Dissing General Petraeus
Reid Won't Even Listen To The Commander On The Ground
By California Yankee Posted in Democrats — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday on CNN's "The Situation Room," a segment was aired on Reid's Lost War. CNN correspondent Dana Bash asked the Senator Reid whether he would believe General Petraeus when the General comes to Capitol Hill to explain that there is progress being made in Iraq. Refusing to risk being confronted by facts that might not agree with Reid's Lost War comment, the Democrat's Senate Majority Leader said he wouldn't believe General Petraeus. You can watch the video of Reid dissing General Petraeus below or simply read the transcript:
BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress. He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?
REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.
The complete transcript is available here.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Note to Democrats: Our enemies are STILL listening to you! — Comments (41) »
Dissing General Petraeus 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
my mantra in dealing with Lefties acting like Lefties will if left unchecked. You could always count on their overplaying their hand and doing something stupid that you could smash them over. That said, I never had to deal with them doing their usual Lefty stuff when lives are at stake, and especially when one of those lives is my son.
I'll admit to having no airspeed, altitude, or ideas about dealing with Pelosi/Reid and their running dogs. We lack both the power and the guts in our Republican congressional delegation to go toe to toe with them, we have never figured out a way to deal with the symbiosis between the D spin machine and the MSN, and we can't affort to put troops' lives at risk by just letting them play their madness out until they once again, as they always will, do something to turn the public against them. I'm waiting for the smart people to show up, and NOW would be a good time!
In Vino Veritas
Why isn't anyone in Congress calling forcefully for this man's resignation? He is effectively calling our Commander in Iraq a liar!
It's up to the people of Nevada to send a message that they don't want to be represented by a jerk.
Run like Reagan!
One mistake the Right often makes is assuming that we should not adopt *any* of the practices of the Left. When it comes to things like protesting, that's probably a good call.
But not calling loudly and often for something like Reid's resignation in response to his irresponsible, scurrilous, and vaguely treasons soundbites is exactly the *wrong* tack to take. Whether the MSM will pick up on those calls is beside the point. The GOP must do it anyway 1) to rally The Base, and 2) to try to get the word out to everyone else.
Just because the guy isn't up for reelection until 2010 doesn't mean he should get a free pass. Nor does it mean he should continue as Majority Leader of the Senate. Force the Dems to hand that job over to someone else.
every time a Republican makes any public statement or appearance (as in the Sunday morning shows) their remarks should be preceded by a demand that Reid resign.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The Dems can remove him from that high-profile spot. They can relegate him to the status of a backbencher, whose words (The war is lost!) won't carry so much weight worldwide.
By keeping him as their leader, the Dems IMO tacitly endorse his toxic PR statements. Disagree with him? Fine. FIRE him.
Otherwise Dems, he's yours. Your words are his words.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Democrats only like Generals who no longer serve in the military. That way the cooties are gone, or something.
Run like Reagan!
He was always a reasonable guy, for a Democrat anyway. Then he became leader. Now he is torn between his (former?) sanity and the left wing nutroots. The latter appears to be winning his inner struggle. Pathetic.
I wish the Democrats would just have the balls to cut off all the war funding. Though I would disagree with that action in the strongest possible manner, it is a legitimate policy position. Of course then the Dems would have to accept full responsiblity for what happens in Iraq and the region. The fact the Dems don't have the balls to cut off the funding is tacitly admitting that the Iraq and the region will implode without US forces there.
This business of slow bleeding our troops in harm's way with negative comments like Reid's, trying to impose artificial deadlines, and threating to deny the proper funding is flat out treasonous. I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves but they'd have to have shame first.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Harry Reid crossed the line with his "Lost" comments and now this, this shows he can't even SEE the line from where he is now. Reid approved this General! This General was shown a unanimous vote of support by Congress and now this 2 bit number-running Senator has the gall to call this General a liar?!!
That's it. 75% of the Senate is calling for the resignation of Gonzales for "incompetence" and for suspicious firings of the U.S. attorneys - those Senators are DEMANDING Gonzales' resignation. Now Reid states publicly across the world airwaves that we have LOST in Iraq and what happens???? al Queda in Iraq becomes emboldened by Reid's statement, they smell blood and they take out 9 of our finest in Diyala. And NO Senator I know of calls for HIS resignation??!! This is criminal.
I'm emailing both of my Senators to inform them of my feelings and that if they are going to support a "dirty" Senator in their midst, they can find new jobs soon. The first GOP Presidential candidate who FINALLY gets off his butt and openly asks for Reid's resignation will see a jump in his polling of at least 10 points.
It won't lead to his spontaneous resignation but our vote of No Confidence will be heard. I'll call Graham and DeMint. It's time to make our voices heard with his peers.
I emailed my Idaho senators last week when Reid first made his "lost" statement and I've yet to hear back from them.
VP Cheney cleaned Harry Reid's clock today. He gave Reid a lesson about attack politics. Reid (and his speech writers) can't come up with any good material, so Reid ends up making himself look like a grade school kid with juvenile name calling like calling Cheney an "attack dog". Cheney shows the right way to do it by responding with clever words that cut Reid apart on the issues, without ad hominem.
Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of "defeatism" by reneging on promises to fund U.S. troops in Iraq.
Reid, D-Nev., has said recently that the war in Iraq is a lost cause and that President George Bush was in denial."What's most troubling about Sen. Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism," Cheney said in a rare comment on Capitol Hill. "Indeed, last week he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursing would guarantee defeat.
"I felt so strongly about what Sen. Reid said in the last couple of days that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made."
He said in less than six months Reid has gone from promising no cutoff in funds for the military in Iraq, to promising full funding with conditions, to a cutoff in funding.
"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy is Iraq is good politics," Cheney said. "Sen. Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will being his party more seats in the next election."
President: America didn't vote for failure
I am starting to feel better and better about the veto fight because the President and VP are starting to play excellent politics, while Harry Reid is destroying himself and the Democrats.
Reid seems to be repeating the mistake Newt Gingrich made by losing his temper during the government shutdown. Reid is spitting venom which will turn independent voters off, and making himself sound like a grade school child by hurling playground insults like "dog".
The VP and Pres are both taking the high road, and have taken the politically smart roles of the VP doing the attacking, while the President sounds above politics (while really making political statements).
While Reid is talking about Democrats and the five point plan, President Bush is talking about the troops. Everything Bush said was reasonable, using tactics like stating the other side of the argument, and then while partially agreeing with it, explaining why his position is better. The Pres and VP sound dignified and presidential, yet deliver hammer blows with their words, like "America didn't vote for failure".
This is what i'd like to ask Senator Reid:
al Queda in Iraq just drove a car loaded with explosives into one of our bases in Diyala in Iraq and took out 9 of our finest and injured many others. That was al Queda, Senator! That was NOT a crossfire between two imaginary groups of Sunni and Shia.
Senator Reid, you show me ONE, yes ONE, U.S. Soldier death in Iraq in the past month that was due to a civil war in Iraq and was NOT a result of an organized attack by al Queda.
You, Senator, have deceived the American Public with your testimony that we have to leave because it is a Civil War. For deceiving the American Public, you have shown your self unfit as an elected official and must resign or be removed. At the same time, your public lies of the American military's status in Iraq have aided and encouraged our country's enemies and that amounts to treason and you will be subsequently charged with that, the highest crime in this Land.
that GEN Petraeus was going to say, not about what GEN Petraeus had himself said. Reid has dug his own grave over the last few weeks, we ought not squabble over the last few shovelfuls.
being buried. No such luck. He and Murtha will coordinate a 60 day funding bill.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Reid has dropped any pretensions to moderation and embraced the left wing of his party, looking stupid while doing it. The Democrats are lurching to the left and expecting that the country will follow suit.
...the REAL question is not one of a boolean "is progress being made," rather it should be is "is this strategy working (and at what price)."
Petraeus wrote the book on counterinsurgency warfare (literally, actually) and is well liked. We should honestly ask ourselves, however, whether ANY strategy involving boots-on-the-ground can achieve our overarching strategic goals at this point in time, given the current reality we face. It's a fair question, despite how distasteful it is to consider. Reasonable people can disagree on that point.
It's interesting how in the original commennt of the thread it's noted that the interviewer said that Bush said that Petraeus will tell him that there is success in Iraq.
Talk about a long chain.
Wouldn't we have heard this directly from Petraeus himself by now? But no. Petraeus simply said there are mixed results: modest progress and setbacks. Translation=We are stuck in the same quagmire. Setback and progress are opposites. We are seeking progress, and progress in Iraq, not just a decrease in one type of violence in a city (sectarian in Baghdad) while another type of violence (suicide bombings) wrecks the lives of dozens almost every day.
Nearly 50 people were killed or found dead today in Iraq.
February was as quiet as a month could get, but it's been downhill after that.
one of the questions asked to John McCain during his recent press conference in Baghdad was:
Q General Petraeus, who is in charge of that surge, has made it clear that this war cannot be won militarily, only politically.
SEN. MCCAIN: I don't know anyone else who -- I don't know anyone who disagrees with that.
Read the transcript.
Harry Reid also noted this to Bash in the interview. This comment by Petraeus was for some reason left out of this diary by California Yankee.
I comment because so many on the left try to spin this Petraeus saying. Would a general who is leading a war say that fighting doesn't work? Would the author of the counter-insurgency manual say it doesn't work?
Petraeus is saying that the final peace in Iraq will come through a combination of fighting and negotiation. The diplomatic front in Iraq has made excellent progress recently, which is another reason I am optimistic about Iraq.
Marcellshaw,
I believe that Petraeus said that the Iraq War can't be won militarily, but requires a comprehensive political solution. To me, that means there has to be significant improvements in the Iraqi government in bringing the country together as one. You know, like say if the tribes of Anbar province all of a sudden decided to unite against al Queda and throw their support against the Central Iraqi government? ::wink::
Petraeus did NOT say "we are wasting our time and lives here and we outta go home." I suppose you can read his comments anyway you choose to but I interpret them to mean that his job is to stabilize, to put al Queda out of business so the Iraqi government has a fair chance at uniting their country.
And the pier he is walking on seems to be getting shorter.