Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Cheney attacks Reid

By
April 25, 2007

Vice President Dick Cheney accused Democratic leader Harry Reid on Tuesday of personally pursuing a defeatist strategy in Iraq to win votes at home — a charge Reid dismissed as President Bush’s “attack dog” lashing out.

The particularly harsh exchange came just hours after Bush said he would veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress, which includes a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

“Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics,” Cheney told reporters at the Capitol after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch. “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,” Cheney said.

Cheney said he felt compelled to make a statement in front of cameras to express his frustration with Reid, D-Nev., after the Senate majority leader told reporters last week the war was lost. Cheney’s remarks also showed the high stakes involved for the White House in trying to stave off Democratic efforts to end the war.

While Bush has enough Republican votes to sustain his veto, Democrats say they have public opinion on their side and that will eventually force Bush to change.

“This isn’t a political issue,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “I respect where the president is coming from on this. I wish he would respect where we are coming from, which is a reflection of where the American people are coming from.”

Reid shrugged off Cheney’s remarks — but with his own dig at the vice president.

“I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration’s chief attack dog,” he said.

The $124.2 billion legislation would continue to fund the war in Iraq but also would require that troops begin pulling out by Oct. 1 — or earlier if the Iraqi government does not make progress in tamping down sectarian violence and forging political agreements. The bill ultimately sets a nonbinding goal for combat operations to end by April 1, 2008.

“It’s a good piece of legislation,” Reid said. “I would hope the president would stop being so brusque and waving it off. This is a bill that is good for the troops. It’s good for the country.”

With Democrats expecting to send Bush the final bill as early as next week, Bush stood firm Tuesday against any measure that would set a timetable for withdrawal.

“They chose to make a political statement,” he said. “That’s their right, but it is wrong for our troops and it’s wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats will ignore the veto threat and send the bill to Bush in the hope that he will have a change of heart. But, Hoyer added, they don’t expect it.

“He will do with it what he will do,” said Hoyer, D-Md. If Bush vetoes the measure, Democrats will consider their next step and try to bring Republicans on board.

“My intuition tells me there are an awful lot of members of the president’s party who have great concerns about simply staying the course,” Hoyer said.

Bush said U.S. troops should not be caught in the middle of a showdown between the White House and Congress.

“Yesterday, Democratic leaders announced that they planned to send me a bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our generals, add billions of dollars of unrelated spending and begin to pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date,” Bush said on the South Lawn.

He said the bill would mandate the withdrawal of troops even though the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has not yet received all the reinforcements he has said he needs to secure Baghdad and the troubled Anbar province. Later, Bush said that Petraeus will know in about four months whether the president’s plan to increase the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is working.

“It’s an accurate time frame for him,” Bush said in an interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose conducted while he was in New York. “I think he would tell you that in September, he might have a pretty good feel for whether or not it made sense or not.”

The president would not discuss what he would do if the answer is no.

“The Plan B is to make Plan A work,” he said. “You know, the problem is you start talking about Plan B, that’s where everybody defaults. ”

Democrats have argued that the election that left them in control of Congress was a referendum for a change of strategy in Iraq. Bush used the same election results to argue his point.

“The American people did not vote for failure,” he said. “That is precisely what the Democratic leadership’s bill would guarantee.”

Petraeus and other top defense officials on Wednesday will try to persuade lawmakers in a private briefing not to set a timetable.

Under the bill, U.S. forces could remain in Iraq after the 2008 date but would be restricted to three noncombat missions: protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

–ANNE FLAHERTY

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press

3 Responses to Cheney attacks Reid

  1. Steve Horn

    April 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    Ahh .. with a brilliant military mind like the one Cheney has … the tactical skills to avoid serving his country during Vietnam, the clear vision and weapons training that allowed him to shoot an attorney rather than a purpose-raised bird while hunting – who better to understand war –
    And why would Dick listen to those who have served with honor, to those who have studied war, to the professional soldiers when he can heed the advice of another great warrior – George W. “it ain’t my fault – I was f*ckin’ drunk” Bush ….
    Dick isn’t an attack dog – he’s a toy poodle with a big mouth –

  2. Ardie

    April 25, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    The incivility of Cheney is what is to condemned in all of this. In other words, it is his utter rashness towards the opinions of others with whom he disagrees that is the rub. It is as if Cheney assumes that to answer the arguments of their critics he must turn into a lying, no good scoundrel. (Let’s not forget when Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahey he ought to “go f**k himself.”)

  3. Janten

    April 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    “It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage,” Cheney said.”

    Any political advantage this declaration might bring Senator Reid and the Democrats will simply coincidental to Reid having bravely stated the truth of the matter. But Chaney and Bush don’t seem to have a very good relationship with truth so it’s no surprise it makes them uncomfortable. Their seats are getting hotter all the time so they’d better get used to taking the heat – or else get out of the kitchen, because all they seem to be able to do is cook up trouble.

    “Bush said U.S. troops should not be caught in the middle of a showdown between the White House and Congress.”

    So Bush should get out of the way by signing the bill because he’s the one who put our troops in harms way and who is causing the showdown by trying to keep them there.

    “The Plan B is to make Plan A work,” he said. “You know, the problem is you start talking about Plan B, that’s where everybody defaults.”

    Plan Bush is already not working and it’s all the fault of GWB. It’s time to move to plan Congress.