******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Harry Reid Curiously Quiet About Michael Steele

The Democratic National Committee issued the following statement regarding Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's comments that Afghanistan was a war of Obama's "choosing" and that history shows that land wars cannot be won in Afghanistan (emphasis mine):

Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.

Certainly, we can expect Harry Reid to join in the chorus, and demand that Steele step down for (allegedly) not supporting the troops and hoping for failure. Right?

After all, Michael Steele called for Reid to resign over Reid's "Negro dialect" comment. There's no love lost here.

Reid will seize the moral high ground and demand that Steele be held accountable for the Afghanistan war comments, and that the issue be publicly debated, right?

Wrong, because people in Nevada have not forgotten Reid's "the [Iraq] war is lost" prognosis:
In 2007, Sen. Reid opposed the Iraq "surge" and questioned publicly the integrity of Bush's general -- David Petraeus.

In 2010, Reid supports the Afghanistan "surge" and gushes public praise for Obama's general -- David Petraeus.

Sen. Reid owes the country an explanation. He can start with Nevadans, who must decide in November whether he's fit to send back to Washington. But in the end, he must stand accountable to the soldiers who won his "lost" war.

There is a poster child for betting against our troops and rooting for failure. But it's not Michael Steele.

Related Posts:
Harry Reid Stalls Debating Sharron Angle For Several Months
Harry Reid Needs To Answer For This CBO Report
So Will The Media Now Talk About Harry Reid's Record?

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

No comments:

Post a Comment