Harry Reid Is No Walter Cronkite

A handy gauge of how worthless Americans in general view politicians these days. Potentially similar to what Cronkite did regarding Vietnam, Harry Reid does his best to sound like a statesman with an opinion that anyone outside his caucus really couldn't care less about. I wouldn't look for it to have the same impact that Walter's did.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"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," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

My gut tells me Reid's combat experience topped-out at fighting his way out of the clutches of some lobbyist-supplied Vegas hooker when he heard his wife was on her way into town.

Traitor ... scumbag ... loser ... your choice, they all apply.

Comments

[Northerner]

@ mkultra:

Andy PHX, albeit in a bible-thumping ranting manner, gave the answer to your last question. Three letters: O I L. That (and the businesses around it like Halliburton) keep GWB and the GOP in power. What's a few hundred dead soldiers as long as the stock prices keep going up?

[Purple Avenger]

"I know right wing nut jobs love Iran - that's why they sold them arms in the 80's."

About $250M worth grand total for the USA.

France sold'em about $1B worth and the Russians about $5B worth. Hard core right wingers those French and Russians are...they were selling Saddam military hardware right up until 2003.

The Brazilians sold Saddam more than the USA did BTW.

[happywash]

ET, it's a shame that there are so many fallacies and mistakes in your thinking:

1) Here's an example: "I had a heart attack. I then stopped eating tomatos. I haven't had a heart attack since then. Therefore, me stopping eating tomatos has kept me from having another heart attack." As you can see, it doesn't follow. There could be myriad reasons why there hasn't been an attack. And this ties in with

2) We now know that Iraq didn't have WMD. So there was no threat, immediate or long term, that could have harmed us. So to call Iraq a success is a little disengenuous at the very least. Yes, they can't attack us now, but they couldn't then, either.

3)I don't think Bush "lied," but I want you to be upfornt about all of the evidence that policy controlled what was given to congress. Come to think of it, a lie by omission is still a lie? Are you going to tell me that the Bush Administration gave everything to Congress? Are you talking about the same evidence Powell showed the UN?

4)I think you need to read a litte bit more about Afghanistan before you talk about the Taliban being neutralized. They are now in the heroin business, making boatloads of money, not to mention they have made a strong resurgence in Afghanistan. The very fact that they are back on offense should be a cause for alarm. Weren't we told that the Taliban were abolished and eliminated in 2001 and 2002?

As for bin Laden, he may be hiding in the hills, but we still haven't got him. "Dead or alive," remember? I guess you'll settle for alive and well and free from capture.

5) No one has claimed that America has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. They've died at the hands of many people, mostly from the civil war that is raging right now. Answer me this: why would the Iraqi government stand on its own if it knows that Mommy (our army) will be there to hold its hand? Don't you think that people quitting the cabinet and a never ending fight over oil revenues signals that there may not be a centralized government anytime soon, if ever? What if the split grows? Which side of the government should we take? And do you realize that if we take a permanent side, the other will do everything in its power to kill as many of us as they can?

Your conclusion is just hyperbole. Liberals suck. We don't care about our safety. Yet pulling our troops out is caring about American lives. And the tired line "they want defeat." What opponents of the war are saying is that the goals that Bush had set out have not come to fruition. We were not greeted as liberators, we have not brought American Democracy to Iraq, the insurgency is not in its last throes, and the surge has produced nearly 200 deaths two days ago and an attack in the green zone. Of course, they're saying that the "surge" isn't complete. OK, I'll wait and see what happens there. But I'm pretty sure it won't be good. Which means more of our troops will die. And I don't want it. I'm sure you don't either.

[ET]

ME...you are still not listening.

The fact that we haven't been attacked indicates to me that we have weakened and distracted the enemy. that is success in a war against terrorists. Of course you give that no credence, because ut weakens your argument. You can't wait for the next attack so you can cast blame.

thanks for bringing up the European bombings. the war is indeed still on. We could be attacked again at any moment. Is that a reason to surrender?

--Iraq didn't attack us and wasn't a credible threat... at least according to Condi Rice and Colin Powell in early 2001.

Uh, go back and pull quotes from bill, hillary, kerry et al. they all said iraq was a major threat before the invasion. Or do you just conveniently forget the broad consensus we had in 2003, before it became political fun and games for the left to sabotage the war effort.

Like I said in my previous post, you lefties can't grasp the big picture. Thanks for proving my point. Selective memory. Selective verbal attacks. Liberals suck.

[mkultra]

"About $250M worth grand total for the USA."

Actually, the Reagan administration sold millions of dollars worth of arms to the Iranians, not that it matters. Read the Walsh report, PA. Anyhow, any treason is treason, no matter what the dollar amount.

Again, is it just oil that leads wingers to love Iran, or something else?

[nowinger]

The wingers are irrational and scared, that is why they are so inconsistent. One minute they want to carpet bomb Syria the next minute they are extolling their love for the Iraqi people and how they deserve democracy. The wingers support anyone who talks tough, they like any talk about dropping bombs, making people 'pay' and they love all things military, as long as they aren't directly involved in any fighting. The core irrationality of the winger beliefs about terrorism is why you can't debate them, they continually change their rationale. They desperately want another terrorist attack to occur [subliminialy], but tout the absence of an attack as a measure of success. They fear rationality because it deprives them of tough talk. Diplomats don't talk about bombing entire cities of countries that have not attacked them, only crazed wingers talk like this. This irrational fear is also why the wingers will do business with anyone they think will cowtow to their needs, its why the wingers did business with Iran, then Iraq. They purposefully remain ignorant of most facts because the facts don't support their ideology. Everyone knows Reagan made a deal with Iran that included weapons, wingers ignore this. You can't debate someone who is irrational.

[ET]

happywash, i take a few points from your post:

1. things are not like we thought, or were told. Therefore, we were wrong to go in. 20/20 hindsight.

2. A major part of our offensive strategy was to weaken and distract the enemy to prevent further attacks on American soil. So far, that effort has succeeded. Hard to get a lib to acknowledge that fact. they say, "that don't prove nuthin". Until the next attack comes. then they say, "see, the strategy didn't work".

3. We did not know THEN that there were no WMD. We could't make decisions THEN based on what we know NOW. again, 20/20 hindsight. THEN there was a broad consensus.

4. I do not subscribe to the BUSH LIED doctrine of Soros talking points. there was no conspiracy to invade iraq for oil or any other reason. We were executing the strategy laid out in the weeks following 9-11.

5. The taliban is neutralized. They are not gone, and I didn't say that. We still need to deal with them, which means staying in the fight. Bin Laden is as good as dead, though I wish I could spit on his corpse.

6. Many on this site have claimed that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. Kelvin made the statement on this thread!

7. Your last paragrph once again proves my point that libs can't grasp the big picture. no one want more troops to die, but the effort is vitally important and requires that we perservere, despite the fact that the violence continues.

We will help establish a relatively stable govt in iraq whose economy will sustain its people. they will be less likely to fall for the BS extremist propaganda. This will defang the totalitarian regimes in the region, whom we now encircle. these are the difficult times, but our children will thank us for our sacrafice, unless we cut and run.

[bloodrage bob]

you're one to talk about 'rationality', noyyyinger. time after time over the past few days, since it was (quite reasonably) suggested that since ol' badass cho had bravely murdered unarmed students, and then killed himself rather than fight guys with guns.....***just like the muslims do***...

you've come unglued. time & time again. just like now: 40 or 50 lines of frantic, bitter rants about the "wingers" who "hate all muslims", etc etc etc.

shoot, noyyinger: just add in the phrases "they're out to get me!" and "i'll show those bastards!", and your rantings become.....indistinguishable from those of the brave (non-muslim) warrior cho. have you taken pictures of yourself acting out poses from your favorite slasher movie, TOO?? are you snarling at the camera, hammer in hand, even now??

[ET]

--You can't debate someone who is irrational.

You are living proof, nobrainer.

--Pitiful.

Great handle, hahahahahahaha. you are a joke, indeed.

[Fred Beloit]

Still waiting for a sock puppet or even a decent human being with only one moniker to show us an enemy victory.

[nowinger]

Will we? Based on what? Wishful thinking?

Iraq is going to descend into a bloodbath, all out war. Either now, in a year, in a couple of years. The only thing that will stop it is an all out dictator with some miltary death squads on the side. It won't stop the bloodbath but it will contain the violence. We CANNOT stop this. We've been trying to get the Iraqi's ready for four years and we have not done it. The capital city isnt' any safer than it was 4 years ago.

We invaded Iraq because the neocons believed that a democratic Iraq would be a counterpoint to Iran and would hep pave the way for getting the rest of the arab states in line. The new American Century don't you know. WMD was the rationale, now the true believers like Wolfie might have really, really believed the WMD were there, thats why he felt it was okay to massage the intelligence, he "knew" the truth, it wasn't his fault the CIA was a bunch of arab coddlining fools...

But whatever, it would be great for Iraq to be a stable democracy. I don't see it happening for at least 20 years if ever.

[nowinger]

Fred, I refer you to Kissenger's famous line that the traditional army loses when it does not win and the guerilla army wins when it does not lose.

Every car bomb, explosion, assassination that occurs in Iraq is a victory for the enemy. Every day that electricity, water and standard services are not running is a victory for the enemy.

[Northerner]

Still waiting for a sock puppet or even a decent human being with only one moniker to show us an enemy victory.

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 05:50 PM

Still waiting for Fred to explain which 3 Coalition goals he was thinking about in his 4.39 post.

And I thought you had given up debating, Freddy? 5.01, for your reference.

[happywash]

Fred, I answered your question, but you act as though I didn't. What you are really asking for is for some idiot to give you a reason to ridicule. So don't pretend that someone hasn't answered your call for an enemy victory.

[mkultra]

"Still waiting for a sock puppet or even a decent human being with only one moniker to show us an enemy victory."

Since victory comes at the END of a war, not while it is going on, your question is illogical.

Next.

[bloodrage bob]

and yet again, the chorus of liberal weenies moans we can't "win because it's too *hard*". the same folks who, in fact, are also championing the "men" who hid under desks, waiting to get shot; or stood passively in line, hoping for the best. "fighting back would have been too *risky*." what's it like living without a spine, weenies?

speaking of "dodged questions", has anyone ever heard a liberal answer the question, "your idea of a proper response to 9-11 that doesn't include the words 'reaching out'"?

yeah....me neither. hell, zifnab has quit this blog rather than answer that exact question. wonder why.

[nowinger]

OMG are you critizing the VT students for not fighting back and calling them weenies?

[bloodrage bob]

no, noyyy...as i mentioned earlier, i choose not to attack the amazingly passive "men" there....but neither do i find their passivity praiseworthy. i AM attacking the "cowardice as default position" liberals who see no problem with that suicidal passivity - and it's geopolitical ramifications - and who are, in fact, *championing* behavior like that. the folks who think that cringing and slinking away when terrorists - MUSLIM and otherwise - try to take what's ours by force.

you know: liberals.

[nowinger]

Oh Jesus they were kids, 18 and 19 year olds??!! I am all for fighting back when it makes sense, this idea of handing the mugger your keys and getting in the car with him is nonsense, but I'm not its fair to criticize these college kids for failing to rush some nut with a 9 mm.

[bloodrage bob]

whoa whoa whoa. "kids"? 18-25 year old's, able to:
drive
vote
do military service
drink
marry
procreate
have as many abortions as they want!
go to adult prison
pay them taxes!
sign legal contracts
purchase real estate
etc

sorry, noyyy. what you're describing is "adults", in every culture in the history of the world. odd how the same folks who think 14-year-olds are capable of making sex and abortion decisions seem them as helpless children for everything else. holding them accountable to 'adult' standards of sizing up dangerous situations and bravery is entirely justified.

[nowinger]

FYI, the 18-20 year olds can't drink. It sounds like more blame the victim crap to me, I am pretty surprised that the wingers would be criticizing these students just as a way to take a swipe at liberal cowards...maybe you saw too many foreign names on the roster?

MOST people are not brave, outside the movies and your own mind. MOST people sad to say are total cowards, liberal or conservative. I also think that VT is probably, on balance a pretty conservative school. But don't let that stop you from slamming a group of college students for failing to meet your bravery standards.

[Robert]

ET,
YOU are lost.
1) No attacks on American soil since 9/11?
Do you not count the Anthrax attacks, because we were attacked by Americans?
Do you not count the DC Snipers because they were American.

2) As for not waiting to be attacked, the Vatican hasn't attacked us either. Don't think we are just going to wait around for them to do so. (idiot)

3) Nice try.
He agreed with ALL the intel? Really?
Our intelligence said Saddamn was not a threat to America in 2001.
I remember asking for proof of wmd's BEFORE the war.
All I saw was Powell's lack of proof given.
Taliban has been displaced.
Not in Afghanistan it hasn't.

The fact is the right doesn't care about our troops.
They care about their vanity. The Right says, "If we leave , we'll look weak".
Meaning. F*** our troops. I don't want us to look weak.

The most powerful military in the history of mankind getting fought to a standstill by teenagers.

We aren't rooting for the US to lose. This isn't a sport.
If it was, I would root for the underdog.

Want to see if Bush supports the troops. Let him fund the war through "pay as you go". Raise taxes on the rich!

Fat chance that'll happen.
Why?
Because he doesn't support the troops. He supports the rich.

Let me know when you want to stop being played for a sucker.

[mkultra]

Bob

You want American troops to die so that Iranian backed Shia thugs can rule Iraq.

Why? Please explain.

Liberals don't want Americans troops to have to die so that a Shia dominated theocratic state can be imposed.

[Robert]

bloodrage bob is a conservative talking about accountability.
At the same time he KNOWS if we lose the war, its's all the DEms fault.

Typical Rightie tripe. "Everybody (but me) should be held accountable for their actions"

Loser.

[Robert]

bloodrage bob,

Toughest guy with a keyboard ever.
Brave enough to send others to die for his stupidity.

Just another typical right-wing baby.
They cry when FOX and CNN make up shit about Kerry "saying bad things" about the troops, but somehow they are going to stand up to terrorists with weapons. LOL

[bloodrage bob]

meanwhile "robert", the latest liberal sockpuppet, rants on and complains about everything, yet....never quite gets around to saying *his* idea of "a proper response to 9-11 that doesn't include the words 'reaching out'".

odd, that. so! bobbie! you think those VA Tech ADULT students should have at least tried to fight back, rather than passively doing....as near as we can tell....nothing? you think we should just "run away from iraq because it's *hard*", too?

[LOL]

hey fred, u realize Kelvin temperature doesn't use degrees?

Speaking of the party of integrity

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/19/doolittle.abramoff.ap/index.html

hmmm yeah

[ET]

Robert,

1) No attacks on American soil since 9/11?
--Do you not count the Anthrax attacks, because we were attacked by Americans?

right. i don't count them as terrorist attacks by islamic extremists.

--Do you not count the DC Snipers because they were American.

Right. you are way off topic.

--2) As for not waiting to be attacked, the Vatican hasn't attacked us either. Don't think we are just going to wait around for them to do so. (idiot)

Wow. you must be a sophomore. Try to stay with me. We are fighting islamic extremists.

3) Nice try.

--He agreed with ALL the intel? Really?

What? Who? The intel was overwhelmingly pointed towards a serious threat to our security from Iraq. read a book, son.

--Our intelligence said Saddamn was not a threat to America in 2001.

huh? you lost me again. Look at the intel and the debate on '03. might be more relevant to your argument.

--I remember asking for proof of wmd's BEFORE the war.

Who the fuck are you and who did you ask?

--Taliban has been displaced. Not in Afghanistan it hasn't.

The taliban is no longer the ruling party. see 'displaced.' idiot.

The rest of your post is straight from uncle george soros. bush loves the rich, blood for oil, blah, blah, blah. you are clueless. Let us know when you are tired of being played for a fool. Until then, stay home. you are out of your league.

[Derek Murphy]

Thank you for once again demonstrating the unfair, unfounded, fact-free assertive style of discourse that not only typifies the right, but in fact utterly defines it.

Traitor? That'd be you, relative to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the conduct our Founding Fathers must have envisioned as essential to the Republic's survival.

And imagine: You vent this vitriol and hatred in the name of GWB, a man who, without family connections, would be the small-town bully at the local bar, insulting and groping women and picking on the little guy at the video game.

Loser.

[Dan Riehl]

in the name of GWB

Maybe you need to feel you're "venting" in someone else's name, asshat. I speak for myself. Now take your punk ass out of here, you unAmerican loser.

[LOL]

By the way, if were truly to have a real war on terror, it's need to be against any terrorist. Only picking on "islamic extremists" as some suggest here is short-sighted.

Makes you groan when you see this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-posada20apr20,1,2202043.story?coll=la-headlines-world&track=crosspromo

"Many of the 73 people killed aboard the Cubana de Aviacion plane were teenagers returning from an athletics competition in Caracas, Venezuela."

And why isn't this man in Guantanamo?

[Easter Lemming]

I sometimes despair when I come to this Reichstag hall of the right. Does the foam and spit splatter the keyboard?

[Steve J.]

February 24, 2006 2:51 PM

It Didn't Work

By William F. Buckley Jr.

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes—it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

[jay k.]

et has a problem with facts.
would our greek embassy being bombed count as an attack on our soil. probably not to him/her...because it doesn't fit the rnc talking points.
the intel was never ever overwhelming, and in fact was loaded with caveat after caveat. only when the white house got hold of it did it become a sure thing. that was the whole point of the wilson/plame sideshow...to cover their manipulation of the intelligence.
a lot of people asked the question about wmd...and never got answers...only half-truths, hyperbole, and strawman arguments. bob graham was on the intel committee and said publicly that attacking iraq was the wrong strategy at the wrong time...but most of the country at that point was like et...too far into the kool-aid to listen...today more people get it....et is still at the trough...what's the flavor today? grape?
and so we are where we are...policing a civil war with no good options...and a civilian leadership that is so worried about it's legacy that it is willing to give an open ended commitment with our blood and our treasure.
brilliant.

[David I]

1. The right and left are both wrong about Iraq. The war was waged not in order to preempt a threat to the United States, or because of a right-wing oil conspiracy, but because Afghanistan presented a paucity of big buildings to blow up for the TV screens. Post 9/11, the average "Patriotic American" wanted to see vengeance in graphic terms. Iraq was ready and waiting, and already under our military control. Remember, the areas of Iraq under Saddam's control were patrolled by our air force -- "no fly zones." There was zero threat from Iraq.

2. 9/11 was carried out by criminals. Not a political movement of appreciable real influence, even then. Our unjustified invasion of Iraq may appear to have changed that, but fundamentally the risk of terrorism is overstated and overblown even today.

3. The absence of attacks here at home is coincidental, and emanates from this fundamental lack of real risk. We should not turn our world upside down and rethink our way of life just because of the near statistical impossibility that any of us will ever be involved in a terrorist attack.

[Fred Beloit]

So, David, your choice is to play the odds? Very good. But why play them here? Why don't you go live in France where pacifism and self denigration are thought highly of. We don't feel that way here. Ask Senator Reid.

[David I]

Every traffic fatality carries with it a human and economic cost. Taken together, these add up too. On average, we lose more people and more money to highway deaths every week than we did on 9/11. Should we not then embark on a Global War on Dying to REALLY insure our secure and happy futures? Of course not. Why then is it acceptable to lose all perspective about how much a threat terrorism really is, just because a couple dozen wack-jobs scored a cheap shot one horrific morning?

Meanwhile, I'd love to live in France. It's a wonderful country. (Then again, I've actually been there, met the people, attempted to speak their language a bit. Have you?) But this is my home, born and bred, and I'm not going to give up and hand it over to the wilfully ignorant without speaking out along the way. THAT would be appeasement.

[Alex]

Ah you're still here I see, peddling your idiocy. What hapenned to the part where you wish he gets hit by a bus?

I'm not sure if you're too stupid to see the irony of a Bush supporter attacking someone for not having combat experience (not to mention that whole Vegas hooker thing, when your guy is the cokehead), or if you're just such a vile human being that you consider yourself immune to hypocrisy.

Yes, yes, we're all traitors. That's nice. Don't strain too much - it only makes the straitjacket tighter.

[Robert]

ET,

Who the fuck am I?
I'm an American, want to do something about it?

Who did I ask?
I asked my President. He works for me.

BTW, what would islamofacists gain by attacking Americans now?
The answer is nothing.
They did that in 2001 to bait our moron-in-chief into a war that is costing $2 trillion, the goodwill of the world towards Americans, and our freedoms (habeus corpus, anyone).

Do you keep bringing up the "no attacks since 9/11" to try to bait them into another attack?
You better hope their "leader" is as big a sucker as the one "leading" America.
(Fat chance. Nobody is that clueless).

[Robert]

Derek Murphy,

W would, most likely, slink away if someone stood upo to his tough guy act.

If, for some reason, he didn't.
Someone would have busted a cap in his skull years ago.

[bloodrage bob]

"dear...secret service...." (pauses thoughtfully) "i'm writing....to....make you aware of....threats that have been....made upon....."

i just LOVE writing letters. don't you?

[templar knight]

I bet you're the man, Robert, to stand up to his tough guy act. You talk REAL tough over the internet. You're probably real brave while standing behind a crowd, too.

[Kevin]

Seems to me that the traitors are the people dismantling the U.S. Constitution and sending our sons and daughters into unwinnable, unnecessary and counterproductive wars. Oh yes, and the knee-jerk fools who support these clowns despite our quintessentially American right not to.

[Von Cracker]

Reid and everyone else that uses the phase "war" is wrong from the start. The war's been over since 2003, and an occupation ever since.

Do you win an "occupation"? No, you either annex or withdrawl. Is Iraq the next Puerto Rico? Guam maybe?

Simple logic for simple people, so y'all right-wing-lovin'-send someone-else's-kids-to-make-you-more-money pu$$y cowards can easily understand.

THE WAR WAS WON; THE OCCUPATION IS UNSUCCESFUL.

VC

[Stentor]

I guess the Riehl World View means you're constantly full-of-shit, and wrong about most everything. Harry Reid is a former police officer, which I would probably bet is more service than even you've ever seen. He once tried to strangle a guy (Jack Gordon who was attempting to bribe him when Reid served as the Gaming Commish. What say tough guy? Want to say those words to Harry Reid's face? Because I'd be willing to bet he'd kick the snot out of you. I'd be willing to be you're another chickenhawk, just like the rest. If you're wondering about my credentials in case you feel like engaging in a little ad hominem bashing of your own, I served six years in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children from 1986-1992, and I am a Democrat who can probably wipe the floor with you.

[Stentor]

I guess the Riehl World View means you're constantly full-of-shit, and wrong about most everything. Harry Reid is a former police officer, which I would probably bet is more service than even you've ever seen. He once tried to strangle a guy (Jack Gordon) who was attempting to bribe him when Reid served as the Gaming Commish. What say tough guy? Want to say those words to Harry Reid's face? Because I'd be willing to bet he'd kick the snot out of you. I'd be willing to bet you're another chickenhawk, just like the rest. If you're wondering about my credentials in case you feel like engaging in a little ad hominem bashing of your own, I served six years in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children from 1986-1992, and I am a Democrat who can probably wipe the floor with you.