Harry Reid, Loser

[SuperScout]

The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, believes the war in Iraq is lost. There is nothing about that conclusion that bothers Reid: He is as blas? as he is certain, as resolute in pursuit of defeat as Churchill was in pursuit of victory. Last November, the Democrats seized control of Congress on the pretense that they wanted to change our policy regarding Iraq but not -- as they, to a man (and a woman) insisted -- to merely cut and run. We knew they weren?t being truthful then, but too many people were taken in. Now all pretense is dispensed with: we can see the man behind the curtain.

On Thursday, Reid said: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." He said that in the middle of a week when some 146,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and at least 6 have died. He said that at a time when the troop surge announced by President Bush has only managed to deliver three of five brigades -- about 60% of the planned 21,000 additional troops -- to Iraq. The fact that the surge hasn?t had a chance to work is much less important to Reid and the Dems than the political mileage they may gain from declaring it a failure.

How many times have we heard the Dems insist that they support the troops? It?s one of their mantras. If something isn?t ?for the children?, it?s to ?support the troops.? But it?s false, just as their insistence last fall that they wouldn?t cut and run was. All of that pales in comparison to one single fact: Reid and the rest of the Democrats do not condemn defeat. They do not say they would have done better to win, because the words ?win? and ?victory? never pass their lips. They never propose an idea that might lead to quicker, more decisive victory in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa, or Lebanon, or anywhere else. No. The Democratic pathology is the same now as it was forty years ago.

During the Vietnam War, Democrats were able to rally Americans around their anti-war banner because the draft brought the dangers of the war home to most families. But Vietnam was ? in their terms -- a ?war of choice?: America didn?t have to fight in Vietnam to preserve itself. Iraq ? and the rest: don?t forget the rest -- are different on two counts.

First, President Bush began the counter-attack after 9-11 in Afghanistan against the regime that had harbored and aided bin Laden in the 9-11 attacks. No one (no serious person, at least, which eliminates every Dem with the exception of Joe Lieberman) thought that the war could -- or would -- end there. The objective then, of which we have long since lost sight, was to end state sponsorship of terrorism.

Military analysts were uncertain whether the campaign to follow ? against the other state sponsors of Islamic terrorism -- should begin in Iraq or Iran or Syria. President Bush chose Iraq. Iraq is not a war of choice: it was, inarguably, a state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, Iraq wasn?t involved in 9-11: but it was involved in terrorism in a very big way. The only argument against Iraq was that it was not the next most urgent campaign. Had Iran been first, Iraq might have not been necessary.

Second, whether Iraq should have been invaded is not the issue. The war against Islamic terrorism and the nations that sponsor it cannot be won there, but it can be lost. If we lose it -- unlike the Vietnam War -- we lose America. Vietnam wasn?t an existential war: this war is. And it is a great mistake to say this is ?the war in Iraq.?

President Bush has failed in some ways, but his most important failure is in the leadership in the prosecution of this war. He hasn?t ? since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president. He hasn?t defined the enemy, how he must be defeated, and how we will even know if we have won.

Let?s be plain: we are at war with those who adhere to radical Islam. It is an ideology, not a religion. Our goal is not -- cannot -- be to implant democracy in the Middle East. Democracy is a system of government not, as the neocons say, a weapon. We must defeat the enemy by defeating his ideology and compelling -- by violent means as may be necessary -- those nations who support the terrorist to stop doing so. When that task is done, the war is won. And not one moment before.

What, then, is the import of what Sen. Reid said? First, Reid and his ilk do not support the troops. When Reid says the war is lost, the troops hear. They understand that they are still risking their lives every day for a war the Democrats are content to lose. There can be no more destructive assault on their morale. It is only because of their inherent quality -- much higher than the draftees of Vietnam -- that they don?t abandon the field.

On April 23, 1971 John Kerry told a Senate Committee, ?We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?? In those years, the morale of our troops was destroyed piecemeal by Kerry and his cohorts. Reid is merely a new manifestation of the Democrats? pathology. He, like the rest, don?t give a damn about our troops. They care only about their path to greater political power.

Harry Reid?s statement compels one more conclusion: that the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation to victory against this existential threat.

Conservatives have begun to think that the import of the 2008 presidential election is that the winner will decide how the Supreme Court?s balance will tilt for the next two decades. True enough. But more important, by far, is how the next president will prosecute the war.

The fate of democracy in Iraq will not be determinative of victory or defeat in the larger, long war. Will some Republican pursue real victory? Or will the Democrats just declare defeat and come home, bringing defeat with them?

[Stick]

As I said on another thread in the Political Forum, Representative Ried should be immediately censured and sent home and if his own political party doesn't do something to rebuke his comments they are dumber than dirt and asking for the "lost" that inaction will generate at the poles.

[Boats]

Scout

- Paragraph 4 hit the nail. It's OK for the little man or gal to go in but when you start getting their kids now you have their attention.

- Your last paragraph has yet to be played out. But my gut says its not going taste real well - no matter what they do.

Procrastinated conflicts have a way with themselves. Attrition has a way of doing that. To stop this you need some "positive signs" of change and the nightly death tolls have to drop significantly in order to change the outlooks (publicly).

You and I and many others know the signs. Realistically I give it a 30% chance of that happening. My support and yours doesn't waiver - but we don't control the purse strings and we don't have the ability to make the changes needed. Elected official's are the only ones who can do this and we already know how this is going.

[SuperScout]

Originally posted by Stick As I said on another thread in the Political Forum, Representative Ried should be immediately censured and sent home and if his own political party doesn't do something to rebuke his comments they are dumber than dirt and asking for the "lost" that inaction will generate at the poles.

I think you mean 'Senator Reid.' Other than that I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. He's a yellow-bellied coward of the first order.

[Packo]

"Crazies on the Left, Wimps on the Right" a new book by Bernie Goldberg, (I think, the guy from CBS). I think the title says it all.

If ever anyone has been forced to the middle....I'm it.

Pack, A man without a Party, except for the Mountain!

[Keith_Hixson]

You haven't been forced to the middle. You are outside looking in. They are all crazy and lacking common sense. Either that or you are so out of touch that you are befriending Indiana Cops.

Keith

[exlrrp]

And it was lost by Bush, the people he put in charge and the inept, incompetent way they went about it.
Reid is only recognizing reality.

Interesting statement here: "...President Bush has failed in some ways, but his most important failure is in the leadership in the prosecution of this war. He hasn?t ? since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president. He hasn?t defined the enemy, how he must be defeated, and how we will even know if we have won...."

If this is true, then its BUsh who lost the war: according to this, he didn't define the enemy, say how he should be defeated or even the benchmarks by which we know we won.

But there's a lot more to it than that. Bush took us into war on grounds we know now to be false and not only false but slickly packaged and sold as truth when extensive doubts remained. And Busha dn Cheney KNEW extensive doubts remained but they spooked the country into war anyway, with the help of a compliant media. There was no yellowcake, no aluminum tubes, no nuclear program, no connection of Al Qaeda or 9/11 to Saddam. The basis BUsh started this war on have been proven completely false. And the world no longer trusts America's credibility because of it.

It turns out that the containment of Saddam, set up by Bush Sr, was working. this is no defense of Saddam but the the truth is plain that America was a lot better off with Saddam in power--he kkept the lid on some really rotten people that we will now have to spend the rest of our lives fighting.

The loss of this war is a direct failure of Bush's leadership, it will be what he's known for forever after. And of course there's a huge campaign to put the blame on other people, like Reid, for telling the truth. The Iraq war WAS a war of choice-- Bush's choice---and now he's trying to say it wasn't? We attacked, THEM, remember? They didn't attack us!

Bush failed in many ways but not the least of them is the complete failuire of diplomacy.
The Iraq invasion and occupation DID have a chance to succeed at one point but it would have taken extensive diplomatic efforts to line up support among Iraqs neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabis and Turkey. NOT ONE of these countries sent troops or aid to our invasion, we invaded Iraq with the support of only ONE of its neighbors: Kuwait.

And thats one of the reasons this war has been lost--noncooperation from ALL of Iraq's neighbors save our mighty ally Kuwait, who owed us favors for saving its undemocratic monarchy.. And no diplomatic effort to bring any of them on board, we refuse to even talk with its two most powerful neighbors: Iran and Syria. How can it be said Bush did the right things in this war?

"...Military analysts were uncertain whether the campaign to follow ? against the other state sponsors of Islamic terrorism -- should begin in Iraq or Iran or Syria. President Bush chose Iraq. Iraq is not a war of choice: it was, inarguably, a state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, Iraq wasn?t involved in 9-11: but it was involved in terrorism in a very big way. ...."

Unforunately that paragraph eztablishes that it WAS a war of choice--Bush's choice. If they were uncertain who to attack next, there was no imminent threat from any of these countries. And to this day, none of them have atttacked us (in the last 50 years, anyway, tho Iran did take hostages 30 years ago)

Bush chose to take this country into war on evidence that was later proven to be false--this is inarguable. A HUGE failure to understand the situation, why we should never elect someone wiht NO international experience at all.

Unfortunately they never bothered to prove this and to this day there is no evidence that Iraq was engaged in terrorism against anyone but its own peoople--and this is not the reaons Bush gave for invading anyway--He had Powell go to the UN with a bunch of pogue evidence that was ultimately proven to be false. Powell now says that that speech to the UN was the "worst moement of" his life. It should be definitely noted that Powell, the ONLY member of Bush'c cabinet with military and combat experience, was against the invasion of Iraq.

"...He hasn?t ? since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president...."
I agree with this entirely and this is Bush's biggest failure and the one Conservatives will never look at. How could we have won this war when our leader did not, in the words of the article YOU quote, perform the role of a war president. What greater failure could there be?

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that George Bush had NONE in his qualifications box when discharged and the fact that he was stripped of his medals also. (here's the link to his discharge showing this: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif I'll give you a break this time and not post his discharge) That would explain his completely inept, incompetent and corrupt mismanagement of this war.

The war is lost and everything you see now to drag it on is cover for Bush's failure. Paste it in your hat

James

[MORTARDUDE]

I guess it depends on how you define victory.

Larry

[the humper]

have expressed themselves on this issue and was where it was really tough, GAVE ONE THOUGHT, to what the POL's were saying. Some, had enough trouble just covering their own butt and could have cared less what they said.
Another President, had a very low rating, similar to Bush and that was none other than-----------------


President Harry S. Truman, because HE MADE A DECISION, (REMEMBER, THE BUCK STOPS HERE) and it wasn't made initially from a political standpoint. And what did his decision DO!!!!! Ask the 50,000,00 million+ who have lived in the South for over a half a century what they received. And if one want's to go further, (if you can) ask the remainder in the North.
Do the folks in the sand dunes have the capacity to look forward to something better, than a TYRANT, who ruled AND KILLED, the ones not on his side, for years.
THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gimpy]

I've been attempting to avoid this conversation, but it makes my blood boil. So here goes.

When Harry Reid was fighting for more body armor, more armored vehicles for the troops, and was opposed by George Bush and Dick Cheney, who do you believe was right, and WHO was PROVEN right?

Did you stand with Reid, supporting the body armor and armored vehicles, or did you stand with those who opposed those efforts at the time?

When Harry Reid was fighting for more funds and support for healthcare and benefits for wounded troops, and American veterans, did you stand with Republicans who opposed that support for troops and vets? Or did you stand with Harry Reid, who was fighting for them?

When the Joint Chiefs of Staff overwhelmingly advised against the surge and pleaded with the president to realize it would be a mistake, did you side with the president, or with Harry Reid and the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

When Secretary of Defense Bob Gates says in recent hours that efforts by Democrats to discuss timetables are helpful to the effort, because it pressures Iraqis to do what they should have done long ago, do you side with Secretary Gates, or against him? Don??t you agree with Gates that pressure on Iraqis is important, which is what Harry Reid has been
fighting for all along?

When Harry Reid was fighting for financial support for military families and troops, many of whom were facing extreme hardship, did you stand with Reid or George Bush and the republicans who denied them those things?

When Harry Reid and Jim Webb are pushing for the equivalent of a new G.I. Bill to provide major new long-term aid to troops, vets and military families, will you stand with them, or the republicans who have continually opposed this?

When Harry Reid says today we must fight for long-term support for all the health needs of our wounded heroes, which are today dramatically underfunded and undersupported, are you standing with Harry Reid in this long-term support of our wounded troops, or with the republicans and their piss-poor record these past 13 years? (check it out yourself, it's in the public record of the Congressional roll call votes)

Do you agree with the president, who has now apologized for neglecting needs of wounded troops, and do you now agree with Harry Reid, who has always fought for greater assistance and will escalate this battle again?

When the Republicans on the Baker Hamilton Group advocated a long series of new policy moves, did you stand with Harry Reid, who supports views held unamimously by the Baker Hamiliton Commmission, or do you stand with those including the president and vice president, who adamantly refuse to implement them?

Do you agree with Harry Reid that we must do far more to provide help for troops who face major brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder? Surely you will be proud to stand with the majority leader now in support of these actions that he has long advocated! Or, do you stand with the administration and republicans in Congress who have consistently UNDERfunded these items in their piss-poor budgets!

Did you agree with the military commanders (a former Army Chief of Staff and also a former head of CENTCOM), who wanted far more troops for the Iraq mission all along, or the president and Rumsfeld, who refused their recomendations which has led to the disastrous results thus far? Bush and his 'experts' also denied reinforcements at Tora Bora and allowed bin Laden to escape at the very moment we could have killed him?

Do you agree with Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st ID in Iraq, and said we would have needed three times the troops PLUS the Iraqi security forces to control Iraq after the invasion? Or Bushs SecDef, who threatened to fire anyone who pointed out that we needed to plan for Phase 4? operations in Iraq?

Tell us, who was right the commanders who wanted reinforcements at Tora Bora, or the president and vice president, who refused their urgent request?

Do you agree with Harry Reid and Gen.Sheehan, who believe the president now has no idea about a clear policy going forward and needs to make major changes or face continued major disasters? Maybe his 'new' "war czar, execution manager, implementation manger will get him off the hook, huh?

Who was right, the Joint Chiefs and the Iraq field commanders at the time, and Harry Reid, who did not advocate the surge, or George Bush, who ignored them all and did the surge that the chiefs and the commanders at the time advised him not to do?

Let's talk about who supports the troops and whether you will join Harry Reid on the many initiatives he is fighting for today, and has fought for, for many years, in support of the troops and the military families that Reid has championed, over the objections of the administration.

Had Harry Reids' advice been heeded over the last several years, don't you agree that there would be far fewer Gold Star mothers, and far better treatment for wounded troops?

When Harry Reid has been advocating new policies and overwhelming support for military veterans often supported by military leaders, for several years, don't you now agree that Harry Reid and those military leaders and veterans advocates were right, and that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donlad Rumsfeld and a majority of congressional republicans were wrong?

Just asking!