(2007-05-03) — A day after Congress failed to override a presidential veto of a Democrat-sponsored bill that would tie troop funding to a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed hope that his new compromise legislation might meet with greater success.
The Reid bill calls for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, followed by a waiting period of about 21 months, then a fully-funded re-invasion “under more compelling circumstances,” according to the text of the legislation.
Experts agree that a U.S. pull-out now would open the door for al Qaeda to make Iraq its base for launching global jihad. Sen. Reid said today that eliminating a safe haven for terrorists offers ample justification for invading a country, like the U.S. did to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan — a war which Democrats still support.
“The problem with the Iraq war,” said Sen. Reid, “is that George Bush ordered the invasion to get revenge on Saddam Hussein and to get Iraqi oil, under the pretense that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. My bill calls for a do-over, but this time we invade for the right reasons, when we have the right person in the White House.”
Citing President Bill Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, Mr. Reid said, “Democrats don’t oppose military action in principle, so long as we have confidence in our commander-in-chief and support his rationale.”
Under the terms of the measure, the re-invasion to destroy al Qaeda’s new Iraqi headquarters and expected network of Iraqi training camps, would start in January 2009, “contingent upon an appropriate outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November 2008.”
19 responses so far ↓
1 Scott Ott // May 3, 2007 at 5:35 am
Reid Compromise Would Pull Troops, Re-Invade Iraq…
by Scott Ott(2007-05-03) — A day after Congress failed to override a presidential veto of a Democrat-sponsored bill that would tie troop funding to a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed hope that his new compromise….
2 MargeinMI // May 3, 2007 at 5:49 am
God Bless America!
3 MargeinMI // May 3, 2007 at 5:51 am
Mulligan!
4 camojack // May 3, 2007 at 6:35 am
Back to “square one”?
5 The Ward View » Blog Archive » Reid Compromise Would Pull Troops, Re-Invade Iraq // May 3, 2007 at 6:41 am
[…] Read more. […]
6 TouchyFeely // May 3, 2007 at 6:46 am
Iraq: A message to Iran, Syria and Pakistan - No terror sanctuaries.
7 Darthmeister // May 3, 2007 at 7:32 am
Why would Harry Reid do that? Isn’t Iraq the only Muslim country where al Qaeda wasn’t a presence? Of course now we know Saddam’s regime policed itself and got rid of all the WMD that UNSCOM inspector said were still there in 1998 even though American troops still found 500 WMD in Iraq in clear and technical violation of UN Resolution 1441. But Bush is still a liar despite George Tenet’s and the CIAs reassurance that Saddam was not only reconstituting his WMD programs but still had WMD in country.
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Admitted philanderer and felonious liar, Bill Clinton in 1998
“We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — admitted war criminal, John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — admitted Democrat partisan and Grand Inquisitor, Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
I guess with DemDonks, some liars are worth supporting while others aren’t.
8 Sister Toldjah // May 3, 2007 at 8:01 am
Democrats surrender - drop demand for Iraq timeline…
The President stood firm on the issue of a timeline, and the Democrats who made it the centerpiece of the war supplemental they tried to “” have backed off the demand:
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war …
9 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 3, 2007 at 8:01 am
Do as I say, not as I say
10 Libby Gone // May 3, 2007 at 8:17 am
Why does this sound more like truth than satire?
11 Darthmeister // May 3, 2007 at 8:27 am
If Islam was really the religion of peace we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
12 gafisher // May 3, 2007 at 9:16 am
This might even be enough to get Kerry back into the running. I can hear it now: “I voted against voting for the war before I voted for voting against the war I voted for … er, let me clarify that …“
13 Darthmeister // May 3, 2007 at 9:20 am
I bet Reid would ask Saddam’s permission first before invading. Democrats are alway more deferential toward tyrants and despots than they are their fellow Americans in the Republican Party.
14 Darthmeister // May 3, 2007 at 9:21 am
gafisher, maybe John Francois Kerry should simply refrain from voting to spare the rest of us his tortured reasonings.
15 Just Ranting // May 3, 2007 at 9:46 am
In a similar proposal American Citizens have set forth a requirement that Mexico immediately withdraw their illegal immigrants to the pre-Amexico borders and provide restitution to the country previously known as the United States of America for social, medical, municipal, state and federal level services provided. A spokesman for the American Citizens said, “We simply can not afford to feed, clothe and educate our children, and that of Mexico too. When sufficient border security is obtained we will welcome visitng workers to America on an as needed basis. We are asking our government to adopt the same policy Mexico has in place for those wishing to emmigrate to their country; find gainful employment, pay your taxes, and learn to speak the native language.”
Nancy Pelosi, assuming the role of the Executive Branch, assured reporters that she will veto any such legislation before it can be sent to the White House. “We can not allow President Bush to act with authority on international affairs, even if he were disposed to do so. The framers of the Constitution never anticipated that a Republican would ascend to that high office. Should a Democrat assume the office in 2009 we reserve the right to readdress the issue, but probably will not.” Reporters were awestruck by her wisdom and asked no further questions.
16 Fred Sinclair // May 3, 2007 at 10:46 am
Just back from surgery. Surgeon says all went well I’m feeling a tad woozy. Will know more later.
Heirborn Ranger
17 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 3, 2007 at 10:50 am
Islamic terrorist stole my post
18 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 3, 2007 at 10:51 am
sigh, I refuse to rewrite all of my brilliant thoughts. Dagnabit
19 Later Gater // May 3, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Glad it went well, Fred. Keep us posted.
You must log in to post a comment.