What Sen Reid Doesn't Say When Bashing Iraq
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 12:55PM Bottom Line Up Front: Sen. Harry Reid is bitterly hunkering down demanding defeat in Iraq whether victory is inevitable or not.
Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, yesterday, co-hosted by Third Way and Lee Hamilton of the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission introduced Harry Reid after a brief opening. (transcript of speech) Below are some experts of the negative, depressing speech:
What does a collaborative effort between the likes of Third Way, Lee Hamilton and Harry Reid tell you? That the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission weren’t exactly bi-partisan nor unbiased.
In this unbelievably depressing speech, Reid referred to the our global effort to combat terrorism as the “so-called war on terror” and went on to mock the President’s use of the word “progress” at a briefing on Iraq. He quoted Bush as saying that the “direction of the fight is beginning to shift” and that “so far the operation (surge) is meeting expectations.”
GEN Petraeus has been saying for months that he expected a spike in violence after the announcement of the surge. Tactically this is totally predictable. There is no doubt that things are difficult in Iraq, but to paint the entire country as a loss is erroneous. In fact, GEN Petraeus said about the expected rise of violence due to the surge:
“Regrettably, some of these groups are still carrying out their barbaric acts. In fact, we believe that they have sought to intensify their sensational attacks in recent weeks to provoke renewed sectarian violence and derail [the operation] before it can be fully implemented.”
Petraeus also described why we shouldn’t be surprised by the violence in Iraq:
In this environment, Iraq’s new government, its fourth in three and a half years, has found it difficult to gain traction. Though disappointing, this should not be a surprise. We should recall that after the liberation of Iraq in 2003, every governmental institution in the country collapsed. A society already traumatized by decades of Saddam’s brutal rule was thrown into complete turmoil, and the effects are still evident throughout the country and in Iraqi society.
Reid went on to say that 70% of Iraqi children are traumatized, experiencing nightmares and bedwetting, “could paralyze an entire generation that we’ve been counting on to harvest the seeds of democracy.” How those statistics were arrived at or where they originated from, Reid did not say, but Reid’s credibility on caring about the next generation of Iraqi children is implausible at best. His plan to withdraw troops, leaving the region open to ethnic cleansing and mass murder makes him a less than believable spokesman for the Iraqi children.
Not only this, but his repeated insistence that the war should never have happened indicates he presumes Iraqi children would be more psychologically healthy under an Iraq run by Uday and Quasay Hussein.
Reid went to in his speech to criticize the Iraqi people for not taking responsibility by now but admitted that:
“It is unquestioned that we have long term interest in seeing Iraq become stabilized, peaceful, and yes, one day a functioning democracy.”
He, along with the rest of the Democratic Party, have been unable to explain how the U.S. would contribute to this “stabilized, peaceful and democratic” Iraq by leaving within a year and allow al-Qaeda hold the country hostage through violence and extremist religious beliefs.
Reids “solution” includes a “surge” in diplomacy, bringing “waring factions to the negotiating table”, “training and equipping Iraqi security forces and conducting counter terrorism operations” (which is what the U.S. is ALREADY DOING), and insists on a “phased redeployment of troops beginning no later than Oct. 1 2007, with all troops out of Iraq by by April 1, 2008” with a few exceptions.
Reid ridiculed Vice President Cheney asserting he was wrong about WMD, the U.S. being greeted as liberators and an al-Qaeda/Saddam link. We know that Saddam had the capability to make WMD, although he didn’t possess stockpiles, that the U.S. was greeted as a liberating force and that the Defense Department’s Inspector General reported before the Senate Armed Services committee that the Bush Administration did not exaggerate intelligence to make a case for war. The Inspector General also showed that while Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s relationship was not symbiotic, there was indeed a relationship.
“No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship. There was a relationship.”
On the question of leaving Iraq to chaos and genocidal war, Reid’s reply is what has become the standard regurgitated deflection:
“We already have a civil war and there’s already violence.” Gulp.
Instead of blaming the terrorists for disrupting basic services and rallying around the good guys (perhaps because he doesn’t know who the good guys are), Reid blames the good guys for the easiest of attacks: suicide bombings.
WHAT REID DIDN’T SAY
Senator Reid did not mention in his speech that:
The White House already corrected Reid’s record of errors about the war in Iraq.
SOLDIERS FROM HIS OWN STATE OF NEVADA REJECT HIS ASSERTION THAT THE WAR IS ‘LOST’
THAT SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD SOUNDLY REJECT REID’S ASSERTION AND CONDEMN HIS DEFEATIST LANGUAGE
GEN Petraeus has called Operation Iraqi Freedom an “honorable mission” , not a lost cause.
GEN Petraeus praised entrepreneurialism in Iraq.
GEN Pace said our enemies see the “debate in the Congress as a sign of weakness as opposed to a sign of strength.”
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said:
“We see no need for a withdrawal timetable because we are working as fast as we can. We feel what will govern the departure of international forces are the achievements and victories we manage to achieve on the ground, not a timetable.”
The Iraqi Parliament unified against terrorists after the Green Zone bombing.
Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, saying, “I categorically reject arguments that this (a free and democratic Iraq) is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.”
CNN War Correspondent Michael Ware agrees that a deadline for withdrawal…
“absolutely would play completely into the hands of America’s identified enemies, al-Qaeda and Iran. That would be handing the entire advantage to them. That’s why that can never really happen.”
“We saw from 2003, the Baathist insurgents saying from the beginning, ‘this war will not be one on the battlefield, it will be won on that, pointing to a TV screen’.”
ABC War Correspondent Reported the Surge working in Baghdad
Outgoing U.S. Ambassador Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad reported that ‘Iraqis Are Uniting Against al-Qaeda’
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made an historic and unprecedented visit to al-Anbar province, helping bridge the gap between Sunnis and Shia Iraqis, who continue to unit against al-Qaeda.
Al-Sadr fled to Iran to avoid the troop surge and his front men in the Parliament overwhelmingly rejected his call to resign with only 6 stepping down in opposition to al-Maliki and 30 reminaing.
Multi-National Force-Iraq commanding general Maj. Gen. Kenneth Hunzeker praised Iraqi police as courageous, committed and well-trained.
But let’s side with arrogant politicians in the House and Senate over US troops, their commanders, Iraqi officials and forces and embeds with the military. We know these Democrats’ agendas supersede the facts. This rude, snarky Senator is doing his country a huge disservice, and our enemy a favor.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1024719
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (36)
reid is a poor and pathetic excuse of a senator, plain and simple. He is a member of the Leftinistra, the Armies of the Socialist Liberal, and it matters NOT that we are winning the war. As long as we lose it at home, reid and his ilk win.
It disgusts this VFW.
What Amy Proctor doesn't say:
Revelations of Pentagon lying... again.
RCP
You threw too much in here Amy....WELL DONE!
Of Reid and his ilk: “It is unquestioned that we have long term interest in seeing Iraq become stabilized, peaceful, and yes, one day a functioning democracy.”
Note the agreement, but no indication of what "seeing" means, although we do know what that means. For all his and the Dem effort why don't we just close our eyes and imagine a "stabilized, peaceful and functioning democracy," in Iraq as that is the only way it would be so were Reid and his friends in charge.
He is becoming a most disgusting, close mindedly, ignorant man. Had he the bravery on Iraq that he has in tearing his own country down; had he the bravery on Iraq that he has in the face of truth and reality he would most definitely be a formidable leader.....but had he the bravery on Iraq, we would only be imagining it with our eyes closed.
What "whatap" doesn't say is "I have no facts to back up anything I say so I'll do a drive by and look foolish doing it, which is why I'm hiding my identity."
Blandly,
I'm really loving your blog, by the way.
If you ever have the chance to watch Reid for an extended time, like in speeches or interviews, what you'll notice is anger bubbling just under the surface. I believe he's furious that the President won't budge because he and Pelosi thought the 2006 mid-terms would make them commander in chief and VP. He is very passive-aggressive and I fully expect him to lose it eventually. You can see him biting his lip at certain times when talking specifically about Bush. It's creepy.
What else Harry doesn't say, understand I don't take any death lightly, and pray for all our troops safe return home. but some context is in order.
avg number of troop deaths per year in Iraq: about 850.
avg number of highway worker deaths in the USA: about 850.
avg number of murders in the USA annually: 17,000
avg number of traffic accident deaths in the USA per year: 40,000.
avg number of truck drivers killed on the job in the USA annually: 1,500.
why isn't Harry bitchin about highway worker safety, and demanding the transportation secretary's head on a platter? humm?
where's all the hysteria about those construction workers?
why isn't Reid demanding the Interstate highway system must be shut down immediately?
why isn't there an outcry to defund transportation?
tell me, I'm curious about this.
I didn't watch the video, Amy. I'm getting ready to eat my dinner and don't want to cause myself indigestion. I did read the entire post however. Good work!
I cannot stand Reid. Your comment regarding his inner anger is a big part of it. Add that to his constant harping on withdrawing from Iraq and he becomes totally disgusting to me. The anger isn't only apparent in Reid. It seems to consume most of them: Hillary, Pelosi and Boxer show it continuously. Hillary's isn't an inner anger though. She has lost it many times which is why I believe she won't make it to the White House.
One definition of leadership - doing what's right and not just what's easy. Senate Majority leader Reid can say anything he wants, but he's no joe schmoe - what he says can be used by our enemies for morale boosting purposes because he's a high ranking politician. This war will not be won on the battlefield, it will be won when terrorists realize that the wanton killing of innocents means infidel boots tracking them down where they live. Everytime they get a message that they may be wearing us down, any ground we've made is lost and the battle must be fought over again to regain credibility.
And that's why I think Senator Reid knows exactly what he's doing. The longer he keeps us there, the better the chance he wins in 2008.
Mark- I'll add to your list
Avg number of VIOLENT illegal imigrants comming across the boarder every single say 96
Avg number of VIOLENT illegal imigrants loose in the U.S 86,000
Avg number of Americans killed by drunk illegal Aliens EVERY single day - 13
Avg number of Americans brutally murdered by violent illegal aliens EVERY single day 12
Number of Americans killed by illegal Aleins since the war in Iraq began 46,000
Avg number of violent Illegal Aliens that Reid wants to deport from this country? 0
Yeah right, as if Proctor has better info than Reid.
Mud, if being in a postion of power means you have better information, you're totally out of the running and none of the Democrats have the power to challenge the President.
I got word today that "officers just out of Iraq - most having spent nearly 27 months out of the past 4 years there - they believe that politicians in Washington pushing too hard for the Iraqis to go it alone are the real reason for the up/downs of the war."
And I, unlike Reid, will listen to Petraeus. He is the counterinsurgency expert. We should apply his counterinsurgency manual to the Democrats.
yeah cottshop, there's a whole 'nuther issue that needs addressed, but congress AND the white house are against fixing that problem, we need REAL PATRIOTS to run in 2008. ones that will not surrender to Al Qaeda OR Mexico. so far I'm not much impressed with the choices.
Just to add to what Amy said, what the hell makes Harry Reid a military expert? AND who the hell made him commander in chief?
And what the hell can you call a senator who grabs at power that clearly isn't his constitutionally but this? DUMBASS
Mark, I want to know why anyone should listen to Reid when he won't even listen to GEN Petraeus tomorrow.
Yeah Amy, I heard about Harry's "I will not let facts alter my opinion" comments he made today. here's a guy with no military experience who's such an arrogant jerk he thinks he knows war better than the best experts, which is why I call him a dumbass, had he been at least willing to listen to the pro's, I'd just call him a traitor.
"Reid went on to say that 70% of Iraqi children are traumatized, experiencing nightmares and bedwetting,"
H. Reid is just imagining 70 percent of the Iraqi Children trauma on his own personal experience. Does his wife have to dry clean the bed sheets everyday?
What Harry Reid doesn't tell you isthat that supposed 70% bedwetting is down from near 99% of children that suffered under Saddam. We're trying to do even better Harry, but by golly, you're keeping the insurgency filled with hope by maligning the troops every step of the way- good going Reid- keep encouraging the murderous terrorists in Iraq and keep them kids wetting hteir beds unneccessarily.
Yawn!
Hey 27% no one cares what you people think...
Yawn, right, that's why "you people" keeping reading blogs like mine.
Amy, after watching the O'Rielly Factor on Monday evening, I have to wonder how many of the Dems truly believe the garbage they spew or are they mindlessly speaking the words that their puppet master is paying them to speak.
I'm talkinig about George Soros who seems to have so many politicians in his pocket. Soros is the prime financial backer of "Move on .org, and various other groups as well as the MSM.
Among some of those that are beholden to Soros, according to O'Rielly, are:
John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and most of those in Hollywood.
Soros has an extreme hatered of the United States, He has told the United Nations that the United States is the cause of all the problems in the world and therefore the world would be better off without us. O'Rielly even claims that there is some evidence that Soros has and possibly still is financing some of the terrorist groups.
Soros is spending millions of dollars in an effort to "buy" our elections and if you listen to the things that Hillary, Reid, Pelosi and all of the left-wingers espouce, it is the exact same ultra far left Socialistic/Communistic One World crap that Soros is pushing for.
That is why I often wonder if all the Dems really believe their garbage or do they say it because Soros is backing their campaigns?
Great post, Amy, and filled with irrefutable facts for those who care about deeper things than Dingy Harry's shallow demigoguery. The fact is we are winning the war in Iraq, a war that CANNOT be measured by fake timed withdrawals and breaks given to the enemy. Reid and his followers are banking on the weakness and stupidity of the American public. DON'T GIVE IN. We have heroes with guts, moxie and the will to bring our enemies to our knees on the battlefield. FOR GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE, IF WE TROOPS ARE WILLING TO DEPLOY OVER AND OVER AGAIN, GET SHOT UP AND WOUNDED AND WE WILL NOT QUIT, THE LEAST YOU CAN DO IS GET BEHIND US.
That Johnny is MY Johnny. "Johnny C" is not.
"What Harry Reid doesn't tell you isthat that supposed 70% bedwetting is down from near 99% "
I bet Harry was there in Iraq to poll all those mothers and fathers to get those assumptions There is no facts based on these assumptions. To get a real poll and figures would take 100,000 of dollars and intensive SRSs in Iraq. No - way did pollers go all over Iraq and knock on every door. Probably get his figures from Soros’ blogs. I heard his publicists was trying to get Harry to tone it down. Democrats should distance themselves from the radical.
Pat Tillman's brother and Jessica Lynch called the Pentagon on their lies.
Rev, the Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party of yesterday. It has always had an extremely far left fringe but there used to be more moderates than extremes.
Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer turned radio talk show host is calling for Reid's resignation... a movement, if you will... He has called Reid a traitor. When a constitutional lawyer calls someone a traitor, you tend to believe him.
["Yeah right, as if Proctor has better info than Reid."}
Considering the fact that not only Reid, but Pelosi, et al had "other" commitments and no time to listen to the General, no doubt Amy does have better info.
Also, yesterday, we had the most honorable Biden saying if Bush doesn't sign that bill, it's the president's fault the troops aren't funded... he had to yell it several times to make sure everyone heard that... as if yelling it over and over would make it true... pop psychology at its best... I don't know if anyone else is old enough to remember the "I'm okay, you're okay, crowd" but they thrive still today... "If you say a thing to yourself often enough, it will come true."... only in your own mind... to the rest of us, you're still a traitor and always will be.
Constitutional Lawyers have opinions too...argument from authority and other fallacious arguments are the game in here. It is quite sad.
If the DOD can never be factual because of the way they handled the Tillman case, I understand why you don't trust Bush. Based on Clinton's pattern of lies alone, no President can be truthful by virtue of association. Of course, your logic is terribly flawed.
I'm a little confused about the Jessic Lynch situation; I NEVER thought her to be a hero, nor did I think she was particularly protrayed as one by the military. Her "I ain't no hero" testimony of yesterday left me with a "tell me something I don't know" taste in my mouth. Her "heroes welcome" to her hometown was more about respecting her as a woman and POW than an admission she was a hero.
But I didn't hear her entire line of reasoning so I won't comment further.
As for Pat Tillman, the way the military handled it was abysmal. His family has every right to be angered, saddened and deeply disappointed in the DOD.
1) The Department of Defense is a HUGE bureaucracy. It mismanages many things.
2) The DOD is very sensitive about IO (information operations) because the press is often seen as being stacked against it. The military is undergoing huge changes right now in this area. That's all I'll say, but I'm not going to defend the Defense Dept. on the Tillman issue. I think it does everyone a disservice.
However, the IG reported directly to the Senate Armed Services committee and spent hours detailing and proving their statements. It's now a matter of record; the Bush admin didn't trump up intell to take us to war. However, the Dems know most Americans didn't follow the hearings, watch the testimony or follow the story and it was misreported by many major news outlets so they can continue to use the "Bush and Cheney are evil" lie.
"Constitutional Lawyers have opinions too...argument from authority and other fallacious arguments are the game in here. It is quite sad."
Yeah, he is a Constitutional Lawyer so, to me, that gives him the credentials to form opinions about the current political environment.
I've stated, here on this blog and others: "Prove it." Every time I say that, one of you detractors comes back with excuses not to prove anything. The most tired of all those is the one where I won't listen...which is an irrefutable argument since I'm never given the chance to listen.
So, our arguments are fallacious? Prove it. What authority, exactly, do you use for your arguments, if you don't use opinions from authorities? Or do you just go with the feeling of the day/week/month? I'd truly like to know.
Steph,
You have said "he is a constitutional lawyer," as if that makes his statement correct -- you appeal to his status as an authority, but yet when others in authority state something, you dismiss them.
His statement is true or false, not withstanding his position as a constitutional lawyer. In fact, you can find constitutional lawyers say the reverse of what he said; and they too are authorities. This is why appeal to authority itself is not valid. "He's right because he is an authority" is not an argument which is valid. "He is an authority, so consider his opinion and he might have had more study in it" is a better argument, especially since it doesn't say "he is right because he is an authority.
well steph, considering Pelosi and Reid's comments and actions the last couple of days, you could see how liberals could think Bush hoodwinked them into voting for this war, who's to say the senate and cong. intelligence commitee's don't skip all their meetings with the pentagon like their leadership braggs about doing, then saying "don't confuse me with the facts" the next week. they show by their actions that they consider intelligence unimportant.
perhaps the electorate should consider electing representatives with the maturity necessary to get thru a boring meeting, we might get people who can make rational decisions if we did.
by the way, when our Senate and House leadership willingly make defeatist statements to be used by the terrorist mouthpiece organization al jazeera, yeah, their traitors, and it doesn't take a law degree to figure that out.
why don't you ask the troops that are over there if they are losing, seems like a rational person would think THEY would be the first to know.
[Steph,
"You have said "he is a constitutional lawyer," as if that makes his statement correct -- you appeal to his status as an authority, but yet when others in authority state something, you dismiss them. "]
No, what I said was: "When a constitutional lawyer calls someone a traitor, you tend to believe him.
What authority has stated something I have dismissed?
I never stated categorically that he is right, I said I TEND to believe him. Given the evidence we have of those Congressional and Senatorial actions and the consequneces of those actions, I don't really think there is much doubt. Now, unless somebody can give me some evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with what I believe right now. Arguing about my "position" is not giving evidence that I'm wrong.
[His statement is true or false, not withstanding his position as a constitutional lawyer. In fact, you can find constitutional lawyers say the reverse of what he said; and they too are authorities.]
If this is so, why didn't you provide some examples instead of engaging in semantics and turning my words into something I didn't say?
[This is why appeal to authority itself is not valid. "He's right because he is an authority" is not an argument which is valid. "He is an authority, so consider his opinion and he might have had more study in it" is a better argument, especially since it doesn't say "he is right because he is an authority.]
Again, I never said he was right. I said: "When a constitutional lawyer calls someone a traitor, you tend to believe him." Notwithstanding, he is a constitutional lawyer and therefore an authority on the Constitution. Being an authority doesn't confer infallibility.
Given that you've engaged in a discussion of semantics and inference instead of providing any of the proof I wanted, I must infer that you have none. You see, that's how inference works. I have to hand it to you, however. You didn't use the tired old excuse that I've heard hundreds of times: "You wouldn't listen anyway..."
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF REID'S STATEMENTS
AMY: “... We know these Democrats’ agendas supersede the facts. This rude, snarky Senator is doing his country a huge disservice, and our enemy a favor. ...”
SG: A couple of points ...
It continues to amaze me that the 'fight for democracy in Iraq', requires the suspension of democratic debate in America, that democracy, and its expression, are examples of weakness. What is this saying to anyone looking to the USA for an example of a functioning democracy except ... 'decent is okay, except when it actually means something' ... 'decent is for "f(R)ee speech zones" only'.
Secondly, Reid's assessment of the possibility for a Bush “Victo(R)y” is actually reflecting the democratic opinion of the American people. Only 3 in 10 Americans believe America is winning the war, or that it will win. Reid is simply expressing what America is thinking. For example ...
All told, do you think the United States IS winning or losing the war in Iraq?
Apr. 2007
Winning - 32%
Losing - 53%
All told, do you think the United States WILL win or lose the war in Iraq?
Apr. 2007
Win - 35%
Lose - 51%
Source: TNS / Washington Post / ABC News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,141 American adults, conducted from Apr. 12 to Apr. 15, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
In the final analysis, American public opinion may be the determining 'fact' in the outcome of Invasion of Iraq, as it expresses itself in the 2008 election – McCain's implosion is proof of this political 'reality', I think.
Until that time, I believe Bush will simply 'tread water' in Iraq so that 'defeat' can be placed at the feet of the Democratic Party. If the situation were otherwise, if Bush was really committed to 'Victo(R)y” in Iraq, long ago he would have instituted a draft and sent sufficient troops to secure “Victo(R)y”. Since he has not, any reference to his “Victo(R)y” is just (R)hetorical stalling, so that blame, for what even McCain acknowledges is Bush's incompetence, can be sloughed off to somebody else.
Snerd
Isn't that rich. Reid gets his advice on foreign policy and war planning from Americans (with no interview for qualifications or standard) and Bush gets his from brilliant military commanders with PHD's and Masters who write war planning documents proven to be successful.
Yeah, what's with Bush?
Who cares what the American public thinks? Wars cannot be fought or won by opinion polls. They are historically cynical during war time. This is the same reason why Cindy Sheehan cannot be a spokesperson on foreign policy by virtue of her personal loss. Emotion cannot dictate a war.
By the way, since you're pointing to "American opinion" to steer the war in Iraq, I have two trains of thought:
1) Do the 2 million soldiers opinions count? No? Didn't think so.
2) Americans also thought Pluto was a planet and cannot name the Secretary of State or the three branches of government. Yeah, let's let THEM run the war!