Remember, Harry Reid called the war in Iraq a "quagmire" and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would "drag on" indefinitely, costing billions. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw. When "the body bags start coming home," Reid said, it's time to cut our losses.

Reid kept going, talking about the need for peace. "The White House has bombed its way around the globe," he sneered. "International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." As for the current war plan, Reid complained that "no one wants us to be there" and that the president's crusade "has harmed [our] standing in the world."

And given the climate, I suppose Reid was pushing his luck when he urged Congress to de-fund the war and "pull out the forces we now have in the region." What's worse, Reid basically made the United States look like the bad guy. Once a U.S.-led coalition "starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?" Reid asked. He charged that we were "starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army" and portrayed our mission as an "occupation by foreigners."

Are all of these comments harsh? Do they undermine the troops while they're in harm's way? Do they amount, literally, to "treason"?

Posted by Nate Imbar at May 1, 2007 05:36 PM

GM, you said at Cao's blog that the statements attributed to Reid were "stupid, dumb, idiotic, assinine, irresponsible, juvenile, lacking in honesty... and a power play for partisanship’s sake".

The statements were, in fact, made by Tom DeLay in 1999, in reference to the US involvement in Kosovo. Were they "stupid, dumb, idiotic, assinine, irresponsible, juvenile, lacking in honesty... and a power play for partisanship’s sake" then, when they came out of the mouth of a Republican? If so, why did no one on the right complain about what DeLay said?

Posted by meatbraiñ at May 4, 2007 02:14 PM