Why Senator Reid is Wrong

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Nevada Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I use the word pleasure because his staff was very easy to work with, and the Senator himself was nice to me when I met him.

While I have said more than once that I would break bread with him, that does not change the fact that on the fundamental issue of the day, Senator Reid is wrong. He does represent the democratic party very well. He is an effective Majority Leader. However, his entire party is defective, and he himself is running the risk of being on the wrong side of history.

When I asked Senator Reid about Senator John McCain, I received the following response.

“I respect his service to our country. However, he is just wrong on the war and wrong on the economy.”

Harry Reid will go down in history as being fundamentally wrong on one of the major historical world events.

The Iraq War was the right thing to do. It was legally and morally right then, and it is still right.


Senator Reid said that the war is lost.

No Senator. No sir. No. It is not lost. The surge is working. For those who want evidence that the surge is working, read the Jayson Blair Times. They have nothing to say. If the war was lost, the Jayson Blair Times would have front page columns from now until November.

A truly great source would be General David Petraeus.

If I want an expert on how to pass some arcane bill out of some subcommittee until it becomes a law, particularly in Nevada, I will consult Senator Reid. If I want to know how a war is being conducted, especially a counterinsurgency, I will consult the man who wrote the book on counterinsurgency.

Harry Reid calls this the greatest foreign policy blunder ever.

How can anyone committed to human rights, which Senator Reid has spoken about, object to Iraq and Afghanistan becoming democracies? Purple stained fingers matter. Women have gone from being beaten for being in public to voting and holding government positions.

No war is run perfectly. There has never been a war without casualties. World War II cost America thousands of lives, and I have yet to meet somebody that regretted winning that war.

We have not only toppled Saddam, but we have managed to get Khadafi in Libya to join the family of nations.

Senator Reid mentioned in his interview various achievements on everything from lobbying reform to ethics overhaul to stem cell research legislation, but in the long run this will not matter when it comes to his legacy.

The War on Terror trumps everything else. Iraq is the central front in that war. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

The world is better off because of President George W. Bush. The notion that we are hated around the world seems to be lost on the people of who are supposed to hate us.

From Nicolas Sarkozy in France to Angela Merkel in Germany to Silvio Berlusconi in Italy to Steven Harper in Canada, the world is electing governments that are tired of letting Islamofacism eat away at their societies like a cancer. The conservatives are winning in England, and the new left of center government in Australia is as Pro-American as the previous conservative government of John Howard.

Senator Reid has been accused of wanting America to fail in Iraq. That is a very serious charge. The theory is that anything that shows that President Bush was and is right must be defeated.

Senator Reid does admit to having an animus towards the President that goes beyond politics. He does not like the President. Is he so blind in his view of the President that he would let it cloud his judgment of an entire war? The charge is there, and that is between Senator Reid and the God he believes in.

The reason why I believe in President Bush and General David Petraeus is not because they tell me so. I listen to the soldiers. i receive emails on a weekly basis from soldiers that are in Iraq and Afghanistan. They speak of incredible progress.

If thousands of letters from soldiers were delivered to the Majority Leader’s office, would he ignore them?

Senators need to listen to their constituents. Senator Reid has been reelected in Nevada, so over 50% of his constituents are behind him. However, this war is serious. It trumps the politics of a single state. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was fired by the voters of South Dakota. He had high popularity at one point, but he simply chose to try and fight against a war that much of America supported.

Yes, support for the war is below what it was, but that happens in all wars. What Senator Reid refuses to acknowledge is that frustration with the war does not mean we want to pull all the troops out right now. Americans want to win. They want evidence of progress. They want results.

General Petraeus is delivering those results. Americans are seeing glimmers of hope. Yes, Americans are war weary. Americans do not want war. We hate war.

Yet we hate losing a war we must win more than anything else.

Senator Reid became the Majority Leader with a powerful left wing bloc of voters that wanted to pull out now. This did not happen. If Senator Reid truly had the people on his side, the measure to withdraw would have passed. Instead, Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

Senator Reid could be right about other issues. It does not matter. The war is the issue of my generation, and if Senator Reid continues flailing against the war, he will end up being on the wrong side of history.

The enemy is Islamofacism, not President Bush.

This will matter because as Iraq heals, Iran is saber rattling. If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, and President Bush did not stop them, he would be blamed for not keeping Americans safe.

President Bush gets blamed for a preemptive war in Iraq, and also gets blamed for not doing enough to protect America from Al Queda. Everything is his fault. It is for this reason that I suspect that Senator Reid’s criticism of President Bush is reflexive. President Bush is being criticized for not “getting tough” with Iran, but in my Neocon world, getting tough means taking people who want to kill you and obliterating them from Planet Earth. We can take out Armageddonijad and many of the Mullahs tomorrow¬† with targeted strikes that would not harm the Iranian people.¬† It is the democrats that have prevented¬† President Bush from a military strike against Iran.

Senator Reid dislikes President Bush. The war is President Bush’s war. Therefore, it has to be a bad war. The more the evidence mounts, the deeper Senator Reid digs in. He keeps doubling down, because accepting and embracing the truth would end his career. Senator Reid has a job to do, and that requires that he leads a political party that has a lunatic fringe that demands that this war ends right now. If he were to support the war tomorrow, he would be fired as Majority Leader.

The problem for him is that while he is the Majority leader, his constituency across America is a minority. They yell loudly, but the silent majority wants to win this war. The 2006 election that brought Senator Reid to his current position was a rejection of the way the war was being conducted. It was not a vote for ending the war. If it was, the war would have ended.

President Bush got the message, and brought General Petraeus in to fix things. He simply got the job done, and Americans can see this. Protests cannot overcome cold hard facts.

There are plenty of other issues that people can quibble about, but if we are all blown to kingdom come by an Islamofacist lunatic, the rest will not matter.

Our enemies have been at war with us for over 30 years. President Bush, when faced with an atrocity too great to ignore, chose to actually do something.

Senator Reid represents a political party that wants to close Guantanamo Bay, without saying where these people would be placed. I doubt he wants them in a Nevada prison.

Senator Reid represents a political party that wants to give habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants.

Senator Reid represents a political party that spends more time investigating alleged fictional atrocities by American soldiers who are trying to fight an enemy that beheads people.

Senator Reid represents a political party that wants to have dialogue with Iran, who has been at war with us for decades. Iranian President Armageddonijad was one of the hostage takers back in 1979. He should be in Guantanamo Bay now, not teaching at American Universities.

Senator Reid represents a political party that is against drilling for oil under the flimsy excuse that it will not completely solve the energy problem. It would absolutely be helpful. The American people support drilling by overwhelming margins. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed drilling in 1995, we would not be in this mess today.

Senator Reid represents a political party that insists that Iraq is a failure, even though many of the critics have not even been to Iraq. Liberal Congressman Brian Baird of Washington State has been to Iraq and seen the progress. He could not ignore the evidence.

Senator Reid represents a political party that is haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam. Our soldiers were winning in Vietnam. Democrats in America lost that war. Democrats are scared to death about being blamed again. This is why they say they support the troops, but not the mission, even though the troops support the mission.

Senator Reid on some levels is an American success story. He rose from a poor background to become the Majority Leader of the Senate. If America was at peace, that would be the Harry Reid story.

Unfortunately for the Senator, he is willing to throw away what could have been an inspiring story of American triumph over adversity. Perhaps it is because of his intense dislike for one man. Perhaps the left wing fringe has frightened him, although he does not seem to be a man that gets frightened easily. In all fairness, those people scare the daylights out of me.

The reason is not important. What matters is that America is in the middle of World War III. The struggle is civilization vs barbarism.

If Barbarism wins, then God help us all.

Senator Reid is an important figure in American politics today. Yet being a brief part of history is not the same as making history.

Those who will not go all out to help our soldiers win this war will be mere footnotes.

Senator Reid represents the modern democratic party perfectly. The modern democratic party has seen the face of evil in the world, and has chosen not to try and defeat it at all costs.

President Bush is one man, but his doctrine must live on. The fate of the free world depends on this.

Senator Reid can dispute this till the very end.

To the very end, President Bush will be right and Senator Reid will be wrong.


13 Responses to “Why Senator Reid is Wrong”

  1. Micky 2 says:

    All that you mention is no doubt an example of what seems to be a personal vendetta against Bush. There is no doubt about his feelings for Bush but the reason I say “seems” is because when I read between the lines I see a man who is bitterlty stubborn like a child that wont take the facts for what they are. We show incredible progress in Iraq and all he can do is turn around and say “well this still isnt done and that still isnt done.
    Yea, and 10 years from now no matter what he’ll still be saying ” well what about this and that?” Hes like nit picky little dubutante spoiled princess following the maid around pointing out everything she missed.
    Up untill a certain point a lot of what I heard coming out of his mouth did not surpise me since his MO has been made clear a long time ago.
    But when he called illegal aliens “undocumented Americans” I nearly crapped my heart out my a$$.
    That ! Was the epitome of arrogance and in your face defiance of the basic understanding of what is and is not an American. It was a slap in the face to all the soldiers that have died to keep us “Americans”

  2. Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. First off, comparing European “conservatives” to American “conservatives” is quite a stretch. I’ll never forget just after the the 2004 elections and a British conservative friend of mine just flew back over to the states and the first thing he said to me was, “What happened?” He was shocked. He couldn’t believe America could make the same insane mistake twice! I have a few Italian friends who are pro-Berlusconi – not a one is pro-Bush. So I really can’t imagine what you’re driving at here. Around the world, Bush is considered a bad joke. I should know, I spent the first 6 years of his failed presidency working in international trade and talking to people from all over the world every day. And you don;t even want to know what my Israeli friends think of him!


  3. Micky 2 says:

    An 8 year term is already deemed a failure at 6 years after 911 and not one attack on our soil.
    International trade ?
    I thought it was the container industry ?
    I used to work in a warehouse that shipped furniture made in Italy. I guess I could say I worked in international trade.
    I’ve stocked grocery store shelves with li hing mui from China also and sold Fiats too.
    In Hawaii I speak to tourists from all over the world and they seem to think were lucky to have Bush compared to most of the buttmunch leaders out there.
    And I’m willing to bet that your Israeli friends are as far left falling off the planet as you are. So who cares what they think ?
    Did you tell your Brit friend that americans are not so stupid as to change leadership in the middle of a war ?
    Did you ask him what the muslim population was in England at that point ?

  4. Micky, do you know what a container line is??? I worked with people from all over the world, all over the world, for years. Imports were my speciality.

    The point I was making is that you can’t apply the results of foreign elections to US politics, especially those among First World competitors. And British conservative is not the same as an American conservative is not the same as an Italian conservative, etc. Heck, in Europe, you guys are called Neoliberals – NOT conservatives.


  5. Micky 2 says:

    Well then your british conservative friend should not understand enough about americas brand of conservatism to make a valid point.

    Yea, I worked for All American and we brought in furniture from all over the world and shipped it out across the states. But tthe guys who aorked in the containers rarely ever met any of the buyers or sellers.
    Just about all 40 and 60 ft. cantainers cant help but be involced in international trade when youre on the east or west coast.
    Trust me Mr McJones. If anyone in this world knows what a container line is its me.
    Everything we get in this state comes out of a container and we are all too familiar with the goings on in the container industries. I ‘ve worked with the shipping lines Matson etc. And very few of those people actually ever do any trading, the container lines simply move the stuff and rarely contact anyone on the other end.
    If you were into marketing or some kind of salea scouting I could see you actually dealing directly with importers.
    For a longshoreman to say hes involved in foreign trade is a little bit of a stretch.
    I’m sorry but you have said four or five tiimes now that worked with containers for a while ( hauling recyclables was your specialty if I remember correctly)
    Now all of a sudden you’re an expert on foreign trade because you worked in container lines.
    Sorry if I have a hard time swallowing your grandios claims.

    Your brit friend may think Bush is a shmuck but why dont you ask him what the terror threat is like in his country ?

  6. “Senator Reid represents a political party that is against drilling for oil under the flimsy excuse that it will not completely solve the energy problem. It would absolutely be helpful. The American people support drilling by overwhelming margins. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed drilling in 1995, we would not be in this mess today.”

    And this. This from a man of the investment biz. Amazing.

    Anyone with even a parochial knowledge of world markets knows that the difference between US production and US consumption is such that US oil producers have no effect almost whatsoever on world oil prices. Drill ing virtually nothing. Our dependence on foreign oil is not nor never was the problem – It’s our dependence on oil itself that is the problem. The Neocons allow for the profiteer of oil to death – its and ours – without any concern at all for the consumers gouged at the alter of personal profits for a minority of people who would do such a thing. Drilling does nothing and I hereby right now dare anyone to honestly argue me otherwise.


  7. “Well then your british conservative friend should not understand enough about americas brand of conservatism to make a valid point.”

    Yes Micky. That was my point. Comparing Sarkozy or Brown or Berlusconi or Merckel with Bush is inane at best. It’s like a Monty Python sketch.

    Micky, I worked for two of the largest container lines in the world, with ports of call spanning every continent but Antarctica, every ship with thousands of containers, and customers everywhere, even from door to door, throughout all the world. I’ve spoken to an awful lot of people – you American conservatives are a unique breed.


  8. Micky 2 says:

    “Drilling does nothing and I hereby right now dare anyone to honestly argue me otherwise.”

    I can argue it, and I can even make good sense out of the whole thing.
    But libs will argue, non the wiser.
    If we drilled for what we are capable of drilling and reserving it would simply be that much less that we depended on others for.
    Especially since its proven that the oil is there , its just that the moonbats want us to drill where there is none or where we havent discovered any yet.
    You say its our dependcence on oil itself and not our dependence on foreign oil thats the problem.
    Well geee, duh !
    If we drilled our own we wouldnt be dependent on others for our dependence.
    World prices are not so much an issue as prices are here at home. Ask the Iraqis who pay 0.5 cents a gallon.
    So that blows your deceptive approach to this as a world problem for us away and brings it back to the real problem which is that WE ARE dependent on oil from the rest of the world and that it goes to the center of many of our problems.
    But of course moonbats expect us to just pick up overnight and start using generators attached to our excersisie bikes and power everything like hamsters in a wheel.

    Yea thats right ! If Clinton had drilled ten years ago it would be that much more less that we have to worry about today. But no ! Libs and environmentalist have been standing in the way of every drilling project mentioned saying it will not help us at the pump.
    Of course it will.
    Anyone with a basic knowledge (never mind parochial) of business knows that once we start announcing that we will be drilling and using our own reserves the others will drop their prices in hopes that we dont follow through. And when we do follow through they will let their prices remain low so they can still be competitive.
    What we do today most certainly will not hurt us tommoroww. But this precaution will prove usefull because the reserves are actually there. Not some imaginary disaster like Global warming where there is no truth that the crap implemented on on us know will help in the future.
    Drilling is guaranteed to help us in the future.
    Also, all the monies being put into subsidies and grants for bio fuels should yanked, taken away from corn farmers, immediatley !
    This would free up a lot of money for investing into reserch for other fuels and it would bring down the cost of food right away. This would help to off set ther cost of fuel.

    You went door to door throughout the world ?
    And no, I dont by your BS about your Brit friend. Since when do dems think that Europeans critique of American politics wasnt valid ?
    You guys are always saying we need to be more like them.
    Well, then let us put up some nukes !!

  9. Micky, please, c’mon man. Let’s look at this nice and simplistically:

    If oil is a globally traded commodity, and we have only 3% of the reserves but demand 25% of the oil, then we can drill all we want but the price will barely be affected.

    Basic arithmetic, man. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. All this drilling nonsense is just political bait for the common schmucks who love easy – and usually wrong – answers to their problems.

    And please stop personalizing something you obviously know nothing about. I dealt with people on the phone, on the email, and in person – mostly on the phone. For years my job was to assist people in clearing customs, the USDA, and freight obligations. I developed a reputation as the best in the biz and had personal relationships with hundreds of clients. I dealt with people from all over the world everyday. Our services included up to everything – from the “door,” as we call it, in Rangoon, for example, to the door in Topeka, and everywhere in between. The only people who liked Bush were the very wealthy and loony Christian fundies.


  10. Micky 2 says:

    If oil is a globally traded commodity, and we have only 3% of the reserves but demand 25% of the oil, then we can drill all we want but the price will barely be affected.”

    The point is that we should try to free ourselves of that scenario and produce our own oil to be traded by no one.
    Why do you think some countries are only paying 5 cents or 15 cents a gallon.
    I think we can all agree that there is no shortage of gas. But since prices are being jacked up by traders and speculators who are basically the middle men I think actually producing our own product would side step that transaction.
    Before sugar went down in Hawaii we used to pay more for a pound here than they did in Cal. Why ? Because the refinery was in Cal and the sugar got shipped back and forth. Anytime you start moving a product around it gives opportunity for others to impose whatever means upon it.
    Why are you Dems against drilling. How can it hurt not to have our own reserves if it cuts our dependence down even say 10 or 15% ?.
    The less dependence the better, right ?
    Hell you guys should be happy. That lack of dependence would cut our reasons for being in the middle east in half.
    Then you couldn’t run around crying “blood for oil” all the time.
    That was the main bitch coming outta liberals when we invaded Iraq, wasn’t it ?
    Well ? Where is all this oil we were supposedly after ?
    Right now the Sunni and the Shia are fighting over it. So I hardly see it as belonging to us.

    I’ve was the tourist business for 30 years and met more people from around the world in one month than you have in your whole life and my numbers say that about 1 in 5 of the people from around the world feel the way you say they do about our country and its republican leadership.
    How long have you been out of the container business ? And how long has Bush been in office ? Where you actually able to come across anyone who ha any sentiments about an administration that was not in place yet ?
    In getting to know you for a year now I don’t believe you were there during any Bush administration.
    I have to be able to take your word in order to believe you or the conversation looses its purpose. My purpose would be to find an answer and try to see who’s right or wrong.
    We need it all. Renewable’s, alternatives, nuke , solar , oil etc.
    There is no absolute one “save us all” energy out there.
    With this in mind its best that those who are hung on being right or some kind hero take a hike and get lost because they are going to of no help when this country’s financial infrastructure and peoples lifestyles begin to decline.

    And since you yourself said that your Brit friends opinion was not worth too much how can ones opinion from Rangoon seem to matter too much either ?
    In Rangoon it was most likely the Christian fundies that were paying the freight. Your wages.

  11. “The point is that we should try to free ourselves of that scenario and produce our own oil to be traded by no one.”

    No way. I can’t believe you just said that.

    So Micky, you’re saying that we should close down the oil commodities exchanges in the US (and de facto Britain)??? Gee, and all this time I thought you were a laizzez faire capitalist! LOL!

    Shall we nationalize our oil? Why not? It does follow your logic.

    Look, Micky, don’t turn into a liberal on me, you’ll freak out the order of nature. ;)


  12. Oh, and Rangoon was a just a funny anecdote or two. Mostly we shipped from China and the Med. Burma (or Myanmar, or whatever the junta is calling it these days) is a pretty small player on the world scene.


  13. Micky 2 says:

    If worse comes to worse Jersey at least we wont have to worry about where to get our oil. Dont get ridiculous and start putting words in my mouth.
    I never said we should close anything.
    What if we are sanctioned by these other countries or a poloitical or natural disaster should take place ?
    Remember that deal with Iran ? that should be good enough reason right there to drill.
    But instead all you guys want to do is revisit all of Carters mistakes
    Do we get our water from other countries ? Do we depend on other countries to arm and train our military ?

    Oh ! Burhma ! Now you’re aiding terrorists !
    You probably shipped an bunch of radical muslims over in those containers and dont even know it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.