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.”