After attacking Reid over war "is lost" comment, Broder "doubtful" Iraq victory is possible
On the April 30 edition of XM Radio's The Bob Edwards Show, Washington Post columnist David Broder asserted that it was "really doubtful" President Bush would be able "to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq." Broder made this statement four days after he attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for what he called Reid's "ineptitude," because of, as he wrote in his April 26 Post column, Reid's assertion that the Iraq war "is lost." As Media Matters for America noted, in that column, Broder pointed to Reid's "war is lost" remark to compare him to embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and accuse him of engaging in "inept discussion[s] of the alternatives in Iraq" and of not being "a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth." Further, after discussing Democratic strategist Paul Begala's recent column on The Huffington Post, in which he wrote that "Broder, of course, is a gasbag," host Bob Edwards noted, "[W]e're in the world of the blogs and this stuff spreads so fast." Broder responded: "I am not a fan of the blogs, and the blogs are not fans of mine."
As Media Matters has noted, in his April 26 column, Broder asserted that both Reid and Gonzales were "continuing embarrassment[s] thanks to" their "amateurish performance[s]," and he pointed to Gonzales' handling of the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys and Reid's "war is lost" statement as evidence. In that column, Broder also claimed that "a long list of senators of both parties" is "ready" for Reid's "ineptitude to end" but provided no evidence of any Democrat who holds that position.
But, during his interview with Edwards, Broder himself stated that it "is really doubtful" Bush's "effort to try to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq" is "achievable." Broder added that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, "probably has until August or September to produce something that would be tangible. If he can do it, that would be wonderful, but I think the odds are against him."
Additionally, in response to Edwards' question as to "who's right" in Iraq -- Bush or the Democrats -- Broder noted: "I think public opinion in this country says the Democrats are right." But, in his April 26 column, Broder never mentioned that public opinion supports Reid's assessment that the war "is lost." Further, when Edwards pointed out that the entire Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to the editor to the Post "backing" Reid and asked Broder: "Did you get it wrong, or is the Democratic support weaker than they would have us believe?" Broder responded "no" and added with apparent sarcasm:
BRODER: I thought it was terribly moving that 50 Democratic senators, including one who's been hospitalized for months and has not made it to the Senate floor, spontaneously put their names on the letter to you and to The Washington Post, condemning me for what I had said about their leader, Harry Reid. I have never seen such a wonderfully orchestrated outburst in a long time. So, it was -- gotta be impressive testimony that they really want to keep him as their leader.
In dismissing the Democratic caucus' stated support of Reid, Broder again failed to provide any evidence to back up the claim he made in his column -- that there is a "long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two [Reid and Gonzales] springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end."
From the April 30 edition of XM Public Radio's The Bob Edwards Show:
EDWARDS: And what constituencies need to be pleased by these negotiations?
BRODER: Well, there are a whole variety of them. The Democrats have -- are being pushed by the anti-war wing of their party, which gets stronger, probably, every day. The president is -- still has the backing of most Republicans, who say that they support his effort to try to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq -- whether that's achievable is really doubtful.
EDWARDS: The president says timetables are defeatist. Democrats say that continuing the war just amplifies past mistakes at great cost. Who's right?
BRODER: Well, I think public opinion in this country says the Democrats are right. When Gen. Patraeus was here in Washington this past week, he was making the case that they are still something that is worthwhile doing in Iraq. And he has more troops still coming in the next two months to try to achieve something that would look like progress, at least in Baghdad and Anbar Province. He probably has until August or September to produce something that would be tangible. If he can do it, that would be wonderful, but I think the odds are against him.
EDWARDS: Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished," and there is grumbling that Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam because it might end up being more damaging. Think so?
[...]
EDWARDS: And you lit up our mailbox this past week with your criticism of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. You said he was a loose cannon who's risking continued Democratic support. The Democratic Caucus in the Senate signed a letter backing him. Did you get it wrong, or is the Democratic support weaker than they would have us believe?
BRODER: No, I thought it was terribly moving that 50 Democratic senators, including one who's been hospitalized for months and has not made it to the Senate floor, spontaneously put their names on the letter to you and to The Washington Post, condemning me for what I had said about their leader, Harry Reid. I have never seen such a wonderfully orchestrated outburst in a long time. So, it was -- gotta be impressive testimony that they really want to keep him as their leader.
EDWARDS: Democratic strategist Paul Begala called you a "gasbag."
BRODER: Well, he's got the credentials to do that. I -- Begala has been after me ever since --
EDWARDS: What are you saying? It takes a gasbag to know a gasbag?
BRODER: No, no, no, no, no. But he, ever since he worked in the Clinton White House, he's been on my case. And, I think I'm just going to have to learn to live with Paul Begala's criticism.
EDWARDS: Is this just another day in the life of a political columnist?
BRODER: Right, exactly.
EDWARDS: Well, it seems to me it's more difficult these days. I wonder if you think that's a good thing or a bad thing.
BRODER: You know, if you're doing political commentary, as I guess I'm doing these days for you and for the Post, you learn that you have to accept the idea that you're going to be a target for people who you criticize -- and that's fine. Begala is in an interesting position because, like a few others, he's been on both sides of the street.
He's been a political operative, and now he is quote, unquote "a commentator" -- and I think that's fine. If you accept that he has credentials to be a commentator after having carried the water for Democrats for many years, that's for -- it's a free country.
EDWARDS: But now we're in the world of the blogs and this stuff spreads so fast.
BRODER: I know, and I am not a fan of the blogs, and the blogs are not fans of mine, and we can live with that tension as well. What I like about the world today is that people can have an audience without having to be cleared by anybody, and it's a great thing for this country that people can express their views.
Well, as we recall, Puddinhead George himself said that the "War on Turr" could not be won. That was before they connected his larynx directly to Karl Rove's brain.
Now we are monitoring XM Radio?
In that case why wasnt Bill Maher attacked when he said MMFA were sissies ? A homphobic slur?
All in good time, Casey..... All in good time... (rubbing hands together image)
---"attacked"---
Media Matters isn't "attacking" anybody.
Sheesh, talk about a sissie......
Whistle for "out of context". I saw that episode of REAL TIME, and Maher was pointing out one of the less significant items posted that week on MMFA and said that if we're wasting our time on stuff like this, maybe we are a bunch of sissies. I got the impression from his comments that he is not at all familiar with MMFA, or what it does.
You got to admit, some of the stuff this site goes after is pretty petty. Some of it reads like a Democrat fan club, freaking out cause some minor nobody whined about a candidates hair cut. It has it's immature moments.
Casey
Who in the GOP are you working for?
Sometimes it takes a little monitoring to expose hyprocrisy... you know MMFA probably could afford a subscription seeing that it recieves all that money from BIG BAD George Soros. As to your second point, what does that have to do with this article?
It has nothing to do with the story, just more defocusing from Casey.
broder: "What I like about the world today is that people can have an audience without having to be cleared by anybody, and it's a great thing for this country that people can express their views"
people can have an audience without having to be cleared by anybody
That's funny, that this hack said "audience", where nobody I know of would have said (or even thought) of an "audience"
The professional hacks, and the "audience" they so love... an "audience" shrinking everyday, as the Internet Wire's influence grows.
It would have made more sense to have said:
"people can communicate information and opinions without having to watch ABC or Fox or whatever..."
"people can inform themselves, and stay current on National Policy and such, without having to suffer listening to professional hack 'pundits' on TV or wherever else..."
We have our own news-wire now, the Internet Wire... we don't need broder and hacks like him...
...we don't want to be his "audience" anymore... we never did.
Broder attacked Reid for telling the truth. Then Broder tracked in Reid's wake. This is standard human behavior. It often plays out like this:
Aunt Edna shuffles through the room. She is gaunt and wobbly.
When she's gone, Cousin Katie says, "She looks terrible. I think she's going to die."
And everyone else says, "How can you say that? She'll recover!"
But when Cousin Katie shuffles off, someone says, "You know, Edna really doesn't look well."
Here's another parallel example: MLK, Jr. suggests something what seems preposterous at the time: that black people should be equal. He gets his jaw shot off. Today, many people assert the same thing, but no one is gunnin' for their jaws.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
An example of a "beat reporter" who got his own column by appearing to be the All-American Midwest Commonsense Guy for the Washington Post! This guy made his carrier chasing Scaife's shottie sex scandals in his own mind about Clinton, leaving political discource to the Beuaty Shop crowd!
If you have a pundit that is stil around, and on the air on Sunday, you know he is a sell-out to the corporate agenda, or a token liberal. Their are none left, and it's ironic that he would be on Edwards show since he was the first casualty at NPR when the Bushies took over!
Dave Broder is no Walter Cronkite, he is more like the proof readers; good at prose, punctuation, but policy, and political issues is too much studing, so easier to spread innuendo with talking points from the White House & RNC!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
P.S. : I miss Edward's voice, and conscience on the air when he started with NPR. I turned to the show the day they went on air in Las Vegas in the 80's and turned it off the day Air America went on air, and Bob was gone.
Have you noticed? It's getting rarer and rarer to see even a token "liberal." Now they have token "moderates." "I'm not a liberal, but I play one on TV."
"...Blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah-blah blah..."
-Broder
themole's nailed this one!
He's not saying it's lost, just that it's lost... ish.
Who Will Connect The Dots Now? This has got to be the 64 billion dollar question: Can we now, based on FACTS, bring all of our "dots" together to make a case for impeachment? If not please state why _________________.
This statement or question is for the media as well as the public. Some how, there is a "ghost block" preventing this country from acting in a rational manner.
This president is responsible for killing close to 1 million people, and yet we don't even want to say the word IMPEACHMENT. Our congress, senate, judges, Generals, and voting public have been educated from the best schools this world has to offer, and they cannot "connect these dots" that now stand out like an emergency signal. Some how we have put a regulator on the truth in this country. One big example of that is the FACT there were no WMDs, but there is still 29% of Americans who want to KILL anyway. What the hell is really going on? I say take a deep breath, and examine what you could never get away with as a citizen. This country needs to drop this notion that we have to "Win This Thing." WIN WHAT. The right to kill more innocent Iraqis, or shell I say "collateral damagees."
Yes, now there is talk about putting a "strong" man in Iraq to quiet the waring factions. After that is done, then they will place a democratic government in power. What they really mean is kill untold thousands more Iraqis to wipe out anyone not fighting for the Americans. After the killing is done, then, yes you guessed it, we continue to close our eyes as we have been doing.
It's coming to this rage in me, and I just don't want to take it anymore. We were once a proud nation in my life time. To see that image wiped out in 6 years have hurt me more then my personal life losses. This has got to stop.
Joseph
Noone cares about dead Iraqis in DC. They don't have any lobby groups, at least none with money to bribe the killers to stop killing. Clinton killed a million with sanctions and noone complained. Repubs were just fine with that. Democrats were praising him as he did it. Bush is running torture programs and they keep giving him the money for it. Just shows where DC's collective head is at. Dead people? They don't mind killing millions, they get contributions for it from the war industry. Our nation is run by mass murderers. Yay!
And it's the voter who keeps them there. It's the voter's fault.
If Paul Begala had half the thoughtful and deliberate comments of Broder, he wouldn't be the "gasbag" that he accuses Broder of being.
Columnists and pundit's public assessments of this war and where we are, is a far cry from the Democratic Senate leader's politically motivated grandstanding.
I think Reid was caught in a moment of candor. He, like most thinking people, believe this war to be totally FUBAR. Most just don't dare say it because they fear the fascist flying monkey patriotism police.
I applaud politician's candor, but sensitive issues require more deliberation and temperance - and as I said, with less throught to political maneuverings.
Tommy:
The truth is not political. It just is.
Truth is, we are battling Iraqis more than anyone else.
Truth is, the United States cannot outlast the will of the indigenous people.
Truth is, trying to outlast the natives is like imagining you can outlive a mountain if only you think positive thoughts.
Truth is, the truth is often painful, seldom glorious, and always SOUNDS like the truth.
Iraq is lost SOUNDS true because it meshes with observable reality.
I'm a big fan of reality.
Bush and company, not so much.
Randy
I am not arguing it's truthfulness, I am arguing Reid's lack wisdom in saying so, publicly.
lack of wisdom
Anyone who has read MMFA for any length of time recognizes that Tommy and David Broder are cogs in the same machine. What is unknown is if Tommy gets as much money to "catapult" the propaganda as Broder does.
tommy never quite got over his koolaid drinking support of the war early on. but he's like all the right wingers who were wrong then. still trying to lecture the people who turned out to be right.
It is funny you always appear after Tommy says something, making things personal. Yet you never offer anything of substance. I never have bought your act.
and why is it your "act" to jump to the defense of conservatives like tommy and kevin? are you sitting on tommy's lap?
Harry Reid's entire comment:
"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. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice."
He is not saying that this war is lost. The media needs to get this right.
Oh, he's all for keeping it going under a Dem admin. He's voted consistently to keep our troops in Iraq and the present Dem plan is to keep some of them there for a long, long time. Dem's don't want to end the war. That would stop the contributions from the war profiteers.
Dems and Repubs, partners in war crime, just arguing over who gets to do the killing.
Tommy:
So Reid's foible is being unabashedly candid?
We should have so many foibling politicians!
Randy
Much better that our elected leaders lie, right?
I strongly suggest you hit preview before you post - then forget about it.
I believe Colbert said it best: "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
For once, I would like to hear a 'candid' assessment of anything from the Bush camp... instead of BS happy talk and hand-waving and fear mongering while nothing gets done. #1 - this was never a war ... to be won. There is no win. There is only continual loss (life, money, security... you name it). Frankly, I'm tired of placating these creeps so-as not to offend anyone's sensibilities. They don't seem to mind calling out the dogs whenever Bush or Rove or Cheney get a hangnail caused by even the slightest bit of honest reporting... Sorry, I agree with Fantagor. Enough is enough. Your allegience is showing. And, it ain't for the truth.
So, then let your gloriously candid and "enough is enough" Democratic leader put his money and his conscience where his considerably, politically expedient mouth is..........and cut off funding immediately and bring every single man and woman in harm's way, home, now. +
If he moves to make that happen, I will have respect for him. If he doesn't, he is just paying lip service and is a shameful excuse of a leader.
I'll hold you to that. Although (sadly) you're probably right (re Reid...)
I still contend that speaking out against this war, publicly, is not 'poor form' or insensitive, however (your point). You're right...enough IS enough. With any luck, more people (Republicans included) will have the balls (or various other body parts) to tell these liars what to do with this fake war and all the fake political conflicts that they have created. If Reid is in any way (in my mind) helps this process along... then he did a good thing. Screw political niceties... Support the troops - and fund those who are there adequately (not currently done) and bring them home alive.
Your use of these extreme solutions I think is a little below you Tommy... smacks of the same nonsense we hear from all these pundits day in and day out. I give you more credit than that.
Extreme? Is that what you call it? If I was the leader of the Democratic Senate and I publicly declared this war is "lost", then it would be shameful of me to let one more day go by with men and women risking their blood and our money fighting a "lost" cause. Or could it be that Reid is just saying it's lost for political reasons?
You can't have it both ways, and neither can Reid.
Does he have that power, alone? Come on, Tommy. That ain't how it works and you know that.
Hmmm.... seems like you need to play 'politics' a little in a 'political system', no? You show me one instance where an elected official doesn't play politics in some way to achieve a stated goal. I think the two are inseparable. But, you have deemed Reid's action the 'bad' sort of politics. I think I disagree.
Greek, Where did I say he "had that power?". I said he should either introduce legislation to halt funding now and bring home the troops, or move towards that end immediately.
If you prefer politicians speak to you and not act accordingly, fine.
If I remember correctly, the Democrats have been trying to enact legislation for a metered pullout from Iraq that Bush keeps blocking, right? ...legislation that doesn't even have a specific date! That's -- at the very least -- a reasonable solution... for a conflict that is unwinnable, say (prob a better word than 'lost'). Bush keeps saying they 'want to block funding'? So, who's playing politics? Reid ...or Bush and his crew? That's the problem. Your solution is all or nothing... just like what we hear perpetually about these 'dems don't support the troops' folks. I think that's unfair. But, that's my opinion.
If you agree with putting a non-binding timetable on a "lost" war, that is your choice. To me it's unconscionable.
Personally, I'll take anything I can get from these jokers...and that's a sad commentary on the current state our broken political system. I agree with you (I guess)? And I think, ultimately, we are in agreement... that is, this war is absurd and our politicians should put their (our) money where their mouths are. Believe me... your use of the word 'unconscionable' sums it up for me.
tommy has never heard of the constitution. there's this little item in there about the veto, which a president can use on any bill passed by congress. the congress then needs a two thirds majority to override the veto. bush has threatened to do that to any bill with a pull out date. therefore the democrats cannot put in a pull out date and get it passed. if they refuse to pass funding for the troops, then the republicans will attack them as unpatriotic. the problem is george w. bush, not reid.
I absolutely agree... Tommy aside, this feeding frenzy over Reid is more smoke and mirrors to deflect away from the real problem - GWB. Such little concern has been raised re Bush and his failed policies, inability to lead and lack of regard for our democracy or political process... to again say that there is a liberal media bias is ludicrous. We've arrived at an Orwellian future I really thought I'd miss in my lifetime.
TOMMY:
It couldn't be more clear. The MILITARY war is lost, because it could never be WON. There was no territory to annex, no foe to defeat and sit down with to accept their surrender.
Reid clearly says any VICTORY from this conflict will come from DIPLOMACY, POLITICAL solutions, and compromise amongst the CIVIL warring parties. Our MILITARY cannot achieve these goals; these are jobs for our State Department. BUT BUT BUT BUSH considers all these alternatives to be weakness and appeasment, so he has REJECTED the only avenues to pulling a win out of this quagmire.
So, the war is LOST.
Tex,
Thanks for putting it into eloquent, easily understood terms, as you often do. I couldn't agree more.
"The MILITARY war is lost, because it could never be WON."
I disagree. The MILITARY war on Iraq - unjust as it was - was won, long ago, when Baghdad fell and Saddam was captured. At that point, the DIPLOMATIC war should have fallen into place but the horses' rears that are controlling the conflict decided that we'd do much better with a military occupation than a diplomatic solution.
Going on what you said, Tommy, would then agree that President Bush standing in front of our military men and women telling them and the American people that the Democrats are cutting off funding (which he did) is also political grandstanding?
Tommy, I don't understand how when Broder says that achieving victory in Iraq is "doubtful" he is making an honest "public assessment" of the war, but when Sen. Reid says the war is "lost" -- something the majority of Americans also believe -- he is grandstanding. If it's ineptitude when Reid says it, it's ineptitude when Broder says it, period.
As I have said, Broder is a political pundit who is not formulating, shaping, voting on, or deciding public policy..........his words have far less weight, much less effect and significance than an elected official, particularly the Senate majority leader.
Tommy, I must respectfully disagree. Broder, and pundits like him ARE shaping and formulating public policy. When pundits, whose words can reach the ears of millions of people, espouse a certain point of view, they have a tremendous ability to help shape and formulate public policy. And when the views they represent include lies, misinformation, or just plain bias, they have a negative effect on those policies. That is the point of this website, after all, to correct the lies and misinformation, and to counter the right-wing bias in the media. But of course you already know that.
Perhaps I should have been more clear - publicly elected official's words, as they speak for others, are far more important and weighty to me than private citizens who speak for themselves - whether they are nationally known columnists or not.
They do not vote to spend our money or move our men and women in and out of war, as politicians do.
That is the difference.
Tommy, when posters here say highly charged things that may be seen as offensive if stated by a national media figure like Imus (RIP) their excuse is invariably..."well I'm just an anonymous poster on a message board and this guy has a platform."
Now, you throw back the same argument (with merit in my opinion) and suddenly the relative importance of the opiner doesn't come into play. Funny how that is.
Bruce, I am not really sure I understand what you're saying.....but if I appear to be inconsistent or unclear?.........I hold politicians to much higher standards than private citizens, talk show hosts or anonymous posters on websites.
Politicians are publicly elected officials and are not private citizens anymore when it comes to issues that affect their constituent's lives......they vote to spend our money among many other important duties. I take their words as far more important than those who speak only for themselves through their own opinions, regardless of their political affiliation or whether they do or do not have some national platform.
I'm agreeing with you, I understand why Reid shouldn't have made his comments but Broder can. It goes to the responsibility of the position. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Bruce, As I said below, I reread it and it made perfect sense......it's time for an adult beverage, or something for me......
Have a nice evening....
I think I understood it better now.......I am a little slow,it's Monday.......if you are saying it is a bit selctive in lumping them all together now, and differentiating between them on other occasions, then I agree 100%.
Heres the difference. You guys are assuming the premise. That Reid said something he shouldnt have because you didnt like hearing it. I think officials have an obligation to tell us the truth, Tommy admitted he didnt have a problem with the accuracy of what Reid said, whether or NOT we want to hear it. Elected officials should think that doing so is more important than getting re-elected or public anger at what was said. I dont want to push Politicians into a place where they keep the truth from us to be more popular.
Solon, you are an illiterate chicken-hawk.
Oh, I'm sorry. Here, let me help you out.......
il·lit·er·ate - adjective
1.unable to read and write: an illiterate group. 2.having or demonstrating very little or no education. 3.showing lack of culture, esp. in language and literature. 4.displaying a marked lack of knowledge in a particular field:
Long live the REPUBLIC!!
Oh jason let me help YOU out since you are clearly a moron. The key to successful insults is some measure of credibility. Since I am WRITING on a website then obviously I am not illiterate. Since you cut and pasted the definition of a word you clearly do not understand I suggest you get your mommy to come down into the basement and proofread your ignorant posts. You really are too stupid to be taken seriously so go back to trying to impress the other special children on the shortbus and let the adults return to their conversation thats a good little cretin.
"suddenly the relative importance of the opiner doesn't come into play."
No, there is a disagreement to the importance of the opiner. There is a difference.
I still disagree with you. Many of these pundits are wholly owned subsidiaries of the RNC, and by extension, the administration. They often act as the "mouthpieces" of those entities, and are just as responsible for their comments as is Harry Reid.
I should have said "just as ACCOUNTABLE"
Twelve, I tried to press Tommy on this issue last week, and as far as I can tell it's the "L" word that gives him such agita. A national politician can never use this word, without showing A Disgraceful Lack of Respect for the Troops.
Val, You do just fine posting your own opinions, and I am capable of doing the same with my own.
If I need a summary done of mine, I will let you know.
need help? why is this here? why is this misinformation? this headline is misleading. get em now folks, tommy's greatest hits. and with your order, a complete double cd set of "you're right on this one tommy". no c.o.d. please.
When Broder wrote this column last week, he got 40 pages of comments on the internet edition calling him a moron, etc. It's no wonder today it's announced that the Post lost 3.5% of it's readership in the last six months. Like Chris Matthews said "The Post is a Neocon paper." If Watergate occurred today, the Post would call it a Democrat conspiracy and bury it as quickly as possible.
Let make sure we have the actual context of what Reid said clear:
"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."
what your limiting your argument too Tommy and Bruce is the part thats NOT underlined, but you have not addressed the statements before and after it.
dammit how come my underline parts don't show? WTF? shoulda previewed I guess but you know what I am referring too.
For some reason, underlining shows up in the preview, but not in the post. That's happened ever since they put in the new comment entry window.
G-A-S-B-A-G
That's how you spell "Broder"
"Begala" is listed as a synonym.
Is this what we can expect in the way of useful information from our media? Who cares what this quack has to say about anything?
Pathetic
Your insightful column on the subject of David Broder confirms my long-held belief that I should never read anything that David Broder writes and that I should never believe a word that David Broder utters. If David Broder were to pronounce that the weather will be sunny, I will respond by keeping a sharp eye out for the rain clouds.
"Uh, Republicans, some of them believe that, and Democrats, by and large, wish that Harry Reid would learn to engage mind before mouth opens. This has become kind of a pattern for him, and, uh, I think at some point down the road the Democrats are gonna have to have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid."
So, when Reid says that the war is lost if we continue down Bush's path, that's just remarkably different from saying that it's really doubtful that Bush can salvage something that even looks like a victory. Now if Reid had said that instead, it would all be fine, right?
It's got nothing to do with relative importance. Broder's comment is too similar to Reid's for Broder to suggest it was "bumbling" or that it's cause for Dems to consider dropping him.
How many people have praised McCain for his candor, his "straight talk" (as if he did that anymore), since it's so refreshing among politicians? But when Reid tells it like he sees it, even though the majority of Americans and Broder himself seems to agree with him, then it's a huge fuss because he should have phrased it differently.
When was David Broder elected to congress? If you liberals can't see the diference between a leader of congress saying the war is lost and some old man that writes about politics than you are fooling yourselves. This smear site is shameless.