The Democrats' Gonzales

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

D. Spencer Hines - 27 Apr 2007 03:43 GMT

Hmmmmmmmm.

DSH
--------------------------------------------

The Democrats' Gonzales

By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Washington Post

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As
Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a
continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of
senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions
of ineptitude to end.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in
his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General
Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the
firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the
reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so
impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had
"increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations
performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent
comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of
Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's
off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost --
in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war
between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . .
The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe
it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we
continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for
hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change
the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of
counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill
Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic
leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion
of the alternatives in Iraq.

Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader
over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout
from one of Reid's tussles with the language.

Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct
fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put
his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of
the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have
here in Washington."

He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill
Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because
Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he
apologized to Frist.

Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced
aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal
wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party
and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S.
policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at
stake.

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the
president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to
support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to
determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such
discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own
members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a
time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq
Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not
sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has
mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a
diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid
has offered as Senate majority leader.

Reply to this Message

Ray O'Hara - 27 Apr 2007 04:35 GMT

> Hmmmmmmmm.
>
> DSH
> --------------------------------------------

its fun watching you freak out as the bush crime family goes down in
infamy.
and you quote such unbiased sources too. broder, krauthammer, ann coulter.
yeah all fine minds with high journalistic standards.

Reply to this Message

J Antero - 27 Apr 2007 05:06 GMT

So Reid is a fool to say that the Iraq war is "lost".

I thought getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, and we did it.

The additional mission the chimp and his handlers took on, was to take over
Iraq and create a friendly, secular, peaceful nation that we would make oil
deals with, and would serve as a socio-political ideal to other nations in
the region. Then the chimp immediatley did things to destroy any chance of
accomplishing that.

Now, how the f.ck is that additional mission, and the WAR we are now
fighting, NOT lost? What we have now is a civil war that will probably burn
itself out into a largely Shiia controlled country, which will be friendly
with and dependant on Iran.

The Sunni Arabs are fighting, because have to - they have no power or wealth
under the current situation.
The Shiia don't want to accomodate the Sunnis, and they don't have to while
the US is there.

Also, US talk of democracy is now regarded worldwide as bullshit fronting
for abuse, inept exploitation and creating a hell on earth for countires we
work our magic on.

U.S. ‘in trouble’ in Iraq, retired general asserts
By SCOTT CANON
The Kansas City Star
Barry McCaffrey, retired Army general and one-time White House drug czar,
came to Kansas City on Tuesday to deliver a speech about leadership.

McCaffrey was one of the top commanders in the Army during the first Gulf
War. Now he teaches at West Point and is chairman of HNTB Federal Services
and a member of the HNTB Companies board of directors. The architectural and
engineering firm has headquarters in Kansas City.

McCaffrey regularly travels abroad on missions for the Pentagon to give
military brass his assessment of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere. His most recent trip to Iraq was earlier this month.

He spoke with TheKansas City Star about his assessment of the Iraq war and
its strain on the U.S. military. His answers have been edited for space and
clarity.

What sort of evolution do you see to the war in Iraq?

We’re in trouble.

The American people walked away from the war. I don’t think they’re coming
back. Iraq’s neighbors are bearing no good will toward a favorable outcome
in Iraq.

The Iraqi government in power is dysfunctional. There is essentially no
province in Iraq where the central government holds sway. It’s not true in
the Kurdish areas. … It’s not true in Basra, where there’s a struggle for
power among the Shiites, it’s essentially not true in any part of the
country.

American troops are now moving out in smaller units to integrate themselves
more into Iraqi neighborhoods. That can be more dangerous work. Is it worth
the risk?

That’s such a large political question. If you’re the four-star general in
Iraq, of course it is. The consequences of being run out of Iraq and leaving
the country in turmoil and leaving the six surrounding countries in jeopardy
are just so serious. … Then of course it’s worth it.

But collectively the American people have said that the conduct of the war
has been so incompetent that we’ve come to disbelieve the administration has
the ability to carry this off.

The next president, unless the situation in Iraq is dramatically turned
around, is pulling the plug.

You’ve said many times that the military needs to grow. Where would you get
the manpower?

I see no political energy at all to increase the size of military. … (But)
who says we can’t get America’s sons and daughters (to enlist)? We’re
willing to pay the resources to (defense contractor) KBR and (private
security firm) Blackwater, but we think it’s mercenary to pay more to a
Marine Pfc. …

They got one line in a (presidential) speech at Fort Bragg about ‘for those
of you who are interested in a career of service in the armed forces, there’s
no more noble thing to do.’ That isn’t what is going on here. We don’t need
people to consider a career in the armed forces. We need their sons and
daughters to go out and carry a gun for us.

What’s your read of the case of Pat Tillman, the pro football player whose
friendly-fire death in Afghanistan was first made to look like the result of
enemy combat?

There was sadly, a probably criminal cover-up of evidence. … They loved this
guy. ... They shouldn’t have covered it up. That was wrong, but I’m
empathetic to these guys. ….

You’ve got a unit horrified that they’ve killed their buddy and wanting to
tell the family something noble.

I’ll bet you $100 to a half-eaten apple that (then Defense Secretary Donald)
Rumsfeld knew about it right after Lt. Gen. Stan McCrystal sent that message
in. … At that point there probably was a political cover-up going on.

Reply to this Message

History Forum / General / British History / April 2007

The Democrats' Gonzales