Harry Reid's Utter Incoherence on Iraq

[Tigermike 3,053]

Jul. 16, 2006

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Giving Harry hell on Iraq

Shouldn't dissent make sense?

I'm not sure how I came to read the Web site giveemhellharry.com. Maybe it was the allergy-induced insomnia on a particularly hot Las Vegas night. Maybe it was chasing a hot dog with sushi between screenings of "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" with the grandkiddos in the afternoon and the British flick "Wah-Wah" in the evening with friends.

However it came to be, I spent a few hours on the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada's most famous and most powerful politician. And I came away thinking that in the fall of 2006, when Democrats wonder how they blew the chance to change the balance of power in Washington, D.C., they need look no further than Sen. Reid.

Specifically, I refer to a speech that Sen. Reid gave on the Senate floor in June. Unbelievably, there was serious debate about whether the United States should spell out terms and a time line for getting out of Iraq by the end of the year. It failed, thankfully.

But I nevertheless wanted to read Harry's speech for enlightenment. What, exactly, is the mainstream Democratic position on Iraq? How might a Democratic president carry out the war on terrorism?

The answer is, simply, you can't tell.

Since Sen. Reid's Web site is named after President Harry Truman's political slogan "Give 'em hell, Harry," you might think it would contain the primary characteristic of that great president: plain-spokenness.

You'd be wrong.

Sen. Reid's version of "Give 'em hell, Harry" is anything but plain-spoken. If there were truth-in-advertising laws for Web site domains, this one would be renamed whatthehellisharrysaying.com. So filled with contemporary political stew, it seems to say everything to everyone. Which, of course, means it says nothing.

On Iraq, for example, Harry begins by cloaking himself in the position of loyal dissenter. At one point he quotes historical luminaries on the importance of criticism to democracy, even in times of war.

Fine. No argument from me.

Then, he drops this gem of political nonsense: "It is time for a strategy that honors the brave service of our troops."

What? Just for fun, let's pretend Harry actually means what he says. That would mean someone in the Bush administration has implemented a strategy designed to dishonor the service of our troops, like apologizing to the prisoners at Gitmo and sending them home with maps of the New York subway system.

Of course, President Bush is doing no such thing. But you get the point. This is a straw-man argument, not meaningful dissent. If, indeed, President Bush or the Republicans employed strategy designed to dishonor American troops, Sen. Reid should stop dillydallying around and call George W. Bush a lying, no good skunk of a traitor. Go ahead, Harry, give 'em hell.

Of course, he isn't going to actually say that. But he's not above implying it.

Anyway, the speech then continues to say that the best way to honor troops in Iraq is to get out of Iraq. Primarily, this involves following a plan outlined in the Levin-Reed-Clinton Amendment. The plan supposedly will, as Harry asserts, honor the brave service of our troops.

So, what's in it?

Well, it's fundamentally a touchy-feely political document. The average American, I wager, would embrace it with all the enthusiasm due a colonoscopy. For example, it suggests the president "carefully assess the impact that ongoing United States military operations in Iraq are having on the capability of the United States Government to conduct an effective counterterrorism campaign to defeat the broader global terrorist networks that threaten the United States."

Imagine, a president who "carefully" weighs troop strength. Jeez, who came up with that observation, Sherlock Holmes?

And, get this: the Reed-Levin-Clinton blueprint says -- I'm not kidding about this! -- that in order to solve Iraq's internal affairs, the president should "convene an international conference so as to more actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors."  (Iran should have a say in that shouldn't they?)

I'll tell you what, boys and girls: Sens. Jack Reed, Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton ought to go to Iraq personally, stand on a busy street corner in Baghdad and tell the people there that they think Iraq's good neighbors, Iran and Syria, ought to be involved in the settling of Iraq's internal affairs. That would be the last we see of Sens. Reed, Levin and Clinton.

Look, I know there are a lot of different viewpoints on Iraq and the war on terrorism. There is certainly nothing wrong with anyone expressing dissenting views. And I suppose that includes views as inane as the Reed-Levin-Clinton Amendment, over which Harry Reid is so gah-gah.

However, if this is the soap Harry Reid and mainstream Democrats are selling, I suggest my good senator from Searchlight get comfortable with the title "Senate minority leader."

Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media. Readers may write him at sfrederick@reviewjournal.com.

Las Vegas Review-Journal

[AURaptor 1,126]

Some on the Left simply feel they need to dissent, because. Not because of any strong, heart felt conviction, and not because of any well thought out plan , but just.....because.