Reid: Congress Will Endorse Iraq Pullout

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Monday, April 23, 2007

(04-23) 09:54 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.

The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.

In remarks prepared for delivery, Reid said that under the legislation the troops that remain after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."

Reid spoke a few hours after Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats will pass. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said.

Bush made his comments to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with senior military leaders, including his top general in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

Taken together, Reid's speech and Bush's comments inaugurated a week of extraordinary confrontation between the president and the new Democratic-controlled Congress over a war that has taken the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

Reid drew criticism from Bush and others last week when he said the war in Iraq had been lost.

The Nevada Democrat did not repeat the assertion in his prepared speech, saying that "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."

Reid said that in addition to the timetable, the legislation will establish standards for the Iraqi government to meet in terms of "making progress on security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much."

The measure also would launch diplomatic, economic and political policy changes, Reid said.

Negotiators for the House and Senate arranged a late-afternoon meeting to ratify the timetable that Reid laid out. The demand for a change in course will be attached to a funding bill that is needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reid said Bush was in "a state of denial" over the war, and likened him to another commander in chief four decades ago. "I remember when President Johnson, trying to save his political legacy, initiated the first of many surges into Vietnam in 1965," he said.

Reid said thousands more U.S. troops died in Vietnam as a result. Now, he said, Bush "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality - and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours."

Reid also challenged Bush to present an alternative if, as expected, he vetoes the Democratic legislation.

The president said that Petraeus will go to Capitol Hill to tell lawmakers what's going right in Iraq — and what's not.

"It's a tough time, as the general will tell Congress," Bush said. Still, the president insisted, progress is being made in Iraq as more U.S. troops head into the country to provide security.

There is no doubt that Republicans in Congress have the votes to sustain Bush's threatened veto.

That would require Congress to approve a second funding bill quickly to avoid significant disruptions in military operations.

Reid's speech blended an attack on Bush, an appeal for patience to the anti-war voters who last fall gave Democrats control, and an attempt to shape the post-veto debate.

"I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January," he said.

"But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war," Reid said.

Reid said Democrats have sought Republican support for their attempts to force Bush to change course. "Only the president is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party."

Looking beyond Bush's expected veto, he said, "If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve."

Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he ordered last winter.

"The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial," said Reid.

Democratic officials have also said they intend to add a minimum wage increase to the war funding bill. Key lawmakers announced agreement late last week on a package of business tax breaks to accompany the boost in the wage floor, which would total $2.10 cents an hour in three equal installments.

Apart from the clash over war policy, Bush has pledged to veto the funding bill if Democrats go ahead with plans to include billions of dollars in domestic spending.

Dems divided over Webb’s proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran

By Elana Schor

April 18, 2007

Supporters of requiring President Bush to secure congressional approval for any preemptive strike on Iran are regrouping for a new push, presaging a difficult vote for Democratic leaders and presidential hopefuls alike.

Democrats hailed the Iraq withdrawal language attached to the emergency supplemental as a signal of a newly assertive Congress, even though the House removed a mandate for authorization of attacks on Iran from early drafts of the bill. The reversal quieted some Democrats’ concerns that reining in Bush on Iran could endanger Israel’s security in the Middle East.

Iran is likely to reappear on the agenda this spring, however, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) considers adding his language on the issue to the defense authorization bill and House Democrats hold their leadership to a promise for a roll-call vote.

“There is no hand-tying here. We’re not taking options off the table,” Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. “He offered this piece of legislation to restore the proper balance between the executive and legislative branch. This is a bill to empower Congress.”

For many Democratic base voters, Webb’s Iran language is also a litmus test for presidential candidates. White House assertions that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is tied to Iraqi insurgent groups makes opposition to a possible war with Iran as crucial as opposition to the Iraq war for Democrats running in 2008.

Tom Andrews, the former Democratic lawmaker now leading the anti-war group Win Without War, said the party’s White House hopefuls should see Webb’s plan as a no-brainer.

“The idea that you could not support prohibiting a military strike, given the conditions that are on [Webb’s measure] … certainly raises serious questions in our community,” Andrews said.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) are the only 2008 Democrats on record as backing Webb’s effort. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) took the Bush administration to task on Iran in a Feb. 14 floor speech, supporting the spirit of Webb’s effort, if not his specific language.

“It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization,” Clinton said.

When asked whether Clinton would vote for Webb’s language, a spokesman for the New Yorker took a wait-and-see approach, saying it depends on the format in which it reaches the floor.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has also kept mum on Webb’s language, which includes multiple exceptions in case of an attack on Iran or Iranian hostility in Iraq. But Obama took an interest in Webb’s push during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last month with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.

Obama asked whether Bush believes he has presumptive authority to attack Iran, to which Burns responded: “It’s the position of our government that the president obviously has the constitutional duty to protect the American people … and as commander in chief has to be able to exercise that authority as he sees fit.”

“I think you meant, ‘it’s the position of our administration’ as opposed to ‘our government,’” Obama replied.

Iran’s recent saber-rattling detention of a British naval crew, which ended in the soldiers’ safe release, appears to have sparked less escalation than expected between Bush and Ahmadinejad. But pro-Israel stalwarts such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) see any curb on U.S. action against Iran as a potential handcuff in Iraq.

“What if the president decides, at the request of General Petraeus, that we have to take action to take out [an Iranian] base?” Lieberman said yesterday. “I wouldn’t want to have to go through a month-long debate in Congress before you could do that.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, held its capital policy conference just after the House removed Iran authorization language from its version of the supplemental. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr told members there that any legislative attempt to limit U.S. options in Iran would be harmful and signal weakness.

In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) support, Webb has the public backing of Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said through a spokesman that he would hold Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to her vow for a recorded vote on Iran authorization language.

“I think it will pass because there isn’t a thinking person in the world that believes the President when he says won’t launch a military strike against Iran,” McDermott said. “Even conservative Republicans are worried about the president’s lack of credibility.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) echoed McDermott’s intentions.

“The Bush administration has already misled our nation into one unnecessary preemptive war under false pretenses, and Congress needs to make it perfectly clear that he does not have the authority to take us down the same road with Iran,” Lee said in an e-mail.

The multilateralist group Just Foreign Policy marshaled supporters of the Webb amendment during the supplemental debate last month. Antiwar groups including Peace Action and United for Peace and Justice joined in by organizing grassroots call-ins to Senate offices urging a vote on the Webb language.

“The Senate is going to feel the pressure to pass this provision soon,” Robert Naiman, national coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, wrote on the group’s website. Among its board members are Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, and Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future.

SENATOR REID COSPONSORS BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS, CUT OFF WAR FUNDING

How Congress can end the war without hurting the troops

Sen. Reid and I are introducing a bill that would require President Bush to begin redeployment and effectively end our military mission in Iraq by March 31, 2008.

By Sen. Russ Feingold

Apr. 02, 2007 | Many Americans remember the tragic deaths of U.S. troops in Somalia in the early 1990s, vividly portrayed in the movie "Blackhawk Down." Those 18 service members died in a misguided, poorly defined military mission that had dragged on without an end date and without the support of the American people.

As Congress debates the war in Iraq, the congressional debate over Somalia 14 years ago has some surprising parallels. Without question, Somalia in 1993 differs in many ways from Iraq in 2007, from the scope of the mission to the reason for that mission in the first place. What hasn't changed, however, is Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission, and its ability to use that power without endangering the safety of our brave troops.

That is exactly what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and I propose to do with legislation we will introduce when the Senate reconvenes next week. Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. After March, funding for the war in Iraq would be cut off, with three narrow exceptions -- targeted counterterrorism operations, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training and equipping Iraqi forces. In other words, the current military mission in Iraq would be effectively ended. Sen. Reid has said he will work to make sure the Senate votes on our bill by the end of May.

Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when. The Feingold-Reid bill may be attacked by those who support this misguided war. But for many members of Congress, what they say and do now about Iraq flies in the face of what they said and did in 1993 regarding Somalia.

Today, some supporters of the Iraq war suggest falsely that efforts to cut funding for the war are a threat to our troops in the field. But in 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. Defenders of the Iraq war pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops, and raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. And every member of Congress should know that we can do that while at the same time ending funding for a failed military mission. That was clearly understood in October 1993, when 76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.

None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."

The debate about the Iraq war is the most important, and the most difficult, issue we face as a country. Any American, including any member of Congress, is entitled to support or oppose Congress' using its constitutional power to end our involvement in this disastrous war. But, in contrast to the 1993 debate about Somalia, today some wrongly suggest that ending funding for the Iraq war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops. That misleading argument makes it harder to have the thoughtful, responsible debate about the war that Congress and the American people so badly need.

Now is no time for phony arguments against ending funding for the Iraq war. There may be big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq, but Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops. As Congress debates Iraq -- and considers the new Feingold-Reid legislation -- we should remember Somalia, put false arguments aside, and have an open, honest debate about a war that drags on with no end in sight.

A deal in the desert for Sen. Reid?

A bill he wrote could have affected the friend who sold the land.

By Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger
Times Staff Writers

January 28, 2007

BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ. — It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.

In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.

Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.

If Reid were to sell the property for any of the various estimates of its value, his gain on the $10,000 investment could range from $50,000 to $290,000.

It is a potential violation of congressional ethics standards for a member to accept anything of value — including a real estate discount — from a person with interests before Congress.

In a statement, Reid's spokesman Jon Summers said that the transaction was not a gift and that the price was due to the property's history and the fact that only a partial interest was sold. Reid's action on the lubricants issue was unrelated to the sale and reflected the senator's interest in fairness for small businesses, Summers said.

Reid "has never taken any official action to provide personal financial benefit to me, and I would never have asked him to," Clair Haycock has told The Times. Haycock's son, John, who runs the petroleum-products distribution company with him, said in a recent e-mail that it was "absolutely wrong" to connect the land sale and Reid's lubricants legislation, which did not pass.

Legislative efforts

Records and interviews show that beginning in the mid-1990s, Reid tried several times to push legislation that would have protected lubricants distributors from abrupt cancellations by their suppliers. Though unsuccessful, the legislation sent a clear message to the oil firms that there was congressional interest in the matter, according to Sarah Dodge, then-legislative director for an industry group that worked on the bill.

By the time of the land sale, the Haycocks say, they had lost interest in the issue and were not aware that the legislation had been introduced.

Because an employee pension fund had owned the land Reid purchased, labor law experts contacted by The Times said, a below-market sale would raise additional questions. Pension fund trustees like Clair Haycock have a duty in most cases to sell assets for their market value, the experts said.

"I think this would have been considered a potentially serious issue" at the time, said Ian D. Lanoff, who led the Labor Department's pension division during the Carter administration and was provided basic details of the case — though not the identity of the lawmaker — by The Times.

"Theoretically it's a serious issue for the trustee who sold the property, though practically it may not be" because the pension plan is now closed and its obligations were met, Lanoff said.

John Haycock said his workers received all promised benefits from the Haycock Distributing Co. pension plan and were therefore unaffected by the land transaction. Federal records confirm this.

Reid's interest in the barren parcel dates back to the period of 1979 through 1982, when he and Clair Haycock bought the 160 acres. Haycock bought a three-eighths interest, equivalent to 60 acres, for $90,000 — $1,500 an acre. Reid, then a Nevada lawyer and political figure, bought the other five-eighths, the equivalent of 100 acres. They did not divide the parcel.

The property has sweeping mountain and mesa views and now abuts a housing development, which could make it attractive to developers. But there are some limitations. The land has a steep wash, or desert streambed, and the adjacent land has a gravel pit.

In early 1987, Haycock turned over his interest in the land to the pension fund, for which he acts as trustee. The fund provided retirement benefits for about 80 employees, and under law, employers must contribute to such funds each year.

In the early 1990s, California investors bought the entire 160 acres from Reid and Haycock for a little over $1.34 million — around $8,400 an acre. The new owners obtained approval to develop a mobile home and recreational vehicle park. But a few years later they defaulted, and Reid and the pension fund were once again the land's joint owners.

Development slowed in the late 1990s, and Reid and the Haycocks say the property became a cash drain. In 1999, according to Reid's office, the senator began working without success with developer Craig Johnson on a plan for the property. At some point, Reid's office said, he offered to give the land to Johnson, who declined. Johnson has confirmed that offer. In a statement Reid's office provided, Johnson described the listless market and the property's challenges.

In 2001, Haycock Distributing Co. decided to convert its existing pension fund into a 401(k) retirement program. In liquidating its assets, the firm decided that the plan must quickly sell its share of the property.

Lawyers advised the Haycocks that the family could not buy it from the pension fund, so Clair Haycock approached Reid. At first, Reid said "he and his wife were not interested due to the property's past history," Haycock wrote in a letter to The Times.

"Eventually, he gave me $10,000 for my share," Clair Haycock wrote. "I was just happy to have been able to liquidate the property from my pension plan." Reid's office said the senator and his wife purchased it reluctantly. "Because it had minimal value to them, they were willing to pay only a minimal price," a Reid staffer wrote in response to questions.

How good a deal?

How good a deal did Reid get? Paying $166 an acre for Mohave County land is "a super deal," said the county assessor, Ron Nicholson. But the precise answer in this case, Nicholson said, is complicated by the fact that only a minority portion of a partnership was for sale; minority shares can be difficult to sell. Other experts who reviewed the transaction for The Times acknowledged the complexity of the deal but said the senator appeared to have acquired valuable property for a fraction of its value.

"The price strikes me as low," said professor Crocker H. Liu, McCord chair of real estate at Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business. "But I don't know what other considerations — valuable or otherwise — were part of this transaction. Usually when a purchase price is that low, there is other juice in the deal."

Calculating the precise amount of Reid's discount is difficult because of varying values assigned to the property around that time, including some by the senator himself. In his 2001 Senate financial disclosure, Reid valued his Bullhead City acreage at $5,000 to $10,000 an acre. When questioned about the filing several months ago, Reid's office said he might have overstated the value. A Reid spokesman said the senator was in the process of amending his ethics statements to more accurately describe the terms of the deal.

At least twice, Reid appealed to the Mohave County assessor to lower the land valuation and decrease his taxes, in 2002 presenting a 2001 appraisal that valued the land at $1,000 an acre. The assessor's office made a downward adjustment for 2003 but still places the value at about $1,748 an acre.

On a recent property tour, the assessor acknowledged that Reid's land had problems.

"There are topographical issues on this property," Nicholson said as he drove a county-owned four-wheel-drive vehicle through the tract. He pointed out the property's steep wash and another streambed.

An adjacent parcel with similar topography sold in April 2004 for $4,260 an acre.

Reid's spokesman said the senator had paid a fair price for the pension fund's minority interest.

"When a willing buyer pays a willing seller to buy an asset, that is a sale, not a gift," Summers said.

Real estate experts say that minority interests in partnerships are often sold at a discount, sometimes of 20% or more. But they say that such discounts do not necessarily apply in a case like Reid's where he is the majority owner and gains 100% control by the purchase.

"We were happy to get out of the deal as we did," John Haycock said, adding: "Would we have liked to make more money on the Bullhead City land? Of course."

Reid's office produced statements from three Haycock retirees who attested that they believed they had been well-served by the pension plan.

Since taking full control of the parcel in 2002, Reid has pushed for federal funding for a new bridge over the Colorado River a few miles from his property, a spending request The Times disclosed last November.

Reid said he secured funding for the bridge, which would connect fast-growing Bullhead City with the gambling town of Laughlin, Nev., because local residents wanted it. He said the bridge would not affect his property's value.

Losing business

Reid has long been known as a champion of Nevada interests, particularly gambling and mining. But he seemed an unlikely choice to advocate for the beleaguered lubricants industry when he took up the issue in 1994. He did not sit on the Energy Committee.

At that time, the Haycocks went to Reid for help, according to a former employee of the lubricants industry trade group, Petroleum Marketers Assn. of America, who was involved in the events. The employee asked that his name be withheld because his current job involves congressional contacts.

The Haycocks had lost business in 1994 when Mobil Oil Co. canceled the family's distributorship, costing the firm a lucrative contract with the Las Vegas-area General Motors dealers, which had to use Mobil products.

The family was "incensed that this had happened and there was nothing they could do about it," said the former trade group employee.

Reid mentions constituent

The Haycocks — who were considered industry leaders — say they do not recall discussing the matter with Reid. But the former trade group employee said the Haycocks convinced Reid to take action.

Reid "did it because John or Clair asked him to do it," said the former employee.

With the legislative session coming to a close, Reid brought the issue to the Senate floor on Oct. 5, 1994. He described a Nevada constituent whose "franchise agreement to sell lubricating oils to car dealers in Las Vegas was arbitrarily canceled with 30 days' notice," adding: "This seems grossly unfair."

A Washington lawyer who represented the Haycocks in their dispute with Mobil recalls that dealers turned to Reid after other avenues of redress had been exhausted.

"The Haycocks provided access to Sen. Reid," said Al Alfano, the attorney, who still represents distributor interests. However, Alfano said, Reid's efforts brought no relief to the Haycocks. Although the issue remains a concern for many distributors, he said, the Haycocks lost interest after the mid-1990s.

Nonetheless, Reid cited the same constituent example almost word-for-word in 2002, soon after the land sale, and again in 2003 when he introduced legislation, cosponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), to protect lubricants distributors.

John Haycock said Reid's actions provided no benefit to his company. "I am not aware of any action taken by the senator, relative to lubricants, that has had a financial benefit to our company," Haycock wrote. "At one point I believe Sen. Reid pushed for legislation … but that legislation was never passed and therefore could not have had any impact….

"To my best recollection, I didn't even know Sen. Reid had introduced the legislation," John Haycock said, referring to the legislation in 2002 and 2003.

Reid's spokesman said: "In any event, the Haycocks are Sen. Reid's constituents, and there is absolutely nothing improper about Sen. Reid working to advance good policy on matters of concern to Nevadans and businesses in Nevada."

---

chuck.neubauer@latimes.com

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Reid's land in the desert

A 160-acre plot in Bullhead City, Ariz., has been variously valued at $1,000 to $10,000 per acre since Harry Reid and longtime friend Clair Haycock bought it more than 20 years ago. But Sen. Reid effectively paid far less than that in 2002, when he purchased Haycock's three-eighths interest, the equivalent of 60 acres.

Per-acre valuations of the land over the years

Price Haycock paid in 1982 for his share: $1,500

Approximate price paid in 1990 by buyers who later defaulted: $8,400

Valuation by Reid in 2001 Senate ethics statements: $5,000 to $10,000

2001 private appraisal for Reid: $1,000

Valuation by Mohave County assessor in 2002: $2,144

Price Reid paid for Haycock's three-eighths share of the land in 2002: $166

---

Note: The current county valuation of the property, unchanged since 2003, averages $1,748 per acre. Reid's per-acre valuation on his latest Senate ethics statement is $3,125 to $6,250.

---

Sources: Los Angeles Times estimates based on U.S. Senate disclosure forms; Mohave County Recorder's Office; Mohave County assessor; private appraisal records

Time to "draw a line in the sand" on Iraq

Jan 8, 2006

There are so many examples of why we are at a critical time in Iraq right now that I won’t list them all here – but certainly any of my prior diaries (or many of the others) over the past few months will give many examples of the rapidly deteriorating situation. So why is this time, RIGHT NOW, a time where a line needs to be drawn in the sand with respect to Iraq?

Simply put - this may be the last opportunity overall for a serious discussion of redeployment and withdrawal before Bush, McCain, Lieberman, the American Enterprise Institute and the suddenly regrouped neocons push this into not only a failed occupation in the midst of a bloody civil war (bordering on genocide) but also a situation where we will be unable to safely withdraw our troops and a situation of many more years stuck in this disaster.

As word leaks out about the proposed escalation plan, more and more information is becoming available that shows the true intentions of those who are so willing to send other people and their families off to kill and die for lies and greed. And even thought we here thought it all along, the intentions are not "short term" or even feasible – but rather, more pie in the sky rhetoric that will only prolong the death and destruction of Iraqis and threaten to drag the entire Middle East down with it.

Last week, Reid and Pelosi sent a strongly worded letter to Bush opposing the escalation. While I was a bit skeptical that there was not much more that would be done, Pelosi surprised me with her strong words yesterday as well. Additionally, the good folks at ThinkProgress are keeping tally of the sane republicans who are coming out against this disastrous idea.

Of course, lost in the shuffle here are the words of those who are truly pushing for endless war in the guise of "defeating the terrorists" and "winning in Iraq". In a post at The Nation, Ari Berman talks about the "real plans" of the AEI, as well as McCain and Lieberman:

An event at AEI yesteday brought together the intellectual progenitors of escalation: military historian Fred Kagan, retired General Jack Keane and Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The focus was not on how to clean up the neocons mess, but on how to deepen it.

Berman cited McCain’s comments from Sunday’s LA Times article that discusses McCain’s, AEI military analyst Frederick Kagan and retired General Jack Keane’s comments to the AEI:

A strategy advocated by McCain and Keane, who has advised Bush on Iraq policy, calls for about 30,000 additional troops who would remain in Iraq from 18 months to two years. About 140,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq.

The proposal has heavily influenced administration thinking, and it has strong advocates within the Pentagon and White House, setting up tension between those advocating a broad troop buildup and those supporting a more limited increase.

"The worst of all worlds would be a short, small surge of U.S. forces," McCain said at a forum on the final version of the plan, developed by Keane and Frederick Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "This troop surge [must be] significant and sustained; otherwise, don't do it."

---snip---

"The enemy always expects us to surge and leave," said Kagan, a former faculty member at the U.S. Military Academy. "If we surge for three or six months and then pull our forces back, the enemy will be right there waiting."

For the record, I hardly think that there is a way that they will revert into the "don’t do it" camp. And McCain’s comments were made before "a packed room" at the AEI. Of course, Kagan’s remarks are strikingly similar to the ones that I made both here and at RedState, but alas, he gets paid the big bucks and I am stuck putting numbers in boxes.

But there is so much more than these comments. There is "bipartisan" Lieberman’s comments:

"The battlefield is in Baghdad and Al-Anbar, not in Washington," Lieberman said. "We need to support the President as he goes forward."

Um, Joe - WE don’t need to support the president. WE (in fact nearly 90% of "us") are against this terrible idea with little thought to anything other than "yeah, send more troops".

There is the recent NY Times article where the new US Commander in Iraq Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno indicates the following about how long we may be in Iraq for:

The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush’s new war strategy it might take another "two or three years" for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.

There is the LA Times article (linked above) indicating that an alternative to the immediate escalation would be a longer term escalation:

Although the most likely scenario includes an increase of 20,000 troops, another option is a gradual increase of forces, with perhaps a portion of new forces sent into Iraq while other brigades stayed in the U.S. or Kuwait as backup.

There is the additional $100 billion that is going to be requested by Bush:

The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds - a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

While it is unclear now if this will be PART of the budget or IN ADDITION to the budget – this hits on a theme that I mentioned last week. No funding for Iraq outside of the normal budget process. This is a more palatable way to draw a line with respect to "blank checks" and "emergency" requests than it is to just stop funding the occupation altogether. Although, that being said, I will say that I am getting more and more to the point where the funding not only should be limited to the budget process, but there should be specific monies for certain items and all other "general appropriations" should not be passed in the budget.

The funding should be done with an eye to funding only those items that will go towards equipment and proper gear for the troops, international humanitarian efforts to stop the genocide, and a definitive redeployment plan – with or without timeframes. I will say that we need more of the rhetoric that we are hearing from Speaker Pelosi regarding the continued funding of this debacle.

But it is clear what is going on now. There is a major battle going on – and by fighting the "escalation/no escalation" or the "surge/no surge" battle – we are missing the larger picture. It is time to talk seriously about getting out now, or it will be too late. The escalation itself, whether it is "short term" or for two years isn’t the issue. It is the repercussions of the escalation and the impact that it will have on Iraqis, our troops, the surrounding countries and the future direction of this country.

Stopping the escalation is part of the bigger picture – this is the time to say, "enough, we need to talk about getting out". Those in favor of escalation are in favor of perpetual war. We need to not only stop this but also put withdrawal and international humanitarian efforts back in the forefront.

We are running out of time, and we can’t let the "escalate/do not escalate" distract us from the real issue.

We need to get our troops out of there.

Ties to Israel nothing new for Senate's next majority leader

---

jennifer jacobson / jta, THE JERUSALEM POST

Nov. 26, 2006

---

As a young lawyer struggling to make a living in Las Vegas, Harry Reid never failed to buy Israel bonds to benefit the United Jewish Appeal.

"I'd say, 'Harry, you can't afford to give that much,' " close friend Neil Galatz recalls. "He'd say, 'I can't afford not to.' "

Reid, 67, is not Jewish, but his wife, Landra, was born Jewish. The couple converted to Mormonism shortly after they were married more than 40 years ago.

They raised their five children as Mormons but Galatz and others say Reid is fully aware that if they had lived in a different time and place - say, Nazi Germany in the 1940s - the family could have been targeted because of its Jewish roots.

Those close to Reid say it's this realization that has prompted the Democratic senator's longtime support for Israel.

As the newly elected majority leader in the US Senate, Reid will play an instrumental role in crafting US policy in the Middle East. Friends and political observers are confident his position on Israel won't change.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), who is Jewish, can attest to this. Berkley has known Reid for more than 30 years, having walked precincts for Reid when Berkley was a high school senior and Reid was running for Nevada state assembly.

"We have been close friends and political allies, as well, ever since," she says.

Berkley describes her colleague as quiet, thoughtful, intelligent and tough.

"This is a man that was raised in Searchlight, Nevada, in a home that had a dirt floor and no indoor plumbing," she says. "He is the very embodiment of the ideals of America: that it doesn't matter where you're from, you can rise to become one of the most powerful people in this country."

Berkley remembers Reid attending dinners in Las Vegas where he bought Israel Bonds not because he had to, but because he wanted to.

"He had a passion and a commitment not only to the Jewish community, but to the survival of the State of Israel," she says.

Reid helped start Nevada's first Jewish political action committee in the 1980s, she recalls.

He's "always been part and parcel of our community," says Art Marshall, a past president of the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas and a close friend of Reid's. "He's a good guy."

Marshall notes that Mike O'Callaghan, one of Reid's mentors who later became Nevada governor, was himself very involved in the Jewish community. Following O'Callaghan's example, Reid was actively involved in helping Jews leave the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Meyer Bodoff, president of the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas, also praises Reid. Bodoff says the federation gave Reid its highest honor two years ago, an award that has been given out only three times.

Bodoff lauded Reid for helping the federation receive its first federal grant for a retirement community. He also praised his support for Israel.

Galatz, a Las Vegas lawyer, has known Reid since the early days of their careers, when the two lawyers used to try personal injury cases against each other. When Reid first ran for Senate in the 1980s, Galatz served as his finance campaign chairman.

Galatz describes Reid, a former boxer and runner, as a "workaholic" with a "good heart."

Reid has a healthy respect for Judaism and likes to honor his wife's past, Galatz says: When his mother-in-law was still alive, Reid and his wife would light Shabbat candles on Friday nights, and the couple still has a mezuzah on the front door of its home.

As Senate majority leader, Reid may face pressure from Arab organizations and other political groups to stop supporting Israel, arguing that it would ease other crises in the Middle East, Galatz says. While that concerns him, Galatz is confident Reid will use his skill as a consensus builder to secure Israel's future and be a successful majority leader.

"This is not a guy who's going to force his will on people and make earth-shattering speeches," Galatz says. "What he is going to do is work effectively with the senators by trying to meld together opinion and consensus. This is one hell of a strong point in a U.S. senator."

But political journalist and commentator David Broder contends that Reid's oratorical skill, or lack thereof, could end up hurting him.

"As minority leader, Reid was remarkably effective in keeping the Democratic caucus united, but far less successful as a public spokesman for his party," Broder wrote in a recent Washington Post column. "His partisan comments were often too sharp, his television appearances less than commanding. In his new role, he will be far more exposed, and his flaws more conspicuous."

But Reid knows how to use those perceived flaws to his advantage, says Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who has known Reid for more than 40 years.

Reid's unassuming demeanor may make people think he's a pushover, but that's far from true, Goodman says: "When you do business with him, he's hard as nails."

That's exactly what the pro-Israel community has come to count on.

In May 2005, before a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Reid told of his recent trip to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem. There, Reid said, he and his wife learned the fate of her father's family, the Goldfarbs.

Landra's father, Israel Goldfarb, immigrated from Ukraine to the United States in the early 1900s, but family members who remained in Europe weren't so lucky: Seven of them were killed by the Nazis, and their names are listed in Yad Vashem's book of martyrs and heroes.

Reid told the group of what a "difficult yet moving and inspiring moment" that had been. And on one particular point, the consensus-builder vowed to give no ground.

"The people of Israel have a right to live in peace," he said. "On this point there can never be any compromise."

New Senate leader's shortened recesses could cut off Bush judicial nominees

December 3, 2006

BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist
Sen. Harry Reid, leading the Senate's new Democratic majority, is framing next year's schedule in a way that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to give recess appointments to nominees blocked for confirmation.

Reid's schedule limits Senate recesses to one week. Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days. That may kill any consideration of trying to seat federal appeals court judges whose nominations had been stalled even in the Republican-controlled Senate. The downside may be a rebellion by senators if their breaks are held to one week.

A footnote: Bush did not make his difficult course in the Senate any easier when he inexplicably failed to place a congratulatory phone call to Sen. Mitch McConnell on his election as Senate Republican leader. The president did call the new minority whip, Sen. Trent Lott. After McConnell revealed the presidential snub in an interview, Bush called him.


Barney's 'lapdog'?
Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts is not content to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee but is pushing for moderate Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama as its ranking Republican member.
The committee's Democratic staff is pressing for Bachus over the more senior conservative Rep. Richard Baker of Louisiana (with the selection made this coming week by the Republican Steering Committee) on grounds he would facilitate bipartisan cooperation with Frank. Baker's supporters claim Bachus would be Frank's ''lapdog'' on the important committee, which deals with corporate regulation.

According to the National Journal's ratings for the last Congress, Baker is the 17th most conservative House member while Bachus ranks 78th. Baker is more conservative than every member of the House GOP leadership (except for Rep. John Carter of Texas, the newly elected secretary of the Conference).

Baker is also measured to the right of all leaders of the conservative Republican Study Committee.


Keating for president?
Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, in a recent lunch with veteran Republican political consultant Ed Rollins, explored the prospects of his making a run for president. Rollins replied that he should run only if he could raise a sufficient war chest.
Keating, the chief Washington-based lobbyist for the life insurance industry, considered a 2000 race for president with Rollins as his manager. He has made no decision for 2008. Rollins managed President Reagan's landslide re-election in 1984.

The rationale for Keating's presidential ambitions is the absence of a clear and viable right-of-center presidential candidate now that Sen. George Allen has been eliminated by his defeat for re-election in Virginia. Keating is a conservative and a prominent Catholic layman who at one time was a prospect to be George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.


Divided conservatives
While the conservative Republican Study Committee will have an increased percentage in the GOP's depleted House ranks, it is being divided in a battle for its leadership between reformers and appropriators.
Third-term Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a reformer opposing earmarks, was in line to be the next chairman. But he is being challenged by Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, a sixth-termer on the Appropriations Committee.

Tiahrt's candidacy riles reformers who want to make the study committee the base for controlling spending and growth of government. After the election, the committee's share of all House Republicans has climbed from 43 percent to as high as 54 percent. Hensarling's backers complain that Tiahrt's challenge dilutes the impact of conservatives.


Emily down
In an election marked by widespread Republican defeats, the group that supports female Democratic candidates who are pro-choice on abortion picked up just two of 19 Republican House seats it had targeted for defeat.
In those 19 districts, Emily's List spent $1.5 million in independent expenditures and made $921,000 in direct contributions. It funneled $241,357 to Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth in Illinois and $159,000 to state Atty. Gen Patricia Madrid in New Mexico. Duckworth and Madrid, both narrow losers, were among the highest-profile Dem challengers this year.

In Democratic House primaries, Emily's List lost four out of six competitive races.