Looking for Harry Reid
David Broder is criticized by 50 Democrat senators and congressmen for taking Harry Reid to task on Iraq.
David Broder said he wouldn't change anything in his April 26 column, which angered many readers and caused 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to write a letter criticizing Broder in Friday's Washington Post.
In that Thursday piece, Broder criticized Harry Reid for saying the Iraq War is lost militarily, compared Reid to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and concluded: "The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader."
Broder is no cheerleader for Iraq. That didn't save him from being raked over the coals for criticizing Harry Reid. Broder won't retract but the signal he got won't be lost on other journalists. Stay in line or you will be treated just like Wolfowitz and Alberto Gonzales.
Maybe it isn't pretty, but that's the way media and politics interact. The rough and tumble of public life. The adversarial quest for the truth. What did another Harry say to another journalist?
Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Update
Captain Ed has commentary.
posted by wretchardthecat at 4/30/2007 06:56:00 PM
35 Comments:
In the classic ending to Three Days of the Condor, the whistleblower played by Robert Redford strides purposefully towards the New York Times to keep an appointment with a crusading journalist.
Turner says he has told the press "a story" (they are standing outside The New York Times office), but Higgins says, "How do you know they'll print it?" Turner answers, "They'll print it," and starts to walk away into the crowd. "You can take a walk, but how far if they don't print it?" Higgins says. Turner pauses and glances back.
If David Broder can get hit by a truck like this, tell me, is it safe?
This is certainly an interesting introduction to the extent to which politicians will put their own interests before the nation's. I always thought the folklore about politicians was just that; I guess I was, unhappily, wrong. Broder said what is merely obvious: Harry Reid has no business being the leader of the majority of the United States Senate during this period. I any other, it would be forgivable, and probably unremarkable. In the present climate, though, only a blind partisan or a fool could think otherwise.
I had a good drunken conversation recently with a friend of mine who disagrees with my reasons and my outlook on the present difficulties, and he said something that astounded me: about the jihadis, he said, "I'm afraid of them." That sort of cut the conversation short, because as ready as I am to offer historical or cultural explanations for opinions that at least tacitly call into question the courage and wisdom and intelligence of people who hold opposing views, I'm not ready to simply call my friends cowards.
Perhaps Broder crossed that line here. Since these people are obviously not his friends, may he continue to do so.
Tigerhawk notices that Bill Frist -- as he predicted -- was exonerated of charges that he improperly sold HCA stock. And wonders, without much surprise, at the non-coverage by the New York Times of the event.
This is rough and tumble politics as it is. There's no use railing against it. This is the way the game is played. And so far, the conservatives have show little of the aggression, the teamwork and the passion for winning that the liberals have.
Undoubtedly that is the case. But the Democrats have conducted themselves like a kind of countergovernment, and their statements supportive of the Iraq War were made either prior to the 2000 election or during the run-up to the final round of UN reports, when their memories or their integrity were intact and the voting public was 70% supportive of the invasion. Mercifully, mostly the country runs on its own - but now is a time for leadership. It ought to be possible to pursue hardcore politics without sacrificing the national interest, it seems to me, at least when the national interest is so nakedly exposed.
"and caused 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to write a letter criticizing Broder in Friday's Washington Post."
---
If Republicans did something as childish and petulant as that, is there any doubt that the word
"McCarthy"
Would be drummed into our ears for years?
Luckily, only the Whitehouse is Fascistic enough to try to strongarm the Free Press.
This is just another reminder of how the loons were brought to power in November - not the moderates/centerists.
It doesn't get much more "MSM" than David Broder. He is the high priest of insider establishment Washington wisdom. Fifty Democratic Senators attack the MSM and the wingnuts cry? Should these Senators just spend their time debating the meaning of "destroyed" as applied to burned-out mosques? Is that the only media criticism allowed?
In fact Senator Reid questioned the infallibility of the elite consensus by declaring their little faecal smear on the wall, otherwise known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a lost cause.
Is the Senator from Nevada correct, or does that even matter any more? The MSM never bothers to ask the question of what it means to win or lose a war, they just attack anyone who disagrees with them.
But how does one “win" a war? To answer that question we must know what the goal of war actually is. Is it similar to a basketball game, as is so often assumed in America’s sports-crazed collective mind, where the number of dead and wounded enemy soldiers and disabled materiel is added up and the side with the highest score is declared the winner?
Not according to Carl von Clausewitz. War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will In other words it is policy by other means. He goes on to state that organized violence is the means but that compulsory submission of our opponent the ultimate object of military action. In order to win a war one must compel the enemy to bow to our demands.
So what are our demands to the Iraqi people? One could argue for some time about this one, oil, WMD’s, democracy, fighting them there so as to not fight them here, etc, but the most obvious answer would be a stable pro-American and pro-Israeli state modelled loosely on present day Jordan is what we seek to achieve in Iraq.
And certainly there are some Iraqis (albeit mostly exiles) who actually agree with this vision. The problem is the 95% of Iraqis who don’t. They must be coerced into accepting our will, to allow us (through our local collaborators) to lay down the law to the people of Iraq.
But how does one force an enemy to submit to our will? Again, von Clausewitz provided the answer: disarm him, either by physically doing so or putting him in such a position that disarming is the better of two options.
So now one has to ask, is the US showing any signs in being able to impose our will on the Iraqi people? Is there any likelihood to a substantial disarming of the various insurgent groups any time soon? Is there any chance that a stable state will arise along the banks of the Euphrates while the US occupation continues?
The answer is clearly no to all the above and in fact the needs of the occupation are in direct conflict to the ultimate war aims in Iraq. A united stable Iraq means the development of a united body politic but the only way the occupation can exist in Iraq is by means of the division of the Iraqi people and of playing one group off another, often quite voluntarily accommodated for by the various indigenous factions who are eying the eventual control of Iraq’s oil wealth. While these methods are effective enough to assure that a united force of Iraqis is unable to gain enough power to evict the coalition troops, this very division keeps the US from ever being able achieve victory through the creation of a Jordan-like compliant state that will bend to the needs of Israel and the West.
Consensus elite in Washington cannot accept that they were wrong about Iraq. Basic military strategy and history should be compulsory courses in all elite boarding schools in the US since never in the history of man has an elite been so clueless on military matters as our leaders in Washington are.
The best that our elite betters in Washington can come up with is that the “troops” will be disappointed if we pull out of Iraq now. The closest thing to military action in civilian life is the building of a high-rise tower. Although an imperfect analogy, it does capture an essential truth: would an architect would incompetently designed a flawed tower that was destined to collapse, and critics pointed this out, would it really be an appropriate response by the architects supporters to say that we must continue building the doomed tower because the construction workers would be disappointed at not finishing the job?
Reid is right, the war was, is, and always will be lost. Broder is nothing but an MSM mouthpiece for knaves and fools who know nother about military strategy.
kevin,
The interesting thing is that nobody else seems to have any problem imagining themselves as victors in Iraq. No difficulty at all imagining imposing their will upon the United States of America, or the Shi'ites or the Sunnis.
The US has already won a series of victories in the Iraq. Against the Saddam's regime. He's dead. Against the Sunnis. At the rate things are going they'll be diminished.
Some persons are advocating the US establishing three successor states in what used to be Iraq, which was the way, generally speaking, things used to be before Sykes and Picot took out a colored pencil, a map and created Iraq out of Mesopotamia. The one thing in which the US looks likely to be defeated is that it won't be able to create a unitary, relatively democrat successor state to replace Saddam's. But that was the one thing America went into Iraq to do, if you discount keeping Saddam from getting nuclear weapons, which he will never do now. And so, by that measure, America will be defeated.
And just because that final objective may unattainable doesn't necessarily mean that the only thing left to do is hand Iran the whole thing like a petulant child. Or set in a train series of developments which will inevitably let forces hostile to the US take control of the oil wealth of Iraq; allow them to liquidate all the human assets that have been so painstakingly cultivated; trash all the faith and credit that those Iraqis who have fought with the US have bought into. None of that has to happen.
There are all kinds of ways to win in Iraq when you get to the particulars; or at least ways not to lose. Reid is right? About what? No that question isn't being asked sarcastically. What's his end vision in Iraq? What constitutes victory to him? Honestly. After all, he may have a good idea, if we can only find out what it is.
Nobody ever said that only the Republicans had a war strategy. But I think people are waiting to hear what Obama's is; what Hillary's is; what Reid's is. And they really want to hear it because the country is going to have two parties into the forseeable future. But one thing is for sure. Iraq's not going to be the end of it. The war will go on, if only because the enemy will keep bringing it. And how do we impose our will on them? One way to start, it seems to me is to ensure they never get control of the oil wealth of Iraq.
A large part of the oil reserves of Iraq are in the hands of the Kurds, who are viscerally American allies. The internationally recognized government in Baghdad is nominally an American ally. The US has built, at great cost, a database system which contains the identities of the population of a whole Middle Eastern state. And other things besides. These are assets, purchased with blood and treasure. Are they worth keeping? Put another way, are some of them worth keeping? And which of these assets will survive Reid's withdrawal.
That's prudential question I think, which it is legitimate to ask. The majority of Iraqis still want a unitary state; not many Iraqis want the US to leave just yet, though nearly everyone wants the US to depart eventually. They, like the US soldiers will be "disappointed" if America leaves. But not simply for whimsical reasons. They want those assets preserved too. They don't want to throw "it" all away; because in the perception of some at least, there is something to throw away. Something that has been gained -- you can call it a victory if you like or not -- that not everyone is willing to dump.
And BTW, al-Qaida in Iraq leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been reported killed, according to VOA News. For al-Masri at least, the victory and defeat have a meaning. If Reid had been just a little quicker and al-Masri had lived, what would we say? Would al-Masri have known "victory" or "defeat" or is that a meaningless question. For al-Masri it has all the meaning it will ever have.
The interesting thing about al-Masri's death is that it is attributed to an internecine fight between "militants". The enemy is not ten feet tall.
Al-masri had a five million dollar bounty on his head. If he was killed in a fight between militants, I wonder if some jihadi can put in a claim for the dough.
If it comes to a rumble, my money is on Broder. He's probably smarter than 80% of the members of COngres and at least 50% of the staff, and he's been around a long time. He knows where the bodies are buried.
Great Stuff.
I hardly disagree with anything you have to say, Kevin, and willingly admit that I was cheering a dead horse long ago to your jeers.
But Wretch brings up the essential point:
Reid is only different in degree from most of the Dems, namely he's one of the biggest (smallest) Jerks.
Honorable opposition would have a plan.
The Dems just have their re-tread 60's adolescent, masturbatory, protests.
Not even adult, much less enlightened, and shot-through with cynical political calculation, as Schumer has admitted/bragged.
Sorry you don't see something inherently distasteful about the action of those 50 Democrats.
I have no doubt you would, were it 50 Republicans.
Can always vote in Barrack Hussein, thank goodness:
He knows how to call 911.
(probably mandatory training at 15k/year Punahoe High)
Reid, Pelosi and Murtha are Al Qaueda's best generals. Each of them has declared victory for Al Qaeda in Iraq when even the guys wearing the turbans will not.
History will not treat them kindly, and for that I am well pleased.
Wow, easy to forget such losers:
Reid's the biggest little loser in the Senate.
Pelosi and Murtha, on the other hand...
As Pogo would say, we have met the enemy.
Reid:
Bush Must Halt Slaying of Terrorist Leaders"
Scott Ott
(2007-05-01) — As unconfirmed news broke that the chief of al-Qaeda
in Iraq may have been killed in a battle with a rival terror group,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on President George Bush to step in and halt the slaying of terror leaders.
“It’s a known fact that every time a terror leader is killed, another rises to take his place,” said Sen. Reid. “Therefore, the only way to stop the spawning of new terror leaders is to halt the slaying of the current ones.”
The Nevada Democrat said Mr. Bush should petition the United Nations to send in an unarmed peacekeeping force to protect the known terror leaders from accidental or intentional execution by Iraqi and U.S. forces, as well as by their own colleagues in the terror industry.
“If these guys keep getting knocked off,” Sen. Reid said, “how will
we ever build relationships that lead to negotiations and peace
treaties? The longer a terror leader stays at the helm, the more we
can get to know him. When Democrats talk about bringing stability to the region, this is what we mean.”
HT: KJL @ the Tank
“If these guys keep getting knocked off,” Sen. Reid said, “how will
we ever build relationships that lead to negotiations and peace
treaties? "
I can't believe even Reid would say that. It sounds like lines from a Monty Python skit. Wouldn't the proper response be, "if these guys had been at all interested in forming 'relationships', we wouldn't need to be killing them now"?
I hope you don't mean to imply that the Renaissance was a good thing.
Doug linked to "Reid: Bush Must Halt Slaying of Terrorist Leaders."
On another Belmont Club thread, this morning, the following took place:
"allen said...
If al-Masri is dead, will Doug give Mr. Bush any credit? (I'm being rhetorical ;-O)
5/01/2007 05:45:00 AM"
"allen said...
doug,
We know what the mocking bird says; but how about you: Does Mr. Bush get any credit for the killing of ANOTHER al-Qaeda big wig?
5/01/2007 06:45:00 AM"
"Doug said...
See DR, above.
Lapdog Doug.
5/01/2007 06:51:00 AM"
"Doug said...
Just to be magnanimous, tho, I'll subtract him from the toll of innocent US Citizens killed by Illegal felons and narcoterrorists from South of the Border, welcomed by el presidente GWB:
39,999 to go, to call it even.
5/01/2007 06:56:00 AM"
Doug, what pathetic drivel! Mr. Bush gets credit. Get over it.
Wretchard,
You ask the important question that often gets lost in the debate over “the war” What's his end vision in Iraq? What constitutes victory to him?
I don’t speak for Reid but when he talks about defeat he is discussing the idea that a large occupying force is going to bend the Iraqi people. There are so many other ways to influence events in Iraq besides direct military intervention. We after all created Saddam Hussein and twice placed his Baath Party into power through coups (1963 and 1968). This policy later backfired when Saddam’s people nationalized their oil assets and aligned with the Soviets but it showed the amount that can be accomplished through covert intelligence operations.
The obvious strategy would be withdraw and to back our favourites against the insurgents. The problem would be finding anyone we could conceivably call allies besides the Kurds. In any case the eventual ruler(s) of Iraq will hardly be close allies; in the worst case oil can always be blockaded. The lesson from other similar great power/insurgent wars is the longer the great power stays, the worse the eventual rulers will be who emerge from the insurgent groups. Hezbollah, the Taliban, and the FLN (although they were not all that bad) all emerged from these types of wars.
This is what Reid meant that the war is lost. The US cannot impose its will through the use of a huge occupation force in Iraq. That is not at all to say that the US cannot influence the result in Iraq by other means.
Although many other forces may believe in they can bend the Iraqi people to do their bidding, in the end it is unlikely any one group will control Iraq as before. Al Qaida is essentially in the same position that the US is in, a foreign entity with an ideology rejected by 95% on the population. One sign of how confident the nationalist Sunni insurgency has become is that they no longer need Al Qaida’s assistance against the US and is in some cases are now even working with the US in attacking Al Qaida. This is hardly a sign of US strength – Al Qaida is actually the US’s best strategic asset in Iraq – but a sign that the Sunni insurgency realizes the US is defeated (in that they will never impose their will on Iraq) and are turning their guns on the other foreign invaders.
The Kurds are and were our allies but they have one major disadvantage; they are landlocked and so getting all that oil out is not going to be easy. The most obvious route – through Turkey in the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline but they would obviously need to agree this with Turkey which is hardly likely if the Kurds are anything close to independent.
Iran’s puppets in Iraq are the most enthusiastic backers of a continued US presence in Iraq. That’s because Tehran has calculated that the US will not strike them over their nuclear programs with so many US troops within easy counterattacking distance. Iran has obviously learned the lesson that England learned during the Napoleonic Wars in Spain. Wellington managed to force the French out but that only cured France’s “Spanish Ulcer” which was not dissimilar to the current situation the US finds itself in Iraq. Napoleon, freed from Spain, went on a rampage that leads him all the way to Moscow. The Iranians are much happier with the US tied down in Iraq and not rampaging across the Middle East.
These are the things Broder should have been discussing not calling Reid an embarrassment for stating the obvious.
Kate, thank you for your very funny comment ("I thought liberals were big on 'speaking truth to power'?)"!!!
Stop it, Kevin, you're killing me. March to Moscow? Please, Ahmadinejad, please AQ, please march to Moscow.
Or do you mean they will strike the US? As the Beatles sang, We'd all love to see the plan. Unfortunately (for you, I suppose), one thing Bush has done, though again I see no accreditation from you, is to keep the USA from being attacked again.
nichevo,
Sorry that I wasn't clear. Napoleon, once he was kicked out of Spain, was freed up to march to Moscow. The analogy with the current US situation would be if the US were kicked out of Iraq they would be free to march to Tehran. Therefore Iran is doing everything in its power to keep us tied down in Iraq.
Doesn't this help Broder?
Years ago my boss got a call from what I'll call the "other side" complaining about me. I got applauds back at the office - best recommendation I could have had.
In many ways, though not all, Broder establishes more bona fides from this one column than all else he has written for ages. Remember, the WaPo editorial board has been showing some independence from the MSM, and Broder won't be fired.
I say the hamfisted attack helps Broder, and hurts The Arrogant 50.
Thanks for the clarification. However,
1) there is no desire to invade Iran
2) there is no obstacle to our bombing Iran, sinking its ships, etc, with air and naval forces, which is all we would do aside from maybe some raids.
2a) We need no ground invasion to kill every man, woman and child in Iran (nor nukes). We would need a couple of brigades to secure the oilfields. This is taking your brutish notions into account, of course, and omitting the notion of coup or revolution in Iran.
3) there is, obviously, no closer or better jump-off point for such an invasion, than Iraq, except perhaps Afghanistan, where we also are based and are not leaving until peace. Again, the best way to get us out of AF is to see the end of the Taliban and some acceptable state of semi-normalcy there, not that AF will ever be a Connecticut.
4) we are after AQ, not Iran, actively. If Iran is Russia then AQ is England in your scenario. I bet the Czar would have rather Bonaparte crossed the Channel than the Polish border. Sounds like an AQ move from your POV. But by this measure, Iran would like us gone.
5) the quickest way to get us to leave is to have peace in Iraq, AF, etc.
and
6) it is still unclear to me, though I see you have taken a stab at it elsewhere, what your scenario for attacks on the USA may be in whatever set of circumstances. Who? Where? How? Why? (To get us to leave the country? To get us to stay here?)
Yes the US could easily strike Iranian nuclear targets. One of many problems, besides the fact that such strikes would be of dubious value in checking the Iranian program, and the likely reason that this has not so far happened, is that there are 160,000, or so, US troops who are sitting ducks for an Iranian counter strike. The US troops are concentrated on bases that are within easy range of Iranian missiles. In coordination with local allies, the Iranians could target three or four bases and in the chaos created by 30 or 40 Shahab-2’s raining down, local Shia militia could break the perimeter security and storm the bases slaughtering troops in the hundreds. All told, you could easily see a thousand US soldiers killed in one evening.
So the Iranians are quite happy to have the US stay in Iraq until they test their first nuclear device.
The best evidence of this is the attitude of Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is an Iranian puppet organization, and who beg the US to stay in Iraq, promising the Americans that they want to build a Shia Kuwait, totally open to US oil companies, in the south of Iraq Even the Mahdi Army, whose ties to Iran are unconfirmed, are not openly resisting the US presence by military means. If the Iranians wanted to evict the US from Iraq they could easily do so, they have more than enough allies in Iraq to do so in combination with the Sunni resistance. The fact that they have not shows that they are quite happy to see the US chained to the rocks in Iraq while the vultures peck away at our exposed liver every night.
You also state the we are only after Al Qaida. If only that were true! More than 90% of our propaganda effort is aimed at Iran and Syria, neither of which are likely supporters of AQ. Frankly I doubt that our betters in Washington really care about AQ, but they do take States that question our global hegemony quite seriously. Martin van Creveld’s The Rise and Decline of the State should be required reading for all American aristocrats. We have the power to manipulate States, we are hopeless against non-state entities, and we are even worse when we go in and destroy the structure of a state and leave the leftovers for Al Qaida to feast on. In Iraq we will get away with this since the Iraqis don’t take too kindly to foreign fools. The next time we will just have to see if we get so lucky.
In the event of a pullout from Iraq, AQ will most certainly strike the US again. The goal will be to reinforce the message that pulling out of Iraq was a mistake. Cowards will scream that we must bend to the will of Al Qaida and either reinvade Iraq or some other Arab country. I have no confidence in the other side. Therefore Al Qaida’s next attacks will most likely be just as successful as 9/11 in getting America to surrender to the will of AQ and launch foolish military adventures that will in the end destroy us.
So yes, both Iran and Al Qaida most certainly want us to stay in Iraq. And both would be even happier if we took down another Arab regime.
The notion of Iranian missile strikes on US forces in Iraq is, pardon my saying, ludicrous. The US military has not been under air attack since 1945.
So they let off a few SCUD missiles. Inaccurate, easily intercepted. That's why we have Patriot, Aegis, etc. (If you kvetch that the pieces and maybe the warhead will still land somewhere, the odds are hugely greater that they will land on these very Shia masses you fear.
And while they're touching off squibs, what are we doing, sucking our thumbs? No, limited target sets suddenly metastasize. Sorry about that refinery, Ahmed. Sorry about the power outage, Tehran. Sorry about that dam. Sorry about that navy and air force. Sorry about the Kharg Island POL terminal. Don't know how our commandos came to take it over.
Those Shia masses wouldn't last long either. One only wishes the enemy would mob up and charge. Much easier to find them that way, which is the whole problem. You could have maybe a platoon sized element overrun in some sort of snafu, but no "thousands" is conceivable. Are you familiar with a technology known colloquially as the Gatling gun? How about the proximity fuze? For that matter it would be a good test for the Sheriff ADS.
How long do you estimate the Iranians will take? I'm glad you don't deny they are working on nukes, BTW. Some do.
What glory to have incapability confused for genius! Maybe the Russians will get all scared because we're not bombing them. Hey, maybe Iran is scared because we're not bombing Iran.
If only that were true! Too bad it is true. We would like something disruptive to happen in those countries, maybe, but overall the Westphalian system is still in effect. The only really desirable effects to visit upon those countries would be a change in government. There is little point in plain old Schrecklichkeit at this juncture. Again, if they fear this, they should want us to leave.
Given that you posit we leave Iraq and then AQ strikes, what then? I mean, what is to be done?
AQ or Iran can want us there. Not both.
"Reid is right, the war was, is, and always will be lost."
Hey!...Hey!...Hey!!! I GOT it!!! We can win by adopting the enemy's tactics!!!...We'll just hide and kill civilians...makes PERFECT sense...IF you've got your head firmly established where the sun don't shine!!!
To think this "war" is lost, one's soul has to be ridiculously sick; too damned fatted on 21st Century gadgets, post-trans fats and mindless, affected boredom. To take any sort of direction from a crooked mewling bureaucrat such as Senator Reid is past nuts. Those 50 Senators HAVE to have attended a Harry Reid Real Estate Investment seminar!!!
'“It’s a known fact that every time a terror leader is killed, another rises to take his place,” said Sen. Reid. “Therefore, the only way to stop the spawning of new terror leaders is to halt the slaying of the current ones.”'
Having spent the weekend working on the yard, I'll take a whack at a yard maintenance metaphor:
It’s a known fact that every time a [dandelion] is killed, another rises to take [it]s place,” said Sen. Reid. “Therefore, the only way to stop the spawning of new [dandelions] is to halt the slaying of the current ones.”
Should make for a real nice yard....not!
Doctor Harry Reid, Epidemiologist:
'“It’s a known fact that every time a [infection] is killed, another rises to take [it]s place,” said [Dr]. Reid. “Therefore, the only way to stop the spawning of new [infection]s is to halt the slaying of the current ones.”
Mr. Broder may know that in Anbar the tribes have now become anti-al Qaeda and the Marines are bored with little fighting to do. And here we thought only the TIMES and Bill Roggio knew, besides those of us who really don't count and read wretchard's writings.
Kevin sounds like a twelve year old who has read some odd books and is having fun talking to big folks. Either that or he works in a senior capacity at the CIA.
Harry Reid is Lost!!!!!!!!!
The Democrats are LOST!!!!!!
The U.S. military won the war in Iraq and all the regimes in the area know it and are alternately soiling their pants and then being grateful; back and forth. Right now we are securing the peace. Islam is having its fangs pulled. It is messy work. Don't stop now.
The U.S. military could easily defeat Iran or any other military organization in the world right now. And do it quickly.
Grow up.
We are fighting a spiritual war and the enemy AKA Harry Reid is LOST!
If the whole world is so obdurate that this point is not obvious then we are all in for some dark... stuff.
What George Bush has done to Saddam Husein and the Mohammadans is all glorious stuff. Dance and sing for our soldiers because the Imams love death. Take no pleasure in their death but know that our guys have done great work for civilization. Even if we left tomorrow great good things have been done.
Capture and/or kill the terrorists and keep doing it. God bless general Petraeus. No more capture and release. Capture and/or kill the terrorists. Keep doing it. We don't do it for the money and we don't do it for the fame we just do it anyway.
Straight ahead!
Post a Comment
<< Home