CNN's Malveaux asked about Iraq debate: "[E]ven if the White House loses, they win?"
On the April 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while discussing a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) to begin phased redeployment from Iraq, guest host Suzanne Malveaux asked CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, "[I]s the thinking here that even if the White House loses, they win, ultimately?" Henry responded: "[T]he White House does believe they have Harry Reid on the defensive because, if you remember, right after the last election, Reid said that while the Democrats would be tough on Iraq policy, they would stop short of cutting off funding for the war. Now it appears Reid is backpedaling from that." Neither Henry nor Malveaux explained Malveaux's suggestion that the White House would "win" regardless of actions taken by congressional Democrats.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the April 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
HENRY: Both sides were already fighting over a war-funding bill the president has promised to veto because of a provision calling for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq within 120 days.
Reid has now also signed onto a bill sponsored by anti-war Democrat Russ Feingold that would only allow war spending in three areas -- fighting Al Qaeda, training Iraqis, and securing the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
While neither bill has much chance to become law, Democrats say it's about forcing Mr. Bush to change policy.
REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY): That signal is that, "Mr. President, no president can successfully wage a war when the American people are not supporting you."
HENRY: But the White House shows no signs of budging.
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: It's nothing less than an attempt to force the president's hand. They're going to find out they've misread George W. Bush.
HENRY: Now, both sides were already at each other's throats on this issue. They're just digging in deeper, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: So, Ed, is the thinking here that even if the White House loses, they win, ultimately?
HENRY: Well, the White House does believe they have Harry Reid on the defensive because, if you remember, right after the last election, Reid said that while the Democrats would be tough on Iraq policy, they would stop short of cutting off funding for the war.
Now it appears Reid is backpedaling from that -- Suzanne.
The Whitehouse doesn't win as long as this Iraq occupation drags on. Eisenhower was elected largely to end the Korean Conflict. Same for Nixon in Vietnam. Similarly, voters whose will is being thwarted will punish the Republicans in 2008.
Didn't Bush promise to listen to the recommendations of his top generals in Iraq, as well as the Iraq Study Group's recommendations? Isn't he backpedaling now that he ignored his commanders, replaced them, and completely ignored the Iraq Study Group?
Or, like "flip-flopping", is it only Democrats who are capable of "backpedaling"?
With Bushes history with bicycles, you'd think he'd be wary of backpedaling.
LOL
Good thing they make Segway Scooters. NOBODY could fall on one of those...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/bush_popup.htm
Caught the twist on "backpedaling" too. In oldspeak, 'backpedaling' would be if Reid promised to cut funding, then didn't, and tired to justify it anyway. Re-examining the finding issue now, with solid support of the electorate, is much more like shifting gears and pedaling harder.
You've got to love it
Even when the White House is telling the majority of Americans to get bent, the press poodles can't stop fawning and drooling over how much it benefits the White House. It's like they're still transfixed by their fond, soft-focused memory of his carrier-landing codpiece
Seriously, if someone were to post a video of Dick Cheney eating a plate full of live kittens and panda cubs, the cadre of lapdogs that has become the WH Press Corpse would find a way to spin it as being "Good for the White House"
Drudge would post some more of his inane excrement implicating the kittens and panda cubs in both an al Qaeda plot and as Democratic contributors and, sure enough, it would be all over CNN and FAUX news without anyone bothering to fact-check it
Exactly, Crapture. Heads Bush wins, tails Dems (and a lot of others) lose.
Seriously, if someone were to post a video of Dick Cheney eating a plate full of live kittens and panda cubs, the cadre of lapdogs that has become the WH Press Corpse would find a way to spin it as being "Good for the White House"
Yep, just like they found a way to praise Cheney after he shot a man in the face.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602150006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140015
This is so easy that not even the Dems can screw it up.
Step 1: pass your bill.
Step 2: watch Bush veto it.
Guess who just cut off funding, even in the eyes of the stupidest voter? The vetoer.
one would like to think that would be true, but you underestimate the Press' ability over the last 6 years to all get down and start chuffing the Executive Staff as if on command
You just know the Press Corpse would find a way to spin it, all in their usual loving, sloppy, wet, tongue-bath fashion, as a victory for the WH.
Bonus points for the chuffing on the Staff line, but the people will overrule the press on the really obvious cases.
I have pleasure picturing the dullard Fox News watcher: "But...wait a minute...if Bush just writes his name, the troops get money? What's going on?
Now that's more like it...democrats proposing a bill that says we must vamoose from Iraq in 120 days...and no more money after Mar-08.
- If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period. - Harry Reid
No you're showing some guts...the American people want us to declare defeat and get out now...and you're just the man to lead us.
- I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. - Harry Reid
Now Harry, two republicans voting with the democrat party is not much evidence of bipartisanship. Lieberman voted against the proposal.
Two republicans vote with the democrats...one independent votes with the republicans...everyone else votes straight party line...pretty flimsy definition of a bipartisan vote.
Wesley, is it just you and Sean Hannity, or is anybody else stoopid enough to think that anybody "declares defeat"?
Surrender - Giving up the fight, an act of declaring defeat at the hands of an opponent.
Surrender - a verbal act of admitting defeat
Surrender - declare yourself defeated
- Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing. - bin laden
I don't know about Hannity...but it sounds more like Pelosi and Reid.
Actually, that was you and Bin Laden.
BTW, big fan of the "pseudo-dictionary" BS -legitimizing post. Love your work.
Bush "declared defeat" when he did not send enough troops in the first place, did not get world backing for our invasion/occupation, and disbanded the entire Iraqi military, leaving a total void of security.
The lack of security basically led to a breakdown of infrastructure and the Iraqi economy, meaning no jobs for all those suddenly unemployed former Iraqi military (many joined the insurgency).
The lack of security also led to worsening sectarian violence. It's now to the point where the two sides have seen so much murder and reprisal, they no longer will ever trust each other.
What Harry Reid and the American people are doing is facing reality of the defeat BUSH created. "Staying the course" will not solve anything. Iraq is way past the breaking point.
She must have been referring to the end-game of the 08 election where the GOP will be relieved of having to defend the war (if the deadlines stand). The war will be behind them, whereas if they fight hard to continue it behind Shrubby Napolean, they will we swept out in a landslide. Something to consider even as we fight to save lives which the GOP blithely snuffs.