Comments (22) | Add a comment
Sherman Frederick
Reid's words of infamy
It was Thursday, April 19, 2007. Support for the war on terror in the battlefield of Iraq flagged as violence escalated against American soldiers standing on our behalf in harm's way.
George W. Bush faced a critical decision in his presidency. Stand down or press forward. He did not retreat. Instead, he doubled down on troops dedicated to Iraq and charged a little-known general by the name of David Petraeus to win the war.
We were in it to win it, and the effort came to be known as the "surge."
In the wake of that decision, before a single additional soldier's boot had hit the ground in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called a news conference to express his dismay with Bush's decision. Sen. Reid uttered these four words of infamy: "This war is lost."
Friend and foe took note as one of Washington's most powerful men proclaimed America's war effort "lost." Sen. Reid took big heat for making that statement, and he deserved every bit of it. It was an outrageous thing to say -- the war is lost? -- while our soldiers were still in the battlefield.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ironically in Reid's home state of Nevada at the time, replied that the only thing lost was Reid's "sense of priority."
But Sen. Reid refused to back down or say he was sorry: "My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."
More than three years later, history proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Bush made the right call. Harry didn't. The war was not lost.
In fact, once the "surge" became fully implemented, brave American forces almost immediately turned the tide.
And today, the benefits of the "surge" allow President Barack Obama the luxury to divert troops away from Iraq and into Afghanistan.
One can only wonder what a fix we'd be in today had America retreated, let Iraq slip into tribal violence (or worse), and then attempted to win the war Harry's way -- "diplomatically, politically and economically." Diplomacy with whom? Al-Qaida?
Look, the argument of what might have been -- or even how best to fight the war on terror then and now -- is not what made Reid's remarks so alarming.
What makes Reid's remarks nearly unforgivable is that today, through the lens of hindsight, we not only can see that he was wrong about the war being lost, we can see that there is good reason to question whether Sen. Reid told the truth when he said his remarks were those of "conscience."
If, indeed, he spoke from the heart then about how best to prosecute the war on terror in the battlefield in Iraq, why is he not also speaking from the heart now about our strategy in the battlefield of Afghanistan?
The circumstances are almost identical.
In 2007, Sen. Reid opposed the Iraq "surge" and questioned publicly the integrity of Bush's general -- David Petraeus.
In 2010, Reid supports the Afghanistan "surge" and gushes public praise for Obama's general -- David Petraeus.
Sen. Reid owes the country an explanation. He can start with Nevadans, who must decide in November whether he's fit to send back to Washington. But in the end, he must stand accountable to the soldiers who won his "lost" war.
Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@review journal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
As a Vietnam Combat Veteran I can say with confidence that the two wars in which we are currently engaged are both unwinnable from a military prospective. Even Gen. Petraeus agrees with this assessment. All Sen. Reid did was to tell a truth you are too foolish to comprehend
Dirty Harry is either a marxist himself, or a useful idiot to comrade Hussein and his marxist thugs. If not, he would not be enabling the destruction of our formerly great nation, along with his fellow Demoncrats, who apparently carry a lot of hatred for the U.S., or excessive love of power, perhaps both. Reid has to go, along with most of the Demoncrats in congress, and many RINOs. The left has taken over the Demoncratic Party, and have made some headway in the Republican Party. This really is about survival of our nation as we know it. The 20% of the population will make plenty of noise about racists, nazis, all the while fomenting violence, at which they excel, especially at night. If Reid and comrade Hussein get the next 2 1/2 years to continue their destruction of our once great nation, we may never recover. From freedom to serfdom, so elequently laid out by Hayek, is fast becoming a reality. The destruction and misery that Ayn Rand wrote about in Atlas Shrugged is rapidly becoming reality today. Removing Reid and his gangster family from political power will be a big first step.
No one does more for veterans than Harry Reid, http://bit.ly/c33Lbj
On the night of November 2, 2010, Harry Reid will utter these four words of infamy: "This election is lost".
How can ANY American, Nevadan or otherwise, still defend Harry Reid? Even if he didn't utter the traitorous words which I hope, someday, are etched on his tombstone, he is a living, breathing example of the corruption of the Senate and the need for term limits.
He is a Senator who thinks he's a king, and we're his lowly subjects, yet our taxpayer money pays his salary.
You need to get "Recycle Reid", "Trash All Incumbents", or "We'll Remember Come November!" stickers at www.keep2theright.com
Yes, those words were / are absolutely detrimental to the morale of the troops, which the Republicans are so much more considerate of compared to Harry Reid and other Democrats.
Harry Reid said it once. The Republicans have repeated it, say, thousands of times. That's because the Republicans are so much more considerate of the morale of the troops compared to Harry Reid and the Democrats.
"Mission Accomplished"
Thanks for the reminder jack.webb.
That one's a classic!
Poor,Tom, Steele should not have said what he said, in my opinion, but there is a difference. The light-weight has specified an end date. That makes all of the difference in the world. Our enemies know that they must just hold out until Doper Barry packs up and quits.
Oh for heaven's sake. Climb down from your black horse Sherm and wake up. The war in Iraq is one we never should have been in in the first place. It was your buddy that lied to us about WMD and then said as long as we were there we might as well take out Saddam Hussein. If we had put in the manpower, time, resources, and energy into Afghanistan way back when like we should have, Osama Bin Laden would have been captured by now and our men and women would be home safe and sound. Grow up.
Mickey Mouse would be a vast, measurable improvement over Harry 'the crook' Reid.