NBC's Reid: Burden is on Senate to pass bill Bush can sign, not on Bush to sign bill Congress passes
During the May 11 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid described the Iraq war funding bill that the House passed May 10 as "very clearly veto bait," adding that in contrast to the House, the Senate "has said" that it "need[s] to pass something here the president can sign because we don't want to be accused of being the ones cutting off funding to troops in the field, while they're in harm's way."
Reid's statement echoes a previous claim that Bush cannot -- as opposed to will not -- sign a particular bill and suggestions that that it is Congress and not the White House that would be responsible for "cutting off funding to the troops in the field, while they're in harm's way." As Media Matters for America noted, when Congress passed a bill that provided $124 billion in war funding and required that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq begin by October 2007 -- legislation that Bush vetoed -- CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre said the bill was one that Bush "can't sign." Media Matters has documented several other occasions in which media outlets have asserted that Congress, not Bush, would be responsible for denying funding for U.S. troops.
From the 8 a.m. ET hour of the May 11 edition of MSNBC Live:
AMY ROBACH (host): Déjà vu on Capitol Hill. Just over a week after President Bush vetoed that war funding bill that would have sent a timeline for withdrawing our troops, a second Democratic attempt to reshape war policy is in the president's crosshairs. NBC's Chip Reid is on the Hill. So, Chip, this second bill that House Democrats passed -- not really coming much closer to meeting the president's demands.
REID: No, it's really not. He's made very clear that if this is what Congress sends him, he will veto it. In fact, a lot of Republicans argued in the debate last night that this one is even worse than the last one. The last one he vetoed because it had timelines in it, but the timelines didn't require troops to start coming out until sometime in the fall. This one could signal a major cutoff of funding as early as July. Also, they say, you just can't do any military, any war planning if you're only getting part of the money now and maybe the rest of the money later. So this is very clearly veto bait, Amy.
[...]
ROBACH: And Chip, in terms of this funding bill, have Senate leaders signaled what type of bill they may pass and how it may differ from the House's version?
REID: They sure have, and in fact, they are very uncomfortable with what the House is doing. The House is taking a very confrontational approach, clearly not worried about a veto. The Senate has said, hey, we really need to pass something here the president can sign because we don't want to be accused of being the ones cutting off funding to troops in the field, while they're in harm's way. So the Senate is going to try to kind of bring the House down off the ledge here, try to get them to agree to something that the president can sign, and that will take a few weeks. They probably won't get it to the president until the end of this month, Amy.
ROBACH: All right. Chip Reid, thank you.
REID: You bet.
By this logic Congress is reduced to a rubberstamp of the great Pharoah Bush. HE demand, Congress provides. The proposition is ludicrous on the face of it.
The obvious way to report this would be to mention the c-word -- Compromise.
Both sides need to come together on this. Maybe this will be a lesson in humility to both sides.
Presenting this as one side has more power over the other is really a dishonest way of presenting the argument. Let's hope the media figure this out.
Remember that paper you had in elementary school when you were learning to make upper- and lower case letters? With the dotted line between the two solid lines? Maybe the bill should be written on that.
...in crayon.
Maybe cut some pictures out of magazines and paste them on, too. Couldn't hurt.
Before the "Why is this here" chorus begins, I think it's clear that Bush is playing Chicken with the Congressional Democrats. He knows, and they should know, if they cut off funding, Karl Rove's lapdogs in the press will crucify them.
" if they cut off funding, Karl Rove's lapdogs in the press will crucify them."
So be it. THe thing is they aren't cutting funds. Bush just won't sign off on the funds and the conditions. COngress has the upper hand, if BUsh doesn't sign off, he will have no choice but to bring the troops home.
Good point. I should have said, "If they don't give Bush what he wants". On a side note, I wonder if Cheney's trip is a sign that they're afraid they'll be forced to pull out before the Oil Deal is done?
I noticed that as well. Funny how cheney had to beg the Iraqi Parliment not to go on vacation in the middle of a war, that is reserved strictly for our politicians.
Nah, they'll just pull the money out of the "Defense" (heh) budget for the war crime. And the Dems will give Bush the money eventually, they're so eager to fund this crime. It's all just political theatre, with the smell of dead bodies in the background.
of course, they will give bush the money eventually. because even if they do not provide the funds, bush will not pull the troops out. and then republicans in congress will thunder about "the betrayal of our troops" and make the democrats look like the bad guys. and a large segment of the american public will buy it.
REID: "... So the Senate is going to try to kind of bring the House down off the ledge here..."
Off the ledge? Are they suicidal? Crazy? Don't jump, House!
maybe he meant to say 'down off the shelf'... you know, because they were getting dusty up there..
Reid to the Administratiions defense again;
REID: ... you just can't do any military, any war planning if you're only getting part of the money now and maybe the rest of the money later.
Yeah, imagine if any of us had to plan our lives and businesses that way.Not getting our lifetime guaranteed lump sum.
Nice one. Weren't the Repubs going to run the government like a business, with Bushie as the "CEO" president?
Yes, Bush is the first MBA President. How is it working out?
Long argument short...... war profiteering corporations having the right to finance the political campaigns of office seekers who will decide issues of war, maybe not a good idea.
Hell it's the most evil idea commerce could come up with. Love of money coupled with dealing death. God help America.
It seems to me that, prior to attacking Iraq, all the chickenhawks who came before Congress weaseled out when asked how much money they'd need. They were quite happy to start the war and then use "supplementals" to pay for it. And now they want things to be payed for in advance?
Talking "the House down off the ledge"...
...as though that's this hack's job, to make smart-alec references implying 'irrationality'... to judge the House and their work as 'irrational', as though that's this hack's job... as though he knows better than the majority of the American People, and a majority of their Congress.
The brief transcript crackles with it, and reads more like a send-up on Stephen Colbert's or Jon Stewart's shows:
"Déjà vu on Capitol Hill"
"the president's crosshairs"
"this one is even worse than the last one"
"getting part of the money now and maybe the rest of the money later"
"veto bait"
"The Senate has said, hey..."
And "You bet" as a chummy way of saying affirmative.
I would never ask if this is how Journalists speak or write when they set out to inform people, because the hacks cited aren't Journalists... so what else do you expect, from hacks who talk so self-seriously, in terms that sound like part of a smart-alec comedy routine.
And nobody's being persuaded here anyway, nobody's being fooled by this crap about the "bad old House defying the demanding president"...
The American People voted overwhelmingly Democratic this past fall, for just this reason: To end the occupation of Iraq and hold the Bush administration accountable for their lies and their greed... and if it means confronting the president's authority, then so be it... that's what the American People want, and that's what they voted for.
And so those same People are now persuaded by this MSNBC morning comedy sketch?
Not a chance. Nobody's paying any attention to such noise...
Just who is it anyway, so bored and so simple-minded, that they're wasting their mornings staring at MSNBC, listening to worthless comedy routines from "media" hacks?
(Besides MMFA that is... and even them I'm sure, only because they're paid to do so. But who does it for any other reason?)
Good post.
I like how you identify the meat of the conservative frames and the way you then proceed to eviscerate them.
Ried must have cheated his way through government class because if he actually learned his lessons at school he wouldn't make such a comment suggesting that the legislative branch is supposed to pass a bill that makes little Nero wannabe happy.
Maybe Mr. Reid here should be running the government. Seeing how he is so intimate with the workings of it. Golly gee whillickers we need more reporters like this guy he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately he needs to take a civics course and while he's at it a refresher on journalism 101, assuming he went to journalism school at all.
"It's their fault", "No, it's his fault" is the tiresome chorus that needs to stop. Both these branches of government had better figure out a way to resolve this and do what's in our best interest.
Bush is getting pressure from his own party, he is stubbornly losing control these days and has hardly a shred of credibility left anymore on this entire mess he's created.
And if the Congressional Democrats want to push it to bring the troops home, then they need to stop posturing and just do it - they have public support for the most part.
This partisan bickering is fine for relatively speaking silly domestic issues, but not for this........grow up.
Tommy, your point is well-taken, however, that is not the issue here. Mr. Reid either misunderstood or does not understand the Constitution and for him to put forth his interpretation as honest reporting is, at best, misleading.
I realize what the issue is specifically here, and it's basically a moot point to me - how some reporter frames it is much less important to me than the actual issue itself.
I agree, but to those without a basic Constitutional background, his framing makes the issue much different, does it not? If you believe Reid, you believe that the Congress and House must do something to please the President. The people without basic Constitutional standing who accept Reid's framing will unjustly blame the Congress blindly.
I think most people are not having a constitutional headache over this, but rather a headache in general when they see this back and forth bickering between the persons we send to Washington to fix our problems.
Can we agree that the responsible way to report this would be to emphasise that both sides need to compromise?
Pretending that one side has to cede to the other just feeds a partisan view of the issue as far as I am concerned. The media should avoid the appearance of favoring one side, of which the above article demonstrates an example of what not to do.
Both sides need jail cells, not compromises. Since 1991, the US has directly or indirectly killed 2 million Iraqis and displaced several millions more. That's 10 times the amount killed in Darfur. If Colin Powell can call that situation genocide, we can call the US policy towards Iraq genocide, as well.
While both sides argue over who's to be blamed for NOT funding a genocide-in-progress, more Iraqi children starve or die from illness, more Iraqi men are killed by US-sponsored death squads, more American soldiers are killed for playing imperial stormtrooper for the Evil Empire. This is the biggest war CRIME on the planet right now. Our nation is now officially in the same league as Nazi Germany and Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
No more compromise. No more war crimes. No more Democrats or Republicans. No more genocide in our name!
the problem tommy, is that the democrats do not have a veto proof majority. therefore they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. reducing this whole issue to calling it partisan bickering is an attempt to cloud the issue on your part. it's clear that "the decider" is the obstacle here.
I would agree with you Tommy, except for the fact that framing now seems to have more persuasive power than facts. That, it seems to me, is the reason for the existence of this site.
I think Reid's only problem with this report is personifying the three entities involved:
Bush as the teenaged hotrod harrassers, Congress as the defiant dad on vacation with his family, and the senate as the reasonable but frightened wife saying "Oh Harold, just give them what they want and let's go!"
The whole situation really leaves me wondering what it's going to take to make Bush realize the folly of his ways. It appears that the lack of a rubber-stamp Congress is not going to be the remedy.
Bush is obviously trying to hold on to a legacy of sticking-to-his-guns perseverance in the face of ever-mounting opposition. The trouble is, he's desperately low on time to prove himself right in the end.
By trying to do something about the it, the Democrats are now setting themselves up to receive the blame for whatever the ultimate outcome is, as is evident by Reid's reporting, and I think it's obvious by now there's no way in Hell this can happily.
This mess is really turning into a **** sandwich with a side of frustration.
LOL, I really need to preview my posts better.
"the it"?
Bush is chomping at the bit for a Constitutional crisis. The little cowboy wants a showdown.. and he aint a'feared of neither. The supremes are on his side........
PDrum. CA
Word is Diana, Mary, Florence and Betty are purty good shots. Heard they killed a man in Detroit just to watch him die...
This is what happens when you go around hiring correspondents named "Chip".
Where the hell did they get this guy anyway... from the roadshow of Auntie Mame? Jeez... you want to talk about wasps. He likely never took a class in civics. He was too busy having highballs down at the country club. He should have been wearing an ascot when he made this 'report', & smoking from a cigarette holder. And wearing a sweater tied over his shoulders. I swear, if you listen real closely you can hear cocktail shakers in the background.
And we're supposed to take this clown seriously as a journalist?
Perhaps Mr. Bush should put the Iraq war costs into his annual budget and not rely on Congress to continually pass "emergency" spending bills for a war he knew would last throughout the year. Maybe he could accept the terms of the 2006 election and sign legislation he receives, because he's not going to get a rubber stamp anymore. Sadly, Bush seems to prefer irresponsibility and failure to compromise over taking a PR hit.
Quoting from TOMMY: "
And if the Congressional Democrats want to push it to bring the troops home, then they need to stop posturing and just do it - they have public support for the most part."
If that's true, then why aren't they doing it. Maybe the congressional democrats don't feel that they DO have enough public support. After all, quite a few of the Democrats elected to congress ran to the right of their Republican opponents, at least in southern states. I don't recall more than a handfull of Democrats running on a complete pullout from Iraq regardless of the expected consequences.
that's absurd. they did not "run to the right" of their republican opponents.