I agree completely. I believe Harry Reid is trying to use the war to maximize political troubles for the administration, which is despicable. Should we lose, it won’t just be a loss for the Bush White House.
If a Democrat like Carl Levin were running the show, even with a difference of opinion to contend with, this sort of conduct would not be happening. Senator Levin, it must be pointed out, was the only Democratic senator to attend the teleconference with General Petraeus last month.
Just as Broder said, the Democrats and our country deserve better than Harry Reid.
Is that what you want to debate-- that last sentence? (I left off the despicable part since if that statement is true, then it’s clearly despicable.)
As I said in the other thread, I think what Reid said was stupid, but I’ m willing to cut him some slack and accept Schumer’s explanation of what he meant. The whole Iraq situation is much more complicated than something that can be described as “won” or “lost”. There were several different objectives, some of which were achieved, some of which weren’t and some of which remain ongoing-- removal of Saddam, WMDs, bringing Democracy to Iraq, making sure Iraq is not a threat to the US. If anyone thinks we’ve “lost” that last objective, then we’d better keep our military there until we’ve turned that around and “won”.
In my opinion, we have gotten such a constant flow of exaggerations and out-and-out falsehoods from the administration, that it is refreshing to at least hear someone in some position of authority call their bullshit in plain words. I am more than willing to forgive what I consider realtively minor overstatement in doing so.
In my opinion the war was unnecessary, we were never provided a good reason for initiating it, it embarrasses me that my country initiated an aggressive war, we could ill afford the cost in fortune, blood, and national honor, and given the lack of clear objectives or an identifiable enemy, it was doomed to be unsuccessful before it was begun. Since I believe that, I am not troubled by someone observing that such a cock-up is already “lost.”
My only complaints - if I had any - would concern any after-the-fact attempts to ameliorate the interpretation of Reid’s plain speech.
Yes, it would have been better if more people had chosen to call the war-mongerers bloodthirsty liars 4 years ago, but just because they did not comment on the king’s nakedness at that time, I’m not going to agree that they should forever remain silent.
Yes, Reid could have been clearer but what I heard him say was that if we continue the present Bush course the war is lost.
Does Broder’s article make Bush’s course OK then.? The questions about the war aren’t about Harry Reid. Reid’s statement was bad only because it gave apologists something to divert attention from the fact that the three-part surge is not functioning on all parts. The Iraqis show no signs of getting together politically to form a government that all can accept. The Iraqi security forces are still pretty ineffective. The killing goes on.
Broder seems to be angry because he thinks Reid is ineffective and not because he is wrong.
On the one hand, we have Alberto “Fredo” Gonzales, a hopeless hack and incompetent who, by his own account, left the running of the Department of Justice to a kiddie corps of mostly inexperienced but extremely political thirtysomethings, who proceeded to politicize American justice.
And on the other hand, we have Harry Reid, who seems to have been doing a pretty good job of running the Senate this year, but apparently is a wee tad too honest and straightforward for Broder’s virgin ears.
Broder equates the two. ROFL!
The only questions this column (along with dozens of its predecessors) raises is, “Has Broder gone completely senile?” and “Why hasn’t the WaPo put him out of his misery yet?”
Linking Reid and Gonzales like Broder attempts to do is sheer hackery. The response to Reid’s statement about the Iraq war, by both Broder and the OP, is nothing more than hardened partisanship.
I am grateful for it. The more that Broder pushes this kind of thing and Mr. Moto supports him for it and promotes his “work,” the higher Reid’s (and Pelosi’s and the Democrats’) approval ratings go. America thinks the war cannot be won, and that Bush’s strategy is a failure. Broder helps, inadvertently, to frame the issue in a very clear us-versus-them manner. Most people are electing to go with “them” in that equation.
Broder’s hyper-hackery also makes the media’s fellatio of the past 7 years even more evident, opening more and more people’s eyes to just how partisan and unquestioning the media has been.
So, I hope that Broder and Mr. Moto continue their high level hardened partisan hackery. Thelma and Louise, baby.
Oh, we are so doomed! Doomed! When the Dean of Washington columnists, who has his finger on the very pulse of the nation compares the incompetence of a Senate leader to the incompetence of a Bushivik…that’s getting pretty bad. That’s like saying someone is as good a ballet dancer as Steve Hawkings, or is as sexy as Carrot Top. With Bush’s approval ratings soaring up to 33% (before a minor setback down to around 28%), the Pubbies are set for a massive, roaring comeback.
If they have the good sense to follow my proferred advice, and make Newt Gingrich their Maximum Leader and standard bearer, who knows what further miracles await?
I guess Broder had to find SOMETHING to write about to change the subject from the corruption of our Justice system, and Moto had to post SOMETHING to avoid talking about it.
Other than that, just another substance less political rhetoric. Trying to compare Gonzales to Reid is just another exercise in the lazy “I have writer’s block!” columnist bag of tricks of phony and lazy equivalences. In fact, the column has almost nothing more than that: there’s virtually no argument there. The “evisceration” involves Broder calling Reid a couple of names. oooooo!
The military avenue IS lost. It is pointless. It’s not accomplishing anything, and cannot. We are dragging out an occupation that has no end and no particular goals.
Saying this out loud is not corrupt or incompetent.
Seems pretty simple to me. If the war isn’t lost, then it’s won, or at least winnable. It’s strange to me that the Republicans want to say it’s winnable, but don’t actually know how to do it, beyond hoping that a miracle sort of occurs. And honestly, if your war planning involves hoping for a miracle, then I think Harry Reid is the least of your problems.
I think you guys just might be overstating Mr. Broder’s point, (as may Mr. Moto). What I got from the article was that Broder is upset that we have two persons in sensitive positions in government who–whatever good or bad things they have done–on the issue of clear communication in a crucial role are incompetent.
Broder did not address the many odd efforts of Gonzalez rationalizing torture or ignoring the Geneva and Hague conventions or diverting resources from the War of Terror to the War on Pornography. Broder did not evaluate Reid’s performance in support for or opposition to various legislative initiatives. In his comparison of the two gentlemen, he limited himself to the single fact that neither one seems capable of actually making a coherent statement and then standing behind it.
He then noted that in the particular situation in which Congress and the President are in direct conflict on an issue of extreme importance to the nation, it is unfortunate that one side will be coming to the discussion bringing a habit of unclear speech. Bush may lie, (and may even be a fumble tongue in public address), but one is pretty much assured knowing where he stands on an issue. How does Congress carry on discussions leading to compromise–a necessary outcome–if the president cannot be sure what Reid’s specific position may be?
(The idea that Broder is a partisan hack is simply ludicrous. He is not omniscient or even always right, but he does not play politics with his “voice” in the media.)
Is this really tomndebb posting? If so, is this a whoosh?
Reid “cannot make a coherent statement and then stand behind it”? Bullshit.
One does not know where Reid stands on the issues? Then one simply is not up on current issues or current politics. I would say that most people with a rudimentary knowledge of what is going on will know what Reid’s position is on a given issue.
And Broder does not play politics? Oh my God, this must be an exceptionally subtle joke.
I think that’s a good summary of Broder’s point, but it’s still not a very good point.
Reid was making an off-the-cuff comment, and the Pubbies blew it all out of proportion. Congress is sending a bill to Bush, and that will stake out their position. The biggest roadblock to reaching a compromise will be Bush’s unwillingness to do so.
Is Reid playing politics with the war? Yes, no, probably, who knows? These guys are all politicians, so of course they are going to “play politics”. And given the way this administration has politicized it’s so-called “War on Terror”, maybe the Democrats have no other choice if they want to be heard above the din.
And while I still maintain that what Reid said was stupid, I’m much more interested in what the Democrats actually do than what any one of the says extemporaneously. They have a very difficult task ahead of them if they really want to end this war and bring the troops home (which I’m not sure they really want to do, at least not completely).