Harry Bin Laden

By Erick Posted in | Comments (69) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

ImageI do not remember at what point America decided to become a nation of losers. But Harry Reid is just the latest person to wage Osama Bin Laden's propaganda campaign for him and demand that we lose our war against terrorists who would like to kill us.

Harry Reid has declared the war lost. My only publishable thought on this matter is that this war is winnable and Harry Reid must not want to win. He has, in one sentence, given a propaganda victory to Al Qaeda that they themselves could not orchestrate. Reid has betrayed the American troops and betrayed the cause of freedom.

Harry Reid is not being a realist. He's being a tool for our enemy. The enemy is now using Reid's words in their own propaganda. Harry Reid should resign.

UPDATED by Erick: I have changed the quote to use Harry Reid's own words from this morning. Pitiful. Apparently, in his words, the war "is lost," but we should take 15 months to leave Iraq. Meanwhile, media in the Arab World is giving Reid's comment that the war "is lost" prominent placement in their news headlines.

You can read Senator Reid's defeatism here and you can also hear him below:

« If it's Tuesday, it must be time for Reid to muck up energy policy.Comments (13) | Harry Reid Thinks He's Got The Surrender Right This TimeComments (2) »
Harry Bin Laden 69 Comments (0 topical, 69 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

about sums up Harry in a single word.

"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"

he has absofreakinlutely NO business being kept as Majority Leader-the added prestige of that position is way above this belly-crawling, scum-sucking, vote-pandering, bottom-feeding cockroach with the name Osama Bin Harry.

sorry for being vague...again.

Excellent pic!

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict and ensuing political campaigns).

When we find ourselves in times of trouble
Democrats go on TV
Speaking words of wimpdom
"Let us flee."

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Picture is a "clickable" link to a larger version

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

We have found "osama bin laden" he just cjanged his name to HARRY -

it is high time that our side make this as personal as the DEMOASS make it - We need to hit them hard on this - even chuckie cheese schumer back off on this fast - we need to get HARRY out of the leadership position

Please watch the profanity.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

If you aspire to be the conservative website of record perhaps you could establish an editorial position with something that rises above the level of a crude and juvenile Photoshop job.

This site would be in a frenzy if Kos put up a mock Hitler/Bush picture on the front page of their site.

Now we're comparing the Senate Majority Leader to the murderer of thousands of Americans. Awesome...

I happen to be a guy who doesn’t get up every morning hating my country. Roger Ailes

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

This strikes me as reminiscent of this page's attempt to impute to Jim Webb the actions of his fictional characters. The base eats this stuff up, but in fact it serves as a blow to the GOP electoral chances. At this point, no one except the democrats benefit when GOP partisans compare them to terrorists.


...Democratic partisans comparing Bush to Hitler.

Don't bother answering this comment without either a link to a Lefty site where you criticized the practice or an admission that you've never dared do that, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I don't post on any lefty sites; and only visit them very, very, very infrequently. So you're asking for something which is impossible for me to provide.


If you refuse to police your own side don't presume to come here and lecture us.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I was merely expression an opinion, which I thought was allowed.

I enjoy this site very much, in large part because I think that the level of discourse is much higher than on most of the other political sites especially with respect to civility. Given this, I think that photoshopping the senate majority leader to look like Osama Bin Laden is unfortunate.

Also, on a purely pragmatic level I think that it hurts the GOP. There was a brief window where this sort of thing was effective (2002/2004), but I think that that window has closed. But maybe I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time) and this stuff plays great with the general electorate.


for Iraq. Defeat for the coalition forces.
Reid needs our military to fail - and he is trying his best to ensure that outcome occurs. Reid has traded the lives of American soldiers for the chance to improve his political position - his actions are treasonous and he needs to be held accountable.
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

...and until we stop seeing one rule for acceptable discourse from the Left and another for the Right, well, yeah, you're allowed to express your opinion. And then I'll express mine, which is that you should shut up until you guys start cleaning up your own house.

So lose the 'tude.


The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

you're welcomed to be outraged, though one would think the outrage would be at least partially directed at a senator who is promoting the same strategy as the people killing US soldiers in Iraq. But, of course, that would mean being faking outrage.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You complain to him?

You complain to *him*?

How about *them*?





I can keep this up for hours, Sparky: and I already know the answer. No, you haven't, and won't.


The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

There's lots of things the Left has done that I wouldn't particularly like to see this site stooping to. Dressing Harry Reid (or any Democrat) up as Osama bin Laden (or Hitler) is among those things where I'd prefer this site keep the moral high ground. I enjoy being able to pile on about that crud whenever I get into a fight with my Lefty friends, and things like this erode my ability to do so (not that many of them read RS). I just don't see what stuff like this really gets us.


I know they did.

Which is why I'm surprised to see the same rubbish here.

Why are you telling me to go waste my time actually creating an account at every lefty website I find so that I can criticize them when they put a Bush/Hitler poster up. Just because I don't doesn't mean I'm against it.

I've done my part railing against Reid in my own social group. I don't have to prove my conservative credentials.

I happen to be a guy who doesn’t get up every morning hating my country. Roger Ailes

...who are infinitely happy to try to insist that this side bears the full burden of civility; you looked like one of them. Sorry I got that wrong.


PS: Ye snickering lurkers, remember: the question still stands. Why are you more prone to not condemn your own side's excesses? Aside from the fact that it's much safer to criticize us, of course.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I Condemn the use of pictures of any Dems for the purpose of photoshopping to compare them to terrible, evil persons!

I condemn the condemning of Dems!

I condemn the Right dong anything but engaging in group hug therapy with the Left!

I Condemn Moe, and Erick, and Streiff, and every other member of the VRWC!

Meanwhile, at the local VRWC recruiting station: "Yes, I'll take a lifetime, transferable membership, please..."

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?

leaders is one of encouragement to the terrorists
killing Americans. We had this same situation in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Here is the Communist who accepted the surrender of the free world in Saigon, telling us who defeated
the freedom
loving South Vietnamese and the free world forces.

"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."

Does anyone know how many American soldiers died because of
Jane Fonda's action? Not likely, but one can be sure it was thousands.

Does anyone know how many American soldiers died because of John Kerry's antiwar action? Not likely, but one can be sure it was a good many. Plus the deaths, of Vietnamese and Cambodians who were murdered as a result of our pullout.

Does anyone know how many deaths of Americans, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and many other groups since the United States Congress told the world that they would no longer support our
allies in Vietnam. While the exact numbers are not known, it is known that millions died as a result of their action.

Now we have the Democrat Party leaders, lead by the US Senate
Majority Leader telling the world that
they will not support our Allies, or our own US military.


Reid's comments arguably advance bin Laden's goals. Bin Laden and al Qaeda are our active enemies currently engaged trying to kill Americans on the battlefield and elsewhere, and that includes you and me, friend.

Conflating Bush & Hitler is just a rhetorical device that is a substitute for thinking, in the absence of a credible argument. Best I can tell, Bush has done nothing to aid and abet the causes of National Socialism, Aryan supremacy or mass killing of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. The Bush/Hitler comparison is comparable to the passing of gas on a crowded elevator: it is done merely to shock and offend.

Is this what their supporters voted for in November? Harry seems to think it is and that defeat, withdrawal and introspective self hatred is part of that mandate.

I am further disappointed in the portion of our populace that does not see this for what it is; shallow political nonsense designed to spread a sense of isolationism regarding our Commander in Chief and in the end produce political victory for Democrat White House aspirations.

In the process that requires we, as a country lose and become less safe in the process. Does Mr. Reid know anything about resolve and the ultimate price of losing, at a minimum, the appearance we posses such a quality? When he talks about a failure of strategy by the White House, does he recall the military, Reid says Democrats support so much, have produced that strategy in tandem with the civilian counterparts and that they both agree with these tactics. Does he furthermore realize how ridiculous he sounds when opining this is the President's and Vice President's isolated response?

What about Arlen Specter’s agreement we are “losing”;

"Certainly, the war is not being won. But there are still some efforts being made to turn it around. And whether they're successful or not, we won't know. But for the men and women who are over in Iraq, to have somebody of Sen. Reid's stature say that the war is lost, I think is just very, very demoralizing and not necessary,"
Arlen Specter on "FOX News Sunday

It is more than irritating neither appears to have read the strategy, anticipated results on the ground, commander’s remarks or any of the CENTCOM evaluation. Who elects these people anyway? They ought to be embarrassed.

If anything, they are growing in isolation, seemingly unable to assemble coherent, factual data and draw conclusions.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

...what Bush was doing gave any of us any reason whatsoever to believe he would succeed. Unlike many on the left, I actually feel we must deliver on what we promised the Iraqis (a stable government and military with as close to safety and equality under the law for all as possible with the cultural context).

But after 4 years, and few experts suggesting the odds of the surge making any significant long-term difference are good, I really have very little faith that Bush is concerned with anything more than punting this problem to the next POTUS.

So given that left to his own devices, there's precious little reason to suspect Bush would rise above the level of competency in waging the war he's demonstrated thus far, why on Earth aren't folks using Reid's rhetoric to put pressure on Iraq's government? Calling him a traitor or calling for his resignation actually plays into the insurgents' plans as well. They can use your rhetoric to drum up resentment against America's "stay the course" occupation. Clearly you'll be seen as advocating more of the same we've had for the past 4 years by blindly supporting Bush. You think they can't see that as easily as you suggest they see Reid handing the keys to Baghdad over to bin Laden?

The smart approach is to take Reid seriously (in public anyway) and use his statements to nudge the Iraqis along toward their benchmarks, no?

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. ---Oscar Wilde

Mind directing me to your website's posts where you or your cobloggers criticized Democratic partisan sites for their portrayal of George W Bush? Or, alternatively, links to, say, dKos or fdl or Smirking Chimp or Eschaton threads where you tried to convince them of the error of their ways will do.

Just as a baseline, you understand.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I thought we were discussing how best to prevent the war from claiming more American lives. "Winning" at this point will require serious, competent planning. Bush has lost the faith of his own people in that regard (read his polls on the war).

So Reid is serving his nation, IMO, by offering the President a useful tool in motivating the Iraqi government. I would think other folks serious about that goal would see the opportunity Reid is opening and take it. Not beat him back down.

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. ---Oscar Wilde

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. ---Oscar Wilde

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

your quip wasn't a non sequitur or that's not how I saw it? (You might have added mind reading to your considerable skills since we last debated for all I know. ;-P )

At no point did I question your right to mock Reid in the way many on the left (me included) mock (rightly, IMO) Bush. My point was merely that mocking him nullifies the opportunity for the President to play Reid's rhetoric to the US's advantage with Maliki.

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. ---Oscar Wilde

So our generals are either not serious or incompetent or both? You believe either you or Reid has a "better" understanding of the facts?

What makes Reid more serious or competent then our generals or admirals? The only thing that Reid is serious about is winning political points at the cost of U.S. lives.

Americans supporting the American military, instead of the foreign terrorists. Why is that so hard for the Democrat leaders to understand. The terrorists may not quit completely, but they will fade much farther into the background. The reason they are so bold now is they can see that the Democrat leaders are ready to give them every thing they want.

...how can it be taken seriously?

He says the war is lost, right? Well, then, how seriously can you take his 15-month timeline for withdrawal?

If he believes the war is lost, then that timeline is borderline criminal. To keep our troops fighting in and dying for a lost war for that period of time could well be likened to murder.

If it's lost, then he owes the president, the military, and the American people a bill that begins withdrawal posthaste.

But I do have faith he's not a traitor. Pushing as hard as he is at the President presents an opportunity for Bush to badger the Iraqis into faster action. So he's playing the fool (either intentionally or cluelessly), the opportunity he presents is real. Criticizing him into submission might be good for Bush's ego, but I hardly think it's gonna impress the Iraqi's or get our troops out of there any more quickly. The days of Bush being possibly seen as the effective Commander in Chief are over. If we're gonna salvage a victory out of Iraq it's going to take cunning, not bravado. Bush already tried the "bring 'em on" routine and it failed. Now our best hope is for the Iraqis to get their sh*t together quickly and stand on their own so we can declare victory and scale back. Reid playing the fool here can help in that regard.

Why throw that away? I'm not saying set a deadline, I'm saying use the threat of a deadline to get the Iraqis to get the lead out.

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. ---Oscar Wilde

First of all, what makes you think that we aren't pressuring the Iraqi government? Do you think that our message to them has been 'however long you need us, Nouri!"?

You can't talk publicly about timelines, ultimatums, etc. like that. That's precisely what's so wrong with Sen. Reid's comments. Imagine, for a second, that you were a leader of our enemy's....how would you react to such comments?

And I'm not calling him a traitor, BTW. I'm saying that to take him seriously -- as you suggest we do -- then we'd have to accept 15 more months fighting of a war we've already declared defeat in. Forget treason, etc....what about some simple common sense?

If Reid wants a 15-month withdrawal timeline (which, militarily, makes no sense at all) then he shouldn't be declaring the war "lost." Or, if he doesn't think it's lost, then he needs to be giving Gen. Petraeus the tools and latitude that he requests to finish the task at hand.

If it's lost, then his bill needs to require immediate withdrawal with near-term funding restrictions.

He can't have it both ways. If it's lost, then a 15-month schedule for withdrawal is murderous. Do you think he could sit in the living room of a serviceman's family, tell them that the war is lost, and then ask for more than another year from them?

Good grief, that makes about as much sense as voting for a law whose court-affirmed constitutionality you later lament.

Do you think that our message to them has been 'however long you need us, Nouri!"?

I think our message to them is we're here until we get the oil contracts we want then you're on your own, to be totally honest. But if we're rightly pressuring them to act, it's clear the guys in there are the wrong team. They've missed how many deadlines now? Panetta counted at least 11 major ones that are seriously impeding our ability to withdraw, including:

The Iraqis promised to achieve, by the end of 2006 or early 2007, the approval of a provincial election law (so far, no progress); approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues (while the Council of Ministers has approved a draft, it has yet to be approved by the Parliament); approval of the de-Baathification law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and Arab nationalists into public life (no progress); and approval of a law to rein in sectarian militias (no progress).

Or, if he doesn't think it's lost, then he needs to be giving Gen. Petraeus the tools and latitude that he requests to finish the task at hand.

An angry opposition part is a tool the President can use with the Iraqi government. Again, Gen. Petraeus' job is to get us to a state of calm. I hope he does. But then what? What is Bush doing to get Maliki to move his butt? You have faith he's doing something. I see no reason at all to believe he's suddenly figured it all out, and with no indications of diplomacy in action, I see no reason to believe he's not simply stalling until 2009.

As for why Reid doesn't call for an immediate withdrawal, I don't know. I've never withdrawn 130,000 troops from a war zone, but I imagine it takes time and careful planning to do it right, no?

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. ---Oscar Wilde

I think our message to them is we're here until we get the oil contracts we want then you're on your own, to be totally honest.

Why not just negotiate with Saddam then? He would have sold us all the oil we wanted and cheap too, if we would've just let him have Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel. If it was all just about oil we could've had that long ago. Yet, we are still there, now why do you think that is?

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

I think our message to them is we're here until we get the oil contracts we want then you're on your own, to be totally honest.

Well, we've been missing out on them. China seems to be doing better than we are. That's such a silly POV on all this, IMO. We're not holding out for oil contracts.

An angry opposition part is a tool the President can use with the Iraqi government.

And the enemy? What's he to do with it?

I think Sen. Pryor was a little closer to sanity when he suggested that any timelines be kept secret. It's still bone-headed, but at least he operates under the realization that the enemy has just as much access to the media as anybody else does.

What is Bush doing to get Maliki to move his butt? You have faith he's doing something.

Well, I don't know -- because, whatever he's doing, he's not doing it in public.

But I think stories like this one out today, showing Maliki pressuring his neighbors to help quell the violence demonstrates:

A) That they can if they wanted to (ie, they've put conditions on their involvement)

B) That he realizes full well that the MNF isn't there forever

As for why Reid doesn't call for an immediate withdrawal, I don't know. I've never withdrawn 130,000 troops from a war zone, but I imagine it takes time and careful planning to do it right, no?

I'm sure it would. But that's no reason that it couldn't start tomorrow, as far as Congress is concerned, right?

But, anyway, you're the one saying we should be taking him seriously -- or at least feigning to take him seriously. And now you're telling us you don't know why there's such a dichotomy between his rhetoric ("we've lost") and his stated position ("we'll start pulling troops out at the end of this year and be completely gone within one year.")

I have my own idea as to why...why he's said what he's said, and why he's going along with the pretense that Congress would, if it could, pull troops out starting this fall.

I can read Harry's mind and I assure you he is not clueless. He is intentionally trying to bring about America's defeat in Iraq, by giving the forces fighting America what they want, a precipitous American withdrawal. He is doing so in order to attempt to secure more power here at home for himself and his political party. His goals are not in line with the best interests of the nation, and that my friend makes his actions traitorous.

The problem with your too generous analysis of Reid's intentions is this: his prescription, American withdrawal or the threat of it, makes it harder for the Iraqis to "get their sh*t together quickly...," because it encourges the enemies of Iraq "getting their sh*t together," to fight harder against that end. His statement gives Iraq's, and by extension America's enemies hope that Reid and his Democratic buddies and presidential candidates can engineer a removal of the American leg of the three legged stool upon which Iraq sits.

Harry is a fool, no doubt, but not clueless. He knows exactly what he is doing. And it ain't trying to help.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

...you said:

But after 4 years, and few experts suggesting the odds of the surge making any significant long-term difference are good

Forgetting the long-term military significance of the Petraeus Offensive for a second, you do understand that it probably isn't going to matter politically, right?

It seems to me that the tactics he's beginning to employ will bring extra security so long as the additional manpower is there. Assuming for a second that the IA and IP aren't able to deliver as much security as MNF forces (which doesn't seem a stretch), then I suppose we can safely predict that security will retreat as soon as the MNF forces do.

Where does that leave Reid and the Democrats politically, though? It leaves them to argue that, although things have improved markedly in Iraq because of the policy they tried to stop, they'll return to chaos as soon as the policy is rescinded.

That's not a very good place to be. In fact, it's an awful place to be.

You should go read that Doug Schoen piece I linked below. Whatever all this means in terms of things on the ground in Iraq, it's almost certain to turn out to be politically bone-headed. The only chance he has is that the surge fails in the short-term and is perceived as such come next November.

If that's the case, then he's just hit it out of the park. If it doesn't, then he's just boxed himself and his entire party in.

But I'm not sure Reid is being as politically opportunistic here as you seem to be implying. He may seriously believe that victory (at least as it was initially defined) is no longer possible, AND believe Bush knows that. In that instance, what's he's really done is begun the debate on who should be the last American soldier to die for a "victory" that's not even defined.

I personally would like nothing more than to actually give the Iraqis what Bush and Blair promised them after Baghdad fell (actually, I lie, I'd like to take them back in time and give it to them before so many were killed): a better life, a say in their government, and equal protection under the law (i.e., not leave them to an angry Shiite majority that Iran can whip into a genocidal fury).

Whatever Petraeus can do that calms things down is great then, obviously, but where are the dipomatic plans that need to be rushed in at that point? Calm followed by a twiddling of thumbs will guarantee what I fear will follow the calm either way (a return of the militias into the neighborhoods they were cleared out of and a return of the violence).

Still no matter how successful Patreus is militarily, what does it matter if we're not ready to coerce the regional players into normalizing things and fast? Where is that effort?

Some of your questions are important (and there are answers to them). I want a national debate and answers to all the important questions before we set a deadline to withdraw from Iraq.

Reid and Pelosi are trying to do the opposite, without any debate use a straight party line vote to force the President into secret backroom negotations in which (Reid hopes) the war will be surrendered.

I especially want a straight answer to the double talk from the Democratic leaders that they support withdrawing "all" troops from Iraq, but they will leave enough troops there to fight Al Qaeda. That begs the question: what if stabilizing the Iraqi government is necessary to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing bases and attacking the US? If the Democrats were serious about winning the war against AQ, they wouldn't be so confident in withdrawing troops.

> but where are the dipomatic plans that need to be rushed in at that point?

As an example answer to one question, there has been absolutely massive diplomatic progress in Iraq over the past two months. Searching my messages would show links. As even the Washington Post has admitted, Sunni Iraqis are now fighting Al Qaeda and throwing them out of the country. That would remove two obstacles to peace, the ones who have been the problem since the beginning. Various Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd insurgent / militia groups announced they signed a cease fire with each other. Iraqi Sunnis said they will issue Fatwahs forbidding the killing of any Iraqis, including Shiites and Kurds.

Your last few lines are spot on and the entire reason I think the Dems are making a huge blunder here.

Let's say that the insurgency coalition falls apart -- and I think that's a very real possibility. The "foreign fighters" (ie, Sunni al-Qaida affiliates, Iranian charges) break wholly and completely from domestic sects who are more interested in their relative power in the new government than in simply seeing that the new government doesn't hold.

Well, that probably translates into them casting their lot with the government -- because, otherwise, they're not only politically isolated, but being fought from two directions....one of which is presumably intimate with their logistics, military capabilities, tactics, leadership, etc.

The political battle lines could change, literally, in an instant. And doesn't it make sense that the likelihood something like this might happen under the pressure of a full-strength counter-insurgency would be higher than they would using the scaled-down, ineffective strategy status quo?

I think it's worth remembering that the past doesn't always equal the future -- that war usually isn't a linear thing and true stalemates in the history of war are rare. Tipping points happen and they're not always anticipated or expected.

We don't hear a whole lot reported from the side of the enemy. They don't exactly operate transparently. But, sometimes you have to read between the lines to get a full accounting of the condition they're in before you assess your own way forward.

In the case of Reid, Pelosi, & Co....I think it's simpler than you've put it here. I honestly think they've gotten themselves into a situation where our success would be utterly devastating to them politically.

And, as such, it's not merely that they've lost hope -- but that they have to quash it.

And as a consequence of what we have written about, the "Civil War" argument is dead, even though most people don't realize it yet. There never was a civil war in Iraq, just skirmishes over a few hot spots, the contested turf. But once word of the cease fire between Iraqis gets out, and it holds, then the Democrats have lost their little sound bite argument that we are fighting a civil war.

AQ is clearly panicking and trying anything and everything, because they know the end is near. Attacking their Sunni hosts with chlorine bombs is pure desperation. It is desperate race against time, whether AQ and the Democrats can force surrender before we can clench the peace which is in our hands.

It seems to me that victory is very easily defined -- given the benefit of time. If a decent Iraqi government emerges when the dust is settled, we'll have accomplished our goals. If it doesn't, we'll have failed. That doesn't seem all that complicated to me -- and I've never figured out why so many people think the mission is so muddled.

Granted, it may be difficult to tell just how "decent" the government truly is. And I imagine that, once the foreign military phase here is basically complete, that debate will shift to just how desirable the standing government in Iraq is.

As for Reid, if he thinks that this is no longer possible, then why in the world is he pushing for such a drawn-out timetable? Let's say you're right and take Reid's comments at face value. Don't you find it even the least bit offensive that he's -- at the same time, mind you -- saying that "we've lost" and "the funding bill will provide a presence for 15 more months"?

I think the answer to that is that, really, Reid's making an entirely political calculation here. It's not that he thinks a stable, decent, lasting Iraqi government is no longer possible...it's that he can't abide the possibility. He can't afford to be seen capitulating to Bush the Failure-We've-Been-Elected-to-Undermine -- and he sure as hell can't risk the possibility that the surge may end up being seen as a success. Because they're already on record as having tried to stop it from happening!

And, FWIW, I'm not even so sure he'll be able to get his own party to go along with it. But, either way, it's not going to become law.

So, in the end, we're left with what I said earlier. Politically (here), what matters is how successful the surge is viewed as having been. Strategically, it seems to me that all the surge needs to do is get us to a point where a palatable political solution can be hatched.

It would help to read more and write less if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Here is the policy: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.ht

While you may have been able to elicit some comments, most of what is written here is unsupported by facts and clearly unpersuasive parochial opinion.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

compare Reid to UBL.

Turnabout is fair play my ill-informed friend.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

Now care to provide some substance?

Show me all the credible experts suggesting the “surge will not make any significant long-term difference”. You might also want to actually read the policy and determine what the surge objectives are as part of any overall plan. Oh, then there is the pesky little fact that most in the military running this war (and therefore the most prolific experts), had a part in crafting this strategy.

Reid’s comments are best exposed for what they are, treason representing a historical breach of trust with the American people. Your non sequitur regarding using Reid’s comments is absent any intellectual moderation.

Reid is best exposed to Iraqi’s for what he is; an aberration. I can find very few American’s agreeing with his statements. Since this is still a democratic republic, that makes Reid isolated and the author of probably one of the most damaging speeches in this countries history. Never in our history has a Senate leader provided a what amounts to a edico traditum.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

...I agree with the poster above who said that this is over the top. The answer to BDS is not RDS.

That being said, I think Reid's making two huge mistakes here -- one which is awful for Americans and American interests and one which is awful for Democratic Party interests.

I'm not sure he cares about the former, which is just gut-wrenchingly appalling. Rather, I think it's all about the latter.

I think this is all about a big roll of the political dice. In the parlance of high stakes poker, he's gone "all in." He's now officially bet every single chip they have on the *perceived* failure of the surge. If he's right, the payoff may well be huge -- as in gains in both houses of Congress next election to go along with a Democrat president. If he's wrong, he's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm not as sure as Democratic strategist Doug Schoen that the '08 election is the Democrats' to lose. I think their candidate slate is (fatally?) weak. Be that as it may, he still makes a salient point in his Globe piece this morning that Harry Reid is on the verge of a miscalculation that could have devastating impacts for his party.

Schoen counseled Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the '94 election debacle on how to deal with the Republican budget proposals. Clinton apparently wanted to capitulate, Schoen advised him that they were overreaching and would be blamed by voters for having done so. Schoen was right and Clinton was reelected by a comfortable margin in the next election.

The surge is going to happen and the funds will eventually be there, with the Democrats' blessing or without it. Reid is saying that it will have to be without it.

If the conventional wisdom come next fall is that the surge will have helped matters in Iraq along, his roll of the dice will have come up craps.

While I sympathize with the general feeling here that his comments and upcoming actions are harmful to the country and to our interests in the Middle East.....politically, we ought to be giddy about this.

He just fell into the tarpit, folks.

I think this was the single most important, and most destructive, policy speech in decades. America asks its men and women to fight and die for a cause that the majority party concedes is lost, the funds for which said majority party intends to hold hostage to baldly political ploys such as the minimum wage increase. No man or woman facing deployment has any reasonable assurance about what he or she will face, whether he or she is fighting for a cause that will shortly be abandoned, or even whether his or her commander and quartermaster will have the necessary funds to stay battle-ready. There is nothing positive about this.

And I don't necessarily disagree. I think it's a shame beyond belief that our politicians have decided to play this kind of politics with war while our men are there dodging very real bullets and bombs on a daily basis.

This ain't 1942 anymore, that's for certain.

Reid's comments and, now, actions are deplorable for any elected official. They will embolden the enemy, they will make it even that much harder to bring about a stable, lasting coalition Iraqi government.

But, from his perspective, I imagine he's thinking:

1) Democrats were sent there to end the war and, if they don't (or aren't seen as genuinely trying) that they'll be voted out by the defection and disgust of their base.

2) The war belongs entirely to Bush and the Republicans and, as such, any perception that we've lost it is a long-term boon to Democrats.

3) The surge won't work and won't ever be seen as having worked. Rather it will be "too little, too late", etc etc.

I think Reid's going to figure out eventually that he miscalculated here and that, in fact, he had a lot to lose by doing so.

Read former CIA analyst (and sharp Middle Eastern scholar) Reuel Marc Gerecht's recent piece on the status of things in Iraq to understand what I mean.

is not the same as being the enemy, no matter how tempting the comparison may be. (And believe me, I'm no fan of Harry Reid. His latest statements reduce the security of our nation.)

But dressing up Reid as a mullah is unjustified.

I expect this sort of thing from Kos, not from RS...

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

Whether one thinks this picture is over the top or not, it is clearly political (not personal). And it is making what some think to be the very, very important point that the Democrats are doing the bidding of Al Qaeda by trying to force us to surrender in Iraq, and by constantly trash talking our war efforts.

That's unlike making fun of Bush's appearance by calling him "Chimp". It is not name-calling by showing Bush as Hitler. I doubt if any Democrat would dare tell Holocaust survivors that President Bush is really, really like Hitler, so "BusHitler" is just name calling.

The ultimate purpose of a political cartoon is to instantly tell the viewer a message, and this does that. The message is deep and has rich political content. That's unlike showing a president of the opposite party as Hitler, which is really just saying "I don't like him".

Speaking of insults, it is an insult for Reid to say today that President Bush is "in denial". It gets back to the old rule "Discuss arguments, not the speaker who said them". A loyal opposition can tear into a president's arguments as much as necessary, without talking about their psychology.

Polls show that 60% of Americans want us out Iraq? Just like Senator Reid, these 60% of Americans are cowardly traitors. I would advise these "Americans" and Senator Reid....whether he is a duly elected official of the United States or not....to remember what we do to people we choose to portray as traitors. I agree that Senator Reid and 60% of Americans are traitors. How should we punish them? Remember the Rosenbergs???

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
--Jerry Falwell

...show up in a Google search as being part of your dKos diary.

Jeez, that's like, Moby 101. Actually, that's Moby 050.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

You're not giving me time to enjoy the thrill of the sport! Please play the next one a little bit longer--let him run out the line once or twice at least.

soli Deo gloria

I would send this in an email, instead of as a comment, but Moe doesn't have his email address accessible (or I'm too ignorant to find it, if so, my apologies).

I made a comment along a similar line (minus all the over the top Rosenberg nonesense) the other day, and I got blammed for it, too. I asked streiff (who I had previously talked via email regarding a different topic) what got me banned, and he told me (it had to do with reregistering, which I didn't know was against policy), and gave me a second chance. At any rate, here's my question.

Does asking questions like "are 60% of Americans traitors" necessarily lead to being banned? If not, what is the proper way to ask something like this? I am honestly curious about the answer, but if this is not the proper venue to do so, that's cool, too. I realize that, as a (moderate) liberal, I'm a guest here, and I have to play by the rules of the site.

If so, what is it about the question that is unacceptable? I realize that I'm not owed an explanation, but I would like to avoid making other comments/asking other questions that lead to being banned (again) for the same reason that this fellow is no longer with us.

Once again, sorry to ask in a comment thread, but I'm not sure where else to go to ask.

Trying to play by the rules,

...is that the author was pretending to be an over-the-top conservative. The term of art is 'moby', after the singer (who actually was so unwise as to suggest the practice in an online public forum). Most mobys usually easy to spot: in this particular case, the fool used the same email address that he uses for his dKos account. I didn't particularly feel like waiting for him to start spouting off on depleted uranium, oiiillll and/or the Jews; so I gacked him.

So now you know not to do that.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

He did such a bad job pretending to be a conservative that I completely missed that he was trying to do so; I thought he was just being sarcastic (which would also be an awfully rude way to spend one's time in his host's house). Sorry to waste your time on something that should have been so obvious.

didn't point to who was right in the long run.

You get a B on the Moby effort scale, but a C for execution. Trying to cram too much into one reply brought your score down. Also a moby should never moby in their sig. Classic noomoby mistake.


I would really like to know what source of mid-east money is going to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all these other mouth pieces who work so hard to destroy our country, our culture and our military. What kind of a deal have the left of this country made with radical Islam? I would really like to know.

Even though the President will veto this, it will be a sad, sad day for America when both Houses of Congress pass this.

The President has once again lost ground politically. Now both Houses of Congress are going to vote for mandatory withdrawals, not the optional deadline which the Senate had.

I hope the White House sees this as an absolute red alert. We will not in the long term be able to sustain a war which Congress votes against.

Reid: Congress will endorse pullout

Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
Reid said the legislation "immediately transitions the U.S. military away from policing a civil war." He said that troops that remain in Iraq after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."

Reid's face is way too small for that Bin Laden turban and beard. I'm going to have nightmares tonight, and they aren't the ones intended.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service