« She Can Even Do A Herkie | Main | Terrorists in the Brierpatch »

Any way the wind blows...

One of the defining moments of the 2004 presidential campaign was John Kerry's explanation that we wasn't a waffler, wasn't a flip-flopper, wasn't indecisive. The killer quote, to many was his infamous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion -- before I voted against it" explanation of his two seemingly conflicting votes on funding for the Iraq war.

It seems that attitude is contagious, and has infected House Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Harry Reid yesterday called General David Petraeus a liar in saying that progress has been made in Iraq. On January 27, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm Petraeus as commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq.

In other words, Reid was for General Petraeus before he was against him.

As commenter and blogger marc pointed out, last November Reid said "We're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds." Reid then said, in February, that he will try to cut off funding for the Iraq war if President Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline for ending combat. Reid also said that "as far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that`s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don`t want us there. It doesn`t work well to do that."

In other words, Reid was against deadlines and funding cuts before he was for them.

And last week, Reid commented on the United States Supreme Court decision upholding the law banning partial-birth abortions by saying that "I would only say that this isn't the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there."

Oddly enough, when people started pointing out that Reid had in fact voted for the law the Court upheld, he issued a "clarification" that his remark, although issued after the ruling was handed down, was not intended to express disagreement with that particular decision, but general disapproval with Justice Alito. Reid just chose the occasion of Alito voting in accordance with Reid's beliefs -- apparently an extremely rare occasion -- to express his disappointment.

In other words, Reid was against partial birth abortion before he was for it, before he was against it again.

This all makes perfect sense in the proper context. And that proper context is this: Reid wants to keep his position as Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and is taking the steps he believes he needs to take to maintain it. An essential element of that goal is maintaining a Democratic majority in the Senate, or he'll be demoted to Minority Leader -- or worse, tossed out of the leadership entirely.

There is nothing innately wrong with this goal. What could be considered inappropriate is to what measures one takes to achieve it.

And in this case, I'm not too impressed with Reid's efforts.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Any way the wind blows...:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Reid: Bush In "Denial" On Iraq

» GINA COBB linked with A Roundup of Today's News -- With Comics

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 04/26/2007

Comments (93)

Ahhhh, now I see.G... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Ahhhh, now I see.

Great minds think alike, and all that!

Harry Reid is a statesman i... (Below threshold)

Harry Reid is a statesman in the vein of Neville Chamberlin - and THAT is a bad thing.

Another example of "the end... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Another example of "the ends justify the means" philosophy of the leftists.

e.g. "sure we're aiding the terrorists, but if it gets us the Whitehouse back, so what?"

I can't find either in your... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I can't find either in your post or the Hot Air post where Reid called the general a liar. Please show me where I can find Reid saying this...a quote or a video clip.

I'm not saying it didn't happen; I just can't find it and make a judgment until I see it myself.

Thanks.

Publicus: Let's say you to... (Below threshold)

Publicus: Let's say you told someone a particular thing as fact and that person said they didn't believe you. You're next question might be, "Are you calling me a liar?" It's a silly question. Because that person pretty much just did call you a liar.

Or to put it more simply: If someone says they don't believe what you say, they're saying you're lying.

Reid didn't specifically say, "General Petraeus is a liar." Reid said he doesn't believe General Petraeus is telling the truth. Same thing. Just sounds marginally nicer.

Reid's an idiot. And I'm not lying. He's misquoting Petraeus to suit his own agenda. Petraeus said the war cannot be won solely militarily and he expounded on that at length on more than one occasion. So Reid is the liar.

Not all Democrats lie. But... (Below threshold)

Not all Democrats lie. But unfortunately, the ones who are peddling the bicycle of Congress ARE liars - and that is a doggone shame.

I know I harp on this but I well remember when this was not the case. Dems and Republicans didn't necessarily agree on everything - or even most things - but they did so with respect and without rancor. When did this change? I trace it back to James Carville's campaigns for the Clintons. In addition, I blame the 24-hour news cycle where to fill dead air, moderators (I refuse to call them journalists because they aren't) encourage the most outrageous of speech in pursuit of ratings.

None of this is conducive to rational public discourse in the slightest.

Reid is pathetic. What a gu... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Reid is pathetic. What a gutless wonder. Disgraceful.

Publicus:In the in... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Publicus:

In the interview between Bash and Reid the following transpired:

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. All you have to do is look at the facts.

Did Reid call General Patraeus a liar? Not in so many words - but how else would you explain that exchange? I can understand him if he were to say something to the effect "I disagree with him." But Reid did not say that. He said "I do not believe him."

He follows that with the admonition "All you have to do is look at the facts." So, according to Reid, General Patraeus' report is contrary to the facts? In my book that is calling someone a liar!

Harry Reid always looks lik... (Below threshold)
brian:

Harry Reid always looks like he is rotting on the inside. He has absolutely no moral compass and is motivated solely by his desire to remain in power.

Wonder what Murtha and Pelo... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Wonder what Murtha and Pelosi had to do today that prevented them from meeting with the General in charge of Iraq? Seems as if your mind is made up about the outcome of an issue, facts on the ground are not relevant.

They can't meet with Presid... (Below threshold)
brian:

They can't meet with President Bush. They can't meet with Gen. Petraeus. But Assad...there's a man who's worth listening to.

Well, what I'm hearing is t... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Well, what I'm hearing is that Reid didn't believe the general's portrayal of the situation in Iraq was correct. He says the general is wrong.

That is a very different thing from calling him a liar. It could just as well mean that Reid thinks the general has drawn the wrong conclusion from the facts, has different facts, or is interpreting the facts differently.

If you want to say that Reid's wrong and the general is better positioned to understand the situation in Iraq, fine. But in no way did Reid call the general a liar.

"But in no way did Reid cal... (Below threshold)
89:

"But in no way did Reid call the general a liar."

I don't believe you, Publicus.

(I just had to let that rep... (Below threshold)
89:

(I just had to let that reply stand alone. )

"I don't believe you." and "I don't agree with you." are two radically different statements. And it is clearly not a case of misspeaking or a "botched joke" - the context and the ample time to correct speaks to that.

It really is simple. He called the General a liar. It might not have been intentional to say it so directly - after all the journalist fed him a yes/no answer of "will you believe him" and he answered too directly.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III, Pee ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III, Pee loshi and Mad Jack have their marching orders from Syria/Osama and they'll follow them to the end.

The democrats, especially Dusty Harry has done more lasting damage to this country and the people than the terrorists did or could have hoped to do on 9-11. That will be the history of the first 100 days +. Like everything else the left wing will try to lie their way out of it but the American people will still be paying 25 years or more from now. In the past couple of days the airways have been filled with democrat talking heads that could count themselves as honest until now. They are out there lying their a** of trying to defend the crazies in the party.

I pity the next president, no matter who it is. Everyone they appoint or hire will spend their entire tour in court or testifying before congress and end up in jail. In the first place anyone with an IQ above freezing (F) will not accept a position with an automatic trip to prison. It won't matter what you do, an answer to a trick question will send you up the river. Pig nose is making that a guarantee right now by calling everyone to testify under oath about nothing.
It won't go away with a change of presidents. It'll get worse.

Neither do I believe Public... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

Neither do I believe Publicus.

So no matter that Reid has ... (Below threshold)

So no matter that Reid has clearly misquoted General Petraeus to bolster his point of view that there is no progress, Publicus is more interested in defending Reid by supposing what Reid might have meant. Furthermore, from this conversation we have discovered that Reid disbelieves what Petraeus has yet to say to him.

Publicus:Well,... (Below threshold)
marc:

Publicus:

Well, what I'm hearing is that Reid didn't believe the general's portrayal of the situation in Iraq was correct. He says the general is wrong.

First of all how would Reid know? Wouldn't the Gen in charge and on the ground, a Gen Reid voted for to implement the new strategy in Iraq know better?

That siad here is the quote in context:

BASH: The phrase "the war is lost" really touched a nerve.

Do you stand by that -- that -- that comment?

REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus.

Now, that is clear and I certainly believe that.

BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost.

Carefully note what the Gen said, there is no hint in those words he believe the was is lost. But he does believe the three components outlined are required.

REID: General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that. And President Bush is doing nothing economically. He is doing nothing diplomatically. He is not doing even the minimal requested by the Iraq Study Group.

So I -- I stick with General Petraeus. I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

Note how Reid shifts rhetoric a bit. And also notice how he lies about what he said last week. He didn't say "war cannot be won militarily" he plainly said "I believe the was is lost."

Then... then the fool has the audacity to lean on the Iraqi Survey Group for support.

The ISG specifically said timelines shouldn't be imposed and if they were it would only serve to allow the enemy to lay low and regroup until we leave.

So.... Publicus you can parse Reids words all you want, to me liar may be too strong but I don't feel any great need to correct anyone who uses it.

But... there is very little doubt Reid took the Gen's words and twisted them beyond all recognition to suit his agenda.

The icing on this feces-laced cake is the failure of some members that are large supporters of Reid and his position, including Nancy "Pork Mistress" Pelosi and Rep[rehensible] Murtha, don't have the time to attend the Gen's briefing.

It's DESPICABLE, to say the least!

Oh...and I forgot.... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oh...and I forgot.

Thanks JT for the link and notice of my earlier comment.

"Wouldn't the Gen in charge... (Below threshold)
89:

"Wouldn't the Gen in charge and on the ground, a Gen Reid voted for to implement the new strategy in Iraq know better?"

Well, if given access to the same information Reid and the General should in theory be equally equipped to analyze the situation.

The big point is that Reid voted to confirm the General - disagreeing with him some of the time on the conclusions is fine and natural, but accusing him of lying is another.

Rewind a little bit. ... (Below threshold)
89:

Rewind a little bit.

Could Reid get out of this by saying that he was only calling the Hypothetical Petraeus a liar, not the real Petraeus?

After all, the interviewer introduces this Hypothetical Petraeus, and Reid responds to him.

Yeah, that would work. "I was not commenting on Real Petraeus - I was commenting on a Hypothetical Petraeus."

To bad that the Real Petraeus and Hypothetical Petraeus say the same thing about the war. The only difference between them is whether they meet Harry Reid or not......

Oh, my. Are you still</i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Oh, my. Are you still hanging your credibility on the flip-flop meme? How funny!

Though even funnier is seeing the folks who stretched that teeeeeeechnically Gonzalez didn't lie, but who now are so quick to look beyond technical definitions to proclaim that Harry Reid most obviously did call Petraeus a liar! And then to prattle on about how horrible it is to call someone a liar (except, of course, Scooter Libby, who is a liar about something that they rather approve that he lied about).

At least the posts about Edwards' hair are a) based on facts, and b) internally consistent.

On the plus side, Reid cann... (Below threshold)
John S:

On the plus side, Reid cannot does not actually control the Senate. His so-called majority consists of Joe Lieberman and Tim (Shivao) Johnson. Mitch McConnell has de facto control of the Senate. He can make a lot of noise, but there's nothing he can do about it.

"I don't believe you." ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"I don't believe you."

Reid means exactly what he said: He doesn't believe that what Petraeus said was accurate.

If he wanted to call Petraeus a liar, he would have called him a liar. It's as easy as Cheney telling Sen. Patrick Leahy to f%ck himself.

89:Well, if gi... (Below threshold)
marc:

89:

Well, if given access to the same information Reid and the General should in theory be equally equipped to analyze the situation.

Assuming they don't have the same info wouldn't it be best if Reid sat down with the Gen to get the "whole story" and "compare notes."

As much as I dislike Pelosi, she did have a private meeting with the Gen. Not that I believe it's a valid excuse for missing the meeting.

She and Murtha should have been there.

No, Publicus, Reid didn't s... (Below threshold)
89:

No, Publicus, Reid didn't say that he doubted the accuracy of the analysis he said:

"No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening."

That is, he said Petraeus was saying something knowingly untrue in the face obvious facts. In other words, lying. Actually skip the "in other words". I think I gave the dictionary definiton of lying.

to give an intentionally false statement

Yep, I was right.

Brian: What makes you think... (Below threshold)
89:

Brian: What makes you think I'm intersted in hair and in waiting too long to fire lawyers?

Brian:Can you expl... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Can you explain why Reid said last week "the was is lost" and in the quotes above he says "I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

Why is that not a lie?

Doublethink, marc. Try doub... (Below threshold)
89:

Doublethink, marc. Try doublethink.

Tripplethink is even better: The United States did 9/11, it didn't really happen, and they deserved it.

"No, I don't believe him, b... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening."

Geez, how hard is it to understand? That statement could easily mean that he thinks the general's judgment is wrong. If he wanted to call the general a liar, he could have just called him a liar. Stop putting words in Reid's mouth!

The general believes that the facts indicate the surge is working; Reid believes that the facts don't indicate it is.

Whether or not the surge is working is AN OPINION. They have a difference of opinion...get it?!

Sorry, I guess it was my tu... (Below threshold)
89:

Sorry, I guess it was my turn to go off topic. Could somebody delete that second paragraph for me?

I don't believe you.... (Below threshold)
89:

I don't believe you.

Brian:Can you expl... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Brian:

Can you explain why Reid said last week "the was is lost" and in the quotes above he says "I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

Why is that not a lie?

--

I easily understand what Reid is saying. We defeated Saddam's government sometime ago...That could be (and was) done militarily. The current situation is different. He believes (as do many generals) that the current situation cannot be won militarily----it also requires a political solution.

Frankly, not only do I not see what Reid is saying as a lie; I don't see it as very controversial or interesting. What, the Bush administration doesn't believe that a political solution is part what is required? Tell that to Condi. She'd never set foot in the middle east if the whole thing could be settled by the military. What would be the point?

I don't see Reid as such a ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I don't see Reid as such a divisive figure; whatever his merits or flaws, he's a rather boring character and what he says simply represents what a great many of the American people think. Others think differently. This is America.

I think we all can be in ag... (Below threshold)
89:

I think we all can be in agreeance that the solution has both military and political components.

I seem to understand that the debate here has focused on two things:

That Reid transforms the statement that a military-only solution isn't possible to "we've lost" and on the infamous exhange

"Will you believe him....?
"No...."

I don't believe you Publicu... (Below threshold)
89:

I don't believe you Publicus.

Do you want the general to jump around making an ass out of himself? I thought that was the politicians' jobs?

"what he says simply represents what a great many of the American people think"

*snore*

Yes?

But did really Reid say what Reid said Petraeus said. This is what seems to fascinate us so.

Publicus:Tell ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Publicus:

Tell that to Condi. She'd never set foot in the middle east if the whole thing could be settled by the military. What would be the point?

Gee thanks Publicus for laying waste to this Reid statement: "He is doing nothing diplomatically. He is not doing even the minimal requested by the Iraq Study Group."

BTW, while on a related subject, Reid, Murtha and Pelosi won't want to here this:

The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq.

I thought I told you, marc:... (Below threshold)
89:

I thought I told you, marc: Doublethink.

Condi is running around in the Middle East, but the administration is doing absolutely nothing on the diplomatic front.

You want doublethink? How a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You want doublethink? How about this? First we have a HotAir post that suggests absolutely nothing regarding Reid calling Petraeus a liar. Then we have Jim's Wizbang post that cites that HotAir post as a source for claiming that Reid called Petraeus a liar. Then we have Jay's post here that cites Jim's post as evidence that Reid called Petraeus a liar. And now you all take it as established fact. Nice how that works, eh?

Reid said:... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Reid said:

General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily.

Reid also said:

General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily.

How is Reid not falsely representing what the General said ? Lies and mischaracterization have become SOP for the Democrats.

Just to let the Wizbang cre... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Just to let the Wizbang crew know-

Nothing will happen to Harry.

Why?

Well even though Steve Wynn raises funds for the Republicans and one of the Maloof brothers is a registered Republican-[owner of The Palms,etc] they will never press for Harry to step down.

See this is weird but who are the most powerful people in Las Vegas?

No it ain't Oscar Goodman even though his wife holds the town handicap by running one of the only private high schools -i.e. gang banger free-in town. [ This is how they kept one of the biggest union bosses in town in line-]

No the most powerful people in town are the County Commissioners-you know they hand out the LIQUOR LICENSES-

Who sits on that board?

Why Harry Reid's little son-

R-O-R-Y.

[Ya-I know makes me want to pick out another handle.]

So guess what-as Tip O'Neil use to say -

"All politics is local."

And Harry the Pugilist is'nt going anywhere.

Brian:You seem to ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

You seem to have missed my question above.

Can you explain why Reid said last week "the war is lost" and in the quotes above he says "I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

Why is that not a lie?

Brian. I think this might b... (Below threshold)
89:

Brian. I think this might be useful for you:

doublethink |ˈdəbəlˌθi ng k| noun the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, esp. as a result of political indoctrination. ORIGIN 1949: coined by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Addendum:It isn't ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Addendum:

It isn't just about the liquor licenses -all the casinos are wanting to expand and get building permits, zoning waivers-and who approves that?

You guessed it-

Rory Reid Clark County Commissioner.

You can call Harry -"The Untouchable".

Well, what I'm hearing is t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, what I'm hearing is that Reid didn't believe the general's portrayal of the situation in Iraq was correct. He says the general is wrong."

Publius, Reid didn't say he didn't believe him. He said that IF Reid were to hear him AND the General said there was progress in Iraq THEN HE WOULDN'T BELIEVE HIM. So he already has his "belief" regarding the situation in Iraq and anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR. It's all in the video linked to in the earlier post Jay linked to in this post. Here's a direct link:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/24/video-reid-vows-not-to-believe-petraeus-if-he-reports-progress-in-iraq/

Rory - just so YOU know - I... (Below threshold)
marc:

Rory - just so YOU know - I doubt if many here care one wit whether Reid stays as Sen in Nevada. I suspect most would just be happy he would just STFU and failing that, at least make a coherent statement now and again.

They can't meet with Pr... (Below threshold)
Jo:

They can't meet with President Bush. They can't meet with Gen. Petraeus. But Assad...there's a man who's worth listening to.

And that about sums up the democrat party.

Well I was just trying to e... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Well I was just trying to explain the-since we're using literary references- The Catch-22 of the situation.

There is no way Nevada doesn't enjoy his Senator Majority status-Reid has a way of "greasing things".

*Ugh*-.

The guy shakes hands like a dead fish-so I've been told-that's all you need to know-and he's harder to read than a poker player-if he's an enemy of the war effort- that's trouble.

Honestly I hate the guy-but the Republicans let him run virtually unopposed and the Invisible Ensign has a compact with him never to speak out against anything he says-for the supposed "betterment of Nevada".

I guess the war effort isn't worth Ensign breaking that bond....

Republicans should demand that Ensign finally break the damn pack he has with Harry-is nothing worth Ensign speaking out against his treachory?

typo:Ensign speaking out... (Below threshold)
Rory:

typo:Ensign speaking out against ^Reid's^ treachery?

Brainy-For the lov... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Brainy-

For the love of Mike who the hell is in Iraq-

Reid or Petraeus?

OK, Rory this is all very f... (Below threshold)
89:

OK, Rory this is all very fascinating but it's easy to run around making allegations of nepotism and wrong-doing in a forum where most people don't really care about your local situation - mostly because they don't have an easy way to verify your information. So how do we tell you apart from any other indiemedia blowhard?

Could you rather point to a place with more information - preferably local - and preferably with access for contrary information and debate - so we can evaluate this?

Also, is there really any allegation of wrongdoing in your post?

89-Ghee you haven'... (Below threshold)
Rory:

89-

Ghee you haven't heard of Reid's property "deals" in Arizona?

"For the love of Mike who t... (Below threshold)
89:

"For the love of Mike who the hell is in Iraq- Reid or Petraeus?"

Actually, that is not highly relevant to Reid's truthfulness or flip-flopping on this matter. We all know who is where - as long as Reid at least believes Petraeus to be truthful things should be allright between them even if they don't agree. When Reid refuses to meet with Petraeus because he doesn't believe him, that's another matter.

"Ghee you haven't heard of ... (Below threshold)
89:

"Ghee you haven't heard of Reid's property "deals" in Arizona?"

I guess I'll have to look that up. But any amount of pork, redistricting or nepotism can't beat handing the Iraqis to the wolves.

What a crock. Who cares?</... (Below threshold)
Steigen:

What a crock. Who cares?

When it comes to inconsistency, look at the abyssmaly failed Bush/Cheney unleadership into a dissent into hell in Iraq.

This team has created the Shia crescent of Arabia from Pakistan to the Mediterranean, the newest expanded spawning ground for terrorists' homeland.

And you sniggle over some conflicting comments by Reid???? Jeez, Jay, you'll swallow any Republican crap while you go niggling over something from a Democratic leader.

Wake up & take a look at tonite's NBC poll.

Sorry, descent foe "dissent... (Below threshold)
Steigen:

Sorry, descent foe "dissent."

Where is our Secretary of S... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Where is our Secretary of State these days? Anyone heard from her lately? Yoo-hoo Condi, where are you? Where is there evidence of anyone in this administration engaged in any type of forward thinking? Wht is "victory"? Time for Iraq to stand up. It's all stay the course, we're winning this time for sure, we'll get 'em sooner or later, just trust me re-hashed, warmed over garbage. Sooner or later we'll have to leave, right? Right?

Well, not so fast. The construction of the largest embassy anywhere, the establishment of permanent military bases, the rejection of initial estimates of what it would take to achieve "victory"? This administration doesn't want to, has never wanted to "win" anything other than long term geo-petro-political advantage. This is President(s) Bush/Cheney's strategy. Stay The Course!

Harry Reid, most of Congress and the American public are just saying this is not enough justification for the continuing sacrifice of American lives.

speaking of liars...<... (Below threshold)
groucho:

speaking of liars...

You're doing a hell of a job Fredo!

groucho - have you looked i... (Below threshold)
marc:

groucho - have you looked into becoming an author at Wizbang Blue?

Can you explain why Reid... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Can you explain why Reid said last week "the war is lost" and in the quotes above he says "I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

Why is that not a lie?

Why do you say it's a lie? The first quote says that the war cannot be won, and the second quote says that the war cannot be won militarily. I'm not following you... where's the supposed lie?

Reid didn't say he didn'... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Reid didn't say he didn't believe him. He said that IF Reid were to hear him AND the General said there was progress in Iraq THEN HE WOULDN'T BELIEVE HIM. So he already has his "belief" regarding the situation in Iraq and anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR.

Thank you for clearly showing why Reid DID NOT call Petraeus a liar.

Throughout all the pages on Wizbang and other blogs, when one person says there's progress in Iraq and another says there isn't, not once do I recall one side calling the other one a "liar" over that difference of opinion. People have been accused of ignoring certain facts, of interpreting them incorrectly, or of simply being delusional. But never of being a "liar" by having a different opinion. But now suddenly, Reid differs in his interpretation from that of Petraeus, and that magically turns into calling him a liar.

If I were to tell you that we are losing in Iraq, you would call me many things, but I cannot imagine "liar" would even enter your thoughts. And you would also "have your 'belief' regarding the situation in Iraq", right?

Steigen, you're free to lis... (Below threshold)

Steigen, you're free to listen to "polls" and let others do your thinking for you. You go along with the flock; I'll keep my own counsel.

J.

Brian and Publius:... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Brian and Publius:

When we have people saying things that are at odds with each other here, usually those people are reading each others comments and disagreeing with the thought process or conclusions. That's honest disagreement. What Reid did is to say that Petraeus' "comments" aren't worth reading if they say a certain thing, because regardless of the thought process or conclusion, Reid will not agree with him. He's not saying the generals facts or logic is wrong... he can't because he won't listen to the man. He's saying that if the general makes a certain point, he's intentionally saying something at odds with irrefutable facts... which is pretty much what "lying" means.

What you do is not thinking... (Below threshold)
Steigen:

What you do is not thinking for yourself; rather more like knee-jerk right wing thought depravity.

I do my own thinking,thank you, apart from your silly implication above. The polls rather, reflect that I happen to be part of the vast majority who has come to see through the Bush/Cheney manufactured GWOT and the utter disaster that this policy hs rendered in the Middle East.

Brian:Why do y... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Why do you say it's a lie? The first quote says that the war cannot be won, and the second quote says that the war cannot be won militarily. I'm not following you... where's the supposed lie?

Tense: a category of verbal inflection that serves chiefly to specify the time of the action or state expressed by the verb.

Read it learn it.

"Lost" past tense, the war is already lost.

"I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily..." future tense.

Spin all you want you're wrong.

Steigen, can you name one w... (Below threshold)
marc:

Steigen, can you name one war, anywhere on the face of the planet, waged by any country past or present that was fought according to poll results?

For the left:Think... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

For the left:

Thinking for yourself is defined as agreeing with the proper agenda.

For the right:

Thinking for yourself requires you to actually examine information and come up with conclusions onf one sort or another, and be able to back them up without using derogatory comments about the other side as your primary argument.

Lot easier to be on the left, where thinking for yourself is a much simpler process...

Nobody thought Tom Daschle ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Nobody thought Tom Daschle could lose to John Thune, either(except Hugh Hewitt!). Maybe it's Harry's turn, Rory's assertions notwithstanding.

"What you do is not thinkin... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"What you do is not thinking for yourself; rather more like knee-jerk right wing thought depravity."

Posted by: Steigen

Boy, that line must have won you the state debate title back in high school.

He's saying that if the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

He's saying that if the general makes a certain point, he's intentionally saying something at odds with irrefutable facts... which is pretty much what "lying" means.

No, he's saying that he's at odds with one particular INTERPRETATION of the facts. Petraeus himself has said the surge had good and bad results, so how could someone who simply thinks there's more bad than good be accused of calling him a liar?

"Lost" past tense, the w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

"Lost" past tense, the war is already lost.
"I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily..." future tense.
Spin all you want you're wrong.

Apparenly English isn't your first language. "The war cannot be won because it's already lost" or "the war is already lost and therefore can't be won" are perfectly legitimate sentences and expressions of thought. Spin all you want, you have poor reading comprehension.

Question of the day. Both h... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Question of the day. Both houses of congress we in session for a briefing by the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Peee loshi and her long time friend? Black Jack Murtha both skipped the briefing. Where were they and what were they in to. More meetings with the enemy or a motel room? Remember it is just a question. Something stinks in the United States congress and I't looks like the traitors are selling out the U.S.. Not one productive thing in the first 100 days, much less 100 hours. Someone out there spotted the two known traitors, where were they?

"Peee loshi and her long ti... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Peee loshi and her long time friend? Black Jack Murtha both skipped the briefing._scrapiron

Number of military funerals attended by President Bush, 2003-2007:

0

Think about it. (No, REALLY think about it.)

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=37535&archive=true

<a href="http://www.washin... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

The Democrats' Gonzales

They nuts at Kos are going, well nuts, over this.

Families of soldiers killed... (Below threshold)
bam:

Families of soldiers killed in action met by President Bush, 2003-2007: about 100%.

Point being?

bryranD[elusional]... (Below threshold)
marc:

bryranD[elusional]

Think about it. (No, REALLY think about it.

Maintaining your usual standards I see. Disjointed, unrelated, off topic comment only a mind like yours could conceive of being close to pertinent.

Murphy:No surprise... (Below threshold)
marc:

Murphy:

No surprise they are going nuts.

Just for those that refuse to follow the link here is the take away quote:

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined [pdf file] by the Iraq Study Group -- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

Which is exactly what Gen. Petraeus was and is saying.

For the right:<br /... (Below threshold)
Jaw:

For the right:


Thinking for yourself requires you to actually examine information and come up with conclusions onf one sort or another, and be able to back them up without using derogatory comments about the other side as your primary argument.

Funny how the conclusions you tend to come to are exactly what are fed to you as talking points -- and a slew of derogatory comments tend to follow any debate over your ignorance.

For the right:

Thinking for yourself doesn't exist.

Jaw, please tell me if it a... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jaw, please tell me if it appears that bD read or thought about the article that he linked to in the Stripes. This may require you to engage a neuron or two. Go back, look at the link, and report. This is a serious and important question. I need to know whether you can think or just think you can think.
=======================

"For the right:Thi... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"For the right:

Thinking for yourself doesn't exist."

Posted by: Jaw

Were you and Steigen on the same debate team?

Steigen, it's clear you thi... (Below threshold)
kim:

Steigen, it's clear you think for yourself if you call Pakistanis Shia and Arabic like you did at 7:39 PM yesterday.
====================================

Jaw:Jaw:A... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jaw:

Jaw:

A casual examination of the history of warfare doesn't show anyone winning a battle or a war by retreating from the field of action. Also, AFTER a war there's going to be a considerable time of upheaval in the subjugated country.
Look at Germany after WW2 - there were still instances of 'insurgent' action close to a decade after Germany 'surrendered'.

Would you have argued in 1946 that it was a loss, and all troops should have been brought home?

Facts - 2+2+2+2+2 always equals 10 in the decimal counting system, no matter how you try to spin it. It ain't talkin' points - it's an examination of facts with the idea that we're in a war for civilization that will last decades, not weeks. Not talking points, just an examination of facts with the idea in mind that we can't afford to lose, no matter how much Reid might want to for temporary partisan gain.

"Look at Germany after WW2 ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Look at Germany after WW2 - there were still instances of 'insurgent' action close to a decade after Germany 'surrendered'"_JLawson

Sorry. Gotta call "Bushbot" on you. Werewolves past 1945? Do tell. (This a GOTTA hear!)

You tale may win you a Zelsdorf Award and a cross-country tour on a Greyhound bus. (6 nauseous days, 5 sleepless nights...)

JayTea -Second par... (Below threshold)
bobbert:

JayTea -

Second paragraph:
"It seems that attitude is contagious, and has infected House Majority Leader Harry Reid."

It should say Senate Majority Leader.

Alright, bD, you defend you... (Below threshold)
kim:

Alright, bD, you defend your stripes link. What's your response to Bam's point at 3:08 AM. Did you read your link? Do you realize it is sympathetic to Bush? C'mon, I know you can think, as compared to Jaw, so what happened with that link?

I'm am indeed curious at what your response will be.
=====================

Good one, bobbert. I find ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Good one, bobbert. I find myself making the same mistake. Is it Harry House, or what? I have to consciously stop and think which camera he is in.
===================

BryanD -Got that f... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BryanD -

Got that from my Father-in-law, about '94. He was an MP in Germany post WW2, during the pacification. He died in '96, so no 'bushbot'.

Yeah, it's friggin' inconcieveable that someone can look at the facts and come up with a different conclusion or course of action, isn't it?

Yeah, that stupid Bush. He... (Below threshold)

Yeah, that stupid Bush. He hasn't attended any of the funerals. He never once subjected an entire family and circle of friends to Secret Service investigations during their time of mourning so he could stand there at the funeral. Not once did he allow the Secret Service to block roads going to and from the service, inconveniencing an entire neighborhood.

Oh, but wait, doesn't he meet with the families? Why yes. Yes he does.

JLawson, Werewolves ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

JLawson,
Werewolves were exterminated within 6 months of VE Day. There were SS veterans found hiding in the forests through 47-49, but they weren't doing anything but hiding. So your in-law probably dealt with those.

Adenhaur (the first W German chancellor)was given an offer he couldn't refuse by the US Army: destroy all resistance (werwolves) or we'll find someone who can. So he did. And brutally quick (he was always anti-nazi, so why not)

Like Japan. general pacification in Germany was immediate. So much so, the army developed a points system to send troops home lest they riot. And some rioted anyway. The Yokohame "G.I. Riots" are still remembered in Japan, though it's not easy finding out about them on the web (last time I checked). Manchester's history describes them well though.

"Do you realize it is sympathetic to Bush?_kim"

Of course! That's the point! Even Stars and Stripes was curious at Bush's inability to make a showing at even one memorial for the fallen in the Great Struggle of Our Time. (What's with that???)

Like hiding from Chavez and Ahmadinejad when they're one his own turf. Take one Valium, shake their hand with a twinkle in your eye, wearing an inscrutable smile. Probably would have given Chavez the heebie jeebies *what's this gringo thinking?*

But no, Bush IN EFFECT, hides. No 2 ways about it. Now he's an un-macho laughingstock from Mexico to Chile. An as our national representative, that's bad.

Just for those that refu... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Just for those that refuse to follow the link here is the take away quote:

Actually, I prefer this quote:

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales.... This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."


As if that were not mind-boggling enough...

Gayle wrote:"Whe... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Gayle wrote:

"When did this change? I trace it back to James Carville's campaigns for the Clintons."

Paying the price for the Clintons. This is a fact that the democrats whine about when they cry : "Blame it on Clinton".

"This all makes perfect sense in the proper context. And that proper context is this: Reid wants to keep his position as Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and is taking the steps he believes he needs to take to maintain it"

This is or at least should be obvious to all but it is not and in too many cases it is ignored and excused. This is where I must disagree with Jay when he states:

"There is nothing innately wrong with this goal."

I believe it is because of this attitude , that leads those most selfish among us to engage in inappropriate behavior and measures one takes to achieve it all the more desparate and despicable.

It seems that it is required that members in the democrat leadership be required to pass the "I did not have sexual relations.........." test.

What I have been seeing for some years now from the democrats and even a few republicans in name only is nothing short of the "The Tonya Harding-Nancy Kerrigan Saga". Do you think any democrat would have the balls to admit to this obvious behavior?

Not on your life.

bryanD[elusional]<... (Below threshold)
marc:

bryanD[elusional]

Of course! That's the point! Even Stars and Stripes was curious at Bush's inability to make a showing at even one memorial for the fallen in the Great Struggle of Our Time. (What's with that???)

Nice try dipshit, how do you know that to be true?

Given the questions that are posed in the article are by soldiers and not S&S editorial staff at best whether S&S is "curious" or not is highly debatable.

At worst you're flat out wrong.

If I were a betting man........

Well if it's anything that ... (Below threshold)
89:

Well if it's anything that a military funeral needs more than Fred Phelps (D?) and his merry band, it's anti-globalization demonstrators, would-be assassins, and the secret service.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy