TAP: Reid's fearlessness is dangerous to a WH teetering on oblivion

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12725


Harry Reid's calling the war "lost" has exposed him to predictably harsh criticism from the White House and has produced some nervousness among people, particularly Democrats, squeamish about how talk in Washington affects the men and women fighting the war. To be sure, there are all sorts of logical ways for one to come to the conclusion that the war is a failure -- that it is un-winnable and thus lost. But to admit failure in the way Reid did is antithetical to the ways of Washington, and thus a political price may need to be paid.

Reid may eventually be forced to apologize. And as evidence of the majority leader's "ineptitude," Broder cites previous comments for which he has had to say he's sorry: He called Alan Greenspan a hack, questioned Bill Frist's commitment to the Senate, and at a high school in Nevada in May, 2005, called the president a loser. "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid told the students, "I think this guy is a loser." Unkind, indecorous? Yes. Inept? You make the call -- but the language is accessible enough to signal a man telling the truth from the depths of his being.

Indeed, let us ponder this "ineptitude" charge a bit further, as it's come up before in discussion of Reid by elite commentators. Reid led the Democrats back to control of the Senate against very long odds in November. This week, he passed an Iraq war spending bill with withdrawal timetables -- passage that depended on Russ Feingold and Ben Nelson voting the same way. That was a Wedding at Cana kind of moment. Would that more ineptitude came in this variety.

Reid, the former boxer and a mob prosecutor, tends not to talk as if he's been in policy seminars for the last 30 years. His instincts are to hit hard, to go for the knockout. That tendency, combined with the power he now wields given the Democrats' majority control, makes him dangerous to a White House teetering on the edge of oblivion as well as to those easily ruffled by violations of decorum. Hence the heavy pushback in recent days.

The real question is whether the obvious discomfort of some Democrats currently high-stepping in hopes of getting past Reid's remark is particularly warranted. (In this context it may be useful to recall the popular furor that failed to materialize over Barack Obama's recent "wasted" lives comment, despite war supporters' best efforts.) It just might be that the American people already know what they believe on Iraq -- and are much closer to Reid's position than the White House's. As Reid put it after uttering the remark last week, "Now, I said this is how I feel." His saving grace may be that those sentiments put him squarely in the American mainstream.

If anything, he used better language then the majority of Americans would employ to describe this administration. Keep yer boot up their ass, Harry.

it would not have been as big of an issue...But Harry Reid said it,its true and let the media have their day because had Senator Reid used a little different choice of words the media still would making this a big deal..The Majority of Americans agree with Senator Reid so be it ..Next week the media will have more to talk about by calling the Democratic vote on the funding bill a surrender bill and what Harry Reid said will be forgotten..It just gives Rove more ammunition for his propaganda talking points but I dont think Americans are paying attention to this BS anymore..
No apology necessary

country, not enabling the terrorist. Why is it when the democrats say something no matter how trival, (and made into something big big big by the republicans) these statements hurt our troops. How do the troops get this info..........oh oh oh I know...rush has a direct line, while no democratic talk show host has access.

And the worst part is, the whole attack is based on a completely out-of-context quote. This is what Harry Reid really said,

"And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course - and we must change course."

Any questions? The President's own generals say there is no military solution to the civil war in Iraq, that it requires the political solution the Iraqis have resisted. By the Vice President's standard, are they "uninformed and misleading"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/standing-with-harry-reid_b_46910.html