Korean Job Discussion Forums

[stevemcgarrett]

Those of you who are not left of center know all too well that it's a real strain to calculate where most liberal politicians stand these days. Perhaps they're not sure themselves, or perhaps they're just opportunists blowing with the prevailing winds of public opinion.

In strides Nevadan and Mormon Harry Reid as Minority and now Majority House Whip. From his recent stands, the only Ponderosa he ever saw was the cheap steakhouse by the same name.

These days, he's whipping the dead horse of the Iraqi War blame game when he's not raising the white flag.

In 1993, Reid opposed illegal immigration, calling those who crossed the Rio Grande "freeloaders" and "scam artists." Several years later he changed his mind.

In 2005, Reid publicly called Bush Sr. a "wonderful guy" but his son "a loser." Later, he recanted but only after his office was besieged with messages from his own constituents and others objecting to his harsh characterization. Nothing like taking the high road but then most of the Nevada landscape has none. Paul Laxalt he is not.

Also in 2005, Reid help push through a transportation bill that included a bridge into Laughlin, Nevada where, just by sheer coincidence, it ran across his small acreage ranch, increasing its value ten-fold overnight. But he has insinuated that Cheney received Halliburton kickbacks without so much as batting an eye.

Last year he called efforts to make English the official language of the U.S. "racist." I guess Ben Franklin and the other founding fathers who opted for English instead of German, French, or Dutch were racist too. Nothing like lumping all those who want to avoid the Quebec debacle into one sordid category.

Now of course he is beating the drum of full retreat from Iraq. But even in this regard, his passionate disdain for the administration is altered to fit the moment.

He voted for war in 1991 and again in 2003.

A little over a week ago he stated on the Senate floor that the war in Iraq was lost, unless another course of action was taken. But he approved of Petraeus as commander and his clearly announced plan for a surge. He also insisted the war could no longer be won through use of military force (apparently he believes we just need to reason with the Sunni insurgents, the al-Sadr brigade, and the al-Qaeda terrorists).

Less than a week later, on April 25, Schumer rushed to Reid's defense, trying to reassure us that Reid does not believe the war is already lost.

To cap it off, Reid had the audacity to claim single-handedly:

"No one wants us to succeed more in the Middle East than I do."

Meanwhile, troops in the sand interviewed by a British reporter for CNN International yesterday spoke with disdain of Reid's recent observations, without mentioning him by name.

Through all of this I keep asking myself: where does Senator Reid really stand? He blows with the tumbleweed.

Does he believe we can win, or only with a new non-military strategy? And what exactly is HIS strategy for victory?

[EFLtrainer]

[stevemcgarrett]

EFLTrainer:

What would you know about dialogue, since you usually just hurl epithets?

I don't care whether a dialogue materializes. It would be nice. But if not, I'd at least like to hear from the center and the right. I've given up on the leftists on the board.

Gopher, I'd appreciate your take on this as I know we have some differences of opinion on this particular issue but can iron them out.

Don't worry, BLT, I'm not about to launch an "inner dialogue" by inviting my supposed alter ego to discuss.