4/25/2007

Harry Reid tells it like it is, they can't win White House unless US loses in Iraq...


The Democratic strategy heading into campaign season cannot be said any better than it was last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who made clear during a Senate press conference that the war in Iraq is lost and cannot be won. This isn't the first time Senator Reid has said this, and I doubt it will be the last, but hopefully at some point it will gain some traction in the mainstream media and the Democratic Party's increasingly radical and inherently anti-American position will become exposed for what it is, a political calculation based on polls and votes. It is one thing to demonstrate an opposition to a policy, but it is another entirely to cast an era in American history to the dustbin and surrender. Before the elections the Democrats spoke more cautiously, and aside from the most liberal and extreme, most candidates spoke less sensationally about the war and the prospects for a favorable conclusion. But they have become drunk with power, and are falling asleep at the wheel before completing even the first lap.

What I find so appalling and indefensible about the Senator Reid's comments is not his opinion, which he is certainly entitled to, but rather his absolute lack of consideration for the fact that history books are not exclusive to Western civilization, and had he thought about his words before he ran his mouth in front of the cameras I would like to believe the Majority Leader would have chosen his them more carefully for fear of becoming the cover boy of all history books used in the Saudi madrases, not to mention the books the Iraqis will soon write about their lessons from this brief democratic experiment. Considering the repeated assertions that the al-Malaki government wishes for the US to remain in the country and continue carrying out its mission of training Iraqi forces and leading the current offensive against urban centers of violence, it is difficult to understand who is advising the Democrats that their defeatist strategy is going to accomplish anything tangible in the war against Islamic extremism; in fact all evidence indicates that NOBODY in or around Iraq is advising them that this is the wise course. That is of course if you don't count Nancy Pelosi's buddy Bashar Assad, who embraces the Majority's plan for withdrawal, along with his buddy Amadine-jihad. I guess we shouldn't forget about Chris Matthews and his mini-cabal of uber-liberal defeatists, as well as the whole lot of journalists and pundits who have jumped on the bandwagon and decided it sounds good to run around the world screaming to the cameras that we concede defeat, terrorists have broken our will.

Quite honestly, this makes me incensed, and if I were a member of Congress you would be able to watch the vain in my forehead pulse as I voiced my decent to the irresponsible opportunism displayed by Senator Reid. Such a comment is wrong on some many different levels that I am having a tough time remembering all of them to include in this post. I hope the Senator suffers in retirement when he realizes that the only thing the world will remember him for is his willingness to embrace defeat in a war against terrorists armed with suicide vests. Disgraceful is the only word that seems appropriate for describing what I think about the Majority Leader (a title he certainly doesn't deserve).

Another thing that sends me into an incensed outburst is the unabashed apologists and Democratic interpreters David Gregory and Tim Russert, who can have the audacity to take the story of Reid's comments and spin the whole thing upside down, trying to downplay what the Senator said, and claiming that "he wouldn't have said that if he had actually thought about it." EXACTLY, if he consciously self-censors his words rather than speak from his heart and expose his true feelings then of course he wouldn't have said what he did, but how is it that two men who claim to be principled journalists could possibly justify a politician not speak frankly about matters of war and peace? It is truly unprofessional and morally reprehensible. If you are going to spend your airtime running cover for Democratic politicians, while simultaneously debasing the president and his staff on everything you can grasp, then there should be a disclaimer emblazoned underneath their faces similar to the disclosures made by stock analysts on CNBC when they are discussing stocks that they are buying themselves.

Throw Nora O'Donnell in with the other shameless defeatists. I have never heard anyone so consumed by the idea of proving American failure. It is a sad day when any American sees it politically advantageous to systematically undermine the international prestige of the very country which they are vying for control over.



Post a Comment