LA Times Slams Harry Reid

Whoa! And not because he hasn't gone far enough to the Left, but for being uncompromising and using a strategy for the Iraq War debate they all but predict will fail. Has there been an earthquake in LA recently? Has the LA Times news analysis division hit its collective head?

Eight bitter months and nine major Iraq-related votes later, the meaning of Reid's pledge has come into sharp focus: Democrats will work with any GOP lawmaker willing to vote for a mandatory troop withdrawal; other Republicans need not apply.

This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year. And it effectively ended any chance that a significant number of Republican lawmakers critical of the war would join with Democrats this summer on any Iraq-related legislation.

Comments

[Rich Casebolt]

From Harry Reid:

****************
"Just because you pass something on a bipartisan basis that has no teeth in it and you can circle and sing 'Kumbaya,' " doesn't mean progress, he said.
****************

Funny he would say that ... considering that kind of "consensus", from the UN and international community, is what the members of his caucus wanted the President to obtain as a prerequisite to this invasion ...

... and what they persuaded this nation to seek for decades, in the process allowing the thugs and fanatics to sharpen their claws, instead of demanding the direct, timely, resolute, and DECISIVE use of American force to eliminate the Saddams of this world.

****************
"We need to do something to change the course of the war in Iraq."
****************

Memo to the Senator: that is already happening. Your briefing awaits you ... on Google:

"Anbar Rising"
"al-Ameriki tribe"
"7 Rules" "1 Oath"

Now the bad news ... this is information that is useless in terms of defeating the Main Enemy of your supporters, George W. Bush.

Maybe the Administration would have listened to your side more, had you not prefaced so many of your suggestions with "Impeach Bush" or "fire Rumsfeld".

[Steven Den Beste]

Ready for a cynical take on the situation? Reid doesn't want a compromise. He wants to fail. He doesn't want to be held responsible for a withdrawal, and the bloodbath that would follow it. What he does want is to posture enough to cement relations with the hard core antiwar left. In other words, he wants whatever happens to be someone else's fault.

[Purple Avenger]

"Reid doesn't want a compromise. He wants to fail."

The dems believe this will help them electorally. As a voter, I have to ask myself though -- if they're willing to sell out whole nations and our military, what chance do I have with them? They'll sell me out in a heartbeat too.

Integrity is like virginity.

[Dan Riehl]

"a cynical take"

Cynicism is always the best approach when evaluating a politician. But it comes with a price for Reid and the D Party as a whole. I'd offer the Con. approval numbers as proof of that. Of the two bases, I think I'd rather have the Right's around my neck come General election time.

[Phoenix]

Steven,

What a perfect deconstruction of a 'bully'. And what a perfect example Reid is. Mammoth maws and acorn nuts.

[Ralph]

It's called hardball folks. This is how you bend your opponents to your will. We need to play the same way.The difference is if the leaders on our side grew a spine and played this way it would mean twisting arms to vote in America's interest and not to moving us toward some utopian socialist paradise.

[Chris]

Jeez O'man. SDB? Where has that guy been? We need you now, my friend. That was a clarifying statement which has been lacking for those supporting a successful, or at least acceptable, outcome in Iraq. Steve, you're not being cynical in evaluating Reid. Merely telling it like it is.

He won't talk about the bloodbath, as that is merely a 'hypothetical'. He needs to be, and judging by polls, may well be, told to hypothecate on this.

[southdakotaboy]

Steven, Reid wants more than just to "fail", he wants a bloodbath in Iraq. Why? So that they can blame the Republicans for the mass slaughter and so discredit them on the national security issue like they were after the Vietnam War. Reid is looking at the big long term picture, he could care less about any Iraqies who are killed, really the more that die the better in his opinion.

[Bill Adkins]

Harry Reid nor I want America to 'fail' in Iraq. What we want is for America to stop digging the hole. George W. Bush is stuck on the same strategy he was stuck on Day One - and that is stuck on stupid. Bush could not care less about any Iraqis who are being killed and his concern for American casualties is limited to the political impact of those casualties upon his already dismal legacy. Remember, Bush is the one who used the still warm corpses of the 9/11 victims as political props. Our troops in Iraq, in that gift client state Bush has offered to the terrorists, are no longer fighting for America - they're fighting to resurrect Bush's failed attempt to paint himself as the new Crusader. Oh, our troops may be fooled into believing otherwise, but the truth is the truh - sadly, Republicans have throughly demonstrated their inability to handle the truth.

[Chris]

Bill,
How can you claim that "Bush is stuck on the same strategy he was stuck on day one"? We're currently doing counter-insurgency vs. Iraqification, which had been the prior strategy. Reid, Pelosi et al claimed to want a "change of course". That is exactly what they have been given. The Senate approved Petraeus 81-0 and Reid wants to pull the rug from under him at precisely the moment the course change is bearing some fruit. Why?

If Reid doesn't want failure in Iraq, then what does he want? What would he do differently if he did want failure? That is a serious question, the answer to which is nothing.

While I don't accept your premise of Bush using the 9-11 victims as political props, you might want to ask yourself just who is using dead soldiers as agit-prop. And the Nicholson schtick (Truth? You can't handle the truth!) is really pathetic.

[brett]

TO STEVE AND THE OTHER LIKE MINDED HERE,
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? ITS SO GREAT TO SEE YOUR POINT IN PRINT. NOT ONLY DID THEY ALWAYS WANT TO SEE US FAIL,NOW THEY WANT TO RUIN THE BEST
ECONOMY OF MY LIFE.THIS KIND OF DIVISIVENESS BROUGHT DOWN EMPIRES,AND NOW CAN DO THE SAME
TO THE GREATEST OF DEMOCRACY'S.DIVIDED WE COULD FAIL,TOGETHER WE CANT LOOSE.

[Don]

The last election produced not a rivised house and senate but a "jury".The Democrats have been promoting litigation and Bush criticisms since they have been in office for nine months. It is past time they start to fulfill their pre-election promises to come up with some positive action in Washington,DC -----the voters expect nothing less.

[Bill Adkins]

"If Reid doesn't want failure in Iraq, then what does he want? What would he do differently if he did want failure? That is a serious question, the answer to which is nothing."

You ask the question, then answer it, Chris? 'Nothing' is what Bush is doing - it must be because the result is less than nothing. It is a negative result. Bush, in invading Iraq, gave them the opportunity to set up a client state. I'm not saying they've achieved it because having the opportunity is not the same as taking it. In Iraq Al Qaeda is no more able to quell the civil/religious war than we are. 'Counter insurgency?" Might work if it were a insurgency - but it is not - those people are not fighting Americans, they're fighting among themselves. I certainly don't see where the current 'surge' is bearing fruit - it may have forced a relocation of the more severe violence, but it hasn't quelled it. Oh, and your reference to Iraqification is amusing - saw it coming way before it was implemented. I'm old enough to recall personally the ludicrous joke named 'Vietnamization.' The solution to Iraq may very well be beyond Reid, Chris - but that's only a hypothesis to date It is a prvoen fact that the solution to Iraq is beyond Bush and the Republicans.

And, hey, I'm truly sorry you don't like my Nicholson schtick - but it is so appropriate.

[Chris]

Bill,
I'm not old enough to remember the term Vietnamization but have read enough over the years to realize it was a strategy at one time. Doesn't make the two wars the same, however. You say we're not fighting an insurgency but are stuck in a civil war. That's certainly what al Qaeda wants. They provoke sectarian strife in a very cold and calculating manner. Don't forget Iran's involvement either.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats wrt Iraq is one side saying that defeat isn't an option while the other says victory isn't an option. The world's greatest economic and military power can't be defeated on the battlefield. Hopefully you'll concede that much. The only way we can be defeated is if the nation loses patience. There's certainly been reason to lose patience but no reason to throw in the towel, unless one is angling for some perceived political benefit. Which is exactly what Reid/Pelosi are doing.

Iraq was always a when, not an if proposition. The surrender brigades, even if they get what they think they want, will not be able to abrogate responsibility for the ME indefinitely. Should a Dem win in '08, not a foregone conclusion by any measure, a coherent policy will be required immediately. Blaming Bush will not suffice. Hillary at least realizes as much even while playing to the anti-war loons in the base. Nobody wants war but just because one side wants to declare defeat for political expediency, the rest of us are not obligated to oblige.

Many criticisms of Iraq are legitimate but failing to acknowledge the ramifications of a pullout because they are 'hypothetical' is the height of arrogance and unworthy of the term leadership. Reid isn't leading but following. And he's following the lead of the most disgusting and craven cowards imaginable.

[Rich Casebolt]

Bill:

Civil war? Only in the eyes of the MSM sensation-sellers:

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2007/04/mining-model.html

Meanwhile, in Iraq ... wiser heads are prevailing.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/07/yon-in-god-we-t.html

You need to read this, and follow the links to the whole Yon dispatch.

As I say in the comments, if we could overcome ... so can the Iraqi people.

[Rich Casebolt]

Reid's objective: increase his personal political stature, on the backs of the hard-Leftist base of his party, by attempting to fulfill their desire to Save the Legacy of Woodstock Nation ...

... a base who sees the denigration of this President, and what they think he stands for, as a strategic objective to Save that Legacy, for in their eyes, that will:

>Avenge the "theft" of their birthright-to-rule in November 2000.
>Advance the cause of "getting theirs" from the "greedy".
>Discredit the idea of reliance upon a spiritual worldview as guidance for one's conduct, and prevent the mythical "theocracy" that might threaten the monopoly their secular-progressive fundamentalism holds when it comes to implementing the tenets of their faith in our public and media institutions.
>Remove the "stain" of our nations divergence from the conventional wisdom of the 20th century when it comes to protecting peace and freedom, still held by their fellow-travelers in relativism that populate the chattering classes in Europe and elsewhere.

My response ... as related via guitar backup, to some of the base in 2004 on the Halliburton front lawn:

Come on all you Democrats
stop acting like such rotten brats
Making everything a political game
helps keep alive the terrorist flame
It's hard in politics to get ahead
when a lot of your voters are dead.*

And it's One, Two, Three
What are we fighting for?
The freedom of every man
From here to Afghanistan,
And it's Five, Six, Seven
When you're right, you shouldn't wait
To keep the peace, this is a fact
America must act.

21st Century technology
7th Century brutality
1960's stupidity
That is what the terrorists see
as power for their ideology
and death for you and me

And it's One, Two, Three ...

----------------------------
* Except in Chicago.

[Fred Beloit]

Willy, always good for a laugh, writes: "Harry Reid nor I want America to 'fail' in Iraq. What we want is for America to stop digging the hole." Wow, I didn't even know Willy was in the Senate. Say Willy, what state has the proud responsibility for your election?

[Bill Adkins]

Not the state of confusion in which you reside, Freddie.

[Fred Beloit]

Willy says: "Might work if it were a insurgency - but it is not - those people are not fighting Americans, they're fighting among themselves." Someone has been killing American forces in Iraq, Willy. Who, do you suppose? See you have this exaggeration problem. You state everything about "all" and "none", but nothing about "some".

[Bill Adkins]

Again, for Freddie,I must break out the crayons and lower myself to the level of Freddie so that he may understand. See, Freddie, it's like I've said before - and you may have to look up some of these terms. There will be a pop quiz later. Our trops are collateral damage because of where they are. If, indeed, our troops were the primary target, our troops would be experiencing casualties far greater than those experienced to date. I've told you this before, Freddie, but you are dense, so I'll keep hammering at it until I get through.