Topspin
Verified User
Pelosi, Reid at odds over war
– U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speak about their … Glenn Thrush, Manu Raju Glenn Thrush, Manu Raju – 2 hrs 44 mins ago
The eye roll said it all.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from the White House Tuesday with broad, bicameral smiles — until Reid put his arm around Pelosi to announce that “everyone” would support “whatever” Afghanistan policy the president produces.
Pelosi doesn’t agree with that — not at all — and the TV cameras captured the California Democrat rolling her eyes and slightly recoiling from Reid’s grasp as he spoke. Back at the Capitol, Pelosi made it clear that she was angry about Reid’s unilateral offer of unequivocal support, a person familiar with the situation said.
Pelosi insisted Wednesday that it wasn’t so, telling POLITICO that she was “not upset,” adding: “I don’t know where you would have heard such a thing.”
But whatever the precise level of Pelosi’s frustration, this much is clear: If President Barack Obama decides to send more troops to Afghanistan, he risks setting off an internal party struggle on a foreign policy issue that may well define his performance as commander in chief.
Pelosi, reflecting the views of anti-war voters who gave Democrats the majority and of the progressives who elected her as speaker, has publicly expressed reservations about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s calls for the deployment of 40,000 additional troops. And she resents his penchant for going public.
Although Pelosi is waiting for Obama to propose a strategy, she seems more receptive to the creation of a smaller force focused on anti-terrorism operations on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, an approach reportedly favored by Vice President Joe Biden.
Reid has maintained a far more open posture — and has refused to take a position until Obama lays out his long-awaited strategy for the 8-year-old war.
Democrats say Pelosi and Reid will eventually sort out their differences, but Republicans, who are more unified in their support of McChrystal’s plan, are sensing weakness.
“There are obviously people on the left who do not want the president involved in the general’s recommendations, but there are others who are supportive of it,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate minority whip. “They have a split within their party. ... In our party, that split just doesn’t exist.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid’s No. 2, isn’t disputing that assessment.
“I think there are going to be divided opinions, within the House, within the Senate and between the parties,” he told POLITICO. “This is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue.”
At Tuesday’s White House meeting with about 30 leaders of Congress, Reid and Pelosi were not as vocal as some of the other members in the room. Reid deferred to others to speak, and Pelosi thanked the president for the meeting, Durbin later recalled, and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that the leaders avoided talking specifics.
Levin called on the president to focus on a counterinsurgency strategy to assist and train Afghan forces, and Obama’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), called on the president to develop his strategy in a “timely fashion.”
Still, coming out of the meeting, Reid said: “Madam Speaker, the one thing that I think was interesting is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said that ‘whatever decision you make, we will support it’ — basically. So we will see.”
Later in the news conference, Reid sought to clarify his remarks, saying that he meant that Republicans were in agreement that the president is the commander in chief and sets the policy on military strategy. And Pelosi chimed in, saying that “there was agreement that it was a difficult decision for the president to make,” but added that support from the Democrats in Congress “remains to be seen when we see what the president puts forth.”
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, downplayed the episode and dismissed talk of a split between Reid and Pelosi, saying that he was “confident” that the president’s strategy would have “broad support” in Congress and with the public.
But complicating matters, as always, is Reid’s precarious 2010 reelection prospects. He could benefit from taking a more hawkish approach to the war, as he appeals to moderate and conservative voters in Nevada — and tries to erase the memory of his now-infamous proclamation in 2007 that the Iraq war was “lost.”
For now, he is taking a more wait-and-see approach, saying, “I don’t think we need 100 secretaries of state.”
Still, there are perils for Reid, particularly if Obama sides with McChrystal and force-feeds congressional Democrats a major troop surge. Even if Reid supports the president on such a policy, he could face a mini-revolt from progressives in his own chamber.
“I’m not at all convinced that we need more troops,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “I need a lot of convincing before I would vote for more troops.”
“I think what Reid is doing is right,” Brown added. “Reid is doing it right in terms of giving the president time to do it.”
– U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speak about their … Glenn Thrush, Manu Raju Glenn Thrush, Manu Raju – 2 hrs 44 mins ago
The eye roll said it all.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from the White House Tuesday with broad, bicameral smiles — until Reid put his arm around Pelosi to announce that “everyone” would support “whatever” Afghanistan policy the president produces.
Pelosi doesn’t agree with that — not at all — and the TV cameras captured the California Democrat rolling her eyes and slightly recoiling from Reid’s grasp as he spoke. Back at the Capitol, Pelosi made it clear that she was angry about Reid’s unilateral offer of unequivocal support, a person familiar with the situation said.
Pelosi insisted Wednesday that it wasn’t so, telling POLITICO that she was “not upset,” adding: “I don’t know where you would have heard such a thing.”
But whatever the precise level of Pelosi’s frustration, this much is clear: If President Barack Obama decides to send more troops to Afghanistan, he risks setting off an internal party struggle on a foreign policy issue that may well define his performance as commander in chief.
Pelosi, reflecting the views of anti-war voters who gave Democrats the majority and of the progressives who elected her as speaker, has publicly expressed reservations about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s calls for the deployment of 40,000 additional troops. And she resents his penchant for going public.
Although Pelosi is waiting for Obama to propose a strategy, she seems more receptive to the creation of a smaller force focused on anti-terrorism operations on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, an approach reportedly favored by Vice President Joe Biden.
Reid has maintained a far more open posture — and has refused to take a position until Obama lays out his long-awaited strategy for the 8-year-old war.
Democrats say Pelosi and Reid will eventually sort out their differences, but Republicans, who are more unified in their support of McChrystal’s plan, are sensing weakness.
“There are obviously people on the left who do not want the president involved in the general’s recommendations, but there are others who are supportive of it,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate minority whip. “They have a split within their party. ... In our party, that split just doesn’t exist.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid’s No. 2, isn’t disputing that assessment.
“I think there are going to be divided opinions, within the House, within the Senate and between the parties,” he told POLITICO. “This is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue.”
At Tuesday’s White House meeting with about 30 leaders of Congress, Reid and Pelosi were not as vocal as some of the other members in the room. Reid deferred to others to speak, and Pelosi thanked the president for the meeting, Durbin later recalled, and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that the leaders avoided talking specifics.
Levin called on the president to focus on a counterinsurgency strategy to assist and train Afghan forces, and Obama’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), called on the president to develop his strategy in a “timely fashion.”
Still, coming out of the meeting, Reid said: “Madam Speaker, the one thing that I think was interesting is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said that ‘whatever decision you make, we will support it’ — basically. So we will see.”
Later in the news conference, Reid sought to clarify his remarks, saying that he meant that Republicans were in agreement that the president is the commander in chief and sets the policy on military strategy. And Pelosi chimed in, saying that “there was agreement that it was a difficult decision for the president to make,” but added that support from the Democrats in Congress “remains to be seen when we see what the president puts forth.”
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, downplayed the episode and dismissed talk of a split between Reid and Pelosi, saying that he was “confident” that the president’s strategy would have “broad support” in Congress and with the public.
But complicating matters, as always, is Reid’s precarious 2010 reelection prospects. He could benefit from taking a more hawkish approach to the war, as he appeals to moderate and conservative voters in Nevada — and tries to erase the memory of his now-infamous proclamation in 2007 that the Iraq war was “lost.”
For now, he is taking a more wait-and-see approach, saying, “I don’t think we need 100 secretaries of state.”
Still, there are perils for Reid, particularly if Obama sides with McChrystal and force-feeds congressional Democrats a major troop surge. Even if Reid supports the president on such a policy, he could face a mini-revolt from progressives in his own chamber.
“I’m not at all convinced that we need more troops,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “I need a lot of convincing before I would vote for more troops.”
“I think what Reid is doing is right,” Brown added. “Reid is doing it right in terms of giving the president time to do it.”
