Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." 1
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said 2
Nice priorities Harold. Second only to holding a bake sale for the terrorists, this last statement is the very definition of "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy. If it isn't, someone please tell me what is.
Imagine if a football coach were to say that the game was lost at half time, he would be fired on the spot that day.... and that is just a game played with pigskin, forgive the analogy.
We are talking about men and women with boots on the ground in harms way for fucks sake. This is indefensible. Somebody anybody on the right needs to grow a sack now!
Sen. Harry should be brought up on treason immediately.
I don't even care if he's convicted, but this sorry excuse for an American needs to be arrested and hauled before a court of law and made to defend these statements. Since he is ashamed of his country he needs to be shamed before his Country.
14 comments:
I agree with Senator Reid. I guess that makes me a traitor too.
No. No it doesnt. You are a nobody, and although you have crossed the line from time to time and made traitorous comments. I cant imagine al-qaeda etc posting clippings of your comments on their cave walls.
Reid is the Majority Leader of the United States of America's Senate. It is neither his place to declare victory or admit defeat. It is one thing to disagree with this war and say we are losing, but to say that the war is lost while troops are on the ground is inexcuseable.
Every fucking lib wants their Cronkite moment, god damn hippies.
Saying that the war is lost doesn't make you a traitor, it makes you right. Saying the war is not lost does make you an idiot, however.
Wrong. It is not lost because the war is not over yet.
Was it over when Gen Washington conceded Manhattan in the Glorious, when the Canadians burned the White House down in The Forgotten, the Battle of Shiloh in the WoNA,or the Battle of the Ardennes in the Deuce?
We may very well end up losing this war, but for someone of Reid's supposed leadership to throw in the towel and make statements about winning Senate seats off the blood of our troops is unacceptable.
We have still have men in Bosnia and yet they want to throw up the white flag in Iraq and surrender for political reasons ONLY.
...and yes, amongst other things, you can be damn sure that I will blame the liberals when it is lost.
Sure you'll blame us. You still blame us for losing Vietnam. How about blaming the architects of the disastrously misguided and failed policies?
I do and I will, just not to the likes of you.
The fact is that a failed initial strategy couldve been compensated for by a united America, and for that and the harmful rhetoric from the left and the media I blame the libs.
So we should just unite behind a failed policy and march off the cliff together? Iraq, like Vietnam, was a bad idea, incompetently executed. Bush should remember the first rule of holes: when you're in a hole, stop digging.
Gary how can you say Iraq and Vietnam are incompetently executed? We didn't lose in Vietnam, we quit. We aren't losing in Iraq either!
We have lost 0 battles in Iraq. Tell me in what way are we losing besides in the minds of the libs?
Again, WE CAN'T LOSE IN IRAQ UNLESS WE SURRENDER. they can't beat us militarily, they can only win if we pussy out. More importantly, Reid and his ilk know this and want to quit because it's better for them politically. He is a traitor who is playing politics with the lives of his countrymen and he should be put to death by hanging or firing squad for his treason.
Putting it in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't make it less stupid either. How are we losing? We are occupying Iraq. Obviously the occupation effort is not working very well. The level of carnage seems to be increasing, and even the Green Zone is not safe.
Having said that, I agree that it is unlikely that the insurgents will overrun the Green Zone. So, in that sense, I suppose, if we stay forever we will not "lose". If we still had 500,000 troops in Vietnam they probably would not have been defeated either.
An actual military defeat in Iraq, though, is not beyond comprehension.Our supply lines are vulnerable, and Iran could cause a great deal of mischief, should Bush be insane enough to expand the war.
if you don't think vietnam AND iraq have been incompetently executed, you need your head examined.
or you need to look up "incompetent" in the dictionary.
FIVE (count 'em, FIVE) different strategies have FAILED!
1. shock and awe - the initial idea that we could leave easily after toppling saddam because, heck, we'd be greeted as liberators
2. the sanchez/bremer combo
3. massive counterinsurgency in the sunni triangle
4. gen'l casey's plan for gradual withdrawal according to political benchmarks (remember how the constitution and other such nonsense was supposed to be our ticket out?)
5. operation together forward--"they stand up so we can stand down"
and now, we're at #6: the surge.
any guesses at how this is gonna work out?
What war was ever competently executed?
Damn near all were shitstorms until final victory, and considering that this is unlike any war that has ever been fought I expect this one to be no different and in fact as we can see it has been even more so than most.
The war doesnt end when we leave Iraq, its only the beginning, but now the next time we are attacked, to the pussies in this country, it will be.... surprise, Bush's fault.
sidebar:
i don't know why you insist on calling everyone opposed to this war "pussies" and "hippies."
just because i don't like this war does not mean i'm a pacifist.
the most competently executed war that comes immediately to mind is the confederacy during the civil war; though they lost, they turned what should have been an absolute walloping into a damn interesting fight, all due to strategy.
now those were some competent military leaders.
i'd also venture to say that douglas macarthur fairly competently drove japan back to...well, japan. but he got them out of the pacific for the most part.
yes, all wars are shitstorms. but this one could have been a lot less shitty.
another brief aside--we should be clear with one another about what exactly we are talking about; i'm strictly talking about iraq here, not our war against fundamentalist islam as a whole.
in that sense, i'd say the iraq war is not totally unlike other recent wars with large counterinsurgency components.
and any attack on our country can only be blamed on the perpetrators.
I call those that oppose the war pussies because for the most part they are.
Well I cant say that I entirely agree with your assessment of the COnfederate army as being competently run, for although it is true that some notably brilliant military tacticians were involved, it was afterall Lee's failure to heed Longstreet's advice that essentially handed victory to the Northern invaders at G'burgh.
But you do bring up a good point perhaps without even realizing it, that in the War of Northern Agression as well as most before and after up until modern times, wars were conducted by Generals with more autonomy than they do now. I love Rummy but perhaps if he had have listened to that Asian General whose name escapes me, we wouldnt be quite in the position we are today in Iraq. We now know (as I predicted) that the blitzkreig march to Baghdad was a mistake, bu mistakes happen in war.
Dwelling on the negatives and raing the white flag as the dems and the media are wont to do have never won a war. Overcoming adversity, insurmounable odds, learning from our mistakes and focusing on the positives have always been the American Way, and the American way to win wars.
The war in Iraq is the war against radical Islam, the Iraqi War has already been won.
What wars have we fought that had a similar counter insurgency? I cant think of one. We are not fighting an army or even an insurgency so to speak, we are fighting an ideology, which needless to say makes it very difficult.
Yes, but our ideology is better than theirs. Let me point out a few things. The radical islamists were not terribly successful in their own countries before 911. They lost electorally, and they were imprisoned in some countries. That's one reason that the fringe of the fringe of Islam resorted to flying planes into our buildings. Even then there was a lot of sympathy for the United States (in Iran for one) until Bush screwed it up by invading and occupying an Islamic country.Even given all that, Al Qaeda is not very popular in Iraq.
We can win the ideological war.
Post a Comment