Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, April 26, 2007

Reid an embarrassment to Democrats

April 26, 2007

Advertisement

— Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: "As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats - a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance."

If you answered Harry Reid, give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to come to an end.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and also professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is this war is lost - in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. ... The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this - we Democrats believe it. ... So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that clear? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader so confused things as Harry Reid managed to do with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Nor is this the first time that Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had reason to ponder the political fallout from Reid's tussles with the language.

Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

He called President Bush "a loser," then apologized. He said Bill Frist, then the Senate majority leader, "has no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a personal term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.

Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the one-time amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential - not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.

Given the way the Constitution divides the war-making power between the president as commander in chief and Congress as the sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow from now until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals of his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out what ground Reid is prepared to defend - for more than 24 hours at a time.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition - defined by the Iraq Study Group - that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better and the country needs more than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

- David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

Whoa! Did scenebooster get pulled?!

That's too bad.

drederick_tatum 7 years, 8 months ago

We need to sh!t or get off the pot, to quote Dante from Clerks.

The time is ticking down not up Iran is GOING to do this, if you read on message boards and blog sites and stuff the ones who support Iran/Syria/the proxies are acting like 3rd graders their so excited about kicking israel's ass, and saying stuff like "2 bad Iran is comin to take care of ur asses now hahaha" and stuff like that. This is really happening and the Bible Code thingy if you see that is not looking very good either when MAHMOUD, TEHRAN, MISSILE, MAHDI, LIGHTING FROM THE SKIES, and BURNED UP THEIR CITY are all appearing in a Revelation matrix

drederick_tatum 7 years, 8 months ago

We need to sh!t or get off the pot, to quote Dante from Clerks.

The time is ticking down not up Iran is GOING to do this, if you read on message boards and blog sites and stuff the ones who support Iran/Syria/the proxies are acting like 3rd graders their so excited about kicking israel's ass, and saying stuff like "2 bad Iran is comin to take care of ur asses now hahaha" and stuff like that. This is really happening and the Bible Code thingy if you see that is not looking very good either when MAHMOUD, TEHRAN, MISSILE, MAHDI, LIGHTING FROM THE SKIES, and BURNED UP THEIR CITY are all appearing in a Revelation matrix

drederick_tatum 7 years, 8 months ago

We need to shait or get off the pot, to quote Dante from Clerks.

The time is ticking down not up Iran is GOING to do this, if you read on message boards and blog sites and stuff the ones who support Iran/Syria/the proxies are acting like 3rd graders their so excited about kicking israel's ass, and saying stuff like "2 bad Iran is comin to take care of ur asses now hahaha" and stuff like that. This is really happening and the Bible Code thingy if you see that is not looking very good either when MAHMOUD, TEHRAN, MISSILE, MAHDI, LIGHTING FROM THE SKIES, and BURNED UP THEIR CITY are all appearing in a Revelation matrix

drederick_tatum 7 years, 8 months ago

haha

sorry about the triple post there

I know that sounds like Harry Potter or something but its supposed to be God's curse. The name he called it in ancient Hebrew in the Old Testament was 3 syllables long, and is written backwards in Arabic in the Quran, twice at the tops of pages its supposed to be Allah's secret and only he knows the true meaning of their power. The words also contain the Miracle of the Quran which is never specified really what this is

preebo 7 years, 8 months ago

Reid is hardly an extremist. According to a new poll 55% of Americans want us out of Iraq by next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

I say this now, knowing that most HERE will disagree with my statement. However, it should be noted that one can wholely and completely support our servicemen and women over in Iraq and ask for them to brought home. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to McCarthyism during the communism scare.

If you disagree CNN has a similar poll where over 60% want a timetable for withdrawl.

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/31525.exclude.html

WAKE UP, most of America wants us out of there, and sooner rather than later.

james bush 7 years, 8 months ago

Bush is a lousy leader!>>>>>>>>>>now what?

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 8 months ago

both sides are an embarassment to each other just pick a person from ether side.

preebo 7 years, 8 months ago

How can you possibly compare Reid to Bush and/or Cheney. Are you serious? Whether you like him or hate him he is certainly no Bush or Cheney.

(Opinion) I pose that it is Bush and Cheney who are the traitors. They have proposed blunder after blunder all the while send our our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers to fight a war based on false pretences and politically guided intelligence without appropriate numbers and adequate supplies.

All Reid and the Dems have done is restore the Constitutional balance back into our government.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

Tweakin': Guess it's good that you don't bother to label yourself as a centrist, then.

Agno: You do realize that you're arguing definitions of extremism with one of the most obvious extremists on the board, right?

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

I thought you had vowed to ignore me. Make up your mind.

drewdun 7 years, 8 months ago

"Suppose I feel that the War on Terror is a valid war--and that the Iraqi Occupation is failing at an alarming rate? What if I once felt that the relationship between these two things was close, but they now have little to do with each other?

Howzabout that, huh?

Are you and Reid and the Democrats going to support me?"

When have any Dems ever argued that the war on terror isn't valid? (not sure if that is what you meant). Reid and Pelosi have both said, repeatedly, that the best course of action is to extract our troops from the civil war in Iraq and re-focus on the real war against those who attacked us: al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And regarding 'extremism:' it appears to me that anyone who exhibits strong feelings is regarded as an 'extremist.' Some, imo, rightly so, such as those from far-left groups like ANSWER who opposed the war in Afghanistan, and from those on the far-right who argue that any criticism of Bush or the war in Iraq is tantamount to treason. Arguing that 'the war is lost' is, imo, not extremism, but an acknowledgment of reality and the facts on the ground in Iraq. A very clumsily put and poorly worded acknowledgment, but nonetheless in line with reality and the thoughts of a majority of Americans. Really, though, it all comes back to this (at least for me): the real extremism was starting the GD war in Iraq in the first place. Those from both parties who had a hand in this are extremists, but it should be remembered that the vast majority of the base of the Democratic Party was against this endeavor from the very beginning, for the most part accurately predicting the dire consequences of such a foolish rush to war. And now that their predictions have come to pass, calling for an end to our involvement in this misbegotten war and trying to spare the lives of our soldiers is hardly extremism.

drederick_tatum 7 years, 8 months ago

PROOF that the Quran is God's curse!! If your even remotely Christian or Jewish read on:

ZECHARIAH 5:2 in the OT God shows him a prophecy of a floating scroll he just created, as its flying around the room he says "This is my curse that goes forth all across the face of the Earth" The Hebrew letters for the word "Curse" are "He-Lamen-Aleph" but the "He" is silent so its just pronounced "Lamen-Aleph"

The 2nd and 3rd chapters the Cow and the Imam's Family or something, BOTH contain at the very beginning the same mysterious word "Alif-Lam-Mim" in Arabic, thats a secret known only to Allah himself. Its also called a miracle but no one knows WHAT this miracle is...

If they flipped Allah's secret password arouynd, however, it would read in Hebrew the name of the floating scroll! According to God it slices you one way for stealing and another way for lying as according to its own text, covers up women because they are "wickedness" and would set up its own base in Baghdad (After Muhammad this is what they did)

Now I know this isn't what anybody ever wants to hear, but that floating scroll is directly linked to Armageddon thru the woman in the basket. Maybe all these so-called "good moral Christian" conservatives can skip past the rest of Genesis now and flip to Zechariah chapter 5, which describes a lot bigger problem then abortion or evolution or gayness or stem cells etc etc. And start figuring out how to deal with this floating scroll

anonimiss 7 years, 8 months ago

Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, now-Majority Leader Harry Reid said this:

"As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

Six months later, the now-Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, put it this way:

"A deadline for pulling out ... will only encourage our enemies to wait us out." He added it would be "a Lebanon in 1985 [sic]. And God knows where it goes from there."

And three months later, the junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said this: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.