On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's
off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in
other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between
Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not
lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the
bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to
police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in
Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have
that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can
win."Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since
Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic
leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of
the alternatives in Iraq.Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
When a Broder says this, it makes Reid all the more scarier and he scares already. Schumer too, especially after all his practice, he stills lies so poorly.
