First.
The Democratic strategy to use the ongoing violence in Iraq to their
political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 elections requires some skill and
nuance. But it's growing harder to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid --
Nevada's own -- actually possesses those skills.The Democratic strategy is anything but straightforward.
Sen. Reid and his colleagues know there is much political hay to be made by
criticizing President Bush's planning and conduct of the post-war occupation.
But they also know that while "cut our losses and pull out" plays well in
Democratic caucuses, it failed in the Connecticut general election in 2006, when
Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his anti-surrender stance handily defeated end-the-war candidate Ned Lamont -- even though Sen. Lieberman had to run as an independent to pull it off.That's the kind of "poll" that really counts.
Thus, the Democrats' careful strategy requires them to appear to oppose Mr.
Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq (to please their pacifist base), without
taking any concrete, "binding" actions to change the status quo.
Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the
Clown.
Second.
Reid has instead given moral support to the terrorists. His "leadership"
has been to try to cut off our forces' war funding. Now he has told the
Islamofascists that victory is theirs if they can just keep blowing up U.S.
soldiers and Iraqi citizens a little while longer.In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office
he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he
leads synonymous with surrender. There is one way he can repair the damage he's done to the nation: step down.
Third.
…actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative
efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as
anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a
statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by
Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the
United States Senate.
And.
David Broder, the sagely insightful “dean” of the Washington press corps, attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today over his claim that the war in Iraq is lost.Speaking on XM radio, Broder said that Reid should “learn to engage mind before mouth opens,” and suggested that Reid’s Senate allies “have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid” and his “bumbling performance.”
Asked if Harry Reid is “an embarrassment,” Broder said, “I think so,” since “every six weeks or so there’s another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case.”
Hang up the gloves Harry. Even the ref is laughing at you.
(All emphasis mine)
