Mr. Broder Goes to Washington
NYSun Ed.
So the entire Democratic caucus in the United States Senate — 50 senators — has sent a letter to the Washington Post attacking the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, for a column in which Mr. Broder dared to criticize their leader for his preemptive surrender to the terrorists in Iraq.
"We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid's leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column," the letter says. "In contrast to Mr. Broder's insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb."
Mr. Broder's offense? The Pulitzer-prize winning columnist and reporter, 77, wrote a column criticizing the Democratic leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, for Mr. Reid's comment that the Iraq war "is lost." Mr. Reid, Mr. Broder wrote "is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth.
more...
http://www.nysun.com/article/53616
posted by VerityINK at 8:08 PM
Information:
4 Comments:
I'm surprised the Dims ddn't go ballistic over this defection...
Well, what can you expect from such a rag like the NYSun, but to get the entire point wrong. The reason Americans are upset with Broder, other than the fact that he has proven time and time again how out of touch he is (think "Bush on major political comeback" in January...Haaahhhhh!) is because he compared Reid to Alberto Gonzales. Saying Democrats are as embarassed about Reid as the Pugs are embarrassed about Abu. Not even close....sorry. Reid, the ex-cop, ex-boxer and veteran, has shown real leadership time and time again. Something missing from Abu, W, Dead-eye and the gang.
I must have stepped into a parallel universe, where up is down, and black is white. Saying that the "war is lost" while our troops are in the field is not leadership. If Bush can talk the entire economy down by mentioning Clinton's economic mismanagement (remember the 2000 election?), then what effect do Reid's words have? If the former was true, then the latter must have similar catastrophic effects.
But even if that is not true (by outright denial, relativism, or the old "XYZ doesn't speeeekkk for meee!" line), let's get back to the first point. The role of a leader in wartime is not to sabotage morale of the troops -- that is a betrayal. The role of a leader in wartime is not to turn the country against the troops. The role of a leader in wartime is not to give support to enemies by claiming that our troops cannot do the job.
Harry Reid, by his statements, is obviously not supporting the country, the troops, or reflecting the wishes of his electorate (which is centrist to slightly-right -- remember that it was the Nevada DNC who sponsored the Fox debate). His words, as John Kerry's during Vietnam, are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
What's frightening is that the truth is plain and obvious, and yet some cannot love their country more than they hate Bush. Hate is an awfully demanding mistress.
Actually, what he said is that the "war is lost if we continue the present course". Nice to leave out the context, great way of rallying the Faux News crowd. But I dont think anyone can argue that the current course is wrong, whether you want to stay until Bush is safely out of office or want to withdraw right now. The CURRENT COURSE has led us to where we are now...
Actually Bush said just two days ago "we may lose"...but of course that is out of context, he said "we may lose or we may win". Very different within the context.
Context...what a concept, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home