John Aravosis has one of his best, pithiest, most direct posts tonight on Harry Reid:
The Bush administration did a bang-up job of silencing critics following September 11. But not now. The American people are tired of lies. They expect lies from politicians of both parties, to be sure, but they’re tired of them, and tired of the consequences. That’s why Harry Reid’s truth is so significant. He didn’t just tell the truth about Iraq, he told the truth when the conventional wisdom is that telling the truth is a political death sentence. You don’t tell the American people how bad things are in Iraq unless you hate the troops and love Osama, George Bush and Dick Cheney keep telling us. But Harry Reid did it anyway. That’s a rather big deal. And it says a lot about Senator Reid.
Senator Reid will take some heat for speaking truth in a town where truth is heresy. Whether you agree or disagree that George Bush has lost Iraq – I happen to agree – it’s incredibly significant that we finally have a leader in Washington who isn’t going to sugar coat the news, or outright lie to us. Our best hope for success in Iraq, even if success means quickly declaring victory and going home, is a leader who has the guts to tell us the truth.
Isn’t the onus on Reid’s critics to state exactly how he is wrong on the substance? Have we lost the Iraq War or have we not? The David Broders of the world have no concept of truth, since possession of the truth has little to do with the possession of power. Broder is not a truth-teller, nor a discerner of truth; nor really a journalist. He’s a figure-skating judge, judging minutely the execution of political triple-axels.
Unfortunately, we live in brutal times. The figure-skating judges may well be relevant in an era in which good faith and compromise prevail, but this has been a one-sided affair for at least fifteen years now. We are used to seeing Republicans protrayed as tough, blunt, assertive and aggressive, and Democrats as weak and seek accomodation. When Reid refuses to skate to this silly program, the judges shake their heads — How dare he?
If Reid’s remarks are an “embarrassment”, and Broder’s remarks pass for wisdom, let us hope for many more such embarrassments.
By the President’s initial definition of victory we have been successful. Iraq has no WMD’s.
<
p>
But seriously, I believe our definition of victory should be to ensure our national security and prevent a possible genocide. Both problems we created with the invasion.
Do you mean ‘get’ Harry, as in understand him, or ‘get’ Harry, as in ….um…..GET him?
They both work.
Considering progressives and the Dem leadership have not annunciated how they define victory, how can they claim “defeat”? It’s hollow, meaningless, and total out of context.
<
p>
It sounds like anti-war theology.
<
p>
Until Senate Majority Leader Reid and the Democrat party outline for the American people what their policy is — besides “get out now” — I think claiming defeat simply tags them with a defeatist patina and makes them look like anti-war pacifists.
Define victory first
<
p>
our Fearless Leader* had pretty much declared what victory was. In 2003 (or so). Remember? “Mission Accomplished”? Didn’t work so well, did it?
<
p>
*The elderly among us will know what “Fearless Leader” refers to.
watch Scott Horton at Harper’s tear him a new one.
…Let’s put it this way. Broder is a jackass to which some other jackass gave a megaphone.
<
p>
Is that succinct enough for you?