Reprinted from the New York Times
REID’S BLOODY HANDS
April 24, 2007 — Fresh from his declaration that “this war [in Iraq] is lost,” Senate Demo cratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America’s unilateral surrender.
And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos.
Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1.
Never mind that such legislation:
* Likely wouldn’t pass either house of Congress . . .
* . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn’t survive a veto.
So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid’s Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe?
Or that war in the Middle East is OK – so long as no Americans are fighting?
Or, maybe it’s all about politics?
To be sure, Reid won’t risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party’s bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite “the restlessness” of those who “voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January.”
The problem, said Reid, is that “George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief – and this is his war.”
And there’s the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.
They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world – especially to America’s enemies – because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.
No, Reid didn’t repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday’s speech from the Senate floor.
It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed – witness Sen. Chuck Schumer’s gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that “the war is not lost.”
Then again, Reid didn’t have to repeat his original remarks – because the imposed timetable he announced, if enacted, would bring about precisely the same result.
That is, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from the region – if Reid thinks the bug-out would stop at Iraq, he’s dumber than he sounds – followed by:
* A rapid, al Qaeda/Iranian-driven descent into regional chaos.
* Most likely, a general war.
* And, almost certainly, a Mideast nuclear-arms race as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and (probably) Turkey rush to arm themselves in anticipation of an Iranian bomb.
At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq.
Their blood stands to be on his hands.
And that’s a terrible price to pay for a political payday that’s so tentative that even an instinctive gut-fighter like Chuck Schumer recoils from the risk.
Harry Reid needs to put a cork in it.