« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Did Harry Reid Know The Surge Was A Military Strategy?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 13th, 2010 at 09:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Over at Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan notes something very peculiar about Harry Reid.

Back in 2007, Harry Reid declared Iraq “lost”.

On Friday, in a Las Vegas Sun interview, reporter Jon Ralston asked Harry Reid about that comment.

Reid’s response?

Reid said his comments were “blown way out of proportion,” pointing out Petraeus said the war in Iraq could not be won militarily. Then this: “It wasn’t won militantly. It was won politically, diplomatically and with the surge.”

But Harry Reid voted against the surge.

He is still maintaining that the Iraq War was not won “militantly,” by which I assume he means militarily.

Harry Reid says the war was instead won (1) politically, (2) diplomatically, and (3) with the surge — the same surge he voted against.

Does Harry Reid understand that the surge was a military strategy? Or, as Tom Bevan points out, did Harry Reid “consider[] it part of a broader overall strategy for victory but voted against it anyway”?

Which is it Harry?

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • BigGator5

    Harry Reid doesn’t know which end is up. Let’s just leave it at that note.

  • smitch61

    Had better run with this one fast…. Your ” which is it Harry” quote would make a wonderful TV ad..

    That man has enough tape of BS running out of his mouth to provide her with a new ad every week… and he did vote NO how many times during the health care debacle when he meant yes? Harry Reid, will you please GO NOW!! ( ha ha, Dr. Suess reference) He may be sick in the head and does not remember he voted No on the surge.

  • romeg

    This is the same idiotic rhetorical contortion that the Chairman of the RNC used to explain his comments about “Obama’s War” in Afghanistan.

    But back to Reid: his is a fool and a liar and will say and do anything in his attempts to make the opposition look bad and that he thinks his slavishly obedient supporters will not reject out of hand.

    In true Democrat form it is all about holding onto power. Damn the Republic; full speed ahead.

  • Dr. Botkin

    may be experiencing some neurological issues. Perhaps more than just a string of “senior moments.” I believe it is called senility, Better to be senile than a traitor.

  • Locked and Loaded
  • Locked and Loaded
  • johnt

    A man so stupid he can’t piece together a coherent sentence, & has left behind him a trail of idiocies found usually in asylums.
    But he’s a liberal[?] so it doesn’t count,

  • fisk2521

    Just in case anyone thinks Harry Reid is the only deceptive politician, let’s take a step back in recent history:

    ”Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999\

    ”There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

    ”We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    ”We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    ”Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    ”We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    ”I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    ”There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    ”He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    ”In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    ”We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    ”Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . . . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. . . . And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. . . . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. . . .” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    When will politicians realize that we no longer have to depend of their truthfullness, or the mainstream media to find out the truth. It is all available if we take the time to look to see where they have stood on issues that are critical to us all. . thank God for the Internet.

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Orwell

  • skorrent1

    All war, but particularly a counterinsurgent war, cannot be “won” by military action alone. It takes a combination of political, diplomatic and military action. We won in Iraq politically by defeating Harry, et al. We won militarily with Petraeus’s strategy. We are awaiting diplomatic victory as we see if Iraq can survive as a stable country.

    By contrast, we won, militarily, in Vietnam, but lost both diplomatically ( Diem’s assassination) and politically (Hanoi Jane, John Kerry, and friends).

  • saintgeorgegentile

    From July 11th, 2010:
    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/11/motive-behind-despicable-dig-reid-senators-patriot/

    Can be summed up in one sentence from article, “Harry was right, but he just said it wrong.”

    I want to vomit.

  • pittbull

    I remember reading in the bible that “a double minded man is unstable in all his ways”.

  • MF

    There were many times when he voted no so that a measure could be brought up again. If he had voted yes, there weren’t enough to win, and it couldn’t be brought up again. It’s strictly a parliamentarian move (though I don’t understand the full dynamics of it). Plus, it gives him cover so he can claim to have voted against something unpopular.