According to Kyra Phillips, Reid's words aren't helping the morale of our troops. How does she know that? She didn't say.

What the hell does it matter what Michelle Malkin thinks? Generally she's sequestered to FOX and other extremes of our media and self discrediting enough that she doesn't need your help. Don't let the insignificant twit distract you, there’s important work afoot.

I agree with Senator Reid and General McPeak.

One way to frame it is to say, not "that the United States has lost the war"

but that "the US policy of waging war in Iraq has not worked. It has not resolved the issues in Iraq."

War and occupation were not the way to resolve the problems in Iraq in 2003, and they are not the way to resolve the (different) problems which exist now.

The US ought not to "abandon" Iraq, just admit that the policy of trying to use military force to resolve issues has not worked, and has in fact made matters worse.

If the US disengages military forces and at the same time encourages regional and internationally mediated efforts at conflict resolution and reconciliation (without attempting to dominate them) then there might be a better chance of success.

Kyra Phillips is a professional idiot. I'm not sure what it is about the CNN women, but they do seem to go out of their way to boost the war and Bush. I really do think none of them have the brains or talent to write a simple news story for their hometown high-school weekly. Wasn't it Carol whatever-her-name-is who said 'respected news outlets' don't broadcast information about al Qaeda's video messages? God forbid someone might tell us what the other side is thinking. These people's heads are so far up their butts they wouldn't know news, or truth, if it farted at them.

Or say, "The Publicans ignored all the advice of the military and created such a disaster that no amount of heroism on the part of our brave troops can fix their mistakes."

I agree also with Reid's intent, but not the wording. Why is it that Democrats seem to be quite slow in grasping how powerful the rightwing noise machine is? Why is it that Democrats continue to be Charlie Brown and the mainstream press continues to be Lucy with the football?

By all means, point out how unsuccessful this war is. As "Davidsanger" says:

"the US policy of waging war in Iraq has not worked. It has not resolved the issues in Iraq."

Why give the rightwing noise machine political fuel? We know how CNN is going to frame it, how Fox is, and how the Washington Post is. Why is anyone surprised when this happens?

Why aren't the Democrats more savvy about this?

I would frame it in terms that might resonate to the reasonable, as you'll never reach the troglodytes, regardless how you 'frame' it. To doubt the Leader or the Mission is to undermine identity, world-view, etc.

So:

This conflict was never ours to "win" or even umpire, any more than Britain could have continued its occupation of the American colonies, or an Islamic scholar could resolve disputes within different factions of our own Protestant sects. What were the neocons thinking?

If the neo-cons were clear thinkers they wouldn't be neo-cons.

Tom

Not really. The leadership of the committees aren't going to change with a Lieberman switch because it wasn't agreed to after the November elections. Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on the most important issue facing them, so even if he switches parties, that won't change anything.

It's a little bit of a myth to cast Joe Lieberman as being so critical for the Democrats. Little would change in terms of votes for the war, and little would change in agenda setting, either.

It just all smells alike that far up.

Now this is a responsible framing that Reid should have used. it jives more with the broad consensus of the ENTIRE Democratic party.

Spin is alive and well out there, and Reids mouth has written a check that the entire party doesnt want to have to cash.

They did, but that was because there was an agreement in place when that happened--an organizing resolution that if the composition of the Senate should change, the leadership of the Senate would change as well, along with the party chairmanships. For whatever reason, no such agreement was put in the organizing resolutions this time. Whatever Lieberman does, Reid remains Majority Leader, and Dems control the committees.

So all the talk about how dire it will be if LIeberman switches is a bit misguided, and only serves to inflate the importance of that miserable Senator.

In that Senate, the party split was 50-50; Republicans had a "majority" only because of Cheney's tiebreaker. And that gave the Dems enough clout to insist on the agreement that the leadership would change.

The usual rule, even in very close cases like the current 51-49, is that once the leadership is chosen, it remains permanent for the two-year duration of that Congress.

This is just more phony outrage by Wingnut dead-enders.

Earlier this month, Bush's own advisor Henry Kissinger said the exact same thing: a military victory in Iraq is not possible.

In February, retired Gen. William Odom published Victory is not an Option in the Washington Post.

In a January op-ed, retired Gen. Wesley Clark called Bush's proposed surge, "too little, too late," and has been saying for over a year that there is no military solution to Iraq.

In December, Sen. Carl Levin asked SecDef Gates point blank if he believed we're "currently winning in Iraq" to which Gates replied, "No Sir."

The preceding November, as the Baker Commission prepared to make its recommendations, Kissinger again stated in a BBC interview that military victory in Iraq was no longer possible.

Heck, as far back as 2004, Robert McNamera noted that Bush was walking the exact same path taken during the VietNam War...

If you didn't know the whiners were all Wingnut propagandists, you'd think they suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder...