Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Reid vs. Broder (Harry wins, again)

By

So, tomorrow David Broder’s going to tell us that Harry Reid is so totally lame. Just as bad as Gonzales, in spite of the fact he hasn’t trashed 900 years of legal precedent or legalized torture yet.

No, it’s for Reid saying the war was lost. And now 55% of the American public say that victory in Iraq is no longer possible.

Let’s take this really slow, because I don’t want there to be any mistake: If victory “is not possible”, I think that folks are saying it’s lost. Am I wrong about that?

UPDATE: Broder’s column is out, and it is indeed an absolutely massive belly-flop. Here’s a taste:

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Really? Conflicting signals about readiness to negotiate? Here’s Reid, a few days ago (my emphasis):

The president has dug in his heels in this fight, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Only through accommodation, on both sides, and some degree of compromise, can we make progress.

We are anxious to have that conversation, but so far the President is not. Democrats are reaching out to Republicans in Congress in hopes of bipartisan cooperation.

Only the President is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party.

We don’t have meetings with the President – not real, substantive meetings. He holds carefully scripted sessions where he repeats his talking points.

Yes, he is our President, but we are the people’s representatives. We will meet with him any time he calls upon us to discuss war policy.

But he owes it to us to listen as we represent the American people.

Our timetable is fair and reasonable. We have put our plan on the table. If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative.

If he believes more time is needed, let him tell us why. If he has new benchmarks to finally hold Iraqis accountable, let him propose them. He says repeatedly that we cannot leave until we have achieved victory. Let him define victory.

Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve.

Yeah, sounds real stubborn and unreasonable, that Reid. I would have thought Broder would love that kind of talk. But Broder isn’t even paying attention anymore. How pathetic.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. in either case, it’s certainly not “mission accomplished”, unless the mission was to promote regional chaos and enrich Darth & Dubya’s little fiends friends.

  3. Any polls’ credibility for that matter. 

    <

    p>
    Who cares about Harry Reid? NO ONE

    <

    p>
    We care about the generals on the ground.

    <

    p>
    When they say the war is lost – I’ll believe it

    <

    p>
    And not a poll – when the majority of generals say its over – ok

  4. Any polls’ credibility for that matter. 

    <

    p>
    Who cares about Harry Reid? NO ONE

    <

    p>
    We care about the generals on the ground.

    <

    p>
    When they say the war is lost – I’ll believe it

    <

    p>
    And not a poll – when the majority of generals say its over – ok

    • The point is that the US military is supposedly controlled by the pResident–the Commander in Chief, remember?  Not the generals, corporals, or whatever.  The pResident.

      <

      p>
      The question is, what is the criterion that the Commander in Chief is supposed to use to determine whather victory has been achieved in Iraq?  As far as I can tell, that criterion has never been made clear, and seems to change from day to day, if not from hour to hour.  The Comedian in Chief’s celebration of “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 was obviously premature.

    • You say that “when the generals say that the war is lost” you’ll believe it.  Of course, anytime a general indicates they’ve accepted that reality, they’re replaced immediately.  Nice circular reasoning you got for yourself.

  5. We don’t have meetings with the President – not real, substantive meetings. He holds carefully scripted sessions where he repeats his talking points.    Harry – have you ever paused to consider how YOU sound to HIM?

    <

    p>
    Yes, he is our President, but we are the people’s representatives. We will meet with him any time he calls upon us to discuss war policy. Is Speaker Pelosi on board with her duty as the ‘people’s representative as well?

    <

    p>
    Or is that a Royal ‘We’ you’re using, Harry?

    <

    p>
    Ironically, Reid’s position hangs on the health of a SINGLE injured Senator.  The President has repeatedly said that the 06 election means that compromise must be made; Harry regards it as his annunciation.  The fact remains that the NATION is still divided 49/49 – and Harry has staked out the most extreme position possible.

    <

    p>
    And telling our enemies we have lost is sedition, at the very least, until the GENERALS report.

    • If telling our enemies “the war is lost” is sedition, then what would Porcupine call lying to the American people about WMDs, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, and Saddam’s link to Al Qaida, outing a covert spy, all resulting in an unwinnable war that has created a new terrorist breading ground, the death of 3,300 soldiers (and maiming of thousands of others and destroying thousands of families), strengthening Iran’s position in the Middle East?

      <

      p>
      Patriotism?

      • You would call it concern

        <

        p>
        You would call it standing up to a dictator

        <

        p>
        You would call it OFFENSE

        <

        p>

          • We’re getting ready for the bigger war, don’t you understand?

            <

            p>
            We had Mussolini in Iraq

            <

            p>
            We had the Japanese Emperor in Libya

            <

            p>
            We had the fascists in Afghanistan

            <

            p>
            and now we have Hitler in Iran

            <

            p>
            HOW CAN YOU LIBS BE SO BLIND?????????

            <

            p>
            All of this hatred of Bush is because the country has turned conservative.

            <

            p>
            The victory last election was carried by CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS

            <

            p>
            You have hated Bush since he won the election in 2000
            You have hated republicans since they took over in 1992
            You have done everything in your power to hurt America
            You have lost

        • But the Dems have come around to reality. We all know now that the so-called evidence was fraudulent.  Republicans know it, too.

          <

          p>
          It was the administration who sold the war. It is the administration who executed the war. The neocons (including Rumsfeld, Perele, Armitige, Bolton, Feith, Wolfowitz) decided in the 90s,, well befor 9/11 to wage war against Saddam.  Why did the administration and it’s henchmen start talking confidently about Iraq’s Al Qaeada connection only days after 9/11? We know now that Saddam chasing nukes was too ludicrous of an idea that the only reasonable explaination is that Cheney and Bush were lying. Same with Iraq meeting Atta in prague. We know the decsision was made to get Saddam and then the “evidence” was conveniently found to support it.

          <

          p>
          Keep playing the “Hillary voted for it, too” card. She’s not for it now. I don’t care how complicit Hillary or Kerry was in the whole fiasco; they were singular voices in a 535 person Republican controlled body. They are not in charge of the state department, the CIA, the vice president’s office, the AG’s office, the millitary, etc.  They now stand up and call Iraqu the mistake that it is. It’s sad so few republicans have the courage to be so honest.

          <

          p>
          Your position has proven to be a bankrupt, tired, and discresited. We have the facts on our side and history will show what a grave, massive fraud has been purpotrated on the American people by its government. We have the scholarship and journalism to back up our position. What do you have besides a failed surge, 3,300 dead and dreadful approval ratings? 

        • Remind me again who lied PAT TILLMAN and JESSICA LYNCH? Was that Hillary’s fault, too? Was that yet another “honest mistake” by the administration or does it  dd evidence to an overlying pathology of deciet and manipulation by Bush & Co? Why isn’t the Porcupine blog up in arms about this skulldugery? This truth certainly does sting.

          <

          p>
          “SUPPORT THE TROOPS”!

          <

          p>

          <

          p>
          How much fraud and deciet will republicans tolerate?

            • You did not mention Hillary Clinton.  If I mischaracterized your arguments in that sense, I apologize.

              <

              p>
              However, the common theme among Republicans (not just here) is the “Hillary agreed with the [manipulated] intelligence, so she’s just as guilty.”  It is not unreasonable to  think that you were insinuating a connection to Hillary, Kerry, and Reid with your comment. 

        • …Saddam had WMD, since he had already used them once, and believed he had more….

          <

          p>
          …the USofA used what are referred to as “Weapons of Mass Destruction” at least twice (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), at the end of WWII, and used more “weapons of mass destruction” (napalm, etc) in Vietnam.  And, the USofA probably has more weapons of mass destruction than any country or terrorist operation in the world.  Apparently, to conservatives, that is OK, since they are our weapons of mass destruction, and not theirs.

          <

          p>
          BTW, Ms. Porcupine, I will remind you of two things, which you will obviously ignore, given your wont.  The first thing is that the precursors of Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” in the 1980s came from the USofA, courtesy the Reagan administration.  And the second thing is that, despite the fact that Republicans continue to harp on the fact that “Saddam killed his own people” in 1988, the Reagan administration originally attempted to blame the gassings in rebellious Kurdish villages (shades of Gone With the Wind) on the Iranians, and only changed their tune after they were embarrassed into doing so by the Democrats in Congress.  I’m sorry, Ms. Porcupine but to me Republican apoligia fall on ears that are not deaf, but are not willing to entertain the apologia.

    • The Democratic party won control over both the House and the Senate in a single election, they also took over with the majority of the governorships.  In the house there was a 61 seat swing and in the senate an 11 seat swing for the Democratic party.  This is an across the board sweep, to trivialize it and a single senate vote make absolutely no sense and openly mocks what the people of the United States voted for in 2006.  Here’s a good take of what’s going on for Krugman:

      <

      p>

      There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders – the troops – if his demands aren’t met.

  6. First, “If victory “is not possible”, I think that folks are saying it’s lost. Am I wrong about that?” There are other conceivable alternatives: stalemate, compromise, a change in some basic parameter, for example new allies, are just a few.

    <

    p>
    Second, “an absolute belly flop.” I actually thought the part of the column about Gonzales was right on target. Broder is also right that Schumer’s parsing of Reid’s comment is incoherent, in my opinion.

    <

    p>
    Third, criticism of Reid. I think the problem with Broder’s criticism of Reid is that it basically is not constructive. Instead of attacking his rhetoric, he should offer a suggestion for how to solve the problem, which is that our occupation of Iraq is turning into a fiasco. The strongest part of the Democrats’ position right now is that — finally! — they have one: troops out starting 1 October. The question is: what is the Republican strategy?

    • this bush administraction can’t win this.  They have demonstrated time and time again how they can’t

      <

      p>
      I’m not sure anyone could put this genie back in the bottle, but I suspect that if it were possible it would take about 500,000 troops, a draft, a repeal of huge amount of tax cuts.

      <

      p>
      If Shinsekie (sp?) said it’d take 350,000 back when you had a chance to secure sensitive munitions sites and set a precedent of order, it may take twice that many to reclaim order.

      <

      p>
      Architects often keep a design for their own `if I was tasked to design the worlds tallest building this is what it would look like’ somewhere in there office or in a bottom drawer.  I’d be willing to bet that there are similar estimates by military planners out their on how they would go about wining this thing.  What do you think their plans probably say it would take?  Of course there is this whole other political component that is a helluva lot more complicated now than when we invaded.

  7. It’s been umpteen hours since I posted the question to Mr. Jamieson

    <

    p>
    The question is, what is the criterion that the Commander in Chief is supposed to use to determine whather victory has been achieved in Iraq?

    <

    p>
    He has refused to answer, despite having had numerous opportunities to do so and despite his having posted numerous comments of blather.  Apparently he has no answer the seminal question (posted above).

    <

    p>
    Until that seminal question is answered, all the rest of this clap-trap is irrelevant.

    <

    p>
    Feel free to continue to blather on.

  8. I do not pretend to know the answers. Unlike you liberal armchair warriors who seem to know EVERYTHING about warfare and strategy.

    <

    p>
    I trust the government

    <

    p>
    again, try saying those words first then take a deep breath.

    <

    p>
    Our cause is noble in the Middle East. We aim to bring peace and stability to the region. I have always thought it would take at least 10 years to get a handle on the most volatile area in the world. It may take more.
    The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely a prelude to the major showdown coming with Iran and Syria.

    <

    p>
    They are part of a greater War on Terror.

    <

    p>
    You either believe that or you don’t.

    <

    p>
    Here are some things you won’t or don’t want to hear;

    <

    p>
    Afghan Government Helps Save Boy’s Life

    <

    p>
    QALAT, Afghanistan, April 26, 2007 – A potentially fatal incident happened 40 miles north of Forward Operating Base Laghman here, April 20, 2007, when three young Afghan boys were playing with an unexploded mine they found just outside their neighborhood. Story

    <

    p>
    Managing the Puzzle Pieces in the Horn of Africa

    <

    p>
    CAMP LEMONIER, Djibouti, April 26, 2007 – In the Horn of Africa, mission travel begins with a passenger request and a dream to see a part of Africa that isn’t Djibouti. Story

    <

    p>
    Army Mobility Depends on Security Platoons

    <

    p>
    CAMP VICTORY, Iraq, April 26, 2007 – Instant mobility gives commanders what they need to be successful in the fast-paced Global War on Terrorism. And that’s exactly what the Iraq Assistance Group’s Personal Security Platoon provides. Story

    <

    p>
    IN IRAQ   Seabees Build Command Outpost in Al Anbar    Marines Command, Control Skies Over Iraq   Troops Deliver Supplies to Pediatric Hospital   Iraqis Benefit from Army Engineers’ Mission   Civil Affairs Soldiers Near End of Deployment   Airmen Provide First Class Postal Service   Shadow Heroes Behind Curtain Making it Work   Military Transition Teams Help Train Iraqi Forces

    <

    p>
    IN DJIBOUTI    Army National Guard Unit Saves Lives in Africa
    IN AFGHANISTAN    Military, UN Group Meet to Discuss Afghan Issues   Conn. Guard Soldiers Reflect on Deployment   Coalition Forces Train Afghan National Police   Turkey Partners with U.S. in War on Terrorism

    <

    p>
    and on and on and on and on and on

    <

    p>
    you can find more good news here;

    <

    p>
    http://goodnewsiraq….

    <

    p>

    • …I do not pretend to know the answers. Unlike you liberal armchair warriors who seem to know EVERYTHING about warfare and strategy.

      <

      p>
      You do not pretend to know the answers, because you do not even pretend to know the questions that are to be asked.  I’m quite serious about that, and I’m not even a liberal.

      <

      p>
      Europeans and their successors–Americans–have been running around the middle east pretending to manage things there, and the middle Easterners have been telling you that they don’t want to be managed by outsiders.  I don’t know to put it more succinctly, but it’s the truth.  It’s as if the Argentinians sought to manage the US.  Would the USians want to put up with that?  Hardly likely.  The USians got rid of the British, as did the Irish–most of them did, at least.

  9. The very phrase strikes me thusly.  In the movie series The Matrix Mr Anderson lived in a virtual world.  His thoughts, feelings and actions fed to him controlled by a central computer.  His life was not his own.  55% say that the war cannot be won.  That means 45% a whopping number still live in Neo’s pod.  Propaganda works, admit it otherwise 100% would be storming Washington armed with pitchforks if need be.

Archives