Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Harry Reid, Still Alive And In Charge

The CIA has verified that the voice on a recent videotape is indeed Harry Reid.

Attempting to clarify yesterday’s statement that the war in Iraq is “lost“, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that he “supports the troops who lost the war.”

In an audiotape recorded from an undisclosed location and released through Al-Jazeera TV, Sen. Reid said, “The troops who lost the war should hold their heads high, because not everyone can be a winner, and they gave it a good try.”

CIA analysis of the tape indicates the voice is “almost certainly” Sen. Reid’s and that references to recent events show that the Democrat leader may still be at large, in good health and “substantially in charge” of his network of Democrat senators.

On the tape, Sen. Reid also said, “It’s not the fault of our troops that they represent an evil regime, or that they wear the uniform of the nation viewed by many as ‘the Great Satan.’”

Meanwhile, Harry's a hit with our enemies.

Middle Eastern Media Take Up Reid's "War Is Lost": Iranian Press TV reports, in response to Reid's statement:

Leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, has said the US has lost the Iraq war, and Bush's troop surge has failed.... Reid's comments came a day after 200 fatalities were reported in bombings in Iraq, despite a much touted US Security Plan which the White House said sought to root out insurgency."

A Republican party e-mail also reported the following as translations of items from Al-Jazeera Online, and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, "The Leading Arabic International Daily"; please let me know if the translations are inaccurate:

"Yesterday the leader of the Democratic majority in Congress, Harry Reid, announced that he conveyed to Bush that the United States lost the war in Iraq and that the additional America forces that were sent there will not succeed in the achievement of any positive progress."

"Leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, has said the US has lost the Iraq war, and Bush's troop surge has failed.... Reid's comments came a day after 200 fatalities were reported in bombings in Iraq, despite a much touted US Security Plan which the White House said sought to root out insurgency."

As I have said before, it may well be quite proper -- and certainly constitutionally protected -- for people to criticize the war; and sometimes the benefits of such criticism, even of the "war is lost" variety and even when said by leading U.S. politicians, outweigh the costs. Yet it seems to me hard to doubt that this statement will have grave cost.

If Napoleon was right that "In war the moral [meaning 'morale'] is to the material as three to one," then it seems to me that Reid's statements may prove highly objectively costly, chiefly by strengthening the enemy's morale as well as by weaking our own soldiers'. Likewise if Churchill was right that even statements that "weaken confidence in the Government" and "make the Army distrust the backing it is getting from the civil power" may prove to be "to the distress of all our friends and to the delight of all our foes" (Speech in the House of Commons (July 2, 1942)). How much more distress and delight must be caused by statements that represent that the Congressional majority actually believes the war to be lost.

Maybe, as I said, the benefit of the statements exceeds their harm. And maybe the harm will be modest, because everyone -- among our enemies as well as among our military -- has already assumed that the Democratic leadership thinks this. Yet my suspicion is that the harm will be quite substantial indeed.

1 comment:

Joe said...

None of the current liberals have the first clue about geo-political events, or military matters. So let me educate you, please... direct from a military intelligence office (S2) who has already BEEN in the Iraqi theater of operations.

WE NEVER INTENDED TO LEAVE IRAQ! 62 years after V-E Day we still have a whole armor corps based in Germany. Almost 61 years after WWII ended we are in Japan. 109 years after the end of the Spanish American War we still have a base in CUBA, Guantanamo Bay (Gittmo)! We've been in Saudi Arabia since Aug. 2nd, 1990, and Kuwait since February 1991! I can go on and on...

We now have permanent American bases in Iraq. Why is it the default position of the ignorant liberals and a few so-called "moderates" that we NEED to leave Iraq? The Democratic Presidential hopefuls are falling all over themselves over who will surrender (sorry, “strategic redeployment”) first.

Iraq is THE central front in the war on terror, and you want to concede it to the enemy, even though the troops WANT to be there. It’s an all volunteer military, and nearly everyone had a choice to reenlist or join since AFTER the invasion. Now I know why only 9-11% of the current US Military votes democrat. I met only 2 liberals when I was in the service. I thought it was a BRILLIANT military strategy, to invade Iraq after Afghanistan.... Look at a map for God's sake. Creating a democracy in the HEART of the Middle East - the land of Mesopotamia, the Garden of Eden - creates a land void of Wahhabbism and state controlled media that preaches violence and propaganda against the infidel. It's going to take a full generation, 20 years or more to start to fully work, but it no doubt will. In the short term it will deny the enemy a safe haven backed with state funds from oil proceeds. And immediately, it GUARANTEED that Sadaam would never again attempt to produce or acquire WMDs.

In less than a month, one Special Forces A-Team backed up by the Northern Alliance, ANGLICO (Air-Ground Liason) and CAS (Close Air Support) defeated the Taliban and drove Al Qaeda underground. We probably haven't killed Bin Laden yet, but we've kept him from building a movement, and isolated him without the ability to communicate. HERE's the brilliant part... We knew the terrorists will follow us wherever we go. We knew they would regroup and flock to us as partisans. Afghanistan is the most inhospitable place on the planet to defend territory. It goes from 110 to below freezing in 24 hours, with arid deserts and elevations regularly above 16,000 ft., has millions of places to hide, and gives the advantage to smaller, more mobile forces (ie. small groups of poorly organized jihadists.) It was time to open a 2nd front.

HERE's the problem. Bush CANNOT go on TV and say, "We want to lure our enemies into a land in which we can slow-bleed the enemy on favorable terrain. We want to change the face of the Middle East, and create democracies in the 3 main sponsors of terror, that happen to border Iraq: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia." WE WOULD LOSE ALL SUPPORT in the Arab world if he said that! It's a delicate balance, but Bush chose to bite his tongue, and take a massive poll hit to save national security. THAT is a leader.

We are capturing and killing the enemy every single day in Iraq - MANY MORE then they kill of us. Some estimates as great as 14 times more. We have more men, we have better equipment, the best training, and we have the will of the Iraqi people behind us. BUT THE TERRORISTS HAVE A FORMIDABLE WEAPON TOO: LIBERALS here in America. Islamic Extremists know the liberal media is on their side. They know Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary is rooting for them. Bush is more compassionate than conservative, so he likes to say he does not question the patriotism of democrats. WELL I DO QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM! Isn't it blatantly obvious that the democrats stand to lose politically if we WIN? Every single speech, sign, and vote democrats have made were designed to win back power, and they didn’t care if those policies HURT the troops and cause us LOSE a war. Isn't it obvious that they have been trying to do exactly that since 2004? They don't even try to hide it anymore. So it shouldn't surprise you that EVERY single "TROOP WITHDRAWAL DEADLINE" that dems have proposed is scheduled for BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION! (14 in all.) Why? Because they do not want to deal with the issue. They know they are considered “soft” and “weak” on national defense, so they want to run for cover, then stick their heads in the sand like an Ostrich and pretend there is no war on terror. That is their strategy to win back the white house, and they do not care about the consequences. A win in Iraq, or an attack on Iran would destroy all that... They have already demonstrated the propensity to do what it takes to prevent both those things – even though they voted for the original resolution. If anyone disagrees, please email me with ONE thing that a liberal has done to help WIN the war on terror. Remember, it wasn't until Nixon was elected that the Vietnam anti-war movement grew. While Kennedy and LBJ were in office, there was very little public outcry over the war, even though casualty rates were higher in many of those years. Interesting….

Wake up people. You have been given propaganda for years by the liberal media; You have been fed US Casualties on a regular basis, but not enemy casualties. That's like only getting one team's score at a football game you didn't even see, and having the audacity to comment on the coach's strategy. You were given “pipeline” excuses as the real reason we invaded Afghanistan, and Halliburton reasons for Iraq. The pipeline was canceled in the 90’s, and Cheney doesn't own a single stock in Halliburton. He sold all his stock before accepting the VP nomination. When I point that out to liberals, they say, “Well…… But his buddies still do!” How many of you would start a war and kill thousands of people so your “buddies” can make more money? Think people. How many of you knew that last year Cheney made almost 9 million dollars, but gave 7 million of it away to charity? I'll bet you didn't know that. You didn’t know that because the liberal media has stopped reporting news, and is now more about reporting an agenda. Bush is horrible at communicating; therefore he has no bully pulpit. Even if he was a “Reagan,” only Fox and talk radio would report the speech anyway, thereby preaching to the choir. No one else would even know what as said. This is an uphill battle, but our entire way of life is at stake, and many of you are too blind to see it, or unwilling to acknowledge it.

What Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid did was treasonous. Did anyone watch Al-Jazeera today? Talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies... From Cairo to Kandahar, Islamic Extremists are celebrating in the streets, and terror cell leaders are using it as proof that Bin Laden was right… America will cut and run after only 3.000 casualties. Ask you grandfathers how many Americans died on D-Day. Ask a police officer how many murders there are in Philly, DC, or Chicago each year. How about some historical, logical prospective? End of rant. Do what you want. I say Reid (D) must resign, or should be arrested for Treason. He is the current Baghdad Bob, Tokyo Rose, and Neville Chamberlain all in one embodiment. Don't worry if you think someone may be offended by a political email- forward this email to them. It's about time we spoke up and put an end to this nonsense. Enough is enough. Either way, OUR way of life WILL be affected by what we do... more than you may know.

Definition of Treason:
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
"The War is Lost," said U.S. Senate Democrat Leader
("Reid: U.S. Can't Win Iraq Military Fight," AP, 4/19/07)
Those are the words from the Senate's Democrat Leader yesterday -- the war is lost. How do you think our troops in the Middle East feel today after hearing that? How emboldened are the Islamic radicals who wake up every day trying to kill Americans?
"We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," said U.S. Senate Democrat Leader

Don’t take it from me, read it from the 2nd most liberal show on the network: CNN

Now see the difference with a Fox News story:

Joe Brignoli