Okay, I know the Democrats aren't unpatriotic. And any form of criticism of Democrats on their policy proposals in the War on Terror risks drawing the ire of Democrats offended that someone questioned their patriotism.
But Harry Reid
just crossed a line...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.
Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.
This is but the latest example of how Reid, under pressure from liberal activists to do more to stop the war, is going on the attack against President Bush and his military leaders in anticipation of a September showdown to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, according to Democratic senators and aides.
Reid, who was bashed by Republicans for suggesting earlier this year that the Iraq war was "lost," is lashing out at top commanders while putting the finishing touches on a plan to force a series of votes on Iraq designed exclusively to make Republicans up for reelection in 2008 go on record in favor of continuing an unpopular war.
(hat tip:
Instapundit) One thing up-front -- if Reid wants to claim he didn't say it, please deny the statements. I'd also be interested in hearing him elaborate why Generals Pace and Petreaus are "incompetent" (General Pace may be impolitic, but incompetence requires a further showing). Although I should probably defer to Reid on issues of incompetence, based on his spectacularly incompetent effort as the leader of the Senate thus far.
I realize that this is all part of the Democrats' strategy to win more votes next year, and tie the GOP to an unpopular war. I also realize that the corresponding claim from Democrats is that the GOP has used the national security issue to hammer the Democrats in 2002 and 2004, and they view that as equally unkosher.
But here's a fundamental fact regarding the situation as it currently exists --
the Democratic leadership is actively hoping the U.S. loses in Iraq and is forced to withdraw. There's no way to deny that point -- for them, it's politically beneficial if our surge fails and they can force a withdrawal.
I actively discount the idea that Democrats put forth -- that their concern is about the troops dying in a war that is not winnable. I do so because they had a chance to pull the funding for the war and refused to do so, because of political pressure. Principles be damned, promises to the nutroots be damned, the troops be damned -- the Dems caved to pressure.
And their response now? They don't support the troops, no matter how many times they say it. Hammer President Bush if you like for running the war badly -- but at least he's trying to win and get it right. The Democrats don't want to win. Criticizing Generals Pace and Petereaus more than two months before General Petreaus' next report to Congress and before the surge strategy can be evaluated accomplishes nothing except to provide political cover for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. It doesn't help the troops, it doesn't help us win, it doesn't help a damn thing... except possibly to elect more Democrats to Congress and possibly one to the White House.
To be fair, Reid probably crossed the line into rooting for us to lose a long time ago. But there's a difference between silently hoping for it and actively cheering for it.
