Harry Reid: Incompetent Buffoon, or Lying Suckweasel?
Or is this a case where we should just embrace the healing power of "And"?
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hey, it got your attention.
At any rate, there are days when I wonder why the Democrats saw fit to make Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader, and there are days when I simply appreciate them for it. Today is one of the former days. I give you quotes from two different media sources.
ABC News:
Democrats Already Discrediting Upcoming Petraeus Report
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in his party's weekly radio address today that he expects the Petraeus report to be nothing more than the Bush administration's selective take on the surge.
"Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked," said Reid.
On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general's honesty.
"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual," Reid said. "I have every belief that this good man will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in his report, but it's not his report anymore. It's Bush's report."
The New York Times:
As a Report Draws Near, Democrats Ready a Stance
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — With Gen. David H. Petraeus set to testify before Congress on Monday about the status of the Iraq war, leading Democrats in the House and the Senate maneuvered Friday to portray his report as being controlled by the White House, while insisting that they did not doubt the general’s integrity."I have every belief that this good man, General Petraeus, will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in this report, that is now not his report," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. "It’s President Bush’s report. President Bush took final ownership of this when he landed in Anbar Province just a few days ago."
Don't you love selective quoting? I sure do. For that matter, I bet that so does Harry Reid. Original Saturday radio address text here: note that the comment attacking Petraeus's honesty was made on Friday. Also note that the NYT inexplicably forgot to mention it.
Read on.
Let Freedom Ring (h/t: Instapundit) has a variety of specific questions for Reid, not to mention Durbin and Emanuel. I'd like to concentrate on one thing that got noted in passing, however: back in the day, there was a confirmation vote for General Petraeus. How did Harry Reid vote? Why, yea. As Confederate Yankee notes about Reid (among others) (h/t: Ace of Spades):
They did not question the capability of the 1974 West Point graduate and Princeton PhD when they had their chance to reject him. Nor did they denounce or even raise serious doubts about allegiences or partisanship then, when they easily could have stated their disgreement with a simple "no" vote.
It has been an interesting eight and counting months of a Democratic majority, no? When it started, we were all expecting a quick withdrawal from Iraq, numerous investigations of the war, serious cutbacks on intelligence gathering, and a general hassling of the current administration. Some people were even nursing bright little flames of hope that impeachment proceedings might now proceed apace. We have, of course, have had none of this; in fact, from where I'm sitting Bush's policies involving the war really... haven't slowed down at all, have they? There really hasn't even been much of a fight over it, either - which is interesting, because we keep getting told that 2006 was a referendum on Iraq. If it was, nobody seems to have told the Democrats in Congress. Harry Reid, in particular.
This leads, interestingly, to three possible scenarios - none of which are really complimentary to Harry Reid. One, he got completely snowed by the Bush administration in January of 2007 and so voted to confirm General Petraeus. That would make him an "incompetent buffoon" (and even if you think that things haven't improved in Iraq, you should still favor this interpretation). Two, he didn't get snowed; he knows full well that things have improved, but is also aware that his long-term political future lies in throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks. That would be the "lying suckweasel" part.
Three? Three is my favorite. Harry Reid was dumb enough to think that the GOP was going to lie down and expose its collective belly - otherwise known as "acting like Democrats" - to his party just because we lost the majority. It never occurred to him that we might have actually meant for the Petraeus nomination to actually mean something, and now that it has (coupled with our stubborn refusal to give ground on Iraq), Reid is flailing about, trying what can only be called an incoherent attack, in the hopes that the Hail Mary play works. In other words, he's an incompetent buffoon and a lying suckweasel.
Seriously, you have to wonder why they let Reid take the top slot in the Senate. He generates stories like these like I generate carbon dioxide.
Moe
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Eric Cantor's Awesome Adventure — Comments (3) »
Harry Reid: Incompetent Buffoon, or Lying Suckweasel? 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
And you can add the NYT to Lying Suckweasels.
We need not fear for General Petraeus; his reputation and integrity is in tact, he's already won the admiration of millions of Americans with his leadership, and the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer and Kennedy will not change that. If anything, this could very well be their Waterloo; over estimating the tolerance Americans have for their stupidity, and openly impugning this man's integrity to his face. They should tread very carefully where others have fallen, when impugning an accomplished military leader.
"They should tread very carefully where others have fallen, when impugning an accomplished military leader."
This is the man who accomplished losing over 190,000 weapons that were slated to go to the Iraqi army. But we will never let facts get in the way of what we want to see, and what we don't want to see as this despotic administration destroys our constitution and country.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
And, och, laddie! Never was there a man more in need of his own observation!
As they say in the Highlands: hasta la vista, baby.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
polls that show what the American public is thinking, don't bother to read same polls. In most of the ones that I have seen, beginning last spring, the public's approval of the military was around 69%. At the same time, their approval of Congress was hovering around 18% and it has dropped more since then. So, yeah, call Petraeus a liar and an incompetent and see how much their poll numbers shoot-----down. Couldn't happen to a more malicious bunch of cowards and t_______rs.
If the public has to choose between Dave Petraeus and Harry Reid, Reid loses in a big way.
Now a smart guy, so we're not talking about Harry Reid, would get out in front of this and say, "we made Bush pick Petraeus, we've been saying for years that there weren't enough troops and the strategy is flawed and we made him change direction and things are getting better. They will get even better with a Dem president."
But that isn't in their nature. Their best friend is the the lie and that's all they have right now.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Probably right after January, and the first wave of campaign donations for the new year are in.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
They've spent the last couple years sucking up to the Netroots, and the Netroots consider the situation in Iraq to be a war crime.
So if the good General comes back saying that the Surge is working, the new counterinsurgency strategies he developed are working, and that we need need to stay and win... their Presidential candidates can't take ownership of that.
And with both Obama and Clinton in Reid's caucus... that puts the Senate Democrats in an interesting spot.
I'd love to see Clinton become the "Stay the Democratic Course" candidate, personally.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The Netroots will act like dead frogs being tasered. And remember much of the Nuttier Netroots are the media. There is nothing they love more than shouting down the war mongers and stopping losing a war.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It is almost pathetic the way they have hitched their wagon to the star of defeat.
They COULD jump on the success bandwagon and REALLY reap the fruit of an American military victory...but they are simple unable to accept success as an option!
way, when the war was going badly in Iraq, how these leftists
could take the positions they did as it surely got them big high-fives and votes from their fellow travelers. But since January, with Petraeus and the turn-around in Anbar in particular, and even with KATIE COURIC (!!) admitting some success there, what do they hope to gain at this point?
Were these supposed "leaders" to really go out in the countryside and see for themselves the true love and enthusiasm that the average American has for our military, it would surely curdle their cojones (if they had any) to know that they have picked, and stuck with, the wrong horse in this fight. Bin Laden's endorsement, coming at this time in particular, should be a really big coffin nail for them. Is is wrong to pray for that?
A liberal is a liberal.
They can't help themselves, especially since they were muted by Bill Clinton esp after Newt's whuppin and alliance after 1994. Then, they get into anti war mood 72 hours after Afghanistan and Iraq didn't become Connecticut and esp when the MSM keeps feeding them polls that say the American people want to lose.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
MSM keeps feeding them polls that say the American people want to lose.
The polls simply show the American people are unhappy with the way the war has been going. They don't break it down between those who want us to get out vs those who want us to kick a**! MANY of us have been unhappy with the President's handling of the war, 'cause we wanted the other hand to be untied, to let the troops win the darn thing!
way by the time it gets from Russert to Biden. Of course they say "withdraw", not lose.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...had a piece Thursday called Dems already discount war report I noted over @ TMR in which they trotted out a whole list of buffoons:
Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.
"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.
"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "
The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.
"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.
These Bozos are so married to their lie, they can’t see past it, to maneuver around it - pathetic really.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
these Democrats that he can count up on the wall of his cave, like North Vietnam had pictures of John Kerry and the others that helped them achieve their goals.
would have to draw the line at having to go to sleep and wake up to the likes of Reid's, Pelosi's and Schumer's faces every morning and night. OTOH, it serves him right!
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I believe a 'Suckweasel' trumps 'Incompetent Buffoon'.
I'll go with Suckweasel only because of the sanctions placed by RS on more descriptive terms befitting reid and his fellow lice.
Reid said, "President Bush took final ownership of this when he landed in Anbar Province just a few days ago." This has been called Bush's war all along. He has taken responsibility all along. I am one to dream, and can only hope this will become a reality: As Reagan "owned" the tearing down of the Berlin wall and the Cold War victory, which now is the biggest gem in his legacy crown, so I hope Bush will be able to face history as a honorable and courageous leader who never whined and passed the buck as you see the Democrat leaders do every day.
Incompetent buffoon!
NO! Lying suckweasel!
NO! Incompetent buffoon is more charitable!
NO! Lying suckweasel is more accurate!
NO! Incompetent buffoon is rhetorically more sophisticated!
NO! The hell with that, lying suckweasel!
Loop to line 1
Embrace it, lest ye be lost until the end of time itself!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Whose word do YOU think the American people will place more stock in?
And no, the MSM won't be able to totally muzzle Petraeus. Unless the White House has a "New Tone" flashback, and agrees to limit the general's ability to speak publicly, in an effort to win the approval (again) of those who will shape the Democratic message on Iraq---Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The fact that this bleating incompetent suckweasal even talks about our brave troups is a national disgrace. But then, so is the party he represents in the Senate.
They don't understand that a person of integrity would never let anyone put words in his mouth or be a mouthpiece for a viewpoint that he did not hold.
In saying Petraeus will simply parrot the adminstration views, they ARE questioning his integrity. But the Democrats could never see that.