J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Reid’ Category

While Senator Obama is claiming it was he alone and John McCain had nothing to do with the bailout deal, the Washington Post, no friend of McCain’s, haswritten a piece that gives the inside look of what happened on Thursday in Washington.

When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to “just touch gloves” with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

“I appreciate what you’ve done here, but I’m not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal,” McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. “Just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”

For a moment, as Graham described it, “you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable.” Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before — one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans — was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain’s presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day’s events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain’s arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit — even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

“If there is a deal with the House involved, it’s because of John McCain,” Graham, one of the Arizonan’s closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain’s dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

[Emphasis mine]

There were specific things the House Republicans did not want in the package and since Pelosi and Reid didn’t want to take full blame for the bill, even though they had enough votes to pass it and excluded the House republicans “by mistake” it appears the House Republicans got things cleaned up a bit and with the backing of Sen. McCain.

It looks like Boehner and Company had more sense than the Republican senators or the Democratic representatives and that’s why they were not invited to the negotiating table.

In walks McCain, he makes a statement that even if he has to stand alone he will, and out comes a better proposal. No one is happy about it, but one candidate shouldn’t be taking all the credit for it. Look at the table in the link Sue provided here and see how much worse it would have been without the House Republicans sticking to their guns.

Tweet This Post

After the Petraeus report it seems the Congressional Democrats’ hope for Republican defections to order a quick withdrawal from Iraq is going to end up in frustration again.

Senate Republicans, bolstered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ war report this week, are closing ranks and say Democrats will continue to fall far shy of the votes needed to force a pullout from Iraq.

Republicans facing intense antiwar pressure in home states, such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and the party’s war critics, including Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, say the general’s congressional testimony helped persuade them not to switch their votes.

“I’m supportive of a reasonable plan which they offered,” Mr. Lugar said on PBS’ “NewsHour” after Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, called for withdrawing about 30,000 troops by July.

President Bush, in a prime-time address tonight, is expected to endorse the general’s plan to return to the pre-surge force strength of 130,000 troops by July.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who failed repeatedly to muster enough votes to compel the president to accept a pullout plan, yesterday said he will try again next week with measures to force significantly larger troop reductions.

“I call on Senate Republicans not to walk lockstep with the president as they have done for years,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It is time to come over and join us.”

Mr. Reid said Democrats will introduce four to six war bills, including measures for large-scale troop reductions and to transition the mission from combat to training Iraqi forces and conducting counterterrorism operations.

He did not provide details of the legislation, but the characterization of measures was nearly identical to failed bills from earlier this year.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott has been checking the votes and feels the Democrats will, once again, fall short of the 60 votes necessary to pass any of these bills.

Someone once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. This is the very definition of partisan insanity on the part of the Democrats, but they really don’t seem to have any plan other than get out of Iraq.

Republican leaders also say the Democrat-led Congress’ fixation on the war is preventing action on essential legislation, such as fixing the alternative minimum tax and passing spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Can anyone name any significant legislation passed by this Congress?

It’s been eight months since the Democrats took over the legislative branch of our federal government and, other than a minimum wage hike attached to a war funding bill, no significant legislation has been passed.

They say Americans voted for a change in November, and maybe they’re right, but I doubt the American electorate voted for the same futile votes to be taken over and over again.

The Senate is going to be hard for the Republicans in the next election due to retirements and so many senators’ terms being up for re-election.

Based on the last election I’d say things are very close in this country as the Democrats didn’t win huge majorities in either chamber or huge victories in many districts or states.

If the American people begin to see the surge working they are not likely to insist we give up. We like victory too much and I doubt we have changed that much over this one war.

Americans need to understand we must prevail in this war against radical Islam or we will all be doomed to their rule over us in the future.

Tweet This Post

Someone needs to chide this bugger. I wish the Democrats would vote someone else in as leader.

Senate Republicans are preparing to take aim at Majority Leader Harry Reid over the August recess for being “all talk but no action” and helping drag the Democrat-led Congress’ approval rating to a historic low, according to a document distributed to caucus members.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is meeting with members yesterday and today to disseminate a message critical of Democrats for endlessly debating the Iraq war, stalling judicial nominations and squandering time on at least 300 investigations of the Bush administration.

“We really ought to be asking why this Democrat leadership won’t allow Congress to move forward on serious policy debates,” Mr. Kyl said, when asked about the talking-points memorandum he is circulating.

“Americans have been disappointed by a majority leadership that stages one show debate after another, while the only consistent legislative work getting done is the renaming of post offices.”

Story

Tweet This Post

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid have said they will announce a new plan to end the Iraq war, to which I say, Just defund the darned thing and get it over with! Stop playing games and be the transparent Congress leaders you promised in the last election.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.

Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.

Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.

Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This “deauthorization” proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.

Both leaders obviously feel strongly we should end the war so they should follow their gut feelings and end the funding, which will end the war on our part.

These games are mighty tiresome. Bring a de-funding bill to the floor of each chamber and see if it flies. If it does you have accomplished your mission. If it doesn’t then stop trying.

Tweet This Post

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must have shaken his head so hard something is rattling inside that is making him seem stupid!

According to Politico Reid has declared Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, and the leader of the troops in Iraq, General Petraeus, a man he voted to confirm in January, “incompetent”.

Are we seeing a common thread here? Everyone, according to the Democrats is “incompetent”.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “incompetent” during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

This is but the latest example of how Reid, under pressure from liberal activists to do more to stop the war, is going on the attack against President Bush and his military leaders in anticipation of a September showdown to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, according to Democratic senators and aides.

Reid, who was bashed by Republicans for suggesting earlier this year that the Iraq war was “lost,” is lashing out at top commanders while putting the finishing touches on a plan to force a series of votes on Iraq designed exclusively to make Republicans up for reelection in 2008 go on record in favor of continuing an unpopular war.

Reid, the senators and aides said, does not expect any of the Iraq measures to pass but hopes the effort will drive a deep enough wedge between wavering Republicans and Bush that, by September, Republican senators will break with the president and help end the war.[Emphasis mine. Admin.]

Vote and vote and vote again

“We want them to vote and vote and vote again” on Iraq, said a senior Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss party strategy. “They are going to have to vote on Iraq until they are sick of it.”

The tougher-talking Reid is taking a decidedly harder line on Iraq at a time when anti-war activists are stepping up their criticism of Democratic leaders for not forcing a quick end to the conflict in Iraq.

Besides his comments about Pace and Petraeus, the Nevada Democrat also announced that he wants to hold more votes on ending or scaling back the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Reid should know all about incompetence since he hasn’t been able to accomplish anything in this Congress except tear the country apart more than it was.

How many days and how many tries did it take him and his partner Nancy Pelosi to pass a supplemental spending bill that would not have withdrawal dates in it, knowing withdrawal dates would bring about a veto? If you said 108 you’d be right.

One bill took 108 days to finally be acceptable! Oh, and he supports our troops. Just not the generals who lead them.

Mr. Reid, if these generals are incompetent, then I have one thing to say to you: Pot meet kettle.

Little wonder his approval rating is somewhere around 19% and the overall approval rating of Congress is lower than the President’s.

Hat Tip: Captains Quarters.

Tweet This Post

Captain Ed has a wonderful piece up about an editorial from David Broder about Sen. Reid.

The port side of the blogosphere rings with rage over David Broder’s Washington Post column today. Talking Points Memo has called for a “blogswarm” to shout down Broder for the unforgivable offense of pointing out that Harry Reid has been as incompetent as Alberto Gonzales:

Here’s a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats — a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.
If you answered ” Harry Reid,” give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end. …

[C]onsider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq “is lost.”

Broder offers more examples of Reid’s ineptitide as caucus leader. Remember when Reid’s intellectual basis for opposing George Bush was that the President was a “loser”? Brave Harry managed to wait until Bush traveled to Europe before calling him names. He called Alan Greenspan “one of the biggest political hacks” in DC, despite Greenspan’s successful management of the Fed. He insulted Bill Frist for keeping his campaign pledge to serve only two terms in office.

Go visit the Captain and read the rest.

Tweet This Post

DJ Drummond has a wonderful post up titled The Harry Reid School of “Governance”

I am linking the last two paragraphs and urge you to go over and read the whole thing.

Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made a number of regrettable statements. Not only that any decent American would regret such sentiments, but that at some point in the future I believe the Democrats will be quite sorry Harry got hold of a microphone. For now, however, the extremists in the Democratic Party have hijacked the war and are doing their worst to drive the campaign to the nearest hole. It may be plainly said that the Democrats seriously intend to bring about U.S. casualties in Iraq by encouraging terrorist resistance, in the hope that they can use the slaughter for their personal political gain. The voice from the Left has gone full course from supporting the war and the men fighting it, to spiteful hate against everyone trying to win in Iraq or finish the job begun in 2003. There is no honorable debate among Democrats anymore on this point – they have established the defeat of the United States as their primary objective. What Democrats of honor remain, such as Senator Joe Lieberman, are silenced and suppressed, made outcasts and warned not to interfere with party objectives. Scarcely in human history has a major political party hoped such vile desires against its soldiers, and schemed such traitorous plots against the nation of their birth and heritage.

The Democrats will continue to exist as a major political party for decades to come. But by their own hand, they are committing themselves to second-tier status. Americans understand and respect traditional liberal values, but they won’t tear down their moral values to advance liberal ideals. Democrats continue to misunderstand what those moral values are; values which transcend part, which the voters expect, frankly, any serious candidate to embrace, like not undermining authority in wartime, or sticking to the issues in an election and eschewing personal attacks by the candidate or his staff, or recognizing the honor in a candidate, even an opponent. It seems that when a candidate displays these qualities, Democrats regard it as a sign of weakness rather than strength, and this badly mis-judges the American sense of honor.

Tweet This Post

Captain Ed has done some research on Harry Reid and has put them all in one easy post to read.

These have floated in and out of the blogosphere in various forms, but I thought it would be useful to CQ readers to see the counterarguments to Harry Reid’s assertions in one easy format. I asked for some research from a friend connected to Capitol Hill on rebuttals, and he put together the resources on this. Enjoy.

MYTH #1:
General Petraeus Says The War Is A “Lost Cause”

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): Gen. Petraeus “Told” Our Troops That “They’re Fighting For A Lost Cause.” CNN BASH: “Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they’re fighting for a lost cause?” REID: “General Petraeus has told them that.” BASH: “How has he said that?” REID: “He said the war can’t be won militarily. He said that. I mean he said it. He’s the commander on the ground there.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 04/23/07)

FACT:
General Petraeus Sees “Positive” Signs in Iraq

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: “While It Is Too Early To Judge The Success Of The Surge And The Emphasis On Population Security In Iraq, We Have Seen Some Positive Results – Though The Enemy Has Certainly Sought To Overshadow Our Achievements By Carrying Out Sensational Attacks.” “… Your visible presence alongside Iraqi soldiers and police has begun to restore a sense of normalcy to many areas that have seen little other than violence over the past year. Your hard work has also led to the uncovering of sizable weapons caches, the detentions of a number of death squad and car bomb network members, the bringing to justice of a number of militia extremists, a decrease in the number of sectarian killings, and a renewal of commerce in many markets and neighborhoods.” (Gen. David Petraeus, Letter To Soldiers Serving In Multi-National Force-Iraq, 04/14/07)

Tweet This Post

Words spoken on Capitol Hill Tuesday by Vice President Cheney:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I usually avoid press comment when I’m up here, but I felt so strongly about what Senator Reid said in the last couple of days, that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made.

I thought his speech yesterday was unfortunate, that his comments were uninformed and misleading. Senator Reid has taken many positions on Iraq. He has threatened that if the President vetoes the current pending supplemental legislation, that he will send up Senator Russ Feingold’s bill to de-fund Iraq operations altogether.

Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months’ time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding — three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.

Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. That is plainly false. The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad. Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq. Apparently, he doesn’t know that there is going to be one next week. Senator Reid said he doesn’t have real substantive meetings with the President. Yet immediately following last week’s meeting at the White House, he said, “It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq.”

What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat.

Maybe it’s a political calculation. Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party.

Thank you.

If the president could/would make his case this strongly he might have more support for what he’s doing.

Link

Tweet This Post

Congressional Democrats are looking ahead to the next stage of the political battle over Iraq cutting off funds for war operations after March though it puts lawmakers eyeing the White House in a bind.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill to do that, but which so far has support from only the most-liberal members of the chamber. One supporter is Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat and a presidential hopeful who has challenged the other 2008 candidates to join him.

OK, now you have a bill you can vote for and show how powerful that ‘mandate’ is you got in November. If it’s as you say your presidential candidates should not fear voting for this bill.

Story.

Tweet This Post

What did Senator Reid actually mean yesterday when he informed us we had lost the war in Iraq. I thought the words spoke for themselves. Apparently I was incorrect:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is a classic definition of a gaffe. The definition of a gaffe in Washington is when a politician accidentally says what’s in his heart, because it’s a rare occasion and obviously, the fact that Reid had to go out on the floor of the Senate and then restate it in a different way is an example of how he knew he’d made a gaffe.

He went out on the floor and said, no, I didn’t say it was lost. In fact, he did. He not only said it was lost, but in that clip that we saw he said the secretary of state, secretary of defense know it’s lost as well. Then he goes out on the floor and says, no, it’s only lost if we follow the policy of the president. It’s not if you follow mine.

More at NRO, The Corner.

Tweet This Post

Via Drudge:

TOP DEM LEADER PROCLAIMS: ‘WAR IS LOST’

How does the leader of the United States Senate make this proclamation in good conscience while we are at war? It is understandable that there are divisions and various opinions as to the state of affairs in Iraq but for any politician to make such a statement is disturbing to say the least.

Okay Mr. Reid, if the United States has lost then the terrorists have won. How pathetic that you, for political posturing, would turn your back on the men and women who fight for your freedom. There will be those who will say he is simply speaking his mind however, his words translate to defeat for our troops.

It is unthinkable that honest debate has been sidelined and a high ranking Senator would give comfort to the enemy..make no mistake that is what statements like this do.

Mr. Reid did not offer an opinion nor leave room for discussion, he made a definitive remark.

I trust that even with our differences of opinion Americans would understand the difference.

Tweet This Post

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says President Bush is as isolated as Richard Nixon during Watergate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) compared President Bush to former President Nixon today, suggesting Bush is “as isolated” now over the Iraq war as Nixon was during the Watergate scandal, reports Politico’s Carrie Budoff.

Reid was responding to questions over what Senate Democrats will do if Bush, as promised, vetoes the Iraq funding bill being crafted by Congress. Bush has said he will block the legislation from becoming law because both the House and Senate versions of the legislation include withdrawal timetables for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Bush also objects to $20 billion-plus in “pork” spending programs that Democrats have included in the bill, although Democratic leaders defend the funding as need emergency spending for Hurricane Katrina victims, child health programs, and veteran care.

Bush has invited Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to come to the White House next week to negotiate on a “clean” Iraq funding bill with no withdrawal language or pork spending, but Reid has said the president should instead come to Capitol Hill this Friday to meet with lawmakers.

If the president is serious, and not as isolated as people think he is, maybe he will take us up on it,” Reid said of his offer to meet with Bush on Capitol Hill. Reid and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) sent a letter to Bush today repeating the invitation, which Democrats first raised in late March.

“The president is as isolated, I believe, on the Iraq issue as Richard Nixon was when he was hunkered down in the White House.”

When asked whether he would accept a funding bill with political benchmarks for the Iraqi government but no withdrawal language, Reid said he would insist on specified deadlines for redeployment and withdrawal from Iraq because both the House and Senate have approved such requirements.

Both the House and Senate have approved such requirements with 2 Republicans providing the margin in the House and a close vote in the Senate. Neither looks like they can override Bush’s veto, so my thinking is some negotiations are going to have to take place, but it will not include a date for withdrawal.

And, though Mr. Reid may have forgotten, I haven’t. President Bush is not hunkered down in the Oval Office or Rose Garden the way Nixon was. He’s going out in public and making a case for his position, hoping it will be fairly reported.

Tweet This Post

Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi have reconsidered and have accepted the president’s invitation to the White House to talk about several items, including the supplemental military spending bill.

Democratic leaders last night accepted President Bush’s offer to discuss the war-funding standoff, capitulating to the White House request after a day of alternately snubbing the invite and proposing meetings on their own turf.

“We will be at the White House on Wednesday to talk with the president,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a joint statement released last night.

“We will listen to his position, but in return we will insist that he listen to concerns of the American people that his policies in Iraq have failed and we need to change course,” they said.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Reid balked when the White House announced that the Nevada Democrat had agreed to attend the meeting and discuss the $100 billion war-funding bill that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley had said the Nevada Democrat would rebuff offers to talk until he gets “a signal from the White House that they are prepared to drop their demand that this meeting is a listening session only and this meeting will not include negotiations.”

Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, also began the day declining Mr. Bush’s invitation — reiterating the stance the leaders took Tuesday after the White House characterized Congress’ role in the meeting as listeners not negotiators.

There was no indication from the White House last night that the president had altered the terms of his invitation.

The White House had said it was “perplexed” by the dispute over the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting with congressional leaders, which it said would focus on the war-funding bills with veto-provoking timetables to pull out troops from Iraq.

“Our legislative affairs staff was explicit when extending the invitations,” White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino told The Washington Times. “The meeting on Wednesday is a meeting to discuss the supplemental.”

Yesterday’s confusion highlights the difficulty for both the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress to determine how to resolve their fight over $100 billion in emergency war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s good to see the leadership has decided to meet with the president and will finally have an opportunity to discuss this issue, but I doubt I would want to be in that meeting.

Tweet This Post

President Bush invited Senate Majority Leader Reid to the White House to discuss the stalemate over the war funding supplemental.

Mr. Reid’s response? Basically he told the president to take his invitation and shove it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday turned down President Bush’s invitation to meet at the White House next week to try to break through the stalemate over Iraq war spending bill, charging the invitation came with “preconditions.”

Reid’s response was the latest in the intensifying push-and-shove match between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House.

Reid said Bush needs to “take a seat of negotiation, of compromise, of direction change.”

“The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions. That’s not the way things should operate,” he said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “The president is now having to deal with a Congress. He’s never had to do that before. The president in the past, he has just done whatever he wanted. He had a big rubberstamp here up on Capitol Hill, whatever he wanted, they stamped OK. That’s not the way it is now.”

Just how long are the leaders in congress going to keep telling us there’s a new sheriff in town?

Since when has a leader of congress refused to work with the President of the United States to get a compromise bill they can both be satisfied with?

Bush shoved back with these words:

“Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about the war,” Bush said. “They need to do it quickly, get it to my desk so I can veto it. And then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without further delay.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called Reid’s rejection of the president’s invitation a “knee-jerk reaction.”

“The invitation stands, we would like for them to come down and talk with us,” Perino told reporters at the White House.

Bush said without funding, the “clock is ticking for our troops in the field.”

“Instead of approving that vital funding, the Democratic leadership in Congress has spent the last 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops just as we are beginning to make progress in Baghdad,” said Bush, who sent the funding request to lawmakers 64 days ago.

Speaker Pelosi also weighed in with her “do-nothing Congress” line.

Referring to a letter from some Republican senators and representatives asking her to call congress back in session and work on the supplemental bill, this was her response:

“Coming from the Republicans, who ran the ‘do-nothing’ Congress, this letter is a cheap political stunt,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said in a statement to FOX News.

“The American people overwhelmingly support the Democratic plan for change in Iraq, yet the president has threatened to veto legislation that contains his own benchmarks for success in Iraq, ensures our troops have the training they need, and supports our veterans,” Daly added.

I’m just wondering when the two leaders of congress are going to stand outside the White House and throw rotten tomatoes at it, hoping to hit the president while he is outside for some event.

Today, I am not proud of my government and the child-like behavior they are exhibiting. Compromise is the name of the game in politics and with the slim majorities the democrats have in both houses they would do well to remember that and work with a president who no longer has majority support in congress. Both sides must be willing to negotiate or nothing will ever get done and this will be the biggest “do nothing congress” our country has ever seen.

Meanwhile, our soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors in the field are being kicked around like a football.

This is unacceptable and thoroughly disgusting behavior.

Tweet This Post