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

[babylonsister]

Reid Admits He COULD Block Iraq Funds - But He WON'T
Submitted by Bob Fertik on October 30, 2007 - 2:16pm.

* OutOfIraq

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 : 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.

more...

http://www.democrats.com/harry-reid-admits-he-could-block-iraq-funds-but-he-wont

[Beelzebud]

1. Give 'em Hell Harry!!!! ...or not...

[pberq]

2. Boy am I underwhelmed by Senator Reid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Well, one of these days, maybe, if the powder is dry, when pigs fly, he might do something.

Same drivel, same excuses, same political posturing, for keeping the killing going.

[liberal N proud]

4. Then he might as well hand control of the Senate back to the pukes