranking Democratic adviser. "Whether that takes the form of Levin-Reed or another piece of legislation we're going to be talking about it."

Over the next few days, Reid is slated to introduce a measure put forward by him and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, calling for the removal of nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by June 2008, as well as an amendment from Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DL, which calls for dividing political control among Iraq's warring factions.

There is also an emerging consensus about what do to when (or if) these measures fail. Manley, in Reid's office, said he was not worried about losing moderate Democrats to a Republican amendment, such as a measure likely to be introduced by Sens. John Warner, R-VA, and Richard Lugar, R-IN, calling for a re-definition of America's mission in Iraq. Moreover, he hinted that Reid and company are likely to reintroduce filibustered amendments in light of continued Republican opposition. "Leave aside the bills and ask me if he is going to keep at this," said Manley, "the answer is yes."

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/20/reids-inner-circle-shift_n_65133.html

You're on the record now, and the first round is over.

So let us see what ya got!

:shrug:

[Chipper Chat]

1. Reid may as well shut off America's light switch and put Congress

to bed...until January 2009.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I'm r-e-a-l-l-y discouraged.
Chucklenuts seems to be in control of my car, driving 90 mph, and I'm screaming in the back seat.

[Amonester]

2. All that work, talk, walk, talk, rework, walk back...and in the end...

a

VETO

from

the

dictators

who

don't

care

what

two

out

of

three

citizens

think.


Is there a table somewhere? Methinks it would be easier... a LOT easier.

[Marr]

3. How is that new? He describes a situation where the occupation is still funded,

and Democratic efforts are meant to "paint the Republicans as the party that ignored the troops and prolonged the war".

He's focussed on election year politics, not ending the occupation. He wants to be sure the blame is placed on the Republicans, that's all.

[rucky]

4. BINDING or NON-BINDING???

we'll be watching...

[Bitwit1234]

5. If they can't get enough senators to pass a bill to start to move

the troops out of Iraq. Why in the hell can't they pass a resolution saying the deplore bush's war. They don't have to bring it out of cloture all the have to do is vote.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Defunding--never going to happen. Never. The question now is, do

we: A--compromise and pass legislation that more Republicans can support, that won't really end the war, but will stand as a bipartisan challenge to the Chimp that says Congress wants a change in war policy? This isn't as worthless as it sounds, if it finally puts Chimpy on the defensive and forces him to veto a very reasonable bipartisan bill--good for the public to see some movement toward ending the war, even if only symbolic. Or: B--do we insist on binding timelines and/or defunding, which won't be passed at all in the near future, and keep losing, over and over again? Do we want the high political ground, but also the appearance of weakness and of a "do-nothing" Dem Congress, or do we want something to pass that won't fully satisfy anyone but at least says "here's what we think we should do in Iraq", gives Congress the appearance of having come to a breakthrough and forces Chimpster to deal with it?

Both directions may have positive and negative consequences politically, but I think we should compromise on timelines to attract R support and serve that up for dinner. I'm not interested in using Iraq for political advantage over Repubs, but I AM interested in showing Chimpy that he's not the only Decider on the war. Either way, the war's not going to end--that's clear, and it's time to deal with that reality and do the best we can to minimize the damage.

[Jacobin]

8. quick question

How do you not end the war and minimize the damage?

The war is causing the damage.

[TwilightGardener]

10. You minimize the damage by trying to pass something that forces

at least some aspect of the war to change for the better--Webb/Hagel COULD have been that bill, by helping to minimize the impact on our all-volunteer force--I really wish it had passed. Maybe another troop-related bill? Maybe Biden's plan? Maybe a binding amendment or something that calls for an increased diplomatic/UN presence, or a regional or international committee to focus on stabilizing, rebuilding, and economic development? Something--get creative.

[Jacobin]

11. I was thinking more along the lines of minimizing the damage

to Iraq from our presence there, since they are the country that was wrongfully invaded and occupied but I see what you are saying.

[spanone]

12. imo.... you either fund it or you don't . if you fund it, you're for it.

[Jacobin]

7. They'll pretend to do something EVEN HARDER

Cut. Off. Funding

[annabanana]

9. And if the media doesn't show up to tell people what's happening. .

the tree in the forest has fallen without witness.