BASH:He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it
clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called
surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?
REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.
Sen. Harry Reid Is Right About Iraq War
OPINION by ANDY OSTROY
Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., caused a ruckus in
Washington by saying that there is no military solution to the Iraq War. That
it's over and it's time to get out.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense —
and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that
this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated
by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said.
Bush and his war-mongering cronies took it upon themselves to invade a
sovereign nation under the guise of (a) retaliating against Sept. 11; (b)
protecting America and Britain from WMD "mushroom clouds;" and then (c) building a stable democracy in the Middle East. As we now all know, there were no WMD in Iraq, there was no connection to bin Laden and al Qaeda and true, sustainable democracy is but a fantasy. Failure, failure, failure. And the insurgents have been empowered and emboldened by this failure, not weakened. And Bush's desperate "troop surge" is not going to make one bit of difference in changing Iraq's military and political landscape.
Stop regurgitating all this BS about progress and success and show it to
Monday, April 23, 2007
Bruning Polling Ahead of Hagel
From Jon Bruning's press
release today, 23 April. Polling funded by Bruning's exploratory committee, completed by experienced, reputable polling firm.
If Chuck Hagel
decides he does want to pursue a 3rd term in the Senate, and the Republican
primary election for U.S. Senate were held today between Jon Bruning and Chuck Hagel, for whom would you vote?
leads Chuck Hagle 47%
to 38% statewide
**Bruning leads Hagel among
conservatives 57% to 31%Bruning leads Hagel among Republicans in Congressional District 2
(53% to 35%)
**Bruning leads Hagel among
Republicans in Congressional District 3 (52% to 33%). Congressional District 3
represents 42% of the Republican primary vote
Bruning leads Hagel in Douglas
County (Omaha) 54% to 34%
Bruning leads Hagel in the
Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney media market 49% to 34%
Bruning leads Hagel in Lancaster
County (Lincoln) 48% to 41%
Bruning leads Hagel in the entire
Omaha media market 44% to 42%
Hagel leads Bruning in 3 GOP
Congressional District 1 by 46% to 37%
Moderates by 46% to 37%
Liberals by 46% to 32%
Now suppose you learned that many Republicans here in Nebraska are
dissatisfied with Chuck Hagel because of his unrelenting criticism of
President Bush and for voting with liberal Democrats for a defense bill that
calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and is loaded with pork barrel
spending. They are also upset that Senator Hagel has suggested publicly that impeachment of President Bush is an option, saying "You can impeach him. And before this over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Knowing this, if the Republican primary for U.S. Senate were held today between Jon Bruning and Chuck Hagel for whom would you vote?"
**Support for Jon Bruning increases by 8 points statewide while
support for Chuck Hagel drops by 7 points - a 15 point net shift in
the Attorney General's favor.
**Bruning leads Hagel in
Congressional District 1 by 12 points (48% - 36%) and among moderates by 4
points (45%-41%). Only among liberals does Bruning trail Hagel (39% - 46%).
widens his lead over Hagel in Douglas County (Omaha) 57% to 33%,
Congressional District 2 (56% to 32%), and seniors 65+ (52% to 33%).
**Support for Bruning increases significantly among conservatives
(63% to 23%), voters under 50 years of age (56% to 33%), those over 50 (55% to
30%), those in Lancaster County (Lincoln) 55% to 38%, the
Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney media market (57% to 26%), the Omaha media market (50% to 35%), and Congressional District 3 (59% to 27%).
posted by Brian Bresnahan
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
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.
…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.
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.”