Reid: Sorry, Mr. President, Americans Voted Against Your Failed Policy
Here's Harry Reid's statement on Bush's remarks this morning, in which the President appeared to suggest that his surge had given the American people the "change" they wanted in Iraq:
The President apparently remains in a dangerous state of denial about the situation on the ground in Iraq and its impact on our security at home. Although the President rightly stated that the American people voted against failure in Iraq last November, they also clearly voted against a policy that is leading us to failure -– and that’s what the President’s stay the course strategy does.While ten more of our brave men and women died yesterday in one of the deadliest days of this war, President Bush continues to offer more of the same: a failed policy that has our troops mired in an open-ended civil war that risks our security at home.
At least someone remembers what the American people voted for in 2006 -- even if the President has already blocked it out, if he ever really grasped it in the first place. Let's hope Dems don't forget. The rest of Reid's statement here.
Advertisement
But Bush is changing strategy, by adding more troops to the old strategy.
This is essentially an addict's strategy for avoiding withdrawal symptoms -- just take more of whatever you're addicted to.
April 24, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hector --
THe NYTimes this morning, under an AP byline, had an article on David Halberstam. This comment on, and quotation from, Halberstam is very relevant to the ongoing Reid - Bush/Cheney/Broder et al. exchange. It should be given wide circulation:
"Halberstam told journalists during a conference last year in Tennessee that government criticism of news reporters in Iraq reminded him of the way he was treated while covering the war in Vietnam. 'The crueler the war gets, the crueler the attacks get on anybody who doesn't salute or play the game,' he said. 'And then one day, the people who are doing the attacking look around and they've used up their credibility.'"
April 24, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing that needs to be pointed out -- the surge idea emerged AFTER the election, not during. Nobody running for re-election campaigned on a strategy of adding forces to Iraq. Nobody.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 24, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . Just as the firing of the USA's happened AFTER the election.
. . . just as a new post on TPM where Tom DeLay (Tom De-freakin'-Lay!) accuses Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of flirting with treason . . . which is more or less David Halberstam's point from the first post.
FWIW, I think Reid is playing some good game here. He is not to be underestimated.
April 24, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to add, the surge also came AFTER the Iraq Study Group released its bi-partisan report that was equally ignored by the commander in chief.
April 24, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
For the last months (years?) I've been reading that "Democrats are too wishy-washy to lead!" as well as calls fro Democratic citizens begging for a strong, hard-line position in the Democratic party to counter the Republican rhetoric machine.
Reid and Pelosi are doing just that! We should all be writing them and posting no-stop about how much we support their actions. How good it is to see some real spine in taking on the criminals in the white house.
April 24, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/nrsc_war_is_lost.html?nav=rss_blog
Could be but I would like that put to a test. Chris is generally a pretty solid commentator in my view but I think he is wrong here.
Best, Terry
April 24, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could also rephrase Cillizza's comment to say "the political reality is that Bush's continued aggressiveness on Iraq puts Republicans from red states [who are up for re-election] in awkward positions..."
April 24, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
as usual, Rethuglicans can take all kinds of extremist positions and are rewarded for it by Your Liberal Media™.
Democrats tell the ugly truth and it's a Very Bad Thing.
April 24, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
>..the fact remains that most Republican voters oppose cutting off funding under almost any circumstances.
April 24, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats should keep delaying the bill to fund the war. Don't play Bush's game of rushing a bill to him just so he can veto it. Bush will have a conniption fit and accuse Democrats of hurting the troops. Then when the bill finally gets to him and he vetoes it, it will be clear to everyone who is really playing politics with their lives. The Republicans are already close to hysteria - they just need a little push. The surge is failing & 10 more Americans died just yesterday. Time is on the Democrats' side.
April 24, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink