Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Reid - the war in Iraq "is lost"
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, April 19, 2007

Pretty predictable:
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.
Well then grow a pair and defund it Harry, instead of playing silly games with pork and deadlines. Put up or shut up.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
A new spin on the old Lennon thing: War is lost, if you want it.

Which is really the only way to "end" war if you are a leftist. Someone has to lose a lot.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://
Since they gained control of Congress the Democratic party has been acting as though they are a second American Government. The seem to be more interested in sliming Bush and the Republicans, than doing what is best for the country. Harry Reid joins Nancy Pelosi in the running for the Neville Chamberlain Peace Prize.

 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
I have said it time and again and again.

The actual, factual success or (failure)of the surge was going to be irrelevant. We were simply going to be told it was failing/was a failure and that would be that.

And here it is, happening almost exactly as I predicted.

Thank goodness though Bush is the only one in govt. with a set, and is in charge.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Thank goodness though Bush is the only one in govt. with a set, and is in charge.
Bush may be in charge but he has huevos the size of BB’s. Bernard Goldberg has a new book “Crazies to the left of me, wimps too the right” which is an accurate description of the present political situation. Bush need to show outrage at the actions of the new Democratic Congress. Their actions are truly outrageous.

In their zeal to get Bush and the Republicans, Reid, Pelosi et all are doing tremendous damage to our country. Pelosi’s trip to Syria and Reids ‘Surrender’ are giving aid and comfort to our enemies. They should be called on it.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Bush may be in charge but he has huevos the size of BB’s. Bernard Goldberg has a new book “Crazies to the left of me, wimps too the right” which is an accurate description of the present political situation. Bush need to show outrage at the actions of the new Democratic Congress. Their actions are truly outrageous.
Disagree about Bush. His main problem is he doesn’t communicate and defend his position very weel (if at all) but he’s not capitulating to them either. I guess at this point he prefers (or just only has enough energy) to hold the line rather than attack.

But either, he’s doing it his way for the most part, which is magnitudes better than the finger in the wind legions of profiles in courage on the hill
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Harry Reid is a traiterous turd. May the Democrat party pay a price for their acts.
 
Written By: Geo
URL: http://
Well then grow a pair and defund it Harry, instead of playing silly games with pork and deadlines.

Considering the extent to which you flame on about the *delay* of a funding bill due to an historically typical spring recess, it’s kind of hard to believe you’re advocating this in good faith, isn’t it?

The leftosphere calls this "concern trolling". But I’d settle for asking, what, exactly, is the difference between "defunding" a war, and refusing to pass a bill that funds the war - the exact same thing as the temporary pause right now, extended indefinitely?

So why are you egging Reid on to do something you villify?

Maybe because you’d like to obscure other ways for Congress to forcibly end the war, besides something that can be manipulated to conjure up images of soldiers firing the last clips of ammo out of their guns before being overrun?

Well, unfortunately, the Dems are going to pass funding legislation, and Bush is going to veto it.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
At some point you have to ‘Fish’ or cut bait. That time has come for the Democratic Party. They control Congress, they should decide to end the war, or shut up and give it full support. Every day they pussyfoot around the issue, people die and our adversaries gain hope. Take an Up or Down Vote. Fight or Get out. Then do what the vote indicated. No Politics, no if, ands or buts. Do it.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Well, unfortunately, the Dems are going to pass funding legislation, and Bush is going to veto it.
Are you claiming in good faith that the delay is not due to politics?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Considering the extent to which you flame on about the *delay* of a funding bill due to an historically typical spring recess, it’s kind of hard to believe you’re advocating this in good faith, isn’t it?
I can’t believe you’re this dense, glasnost. McQ doesn’t want the war defunded, he wants the Democrats to put their money where their collective mouth is.

In other words, pass a bill with one issue: defunding the war. The Dems don’t have the guts to do it; they’d rather pass a bill which sort of funds the war and adds billions of dollars in unnecessary spending — money that has absolutely nothing to do with the war. And the reason they’re doing that is so that they can make political hay when Bush vetoes it.

Let’s not pretend the Dems are acting in good faith.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Well then grow a pair and defund it Harry, instead of playing silly games with pork and deadlines. Put up or shut up.
Yes, though defund it in a way that allows an orderly withdrawal to try to maximize the ability of Iraqis to avoid chaos. But the writing has been on the wall for a long time. Given American disapproval for the war, the fact that this weakens us in confronting more serious threats, and takes attention away from true counter-terrorism, it’s time to defund the thing. We’re being bled, and Osama is laughing. Meanwhile the last few days have been some of the bloodiest in Iraq, including in Baghdad, showing the limits of the surge.

It is indeed time to recognize that it’s time to leave, and if the President is too stubborn to admit his policy failed, than it is the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to do so. If they don’t choose to defund (again, in a way that allows an orderly withdrawal), then they are complicit in whatever goes wrong, and can’t simply blame the President or the GOP.

There is a lot of emotion in this issue, but I really want to appeal to those of you who have supported the war to rethink your position given the realities on the ground, the division in American society, and how overstretched our military and our budget have become in a war that is not primary in stopping terrorism. I recognize (and most people do) that the war was not some kind of evil choice, that Iraq was invaded with good intentions of trying to establish a democracy, help the people, and stop an evil dictator (and in the last point, we succeeded). It takes courage to say "you know, I’ve been wrong — this isn’t something we can pull off, it’s better to leave and reconsider our strategy in combating terrorism and Islamic extremism." It’s been four years. Iraq is divided, and the kind of ethnic anger we see doesn’t go away with a few laws passed or an agreement by political parties. The promises of a stronger Iraqi military and police have been stated for years, claims of progress have been constant. Please, reconsider — is this in the best interests of the US? Put aside the emotion, or the fact that this might be read by the Harry Rieds and Sean Penns of the world as an admission of defeat. The strongest and most courgeous people are those who are able to admit they were wrong and not worry about the reaction of others. At least, please, reconsider. The stakes are high.

We won the war in 2003. Do you really think we’re capable of creating a stable, democratic Iraq, or ending the ethnic hatreds there? Is it in our interest to try? I’ll reconsider my position too, but the evidence at this point seems to suggest we made a mistake, if not by invading, at least by trying to shape the peace.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Penn and Reid, strong? Courageous?

Uh-huh.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Considering the extent to which you flame on about the *delay* of a funding bill due to an historically typical spring recess, it’s kind of hard to believe you’re advocating this in good faith, isn’t it?
Congress has been back in session since Monday.

What have they done to move the funding bill to the Presidents desk?

The House finally moved their bill to conference and appointed conferees, last night.

It will take more time for them to agree on the way forward on a bill, which if it includes a deadline, will be vetoed.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
Maybe if someone offers ol’ Harry a deal on some land outside of Baghdad...
 
Written By: Firehand
URL: http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com
due to an historically typical spring recess
There’s no recess in war. I guess Reid isn’t concerned about any soldiers who die while he’s on vacation.

If the war is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad it has to be ended immediately, then get on it. How bad can it be if Reid can go on vacation w/o any qualms?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The surge plan should have been done a few years ago.

I’m embarrassed because I assumed we’d have been doing counter-insurgency warfare ala "The Village" from say Day 100 if not Day 1, but it looks like we needed to wait until 2006 to do to right.

Uhhh, that won’t work with the international media and a "loyal" opposition.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
We’re being bled, and Osama is laughing.
We are also being bled on our nation’s highways to the tune of about 3,000 fatalities a month. What Osama is laughing about is how little it takes to make the American people to cut and run. There are some very good reasons for trying to make the surge work...namely keeping Iraq from turning into another Iran. If we pull out of there with our tails tucked then our reputation in the region will be down the toilet and every two bit tyrant and Islamic militant will be challenging us. After Iraq, the next step for the Jihadies will be restoking the coals in Bosnia...figuring we won’t have the stomach for another fight.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
We won the war in 2003. Do you really think we’re capable of creating a stable, democratic Iraq, or ending the ethnic hatreds there? Is it in our interest to try? I’ll reconsider my position too, but the evidence at this point seems to suggest we made a mistake, if not by invading, at least by trying to shape the peace.
This could well be the case. It’s time for the Democratic controlled Congress to ”poop or get off the pot.” As they pussyfoot around looking for political advantage, people are dying, and our enemies are gaining hope. Put it up to a up or down vote. Do we stay or Do we Go. Vote on it, then take the course indicated by the vote. No Political Games, make up your minds, then DO IT.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Of course, the real problem is that the Democrats are in no more "control" of Congress then the Republicans were in "control" of Congress.

They hold a bare majority. So, they have to compromise if they want a filibuster and veto proof vote.

But, they can’t compromise, because then they loose the support of the most vocal of their base.

So, instead, they are wasting time, trying to run the clock out on their responsibility. They’ll dither over the conference to get a bill to the Presidents desk. Which he’ll veto if it includes a set number of things.

Then they’ll dither trying to write another bill, load it up with pork, and see how that one does.

All the while saying, the President isn’t compromising with us. Which really means "he isn’t bending over and accepting what we have to give him."
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
Ummm, Bob, turning Iraq into another Iran is what happens if the surge succeeds. The government of Iraq that we are now fighting to defend is Iran-lite. What we’re trying to prevent is another Lebanon.


And as for the putting up or shuting up question, why is sending Bush a bill that defunds the war after a year, one that says you’ve got a year to see what good can be done and get the troops safely home, not putting up?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Lieberman smacks Reid

And then we give you this:
Friday, after Lieberman made his remarks, Reid struck again.
"The longer we continue down the President’s path," the majority leader told colleagues in a Senate floor speech, "the further we will be from success."

He also pointed out that Democrats generally agree with him.

"In an effort to shift attention from this Administration’s failed polities – and I say that in the plural – the President and his allies have repeatedly questioned whether I and my fellow Democrats support our troops," the majority leader told fellow senators. "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We’ve proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war."
Seriously, when he decides to retire from politics he’ll have an amazing carreer as a comedian...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
We are also being bled on our nation’s highways to the tune of about 3,000 fatalities a month. What Osama is laughing about is how little it takes to make the American people to cut and run.
Osama doesn’t want us to cut and run from Iraq. Our being in Iraq was a gift to him, the most valuable present he could have been given after the defeat of the Taliban. American had destroyed the Taliban easily, and it retreated, battered to Pakistan. Instead of consolidating that and assuring Afghanistan would succeed, the US shifted to Iraq and overthrew a secular leader hated by al qaeda. Then the US got sucked into a war costing hundreds of billions, gaining nothing for the US (success now gets defined as getting out without Iraq falling into chaos!), dividing a once united country, and enraging Shi’ite-Sunni ethnic differences.

Meanwhile, the Taliban regroups, and Americas resources are diverted to a war having little to do with terrorism. To assure that the US stays involved and keeps getting bled, Osama sends some al qaeda groups to Iraq to prod and poke. Meanwhile, the next attack is being planned...remember, Osama isn’t that concerned about killing Americans, he wants to bring down our economy. The next attack, I predict, will involve oil and create a new oil crisis. We may still even be bogged down in Iraq, and unable to do much in retaliation.

Why do you think some of us are so against the war? Do you really think its because we think you can just negotiate with terrorists, or that we hate America so much we want failure so our children can live in a country with less security and prosperity? I am against this war in large part because I think it harms our national interest, makes us less secure, and is serving the interests of the enemy!

Osama’s 3000 killed (really it was the spectacle more than the death that got the reaction) was a strategic success. It didn’t have to be; in November 2001 it looked like he vastly miscalculated as the world and the US united, and the Taliban fell. Then Osama was saved as the US diverted its attention to Iraq with the belief that democratizing the Mideast would undercut terrorism. He must see Iraq as proof that Allah is on his side.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
There’s no recess in war. I guess Reid isn’t concerned about any soldiers who die while he’s on vacation.

If the war is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad it has to be ended immediately, then get on it. How bad can it be if Reid can go on vacation w/o any qualms?
As they pussyfoot around looking for political advantage, people are dying, and our enemies are gaining hope.
They are NOT dying because of the Dems time off.............
They are dying because of failed policy that has not as of yet been interupted.

So busy fixing blame that you can’t be stopped by facts


 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
Osama doesn’t want us to cut and run from Iraq.
Of course he does. Osama gained a lot of respect in the Arab world for his part in kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan back in the 80’s. Osama’s victory over a Super Power did wonders for Arab pride which was still smarting after failing to defeat Israel. If al-Qaeda is successful in sending a second Super Power home it will again be a huge victory for Osama and the jihadies. Sure Iraq is a handy place to train his militants but this training can be had in other places like Chechnya or Bosnia. Osama would be quite happy to see us packing up and furthering his dream of a revived caliphate.
American had destroyed the Taliban easily, and it retreated, battered to Pakistan.
They may have been battered but they weren’t destroyed. They just rejoined their kin on the Pakistan side of the border. The Taliban arose from the Pashtun people whose ancestral territory bounds both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border and that’s why they can cross the border so easily. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is another one of those artificial boundaries created by the British with little thought for the people living there.
Then the US got sucked into a war costing hundreds of billions, gaining nothing for the US (success now gets defined as getting out without Iraq falling into chaos!), dividing a once united country, and enraging Shi’ite-Sunni ethnic differences.
They weren’t anymore united than Tito’s Yugoslavia. As soon as Tito was gone so was the "unity." It’s the same thing in Iraq. Oh yea…and Iraq is another British creation.
Meanwhile, the next attack is being planned...remember, Osama isn’t that concerned about killing Americans, he wants to bring down our economy. The next attack, I predict, will involve oil and create a new oil crisis. We may still even be bogged down in Iraq, and unable to do much in retaliation.
This is hilarious. All of Al-Qaeda’s successes occurred on Clinton’s watch. Even 9/11 was planned on Clinton’s watch and if Bush hadn’t been selected by the Supreme Court that incident would have fallen on Gore’s watch. Al-Qaeda hasn’t been able to pull off any spectacular successes against us since Bush took the fight to them.
Do you really think its because we think you can just negotiate with terrorists, or that we hate America so much we want failure so our children can live in a country with less security and prosperity?
I don’t think Democrats want harm to befall this country. I do think they greatly under estimate the harm that will befall us if we pull out of Iraq before they form a stable government. You’re side has basically shown the enemy a light at the end of the tunnel and if they had any intention of seeking a political settlement before they sure as hell aren’t going to do it now. They know that all they have to do is keep the pressure on a little longer and they’ll win by default. Our combat losses over the past five years have been very light compared to other wars and to give up at this point is ridiculous.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
I do think they greatly under estimate the harm that will befall us if we pull out of Iraq before they form a stable government.
what harm? Be specific. Right now Osama has us where he wants us — stuck in Iraq fighting local insurgents and militias, while his organization can divert a few resources there to keep us bogged down, and spend more time rebuilding the rest of the organization and adapting to new western tactics. This adventure in Iraq may well go down as the biggest strategic disaster in history; the ironic thing is that we won the war by late April 2003. It’s the big government social engineering experiment that came afterwards that turned out to be beyond our capacity. You can’t just send 150,000 military people over and shape/change a political culture.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
what harm? Be specific.
What few "friends" we have in the Middle East is due primarily to our perceived power. If we pull out with our tail tucked the center of power shifts to Iran. Countries in the region will be less likely to support us because they’ll know we don’t have staying power. Given our dependence on their oil any disturbance in the region can have a huge impact on our economy. It’s imperative that we remain the "big dog" on the block so that the Arabs will never gang up on us. If the Democrats force us out of Iraq before the end game is over then this becomes a distinct possibility.
Right now Osama has us where he wants us — stuck in Iraq fighting local insurgents and militias, while his organization can divert a few resources there to keep us bogged down, and spend more time rebuilding the rest of the organization and adapting to new western tactics.
America is fully capable of dealing with Iraq AND chasing down Osama. You make it sound like we can only do one or the other. That’s simply not true. Even if we were completely out of Iraq, catching Osama wouldn’t be any easier.
the ironic thing is that we won the war by late April 2003.
War fighting is nothing but an element of diplomacy. Yes we handily beat the Iraqi military but it’s only the political victory that counts.
It’s the big government social engineering experiment that came afterwards that turned out to be beyond our capacity. You can’t just send 150,000 military people over and shape/change a political culture.
On this we agree. I think a lot of people looked to the WWII model in dealing with Iraq… here we beat the enemy, offer a Marshal Plan, and end up with a stable pro-Western democracy. It’s obviously much more complicated than that especially when you are dealing with a country whose population isn’t homogenous the way it was with Japan and Germany.

I still think Iraq is politically winnable....the biggest threat to victory right now seems to be here at home.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
what harm? Be specific.

What few "friends" we have in the Middle East is due primarily to our perceived power. If we pull out with our tail tucked the center of power shifts to Iran. Countries in the region will be less likely to support us because they’ll know we don’t have staying power. Given our dependence on their oil any disturbance in the region can have a huge impact on our economy. It’s imperative that we remain the "big dog" on the block so that the Arabs will never gang up on us. If the Democrats force us out of Iraq before the end game is over then this becomes a distinct possibility.
So it all comes down to we stay so that people think we’re powerful? That’s it? We are going to continue to kill, be killed, engage in destruction and be part of a deadly situation because of prestige? Saving face? Thinking that our future requires that everyone fear us and think we’re the most powerful? If any country believes its future and national interest relies on being perceived as the most powerful country, then that country is doomed. Power begets rivals, and the most powerful state always has others gang up and look for methods at bringing that state down. States need friends and the power of their ideas.

Moreover, peopleknow we’re not all that powerful. We aren’t feared, we have in Iraq shown the limits of our power. Now some people seem to think "success" is just not having Iraq implode when we leave! Our weakness is our dependence on oil, Iran’s regional power is real, and other players like China and Russia have stepped in.

No, we’re not the "big dog," and the world knows it. We have to actually learn to rely on something other than threats of brute force to get our way.

America is fully capable of dealing with Iraq AND chasing down Osama. You make it sound like we can only do one or the other. That’s simply not true. Even if we were completely out of Iraq, catching Osama wouldn’t be any easier.
Catching Osama isn’t that important — don’t fall for the ’evil individual fallacy,’ where it’s believed one person is key to solving a problem. What’s important is that we are not focused on the resurgent al qaeda network, and even face a more powerful Taliban in Afghanistan which we can’t stop because we are bogged down in Iraq. Catching Osama would be more sensationalist headline stuff than a real victory. Unless we leave Iraq and redefine our strategic interests and tactics, the more we risk playing into the hands of our enemies and rivals. Sometimes it takes strength to admit failure.
I still think Iraq is politically winnable....the biggest threat to victory right now seems to be here at home.
Remember: in a democracy like ours, military action like this will be unpopular if not finished quickly. It divides and weakens us from within. As much as you may think that a bad thing, that is a reality that decision makers have to take into account when making policy. You fight without a strong domestic consensus, and those internal divisions will create real weakness.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider