NY Post contributor falsely claims "Reid's new position" means "even a Democratic president" can't ensure victory in Iraq
In an April 26 New York Post column, contributor Amir Taheri claimed that the "new position" by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- who said at an April 19 press conference that "this war is lost" -- "means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq." But Taheri's claim is contradicted by Reid's further assertion during the same press conference that the war "can only be won diplomatically, politically, economically." In addition, during the same press conference, in which he argued that a new "direction in Iraq" is needed, including a redeployment of troops to focus on "counterterrorism, force protection and training," Reid said: "It's time for us to change direction in Iraq. ... Redeploy the troops. Does that mean pull them out? No, it doesn't. But it does mean the troops that are there should focus on counterterrorism, force protection, and training the Iraqis." As Media Matters for America noted, Reid added during the question and answer session of the press conference: "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically."
In his April 26 editorial, Taheri wrote:
WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.
Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.
By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it.
At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war.
Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost.
In fact, during the April 19 press conference, Reid stated:
REID: Now, 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.
Now, I said this is how I feel. But in addition to my feelings, a majority of the United States Senate, a majority of the United States House of Representatives has said the surge should not go forward. Twenty-nine state legislatures and hundreds of state legislators acknowledge that the war should come to an end. The American people believe that. The Iraq Study Group clearly defined that.
It's time for us to change direction in Iraq, redeploy our troops, as indicated in the supplemental appropriation bill in the House and the Senate that we're soon going to send to the president in the form of a conference report. Redeploy the droops. Does that mean pull them out? No, it doesn't. But it does mean the troops that are there should focus on counterterrorism, force protection and training the Iraqis.
Contrary to Taheri's assertion that Reid's "new position ... means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq" and that, "[f]or him, Iraq is irretrievably lost," during the press conference's question and answer session, Reid elaborated on the ways in which he thinks the war can "be won":
QUESTION: Senator Reid, Senator [Olympia] Snowe [R-ME] has introduced a bill today that would establish a plan for -- require General [David] Petraeus [top U.S. military commander in Iraq] to begin planning for a withdrawal if the Iraqi government, if it doesn't meet certain benchmarks.
Do you think that kind of an approach might have a better chance of attracting broader support in the Senate?
REID: Well, I think -- I'm glad Senator Snowe has done that. She's -- I'm glad she's being proactive. I wish she would look at what we have done and what we will do with our conference report.
General Petraeus needs not look any place for legislation. He only needs to do what he has said, and that is, the war cannot be won militarily. He said 20 percent of the war will be won militarily; 80 percent will have to be won diplomatically, economically, and politically. So General Petraeus should do what he thinks is going to work, and I don't think he needs legislation for that.
Somebody should -- here's how I feel about all this. I know that I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House, but I at least told him what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. And more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically. And the president needs to come to that realization, and he needs more than just Harry Reid telling him that.
Moreover, Media Matters noted that, during a subsequent floor speech on April 19, Reid again said that the "war is lost" but reiterated his belief that there is a political solution to a stable and secure Iraq:
REID: Mr. President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change of course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution Iraq is wrong. They say redeploying troops out of a civil war is wrong.
They have said that even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue on the Senate floor.
[...]
REID: Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day, and now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began.
As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course -- and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise, more importantly, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.
Taheri is represented by public relations firm Benador Associates, whose list of "experts" includes former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and columnist Charles Krauthammer. On May 24, 2006, Douglas Kelly, editor of Canada's National Post, wrote an article apologizing to readers for publishing a column in the National Post on May 19, 2006, by Taheri in which he claimed that a newly passed Iranian law would force religious minorities "to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public." Kelly wrote, "It is now clear the story is not true." On May 25, 2006, The Christian Science Monitor reported that, according to the Canadian Press, "the Iranian government summoned the Canadian ambassador to Tehran Wednesday to deal with the fallout of remarks made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he had based on the National Post story. Mr. Harper had said that such a dress code would remind people of Nazi Germany."
Every time this debate about "winning in Iraq" comes up, I'm reminded of the old story about the cow that stuck its head through a fence to eat grass on the other side. It eventually died of starvation because it was TOO DAMNED STUPID TO BACK UP.
Even a Democratic president can't ensure we can fit a cow through a fence.
The NeoClowns are so full of crap on this issue. I'm still waiting for one of them to explain why the Turrists are just too stupid to mount an attack against us over here while we have troops in Iraq. They've floated this fantasy that, as soon as we pull out of Iraq, Al Queda will slap themselves on the forehead and say "Gee, we could have been attacking America!" Then, with our troops no longer in Iraq to act as flypaper, they will be free to mount massive attacks in the United States. Does any thinking person really buy this nonsense?
I agree. I'm thinking it's as easy as "Invasion USA".
I agree they can attack us whether we are in Iraq or not. but I really do not think that the point. Al Queda will have a stable base of operations in Iraq if we leave.
Something that I believe has been lost with all of the partisan fighting is whether Iraq is really part of the war on terror. I believe it is, and history will prove that.
Let's say we pull out now, do you think the war on terror is over? If no, then what do we do next? Do you really think Al Queda is finished attacking us? What would be your plan, sit back and wait for it to happen again?
Too late, they already have a stable base of operations in Pakistan. We should be devoting resources to law enforcement and intelligence. Unbiased intelligence. And maybe spend some time learning from other countries that combat terror but still manage not to declare war on random nations that didn't attack them.
Yeah and I ough to take what you THINK seriously WHY? You guys THOUGHT there were WMDs in Iraq, you THOUGHT we would be greeted as liberators with Iraqis throwing candy and flowers at us (those hiding improvised explosive devices dont count) you THOUGHT the whole thing would take six weeks no even six months. You THOUGHT there wouldnt be any guerilla resistance. In fact you havent THOUGHT a single thing about Iraq that turned out to be true. In fact it was us lefties that were CORRECT right down the line. So why should we be swayed by your newest foray into you THINK.
Golfer, the "War on Terror" is going to be like the war on drugs, or the war on poverty. It will never end, and will be fought on many fronts, using many resources. There is no single state for us to attack, not even a defined group of people. The War in Iraq is nothing more than a costly diversion. What we do there doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the broader "War on Terror". Even if we kill every single person in Iraq, the "War on Terror" will still go on. Just what do you think constitutes a "stable base" for terrorists? I believe Bin Ladin planned 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan. They don't need a whole country. The fact that we haven't been hit here since 9/11 is pure luck, with a lot of hard work from local law enforcement, increased security measures, etc. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ. If you think the terrorists are too stupid to just make an end run around our army in Iraq and hit us elsewhere, you are naive indeed.
Sorry, but your premise is bogus.
I agree with everything you say with the exception of Iraq, but we will never agree on that so there really is no use in discussing. However, read the book The Looming Tower it will give you a good idea of what Bin Ladin and alike really want. One of those things is an total fundamental Islamic state, just to start - when we leave Iraq that will happen. Whether is is run by Bin Laden who really cares, he has many followers. I do believe at this point we are preventing that.
I think what you recommend is exactly what Bush and many conservatives have been saying all along. Iraq is just one of the fronts.
This is going to be a war that our children are fighting. I do not think we can sit back like Clinton did for 8 years and let them kick our butt all around the world.
I agree, we will be hit again it is only a matter of time. When we are, we need to hit back hard. I know you will not agree with this as you believe we can talk our way around this war.
Libs like those who run this site and who frequent this board, and run the democratic party are just like Neville Chamberlin. Except for one thing, I believe he loved his country, which I cannot say for the likes of you and your libs friends.
Liberals don't love their country? Up yours, you self-righteous troglodyte. I haven't heard any liberal say that we can "talk our way around" terrorism. The difference is that we have the common sense to realize that Iraq is a fool's errand. If your premise is correct, our only hope is a permanent occupation of Iraq with a quarter million troops. Are you prepared for that? If Iraq becomes an Islamic state, and starts running terrorist training camps, we don't need an occupying army to deal with it. Ever heard of air strikes?
Your moron president has screwed us royally with his little Iraq adventure, and it will do nothing toward reducing terrorism around the world.
You can take your condescending attitude and shove it.
Mass airstrikes, and you would agree with that, yeah right. You would be crying about all of the innocent people getting killed. (of not if you hero Bill Clinton did it, but of course he did take that course of action, and look what it got us, 9/11).
I would love to bomb the hell out of them. Then our brave men and women (i.e normal americans, those are the people you pretend to support) would not have to fight on the ground. What an outcry there would be then? You libs are all fake, phoney frauds, and you cannot stand it when you get called on it.
The conservatives in this country have your number, and you hate. Things go in waves, they are tilting left now, (mainly because conservative stopped acting like conservatives) but once we get attacked again, and you and the rest of the libs want to do nothing, most American will see you for what your are Stalinists. Just admidt, it is ok, our brave men and women have fought for your freedom many time so you can be Stalinist in the land of the free.
By the way nice come back "shove it" very intelligent I would say, keep trying.
Hello Golfer:
Your idiot hero, Bush got our country attacked on 9/11, On His Watch! Not Clinton! Bush knew about it almost a whole year in advance of the attack! Instead of defending us he was Vacationing prior to 9/11 with the full knowledge that it was being planned.
Then when the attack happenned he was in a schoolroom with little kids and he sat there stuplified for more than 5 minutes trying to fugure out what in the heck to do. He was probable thinking to himself, "Damit, I was told about this, why didn't I listen!"
When he went after Osama the whole world was on our side. But then, as his own subordinates, like Tenent and others say, he invaded Iraq, in spite of Intel that didn't support doing that. He gave the terrorist a huge present when he began the idiotic occupation of Iraq. Now thousands of our young men and women are dead and still dying in Vain. Just like it was in Vietnam.
That's exactly what Osama wanted because they don't want to fight us here. They wanted us over there, so they can kill us day after day and spend down trillions of our dollars and thousands of our young kids. Colin Powell told Bush if he invades Iraq he will own it, but again Bush would not listen and heed good advice.
So when you proudly think that we havent been hit since 9/11 your wrong. We're getting our young men and women killed day after day. Bush played right into their hands and now they are stronger and more plentiful in numbers than we ever imagined possible and weve lost the moral high ground that we used to be proud of.
The Voters in our country have YOUR NUMBER because you Conservatives have been yourselves. We were promised compassionate Conservatism but look what we got instead. We got NeoConIdiots and an UGLY DICTATOR!
I think you better stop drinking the Michael Moore coolaid. Bush knew about it a year in advance??? He was in office less than 9 months. So you better check your facts.
Clinton had 8 years to get Osama - and chickened out several times. Well documented, but you would dare read that as it might make your brain explode.
The stupid, it hurts my head. I assume an ignorance virus ate your entire brain. No you dont have anyones number. You live in a world of complete delusions uneffected by reality. You are ignorant beyond human comprehension.
Typical elite comment. All conservative are dumb Jesus loving idiots. You may me laugh, your comments proves I have your number, AND YOU HATE IT!!!
You cant say that we love our country because in your monumental ignorance you mistake cheerleading for an ADMINISTRATION for caring enough about the country to do what patriots do. Assure that each administration uphold the values that made the country great. You are a moron. Too stupid to understand that Bush is NOT America. I am sure you do love the country. I just think you are too stupid to do it any good. Please do the world a favor and give yourself a vasectomy with a pair of rusty wirecutters. Do not pollute our gene pool with genes that might pass on your substandard brain .
Now you really show how intelligent your are, I am happy I found this site. You libs are so easy to get upset, that you have to revert to name calling.
By the way, I have done a lot of good for the world. Raise 400K for a children's cancer foundation. Take a yearly mission trip to the Domican Republic, building churches and running medical clinics, with my teenage daughter, who is as caring a giving as any person as you would ever meet. She comes from a pretty good gene pool. To bad the world does not have more like her. So what do you have to say for yourself, besides name calling that is?
Yeah..... maybe 9/11 was a made for television reality show.... GET a CLUE
Please clarify. Do you mean that ABC epic "pigpath to 9/11"?
Who attacked us on 9/11? Here's your clue...IT WASN"T IRAQ.
Who is responsible for the majority of the attacks in Iraq? The same who attacked us on 9/11.
I would like to hear mr Bush himself define " victory " , in his own words.
The New York Post only costs 25 cents. Now you know why. You get what you pay for.
in new york city, that's cheaper than toilet paper. not that i'm saying...
Why is everyone on Harry Reid's case for saying the Iraq War is lost? Doesn't anyone remember remember that George W. Bush himself said that the Iraq War is unwinnable? I recall Mr. Bush making this statement during a TV interview about two or so years ago. Nothing much came of his statement after a White House spokesman explained/reinterpreted it.
The New York Post is spot on here. The Democrats have invested in our defeat. Any progress is now seen as being detrimental to the Harry Reid and the Democrat Party's position on the war on terror.
I think it's time for some entrepreneur to come up with a male version of the burka for Democrat men like Reid. It could be called the "boyka." Nothing else would symbolize the cowardice of Reid and Co. more for surrendering in the face of a ruthless enemy.
OK, Kevin & Golfer had me going there for a while.You guys blew it with these most recent posts.
It's obvious now that both of you are doing a parody of clueless dittoheads. Nobody could seriously pack that much mindless propaganda into two heads. Nice work, very funny, but you pushed it too far.
Typical comment from a left coast loon. Continue to have fun in your world, you must love the coolaid!
Continue to enjoy your monumental ignorance. Higher brain function will ever allude you.
To paraphrase Senator Webb (D)Va, who would we be surrendering to? We won the war FOUR YEARS AGO. Remember the chimp in the borrowed flight suit and codpiece? This is an occupation smack dab in the middle of a civil war. The MAJORITY of the "Murkin" people say GTF OUT.
Exactly. Acknowledging a boneheaded f*ckup is not the same as surrendering, no matter how much these idiots try to float that talking point. Surrendering means laying down your arms and putting yourself at the mercy of the enemy. No Democrat has proposed anything of the sort. The "surrender" and "defeat" crap is a talking point that Rush Limbaugh was paid to make up. That's right, Kevin and Golfer...Rush Limbaugh is paid specifically to lie to you, so that you will be gullible enough to support the GOP no matter what.
Pulling out of Iraq and putting our resources to work where they will actually do some good is just smart. Unfortunately, in the mind of the troglodytes, intelligence is for sissies.
You of course have it exactly wrong. The problem is that ReNAMBLAcan morons like you in your insatiable bloodlust are INVESTED in getting as many Americans killed as possible for your vicarious fun. You are so afraid that someone will take your fun away and Americans will stop dying for your continued pleasure. Please seek help immediatly
Know What:
We're not fighting "The War On Terror" by way of our Occupation of Iraq. What we are doing in Iraq is more accurately stated by the following:
In Iraq, we are babysitting a "Civil War" and an assortment of other problems that we have created in that country. This situation is very devastating to our country and to Iraq as well. It is the biggest foriegn policy blunder in the history of the United States of America.
Be sure to watch the Bill Moyers Journal tonight on PBS (Fridays)