|
|||||
Oh.Well. I guess it’s over. We lost. Harry Reid said so. Time to come home:
YOU: I wonder who won, Lex? ME: The guys capable of generating on-demand, telegenic “extreme violence” over the course of a two-month period, it seems. Even before the “Surge” was fully implemented. US: Pity. Ecce: Appeasement in our time.
39 comments to Oh. |
 
|
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Harry Reid makes me a little ashamed that I did most of my growing up in Nevada, ala Dixie Chicks.
Nice photoshop, I was wondering where they dug up that old microphone before I saw the picture of Chamberlain.
Maybe I’m hopelessly naive, but wasn’t the war won when the Iraqi army was destroyed and Saddam Hussein ceased to be in charge? What we have now is an occupation, that isn’t going so well.
Sent to this domestic enemy via his contact form at http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Dear Senator Reid- Your “war is lost” comment is nothing short of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Rather than making near-treasonous comments like that to try to score cheap political points, you should be working to SUPPORT our troops, with genuine support, not contrived gimmicks seeking a defeat will win elections for your party.
If you had a shred of honor or decency, you would resign your seat. But, you don’t and won’t.
When jihadist suicide bombers kill in Las Vegas instead of Baghdad, you will bear part of the blame!
You are with the U.S., or you are with the terrorists. You, sir, are not with the U.S.
SHAME!
It really is not that hard to pack a car full of explosives and detonate it in a crowded place without people being able to stop it before it happens. If they are able to mount a successful TET like offensive? Then i would equate that with evidence that the surge is not working. They know however that it would be hard to replace the numbers they would lose in an open conflict.
Harry “Neville Chamberlain” Reid…
Worth a thousand words…….
For the record- Treasonous, cowardly, selfish Democrat. Yes, I said Democrat. Labels are important.
He may have attempted backpedal after…but just like McCain with the Beach Boys tune, the subconcious does not lie.
b2
Great job, Cap’n. When you retire, you can always get a photojournalism position with the MSM or AlJezeera.
Q. Am I being redundant?
-SJBill
As is typical with these things, people don’t place the comment in the context of the statements made around it. Namely that the surge is an up and down thing and was pointed out by Jeff Huber, not something that simply worked in a vacuum. Namely that the idea of buying security in Baghdad was designed to give the Iraqi government the breathing space to get its stuff together. Not something they have a good track record on so far. However being Arabs we should continue to give them more time to do what they do best-fight among each other and piss away great opportunities.
That’s what the Senator said in total, and I heard the whole dialogue on NPR this morning. That may not make him perceptive, but calling him a traitor is clearly over the mark. Unless one subscribes to the Bush administrations motto that dissent equals treason.
He could see himself as the Fulbright of this war…..who may eventually be proven right just as Fulbright was after Vietnam. Fulbright was not a traitor at all.
Skippy,
Respectfully, I don’t see how your characterization and Lex’s excerpt above could possibly be reconciled. Do you have a link to the transcript you are referring to?
Skippy,
re- “..but calling him a traitor is clearly over the mark.”
I just did. meaning- “relating to treason”. Yep. Stand by it, too. I would indict him on it if I had the power.
I take it, then, you agree with cowardly and selfish? That’s something….
b2
Damn. I was and am willing to send my husband into harm’s way–to perhaps even lose him, to save the life of one Iraqi woman or child, or keep them from rape…to keep another 9/11 from happening on our soil.
But to defend someone like this? No.
They shame me. But I will not bear their shame.
I’m entirely too angry to write anything sensible! He’s just a wormy little creep working his own political agenda. Wrote him an e-mail last evening that sounded at lot like what John S. wrote, but I may not have been quite as polite. SHAME and cowardice are the operative words.
This from the leader of the Party of Darkness. No vision except to gain political power, no viable ideas, no morality, no guts.
I am proud of my military service, and of that rendered by my kinsmen. I am grateful for the service of men such as Lex (women, too!). So I have the utmost respect and admiration for America’s military. But I will handcuff my son to a pole in the basement before I’ll let him join and serve an idiot like Reid. A country (half a country, anyhow) that tolerates “leaders” like this? Sorry, not worth the sacrifice. Anyone know the rules for emigration to Switzerland?
I know its not nice to name call, but Harry Reid is a moron. Its one thing to think “we’ve lost the war.” Its another to say it out loud. To use a podium and a loud speaker alerting Al Qaeda and all terrorists across the globe that we have failed…..is just imbecilic.
Soldiers are in the field today, wearing full IBA and looking for IEDs. Knowing that, according the Senate Majority Leader, their cause is lost.
Well done.
Check the NPR morning edition transcript.
B-2 I don’t agree with any of it. However then again, I don’t agree with being in Iraq. Not in the context of advancing US interests. I would call your attention to the following column by Joe Galloway. He sums it up better than I am.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,132415,00.html
He’s not a traitor either. He just points out that while we may not be losing, we are not winning and in the end its the same thing, because the clock is ticking till 2009.
If Harry Reid is such a bother, than the soverign people of the soverign state of Nevada can recall him.
Here is what Reid could have said-and been correct:
“Throughout our history two strands have coexisted uneasily; a dominant strand of democratic humanism and a lesser but durable strand of intolerant Puritanism. There has been a tendency through the years for reason and moderation to prevail as long as things are going tolerably well or as long as our problems seem clear and finite and manageable. But… when some event or leader of opinion has aroused the people to a state of high emotion, our puritan spirit has tended to break through, leading us to look at the world through the distorting prism of a harsh and angry moralism.”
Fulbright also related his opposition to any American tendencies to intervene in the affairs of other nations:
“Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations ?
Hell, he could have said a lot things and been correct. He might even be correct in what he did say, although nothing in his previous record gives him any more credibility in that respect than the guy holding forth in the downtown barber shop.
What wasn’t “correct” is saying what he said the way he said it with US troops engaged in the fight. I mean, what was the point, for God’s sake? Did he think he was going to shame President Bush into changing his policy by revealing what was said behind closed doors in a White House conference? Did he think he was going to change any minds at home? We’ve come too far to believe either of those things are now open to much in the way of revision. There’s not even an election in play – this was worse than pointless.
What he did was kick the troops in the balls and encourage their enemy. That’s not a US crime in a citizen – he’s got a free speech right too – but it’s damn sure piss-poor leadership.
Harry Reid voted in favor of giving the President the authority to use the means he deemed necessary to implement his doctrine. That resolution clearly included the authority to enter the war.
Harry can tap dance and dissemble all he wants, but the fact is, he voted for it. If he believes he voted incorrectly on such an incredibly important resolution, no matter what excuse(s) he gives about being “misled” or “lied into war”, then he should do the honorable thing and resign.
If his votes on critical issues are that misinformed, or if he is that easily swayed by a chimpanzee in the White House, then he is not qualified to be making important decisions on anyone’s behalf and should be replaced with a more intelligent and stalwart leader.
If he can’t work up the testicular fortitude to resign or take ownership of his vote, then he should shut his shiftless yap in shame, rather than sell out the troops that he willingly sent in harm’s way because it was poltically expedient to do so.
I agree it was not the best characterization.
He is going to regret saying it in 2008 and whenever he stands for re-election. But at what point does having troops in the field condemn anyone to silence? Especially when the thing they are fighting for is not advancing the interests of the nation they signed up to serve?
I don’t think there are any troops with sore crotches here. Most expect this from Harry Reid and it conforms to what they expect him to say.
However if you look carefully, even adminstration rhetoric is changing. Secretary Gates even thinks this debate may be useful to tell the Iraqis how they need to get their stuff togther.
“I’ve been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake,” Gates said, “but I think the debate itself ?
Your comparison of Sen. Harry Reid to an appeasing, Neville Chamberlain” is at best, disingenuous.
Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister and a Conservative. Reid is neither.
Further, I see no Iraqi blitzkrieg. There are no Iraqi Panzers overrunning European sovereign nations. Reid is not making regrettable deals with a megalomaniacal leader. We have already been at war for over four years unlike Chamberlain’s reluctant and appeasing government.
In fact, the war in Iraq was won early on. It is the current “occupation” that is questionable. Then there remains the Iraqi civil war?
Lex is correct.
The point is not that he was wrong in what he said (which I believe)…but what is most aggregious is that he said it at all and in public, while we are fighting a very determined enemy…and all for politics.
Hey, it’s not all Kafka, all the time.
Reid is promising to deliver us “peace in our time” by – in effect – chucking the Iraqi people and their democratically elected government (amazing how quickly we get used to the unthinkable) in the blood-warm embrace of fascist expansionism. He’s in effect offering to trade (their) space for (our) time.
Chamberlain gave the Sudetanland and Czechoslovaka to Hitler. Thought that would fill him up for a while. That’s what everybody wanted, after all: Peace. Just make the madman go away. It was a popular idea that resulted in 75 million deaths when the whole thing spilled over.
Blitzkriegs are done, symmetrical warfare kaput – at least for now. No sense steering by the wake. It’s our brave new world, best get used to it. And when we leave with the job undone, and the Iraqis have their little civil war, what do you think the odds are that it can be contained? And how much do you want to bet?
Political alignments be damned – I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch.
Skippy,
re -”If Harry Reid is such a bother, than the soverign people of the soverign state of Nevada can recall him.”
Then why are you supporting him? Go play devils advocate on some other subject…you will never convince me of anything except that he is a surrender monkey. All he cares about is his own party getting power in 2008. At the expense of his country and our troops. As far as Mr. Galloway, with whom I respectfully disagree, is concerned, perhaps he ought to get out more, like he did once…long ago:
http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2007/04/commo-check.html
What I said here several years ago still stands. When our troops say they can’t win is when I’ll throw in the towel. Not when some pencil-necked, thin-lipped geek from Nevada bloviates…
Fliterman,
re- “intelligent dialogue’
“The war in Iraq is lost”. You would defend that? With troops in the field?
No. Please don’t answer. I already know your answer….PLeeease, don’t give me that freedom of speech B.S., Harry Reid ain’t no Don Imus….
b2
However if you look carefully, even adminstration rhetoric is changing. Secretary Gates even thinks this debate may be useful to tell the Iraqis how they need to get their stuff togther.
That, however, is not Harry’s role to play. When Harry oversteps his position, he demonstrates in internal divide to the enemy, which in turn encourages their resistance. He had his vote, now it is time for him to shut up about it. If Gates is forced to find the positive aspects of a negative crammed down is throat, well it’s to the good that he can, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that he was put in that position by a cynical and self-obsessed windbag.
whenever – and if ever – we leave.
Yeah, it’s taking too long. Let’s get all of the troops home, those in Europe, Bosnia, and Korea included.
Once we’ve done that, I suggest we defund our ground Army as we clearly will no longer be needing it. Instead, we’ll beef up our missle and airborne arms, and special ops forces as well. At that point, we never have to concern ourselves with the whole bothersome humanitarian thing. We can topple any government we want from over the horizon and let them clean up the mess.
Ooooh Subsunk, you’ve let water spill over the top of the dam..The water you released has infuriated me from the gitgo..because ..well.. it’s all so unseemly. Burr under the saddle, sort of.
Intelligently and respectfully said however. LOL.
b2
fliterman said:
Reid is not making regrettable deals with a megalomaniacal leader. (sorry can’t make it look right)
No, but Nancy Pelosi was just in Syria putting words into the Israelis’ mouths and getting the smackdown for getting it wrong. And has said she wants to talk to Iran — to dialog (what an awful word — I hate nouns that get corrupted into verbs and lose all meaning).
I believe that this is their coordinated stance on the GWOT, not just Iraq, as much as the Democrats can coordinate amongst themselves. Reid is speaking what he truly believes people want to hear, and also believes that his words only affect the US. The Democrats seem to be blind to the fact that their words are heard world-wide and that others believe what they say and not what they mean (the language of politics vs what’s actually said).
Personally, I think most Democrats, especially the leadership, is foundering. I think they are just opening their mouths and letting their brains off the leash to spout whatever nonsense sounds good at the time. They definitely have a short-term memory on what they said in the past.
Respects, all.
Subsunk you are spot on.
Skippy-san, don’t give Lex stuff about context. The words are Senator Reid’s. They are at this very moment being used in and out of context by outlets watched by the enemy. Headlines on, say, Drudge or Al Jazeera are “Top US Democrat: ‘The War is Lost.’” That probably puts a nice “spring in the step” of the guy who coordinated the most recent car-bombing. Thanks, Harry.
Subsunk,
Your logic does not follow. I’m not defending Reid per se, except that Congress has a right to provide oversight to the executive branch. Now the disagreement here is about the quality of that oversight. The majority opinion here is that it is not being well done. There are those who believe that when the ship of state is on the wrong course, then folks have a responsibilty to speak up.
Now lets look at each point of your personal attack, which despite the caveat is something of one.
a) This is a private forum. A person can opine however he sees fit. I have never subscribed to the opinion that rights that are protected under the constitution are given up because of an occupational choice. Your seaman Schmuckatelli example , as I see, it has no real merit because the real question is does obey orders. People opine things all the time-it is do they do what they are told that matters. Service personnel are voters too. I cede my rights under the bill of rights to no one.
I submit it is the location where either the Captain or the Seaman submits his opinion that makes a difference. If either is a professiona he knows where to offer his opinion and where not to. Or would you prefer absolute conformity abd lack of free discussion? That’s what got the country to this point in the first place.
b) Mr. Bush continues to threaten to veto any war-spending bill that sets time limits on our involvement in Iraq, and has accused Democrats of wanting to “legislate defeat.” It would be more honest to say that the Democrats are trying to legislate sanity over Mr. Bush’s off the rails foreign policy, and that their insistence on benchmarks and deadlines are the only thing that will force Iraq’s government to get its act together.
Now some folks think that is disloyal somehow. I , for the life of me, don’t see how. Its a debate over a foreign policy decision and what is correct for the United States. Whose interests should come well ahead of the Iraqis.
It is also not chucking the Iraqi government if we leave. It is simply letting them govern themselves. They can keep their government if they so choose. From a standpoint of American interests, Iraq is a running sore, it hurts the long term effort. The “victory”- regime change- was won a long time ago.
Now there are plenty of experienced people who share that opinion. Even Admiral Fallon is starting to voice that American support is not open ended. A State Department official put things a slightly different way. “Our strategy now is to basically hold on and wait for the Iraqis to do something,”
One other point. I think the Democrats have a right to get angry when people question their loyalty to the country. P-3 wife is probably right, they could use a higher quality of leader-but then so could the Republicans. The quality of many politicians on both sides of the aisle is low.
Now that’s about the best I can offer and keep my temper in check. There is no water spilled over any damn or unseemly things said-except in people’s narrow minds. I prefer to take a broader view. A lot of professionals that I know and respect know how to do the same.
I could start swearing now, but Thumper’s rule applies here.
The rest of us aren’t necessarily narrow-minded for disagreeing with you Skip. And you don’t get to be broad minded just by staking out the turf. I’m sorry if you felt like you were being personally attacked, but it all sort of starts with the Reid thing, and trying to polish that turd.
Rub it and scrub it, but it’ll be gone before it shines.
Subsunk, Right On!!!
As a veteran and the father of another, plus two on active duty, I couldn’t agree with you more; Skippy & Fliterman less! Reid’s words are an insult to me, personally! I have children on the front lines!
For anyone who’d like to read the very personal opinions of many other military people, check out Michelle Malkin. She has them, many of them enlisted service men and women.
If not treasonous, Harry Reid should at least resign as he’s proved he cannot represent his own country! Yes, opposing views are allowed, but not to the point of providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime! By the way, that is the definition of treason. (In what context do you expect Al Jezerra, et. al. to frame Reid’s comments, Skippy?)
Perception is much more important in this case than context; as a matter of fact, perception is everything to an insurgent encouraged and emboldened by Reid’s words. He’s been told by the leader of the Democratic Party that he’s won the war!
I predict Reid will live to rue the day he spoke these words of defeat. His words were not opinion nor debate; he ended HIS debate about the war with his declaration of defeat. Perhaps what he’s predicted is his own defeat?!
Reid won’t resign and the people of Nevada won’t recall him. Get over it. They like having a Senator with senority, just like the people of Connecticut do.
How Al Jazerra frames the arguement is not the real issue here is it? That outlet has plenty of other quotes to attack if not this one. Some even come from within the administration.
My narrow minded remark was directed at only one individual. No one else.
It is however, broad minded to suggest that there is more than one way to look at it.
Here is what he actually said:
?
Skippy,
Always the same predictable strategy taken:
- survey the discussion battlefield
- Throw bomb
- deflect, mitigate, qualify, obsfuscate
- retreat and display self righteous indignation
OODA, or shoot, wait..shoot?
b2
Hey, I live in Las Vegas and I can’t wait to cast my vote to get Mr. Reid out of office. His comment that the war is lost definitely playes well on Al Jazeera and in the car bomb factories, but not so well with the troops.
Can you imagine being a ground commander over in Iraq and having to fight on after something like this? It might start to make the guys a bit more risk averse rather than mission oriented – after all, who wants to lead men into battle and death when they’ve already been told by their leaders that the war is lost? If Harry Reid really was making the decisions on situations like this, I’d be looking more for ways to get everyone home alive than trying 110% to accomplish the mission. After all – the mission can’t be that important if the war’s already lost, right?
Subsunk – right on! Thanks for writing it better than I could.
B2,
There is no strategy, I just makes it up as I go along. That it annoys you in the process is just a bonus.
Although I disagree with Skippy-san, I think it is important to hear his opinion, because something like 50%+ of the American people would agree with him today. That is the political reality that we live in, and the nature of our short attention span in a wartime democracy. And that’s why Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house (just writing that is scary.)
So, yes, Skippy, if some of our prominent leadership is hedging on their commitment it is because they know that the commitment is limited by political capital in an uncertain political environment. The American people are divided, at best.
It seems to me that our task in a democracy is to do whatever we can to sway the opinions of the middle x% back toward our position through logic or better story telling. So far the “stay the course side” seems to have lost the last round. But that doesn’t mean the fight is over on this front, and we all can do our part.
Flatlander,
I think that people want this war to end some way. They don’t believe that the Iraqis will ever change, so while they don’t want to lose, they don’t have a clear vision of what victory is. Metrics based on car bombs a day?
I also think there is a war for the soul of the Democratic party. Between its very liberal faction and those would bring the party back to its roots. Pelosi is not really playing their opposition role well and its allow them to be attacked for stupid things. However its what we get because we don’t demand more informed voters.
The funding will be passed, after the fig leaf has been offered of making a political statement. There is no way the President is going to allow any bill with timetables to pass. Problem is, he already has a time table, January 20, 2009. If Iraq does not change dramatically who ever wins the election will pull the troops out. Even John Mc Cain.