When a liberal mainstay like the Washington Post begins taking a Democrat leader to task for playing politics, you know the strategy is a real loser.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid's answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

Yeah, that's right -- Half-wit Harry doesn't want to get into the consequences of the extreme and irresponsible policy he is advocating. He wants a pell-mell, devil-take-the-hindmost retreat from Iraq that will be a disaster so that he and his party can use the resulting chaos there and vulnerability in the US to their best political advantage. This refusal to seek consensus overlooks the fact that there is, already, a broad consensus for a policy that reduces but does not eliminate the US presence in Iraq and implements the Baker-Hamilton plan put forth by the Iraq Study Group -- and which is supported by a majority of Senators AND the White House.

However, Reid and the Democrat leadership are clearly placing partisan advantage over patriotism and the best interests of country. And the Post editorial speaks eloquently on the point.

There's no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.

So which is it, Harry -- are you an American first, or merely a partisan hack?

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.