Reid and Pelosi Deny WaPo Story that They “Backed Down”

[Rose Siding]

Greg Sargent reports:

Check this out -- the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?

The WaPo front page story says the following:

"Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable".....

But did Dems actually back down and offer this concession, as WaPo says?

I just emailed a Pelosi aide to ask whether the story was true. Here's the reply:

"Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include."

Meanwhile, a source in Reid's office tells me the following: "No decisions have been made on this yet. No options have been ruled in or out." It's also worth noting that the New York Times story on this today doesn't say that the Dems have officially offered this concession, either......

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

Reid, Harry- (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

[xchrom]

1. we will see what we will see.

i've been phoning, e-mailing and doing the dnc thing.

so, we'll see.

[jobycom]

2. Either way, we should all be furious at the Washington Post's anti-Dem spin.

The words "backed down" are clearly spin to make Pelosi and Reid look bad. It's been known from the beginning that this bill wouldn't pass, and that once it failed, more negotiations would have to take place to reach something workable. Obama said as much (and got blasted for it).

How about, "Reid and Pelosi renegotiate?" Or "Reid and Pelosi draft new bill?" Or something less opinionated. Let the readers decide whether that constitutes backing down.

Also, to the best of my knowledge neither Reid nor Pelosi said they would make a fight on this issue, they simply passed the bill and submitted it for signing--expecting it to be defeated. How are they "backing down" if they never "stepped up" to make a fight in the first place?

Biased, partisan reporting. That's the issue.

Having said that, I hope Reid and Pelosi keep submitting the same bill until Bush is forced to sign it, or until all funding runs out. Actually, I'd like to see a modification to each bill. I'd like to see the pullout date decreased by one month every time Bush vetoes it. Or just skip the whole dance and demand immediate pullout. But there are no miracles in politics.