Harry Reid "I believe ... that this war is lost"

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

My Grandparents come from Czechoslovakia. Their villages were targeted by the Germans. In alot of ways they didn't care who they killed.

In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

Oh please. Clinton was President but both Congress and Senate was under Republican control. He wouldn't have been able to do squat. There was genocide and civil war in Bosnia, and when he tried to intervene, he wasn't allowed too except under UN jurisdiction, because it was a 'civil war' and America shouldn't get involved (they were saying that he was trying to divert attention from himself to a war). You really think Clinton could have invaded Afghanistan and put a stop to the terrorists even if he wanted to? I doubt it. He gave Bush plenty of warning about Osama though just as he left office, and Bush didn't do anything about it either.

I suggest you google Kosovo War and see what you find.
I'll be nice and give you the link you need Wikipedia, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

Things to look for:
1. Clinton did not have permission of Congress or the UN before he started his bombing campaign.
2. The premise of the bombing, to stop genocide, was false. (Although we didn't know that at the time.) They talked about 100,000 missing, maybe dead. And then the state department upped that number to 500,000. The true number of dead was around 10,000 to 12,000. A large amount, but no where near the 100,000 claimed.

And Harvey, I am not trying to deflect blame for what Bush did, I am correcting this persons false statements about Clinton not being able to do anything in Bosnia because of congress.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"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, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

Yes, I can. If it's true, you need to accept it and move on in a constructive manner. Failing to do so is like sending good money after bad... except with American lives.

 

[ProfJohn]

Whether you agree with him or not it was not the right thing to say for several reasons.

1. It helps our enemy by allowing them to declare victory based on his statements.
2. It certainly will not help the morale of the troops, hard to say if it hurts it either.
3. Such a divisive comment does not help the political situation at home. Just look at the response his comments have generated.

There are more tactful ways to get his point across rather than declaring that we have already ?lost? the war.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Whether you agree with him or not it was not the right thing to say for several reasons.

1. It helps our enemy by allowing them to declare victory based on his statements.
2. It certainly will not help the morale of the troops, hard to say if it hurts it either.
3. Such a divisive comment does not help the political situation at home. Just look at the response his comments have generated.

There are more tactful ways to get his point across rather than declaring that we have already ?lost? the war.

If he's right, tact isn't the way to have the most impact.

 

[Pabster]

Harry Reid is on whatever side the big bucks are on. For him, that would be the hard, extreme left that puts millions in the coffers.

It is no secret the ultra-left is extremely unhappy with the "new" Congress and many of its Democratic members.

And yes, Reid was wrong to say it. I don't question his patriotism, but I sure as hell question his judgement.

 

[First]

The war is lost. Not because our military or generals aren't well trained and knowledgeable, but because this administration has no strategy, no logical organization, and simply aren't qualified to be running a country.

What was said today is the truth. If you can't handle it, I suggest a healthy dose of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
The war is lost. Not because our military or generals aren't well trained and knowledgeable, but because this administration has no strategy, no logical organization, and simply aren't qualified to be running a country.

What was said today is the truth. If you can't handle it, I suggest a healthy dose of Rush Limbaugh.[/q]



hpw can you even use 'healthy' and 'Limbaugh' in the same asenytance ?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is on whatever side the big bucks are on. For him, that would be the hard, extreme left that puts millions in the coffers.

And you know this HOW? PROOF, or retract it.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The problem is not with our military. The problem is with the leadership in Iraq. It was Iraq that kept us from making an example of Al-Sadr early in the war. Bush should have killed him and his thugs a long time ago. Iran is attacking us in Iraq and we have done nothing about it. The leadership from Bush down to the lowest soldier in Iraq are all a bunch of idiots. Iraqi people will never respect a bunch of nice gentle soldiers. All they respect is Violence and brutality. If we are not prepared to dish out violence and brutality we should get out of there.

:roll:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
The war is lost. Not because our military or generals aren't well trained and knowledgeable, but because this administration has no strategy, no logical organization, and simply aren't qualified to be running a country.

What was said today is the truth. If you can't handle it, I suggest a healthy dose of Rush Limbaugh.

hpw can you even use 'healthy' and 'Limbaugh' in the same asenytance ?

I think he meant to say a "liberal" dose. :laugh:

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is on whatever side the big bucks are on. For him, that would be the hard, extreme left that puts millions in the coffers.

How lame. The big bucks are on the other side of it all, with military contractors of every stripe getting fat on the situation in Iraq and the WoT hysteria in general...

The notion that anybody would actually believe your comment makes me laugh...

The Bushfans are fairly reeking of fear and desperation- I can damned near smell it over the 'net...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Whether you agree with him or not it was not the right thing to say for several reasons.

1. It helps our enemy by allowing them to declare victory based on his statements.
2. It certainly will not help the morale of the troops, hard to say if it hurts it either.
3. Such a divisive comment does not help the political situation at home. Just look at the response his comments have generated.

There are more tactful ways to get his point across rather than declaring that we have already ?lost? the war.

The problem is that more tactful ways have been usd for the last 3 years to no avail.

 

[KK]

All I can say is that if I was still in the military, I would be pissed off at Reid, as I'm sure 99% of the military is.

 

[classy]

He is telling the truth. We can't win a civil war.

 

[randym431]

Wouldn't losing a war require a military defeat? About the only thing we have lost is the will to fight, nothing else.

There are so many more smarter people that see the truth and reality in all this.
John Kerry for one...

As he said about V-nam "how can you ask someone to be the last American to die in a war". (something like that)

Kerry seen this outcome long ago, with getting in a war for the wrong reason.
Its taken this country way too long to catch up, but at least "we the people" finally have...

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"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, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

:thumbsdown:

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is on whatever side the big bucks are on. For him, that would be the hard, extreme left that puts millions in the coffers.

And you know this HOW? PROOF, or retract it.

Isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[mithrandir2001]

I think the real reason Reid made his comments was to tell the President yet again that his puppet Congress is no more. It's to frustrate Bush in an area where many - perhaps a majority - of Americans disagree with the Administration.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

On H&C last night, H stated that "it emboldens the enemy". WTF? So, if we declare we are there forever, or, that we are winning decisively, they will just pack it in and go home? Get discouraged and give up? Embolden the enemy?!? who comes up with this crap? Then the Fox "contributer" pushing her book, says that she would rather we fight them there, than here. Another WTF? When do these talking points start sounding as weak to the idiots spewing them, as they do to everyone that doesn't make a living off of being a partisan tool?

Most Americans finally get it, like the slow kids in class, the teacher had to repeat the lesson for over and over. They now understand that it is one giant FUBARed mess. Cut&Run? Retreat&defeat? Who writes this sh1t for them? Muhammed Ali?

 

[Jhhnn]

My fave part of all of this is how vaguely the "enemy" is defined, and how that entity is always conflated with Al Qaeda, the rightwing's all-purpose boogeyman.

Whatever Harry Reid says, it can't embolden the diverse anti-occupation forces in Iraq any more than the utter ineptitude of the occupation itself. They don't have to read an international press dispatch to figure it out- they live it every day...

The only occupation official who ever had a clue as to how to proceed was Garner, and he obviously had to go- his approach didn't fit in with the whole "Baghdad Year Zero" delusion. Chances that might have existed early on have been squandered, and forces beyond American will to control have been unleashed, now solidified and hardened in battle. The notion that any sort of American victory can be achieved at this point with methods short of mass murder is pure denial.

Left to their own devices, Iraqis may be able to avoid that, since the bushistas won't be able to play them off against each other...

 

[Moonbeam]

People believe in magical thinking. They think that thoughts influence reality. If you always keep up a positive attitude the comet that is going to hit the planet will miss. If you tell the world it will hit, you make it happen. Everything is attitude and human will. Don't give up and keep fighting; never say die.

I remember an other pearl of human wisdom. Give me the strength, deal Lord, to change the things I can change, fool me twice and um......and the strength to know the difference.

The fact is that we were born perfect and our self hate, while our emotional truth, is in fact a lie. This is why positive thinking works. We have hidden capacities we wouldn't believe that can be tapped into. But there are limits to everything and it requires wisdom and judgment to know what is possible and what is foolish. If one faces defeat in the face of defeat one may make it the best defeat possible. Of course there are those who long to be martyrs.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Things to look for:
1. Clinton did not have permission of Congress or the UN before he started his bombing campaign.

That's what i said. Except i forgot they were acting under NATO and not the UN.

2. The premise of the bombing, to stop genocide, was false. (Although we didn't know that at the time.) They talked about 100,000 missing, maybe dead. And then the state department upped that number to 500,000. The true number of dead was around 10,000 to 12,000. A large amount, but no where near the 100,000 claimed.

Well, this is what they thought at the time. Perhaps intelligence failed in Bosnia as well. The US wasn't the only nation that thought genocide was happening in there.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: KK
All I can say is that if I was still in the military, I would be pissed off at Reid, as I'm sure 99% of the military is.

You really think the soldiers in the streets see it differently?

Or do you think they want the people in power to finally see what the situation is really like, and get them the hell out of that pit of sh1t and back home to their family and friends?

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: KK
All I can say is that if I was still in the military, I would be pissed off at Reid, as I'm sure 99% of the military is.

You really think the soldiers in the streets see it differently?

Or do you think they want the people in power to finally see what the situation is really like, and get them the hell out of that pit of sh1t and back home to their family and friends?

I can only speculate but I imagine many soldiers over there would not shed tears if we left Iraq. To be back with their families and on American Soil would be a godsend to many.

The Iraq War has lost its Purpose. Bush thought we could charge in, toss Saddam and fairly readily turn Iraq into democracy, since followers of Islam are inherently hungry for and receptive to democracy :roll:. Now we are "babysitting" a sectarian war. I don't even hear the Administration talking anymore about when the Iraqi Army will be ready to take over the reigns. What are we doing over there again? What has to happen before we leave? It's become an extended bad dream. The only thing that's certain is that Bush leaves in January 2009.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets cut to the chase and tell it like it is---------The American soldier represent GWB&co.---and is and remains a living symbol of that administration.

And because of incidents like Abu Ghrab, the kidnapping and torture of civilians, and the facts that GWB&co is regarded as the greatest hypocrite in the world, our troops do not get cut any slack. And after four years of the Katrina treatment and the fact GWB&co. manages to far exceed Saddam in Iraqi deaths by a wide margin, the Iraqi people are totally fed up. And they can't take it out on GWB so they take it out on the next best thing---namely American troops.

And if we had a President that the Iraqi's could even remotely believe or respect, our troops---would have a far easier time of it.