remarks made by Andy Reid

LOL! That ought to be Harry Reid. That is, unless Senator Reid is the coach of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Supporters of the war can self-righteously rant and rave about Andy Reid’s latest remarks, but one has to wonder whose view is closer to reality–Reid, who says “the war is lost” or Bush, who says we’re making “progress”, something that he has been saying for the last four years. For all the talk from war supporters as to how the troop surge is working, the number of American troops dying these last ten weeks certainly don’t support that claim.

This issue is bigger than whether the war goes down as a win, loss, or draw. Our foreign policy should be dictated by what’s in the best interest of our country’s history–not what’s going to salvage President Bush’s reputation.

We’re talking about a war that the majority of the American people and a majority of people in congress (including Republicans Representative Ron Paul-TX, Representative John Duncan-TX, Representative Walter Jones-NC, and Senator Chuck Hagel-NE) believe we never should have entered in the first place.

When George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he unamibiguously opposed nation-building and policing the world. He spoke out against such policies during his second debate with Al Gore. Yet now we find ourselves in what has become the biggest nation-building endeavor since post WWII Germany.

How many conservatives who supported Bush’s nation-building policies today, spoke out against him back when he was OPPOSED to nation-building?

Frankly, pro-war politicians and pundits have been SO WRONG, SO MANY TIMES, that it’s a wonder that they have the gumption to tear down others who offer a more sober assessment of the war.

Let’s compare what Reid said with previous remarks made by our president and vice president:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
- Vice President Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
- Vice President Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
- President George W. Bush, speaking aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.
- Vice President Dick Cheney, June 20, 2005

Between the recent remarks made by Andy Reid and those previously made by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, whose remaks, I wonder, will future historians consider to be most grounded in reality?

Of course we’re getting the crap kicked out of us in Iraq. Reid just forgot that we’re supposed to pretend otherwise until we can figure out a way to get out of the war without looking like we got the crap kicked out of us.

It is probably a Freudian thing with Bush. His Dad always had issues with “that vision thing” as he called it. Thus, Bush had lots of visions…perhaps they were flashbacks to his druggy days…but lots of visions for sure.

You magnificiently take the Goodwin Law to new heights. I seem to recall the MSM went after Clinton and that devil of a “Blue dress�. With the Dimicrats in some power, the press should go after them and not kiss ass at Texas barbeques.

While I dispute the Godwin reference, thank you for comment on my magnificence.

The MSM invariably tacks liberal in elections, but once Democrats are in power they are free game for liberal media attack…as the Clinton affair demonstrated. Dowd of the NYT demonstrated this perfectly…rhapsodizing at the Clinton inauguration…and within a couple of years, regularly gutting and mocking him in her column.

Perhaps it is because liberals have been out of power so long that they have become so thin-skinned?

Ah, Comrade Rudi, but it was Soros who made the “Nazi” reference…there was simply no other way to reference Soros comment and the debate for readers’ identification other than to reference it.

Please note how this is indicated by my highlighting “Nazi” in quotation marks in my comment above.

Moreover, I did not apply “Nazi” in a perjorative manner in any regard. It was an incidental identification reference.

Thus, I do not think Godwin’s Law can be invoked here.

That’s why there are neocons. Lack of vision. They cannot envision what is going on, (such as in Iraq), so they believe what they want to believe rather than what is really happening. That leads them in divergent directions than those with vision.

This is similar to the debate here over Soros’ “Nazi” reference. Recall how the Left backed Soros to the hilt…saying there was absolutely nothing wrong in the comment by their leading bankroller, that he was simply being misinterpreted…until Soros himself conceded it was a dumb thing to say.

You also seem to be engaging in “working the refs” as I have heard it called…hammering the MSM who go off the liberal reservation.

How dare anyone in the MSM criticize a Democrat! In effect, that is what you are saying.

Like Soros, Reid should have chosen better language. His words resonated across the Middle Eastern media…like anyone with a brain knew they would. This gives comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Reid, like Soros, went for dramatic language. It was a dumb mistake.

As for Reid apologizing, he has had to do that a number of times in his career as Democratic leader. He called Bush a “loser”, and apologized. He accused 33 GOP Senators of unethical practices, and apologized.

Broder is referring to Reid’s consistent and calculated pushing the envelope in his partisan language. Consider, for example, the quote below:

Reid: “Having Senator Santorum talk about reform is like having John Gotti talk about doing something about organized crime.”
Santorum is the son of an Italian immigrant.
Senator Reid replied that he may have gone too far in his comments, but he did not apologize.

Reid knew precisely what he was doing here. When Italian American groups protested, he conceded he may have gone “too far” but did not apologize.

Yes, Reid did not apologize (in the last four months). However, he has repeatedly apologized while Senate Minority Leader. He has often “gone too far” by his own admission, but refused to apologize knowing it would have political repercussions.

Michael, on this basis I conclude your attack on Broder for being a “liar” in regard to Reid and his apologizing is purely partisan pushback.

As with Pelosi’s disastrous ME outing, or with Soros, the Democratic leadership and its allies must be protected from all criticism.