Last week, Harry Reid was widely criticized for saying that the Iraq war "is lost." On
Power Line, I explained why I thought Reid's comment was both incorrect and politically misguided. Today, Reid
backed off his claim, and, almost as though he were taking my advice, couched his criticisms in terms of a "failed policy" rather than a "lost war:"
The Senate majority leader drew criticism from Bush and others last week when he said the war in Iraq had been lost. He did not repeat the assertion in his prepared speech, saying that "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."
There is an irony here; Reid is echoing the "mission accomplished" banner for which President Bush has long been abused. But news accounts haven't focused on this point, instead, they have emphasized Reid's claim that the President is in "denial" on Iraq:
Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he ordered last winter. "The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial," said Reid.
In fact, though, there are signs of progress in Iraq, both as
measured statistically and as reported by many observers. It is Reid, not Bush, who doesn't want to address the evidence, but rather seeks to achieve his objective by bullying. There is an interesting parallel here to the Democrats' tactic on global warming. There, too, they refuse to engage the evidence offered by skeptics, and instead insist that the debate is over and anyone who disagrees with them is "in denial." This is, in general, not an approach that is followed by people who have strong arguments and evidence on their side. So it shouldn't be surprising that many people conclude that what Reid fears in Iraq is not failure but success, as suggested eloquently by
Chip Bok:
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 16)
16. Ehud Barak isareli prime minister not only told bush the war is lost back in 2003 but he could only choose the size of his humiliation according to Seymore Hirsch. Harry Reids comments while blunt were very much the truth and have no effect on the outcome. The blame and responsibility for the outcome of this war belong squarely with the administration and This attack on Harry Reid has everything to do with finding scapegoats for the failures of this adminstration. Nice try but few are buying into it.
bill maguire at 6:52PM on Apr 23rd 2007
17. Did Harry Reid ever serve in the military? What does he know about military strategy. He and Nancy are all about appeaseing their far left. I say let them have their moment in the sun. They are so mistaken if they think the voters gave them a mandate. The middle of the road conseratives and independents I talk to are wishing they could take their vote back. The democrats will be buried in 2008!!!!
jdial213 at 5:53PM on Apr 23rd 2007
18. Sen. Reid's comments are nothing more than an appeal to those who despise our country and its values, our position of affluence and influence and power in the world, and are reflective of a desire for americans to subordinate themselves to some sort of world government.The good thing about his remarks is that they will at some point become a symbol of shame for even those democrats who follow him.How outrageous for a leader of the United States Senate to side with our ememies! I am sure that those who raised him and guided him in his life would be disappointed.
Hugh Long at 5:56PM on Apr 23rd 2007
19. The war was lost the day after we tumbled Saddam.Staying there after Bush decrared in May 2003, aboard the aircraft carrier in San Diego, "Mission Accomplished." our stay took the role of an occupier, which has no win or loose outcome. I strongly believe that our president took us to war on a more personal reason (to avange Saddam's murder failed attempt towards his father)rather than the two other reasons, WMD and nuclear facilities. Our president tends to put his personal animous rather than the country's, as is now femonstrated by his blind support of AG Gonzales and WB president Mr. Wolfowitz. These are the points that the press should duel on rather than making Mr. Reid's comments a cause celebre.
S.C. Kemiji at 6:02PM on Apr 23rd 2007
20. #12: Ann you nailed it head on! Only those that has their
heads in their collective anus' support this moron and his
few lackeys, IE: hatch, who soft peddle the so caled atty
gen. on thursday. Bush, Cheney, Rice(grits) Gonzo, and
all of this administration should be sent to prison for the miseries and dmmn lies they've been telling under the
name of NATIONA SECURITY, only to enrich their cronies.
william greene at 6:23PM on Apr 23rd 2007
21. Ann
Good comments. Bush just suffers from the "spoiled brat" syndrome. He has been sheltered since he was born. He somehow missed out on the change to seerve his country in another losing war. We are the ones who suffer from his inability to face reality, we, the people!
Tom Edgar at 6:27PM on Apr 23rd 2007
22. Harry Reid is all politics pure and simple. He could'nt care less about our troops. All he wants is to make sure he keeps his job after the next election. and he cant do that if we are successful in Iraq..
Steve T at 6:32PM on Apr 23rd 2007
23.
Reid is correct; Bush is wrong.
Rit Manthous at 6:29PM on Apr 23rd 2007
24. Harry reid is a desgrace to this nation and should resign
Charlie Freeman at 6:41PM on Apr 23rd 2007
25. Everything aside-it boils down to truth and competence and most importantly-a concern for ALL Americans and their children and grandchildren. The GOP agenda never meets this test.
Reid is correct in saying that the war is lost-only a moron would see it differently. This was lost the day Bush got a twinkle in his eye dreaming of revenge against Sodomy Insane. A leader has to be bigger than his biases and Bush is not capable of that. His ego got in front of his eye teeth and he couldn't see what he was saying-stil can't.
Ken at 6:43PM on Apr 23rd 2007
26. ONE THING IS FOR SURE THIS IS A POLITICAL WAR.TO SAY WERE IN DENIAL IS ALSO TO SAY MANY MORE WILL HAVE TO DIE. THE RESPONSABLE IS GEORGE BUSH AND YOU THAT VOTE FOR HIM..............
VICTOR DE LA CRUZ at 9:09PM on Apr 23rd 2007
27. seems to me! didn't the congress approve back in 2001 support for the President concerning this war?Now they want to turn tail and run? "United we stand, divided we fall" If you get what you want Democrats, you'll get exactly what you don't want?
daveyjones60 at 6:59PM on Apr 23rd 2007
28. I am sick to death of Coach and his fellow armchair patriots branding people as being guilty of "treason" any time they disagree with President Bush's failed policies.
Here we have an Administration that got us into war on false pretenses and with inadequate intelligence, that sent our men into battle poorly trained and ill-equipped, that has tried to fight the war "on the cheap" while providing huge tax cuts, and that has no coherent plan to end the conflict.
Is that what you mean by "supporting the troops," Coach? If so, God help us.
Steve from Sacto at 7:26PM on Apr 23rd 2007
29. this is all politics... Does anyone seriously believe we can just walk out of Iraq?
The democratic left does'nt even want that. we have to leave them with a strong government. If there is not a sustainable government there the entire middle east will be in civil war. some taliban like government will take over all that oil money and make the world trade towers look like a firecracker!
Steve T at 7:04PM on Apr 23rd 2007
30. Sen. Reid and the rest of the liberals, democrats and republicans alike, continued to show their ignorance and lack of a backbone. President Bush is saying the correct things, even if it turns out to be wrong. Politicians need to speak out positively about our efforts in Iraq. We need to stay the course and fight until the war is won.
Robert Berryman at 7:22PM on Apr 23rd 2007