Reid: President in 'State of Denial' Over Iraq

April 23, 2007 — -- In Monday remarks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, -- who said last week that the war is lost -- delivered harsh language on President Bush's Iraq strategy, following a scheduled presidential statement on the war.

Reid criticized the President for failing to listen to the Iraq Study Group, accusing him of doling out happy talk on progress in Iraq in his speech in Michigan last week.

"The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential," Reid said in excerpts of the speech released by his office.

Reid said, "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."

Per Reid's spokesman, "Senator Reid will speak about the state of the debate over the Iraq supplemental. He will outline the way forward for Congress and the President to come together to fund the troops, change the course in Iraq and bring the war to a responsible end."

"He will also lay out a sharp critique of Bush record and current policy and discuss the impact on US security of staying the course and failing in Iraq."

Reid's office released the following excerpts of the speech:

But just weeks after that [Iraq Study Group] report came out, President Bush ignored the call for bipartisan cooperation.

He went in the opposite direction -- and he went alone -- by ordering his troop surge ­ a plan that ignored the advice of the Iraq Study Group, ignored the will the will of the people, and dismissed the advice of many of his own generals.

Now in the fifth year of President Bush's mismanagement and mistakes, there is no magic formula. But, there is a way forward that gives us our best chance for a responsible end to the war ­ that protects our strategic interests, strengthens our security, and brings our troops home.

That way forward is being forged today in Congress, with the help and advice of Democrats and Republicans, civilian experts and retired generals, as well as the good judgment of the American people, who have made their voices heard loud and clear.

We are at a critical point in the Iraq war and in the Iraq debate here at home. I am proud of the role the Senate and the House are playing in this historic debate. It is a constructive ­ and long overdue ­ effort to put some spine in our policy.

The very existence of this debate has already helped. The President's own Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, said that debate is essential to progress, that our efforts have been helpful to communicate to the Iraqis that American patience is limited.

Secretary Gates is right: American patience is limited. As the peoples' representatives, our patience is also limited.

Back in December, the Iraq Study Group said that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." Unfortunately, since then nothing has changed.

And yet the President on Friday used the word "progress" no fewer than ten times when he gave his Iraq update.

He said that while there were still horrific attacks in Baghdad ­ and I quote ­ "The direction of the fight is beginning to shift." In describing his escalation of American troops ­ what he calls a surge ­ he said, "so far the operation is meeting expectations."

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.

As conditions deteriorate in Iraq and our world focus continues to narrow, we must choose a new direction.

One road leads to endless war, with consequences for America's future security extending well past the borders of Iraq.

The other road leads to a responsible end, gives Iraq the best chance for success and allows us to refocus on the challenges we face throughout the world.

Some in the Administration and Congress deny that choice exists. According to the President ­ there is no "Plan B."

He tells us it's "surge or nothing." He tells us it's "stay the course or fail."

With all due respect, our President is wrong, and the new Congress will show him the way.

It is unquestioned that we have long term security interests in seeing Iraq become stabilized, peaceful, and yes, one day, a functioning democracy. The President's current path does not take us there --

But let me offer you that different course ­ one that is supported by majorities of the House and the Senate, and I believe reflects the will of our military leaders and the American people.

...

In the supplemental spending bill, we are sending the Administration a strong message that the American people want a new direction. Nonetheless, I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January.

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

We have made tremendous progress this year, but it has come with a slim majority of 51 in a body that requires 60 to do business ­ and really 50 because of Senator Johnson's illness.

That means every step forward has required the cooperation of Republicans who are willing to put partisanship aside.

But there have only been a few of them ­ and every day we hope to find a few more by forcing them to make the choice of sticking with an isolated president or standing on the side of the American people.

After five years of silence from Congress, Iraq is now openly debated on the Senate floor and as a result, bipartisan majorities supported two resolutions expressing our determined opposition to the President's war policy.

As Thomas Ricks wrote in his book Fiasco, a searing indictment of the Iraq war, "There were many failures in the American system that led to the war, but the failures in Congress were at once perhaps the most important and the least noticed."

No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush Administration's incompetence and dishonesty.

Winning this war is no longer the job of the American military. Our troops have already done their job. They routed the Iraqi military, captured Baghdad in days, deposed and then captured the dictator.

The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential.

Democrats are reaching out to Republicans in Congress in hopes of bipartisan cooperation.

Only the President is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party.

We don't have meetings with the President ­ not real, substantive meetings. He holds carefully scripted sessions where he repeats his talking points.

Yes, he is our President, but we are the people's representatives. We will meet with him any time he calls upon us to discuss war policy.

...

Our timetable is fair and reasonable. We have put our plan on the table. 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.