Harry Reid: Al Qaeda Is Winning
December 18th, 2007 at 06:05pm Matt Margolis
Sometime I wonder if Harry Reid has been auditioning for the part of Al Qaeda’s spokesman:
Tired of Republican crowing about winning on Iraq funding, the budget battle and the energy bill, Reid (D-Nev.) shot back on Tuesday afternoon.
“We hear a lot of Republicans boasting … because of their unprecedented obstruction,” Reid said.
Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.
“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”
Sounds like Harry Reid is saying Al Qaeda is winning. Of course, his comments completely contrast the assessments of generals on the ground and even some of Reid’s fellow Democrats, including Jack Murtha, who have admitted that the surge is working and significant progress is being made in Iraq.
I also can’t let this go without noting just how ridiculous Harry Reid sounds when he complains about Republican “obstruction.” Harry Reid lead his fellow Democrats in Senate in blocking many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. He even threatened Bush with a potential filibuster if he did not nominate a “consensus” judge to replace Justice O’Connor following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. The fact is, when Democrats were in the minority, they supported all sorts of obstruction, with so many of Bush’s highly qualified nominees never getting the vote the deserved. John Bolton was never given a vote when he was nominated to be ambassador to the U.N., even after his recess appointment expired, and his performance was praised by many, Democrats stood firm in their baseless, partisan obstruction.
And Democrats have no right to blame Republicans for the majority’s incompetence. As the majority party, Republicans were able to pass tax cuts and the partial birth abortion ban, (just to name a few) despite the minority party’s rabid opposition to them. The Republicans could do this because they had leadership and the support of the American people on their side.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Kook Left, Senate, War on Terror
31 Comments
1. Rana Quijotesca | December 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
More filibusters than any term in history…
Just so you know… Congress as a whole has low approval ratings; Democrats in Congress have a higher one… the Republicans bring down the average…
2. LiberalMind | December 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Al Qaeda is still out there. And Osama been forgotten, don’t you know.
And yes, we Americans are losing. Losing big.
We are losing are Democracy to corporations and theocrats.
We losing our economy to Chinese bankers and unethical lending schemes of our own banks.
We are losing our moral authority because we allow torture in the name of some silly notion of “national security.”
We are generally losing our government because the people voted in the Democrats to stop the criminal activities of the Bush regime and they are failing to act.
3. neocon | December 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Liberals are losing their mind because they’re full of conspiracy theories.
Liberals are losing patience because people are opposing their stalinist measures
Liberals are losing to Bush because they don’t have the mandate they think they do
Liberals are losing on Iraq because America is actually starting to win
Liberals are losing on impeachment because actually Bush has done nothing wrong
Liberals are losing on the tax issue because, as it turns out, tax cuts improve the economy
4. navydad | December 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Obviously Liberalmind isn’t losing any time in the basement smoking reefer.
Geez…..
5. Eric T | December 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Liberal mind
Al Qaida in Iraq, has not been causing civil wars lately and the carnage and bombings seems to have slowed down a quite a bit.
I agree with your statement about the corporations and banks. I don’t see how theocrats effect anything though.
Which candidate do you believe offers solutions to these issues?
6. Uncommon | December 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I find it funny that we continue to claim the surge is working. Sure, when you unindate an area with troops and put a stranglehold on that area you will see a decrease in violence. Once the stranglehold is released you will see a surge in violence. Just because you lock a bear in a cage doesn’t mean it won’t kill your ass as soon as you let it out. Secondly, our “surge” corresponded with a surge in the training, arming, and funding of militias. And also don’t forget that there are far more private security personnel in Iraq than troops. So continue to toot your victory horn all you want but we can’t keep this level up forever, eventually we will have to give our troops a break. And since I know Neocon and Mark will continue to make this frivolous claim against people who disagree with them: I DO think our troops are doing a great job and I do support them- hell, I use to be one of them. Also, I do care about the future of Iraqis (and of all people) but they are going to be the ones that save their country NOT US.
7. Faceplant | December 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“Harry Reid lead his fellow Democrats in Senate in blocking many of President Bush’s judicial nominees.”
Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty. Democrats filibuster actual controversial judges. Republicans are filibustering everything in sight, even when it isn’t controversial. And they are shattering all time records for filibusters.
To try and equate the two parties is intellectual dishonesty at it’s worst.
The sad part is that you know it Matty.
8. Right Voices » Blog&hellip | December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
[…] Matt: And Democrats have no right to blame Republicans for the majority’s incompetence. As the majority party, Republicans were able to pass tax cuts and the partial birth abortion ban, (just to name a few) despite the minority party’s rabid opposition to them. The Republicans could do this because they had leadership and the support of the American people on their side. […]
9. USA | December 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Oh poor Matt, why don’t you listen what people are saying? Harry said nothing about “Al Qaeda is winning”. Your making lies out of thin air. Your quote of Harry said nothing about the surge, either. Are you just making up lies to cover up your guilt? You Republican devil-worshiping sheep are digging a deeper hole towards your insanity, so much so that you are jokes to normal thinking people. Sad and frightening thing for us is that you think that’s funny.
Neocon and navydad, why don’t you go smoke some reefer and find out how your completely backwards.
10. Kahn | December 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Uncommon, thats not all their is to it. Here’s a hint: The Marines cracked it in Al Anbar. I’m not going to explain it, see if you can find the details yourself.
11. neocon | December 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
USA,
Go back to remedial school and learn sentence structure.
12. phnx | December 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Faceplant,
The purpose of the filibuster was to prevent the tyranny of the majority with respect to LEGISLATIVE matters. It was never intended to be used to prevent the executive branch from exerecise of its rights and duties.
In fact it was never used this way until the dems did so against the President’s judgeship nominations. This set a new precedent which is guarunteed to be repeated by Republicans, now that the cat is out of the bag. This will only serve to further polarize the country. Thanks Dems.
13. Goldwater | December 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
LiberalMind: “We are losing our moral authority because we allow torture in the name of some silly notion of “national security.”
How can you call national security a ’silly notion’? This is an enemy that has already attacked you repeatedly, and after 9/11 liberals jumped up and down crying about why wasn’t it prevented. So once they implement measures to prevent further attacks, you complain about the measures used. Terrorists won’t just hand over information if you ask politely. How many attacks on your home soil does it take to get that through to you?
14. DougH | December 19th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Well seeing that most species of bears never do attack humans, I guess that would mean that most Iraqis won’t go on a killing rampage, once the US starts drawing down troops.
Of course the US had to flood the problem areas with troops.. it’s the only way to bring things under control.
What do cities in the US do when they have riots .. bring in extra manpower to quell the riots.
15. TiredofLibBullShit | December 19th, 2007 at 5:39 am
We see that the Democrats are not serious about national security and securing our borders.
They’ve cut the border fence AGAIN……from a two tier system to a single tier system. This cut was buried in a 3500 page omnibus spending bill - pushing through more domestic spending….
And they wonder why they have the lowest approval ratings in history………it must be George Bush’s fault or climate change.
Pathetic.
16. Philadelphia Steve | December 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Re: “Sounds like Harry Reid is saying Al Qaeda is winning. ”
Let’s see.
> Al Qaeda has returned to it’s “Pre 9/11″ strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to America’s own military estimate.
> Al Qaeda is safe from attack in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan, with Osama bin Laden free to preach his message to the world.
> The United States is bogged down in a qaugmire in Iraq, where it will be for the next decade, according to all estimates, and the plans of the Bush Administration.
> The US, instead of persuing al Qaeda in its home base, is chasing after “al Qaeda in Iraq”: A group that did not even exist prior to Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq and (again according our America’s own military estimate) constitutes less than 10% of the overall insurgency in Iraq.
> Thanks to pictures and on-the-record reports, America now stands for the torture of Muslims, with the only defense being “we don’t torture as much as they do”. Constituting the best recruiting poster that Osama bin Laden could have prayed for.
Based on the above, the only “winning” that Conservatives are patting themselves on the back for is the decrease in “Al Qaeda in Iraq” strength in Iraq itself (again, where it did not even exist pre-invasion, since secular Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of fundametalist Osama bin Laden).
And, now that the level of violence in Iraq is “only” at the levels it was in 2005, Conservatives want to hand out another round of “Medals of Freedom” solely because the US military, at the great cost in lives and $3 billion a week, has finally begun to “turn the corner” on the incompetence of the Bush Administration in handling the occupation of Iraq from the start?
I would agree that “yes”, thanks to Geroge W. Bush’s incompetence and arrogance, overall al Qaeda IS winning worldwide.
17. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Philadelphia Steve,
Your baseless assertions are obvioulsy bourne out of fear of Islamists, your BDS and your ignorance of events. For some education on the matter I refer you to the following link:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/07/02al-qaida
What Americans and Iraqis are beginning to feel good about is the hope for a better tomorrow for all Iraqis because of our combined determination and struggle. Of course, I don;t expect liberals to applaud optimisitc progress having completely invested themselves in contrarianism and defeat.
You might remember that Bush made Iraq the central front for the war against AQ, so that we could fight them there and not here. A strategy that effectively forced AQ to fight directly against our military, and they are losing. And so are the Democrats.
>>>>What is striking about the new video, at least as reported so far, is how little Zawahiri apparently has to say. With no successes to boast of, he is reduced to simply denying reality, sort of like Nancy Pelosi. It’s too late for al Qaeda to back off; the organization chose to make Iraq the central front in its war on civilization, and it will have to live with the consequences of defeat.<<<<<
18. Philadelphia Steve | December 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am
The lead quote from the article says it all:
“As the arc of chaos grows from Afghanistan to Somalia by way of the Middle East, the region’s states are growing weaker and their armed groups gaining in power. But in this battle for competing visions between the US and al-Qaida, the Sunni resistance is now opposing al-Qaida in Iraq, as are the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
Al Qaeda in Iraq may be losing. Al Qaeda i the rest ofthe world is back to its “Pre-9/11″ strength.
The fact that George W. Bush declared that “Al Qaeda in Iraq” was his centerpiece (even though it did not exist until he esesentially created it by invading and occupying the country) does not make it so.
The fact that al Qaeda itself has put out comments along that line does not make it so either.
Al Qaeda is doing just fine in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, thanks to President Bush’s incompetence, is growing in Afghanistan, where the central government does not exist outside of the capital (just like Iraq).
Al Qaeda, thankst to President Bush and his Conervative apologists, is winning adherents worldwide. The civil war in Iraq will resurface the minute American money and power run out (especially now that the US is traiing and equipping all three sides in the civil war).
The only “victory” is on FoxNews, where the definition of “victory” is spun daily.
19. Philadelphia Steve | December 19th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Or does the future of the Taliban re-taking control of Afghanistan constitute the new “victory” that Fox News has defined for you?
20. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Steve,
Pull your head out of the DailyKos ass and objectively look at current events.
AQ is running out of sanctuaries, with only the tribal regions of Pakistan their only current safe haven. And those grounds are closing in on them. AQ made several fatal mistakes chief amongst them is the indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims, which of course liberals blame on Bush.
AQ’s time is running out, but apologists and cowards, like you, will continue to feed them encouragement by blaming others for more egregious actions.
Your posts are tedious, over exaggerated, defeatist, contrarian diatribe which apparently passes as intellect in liberal circles.
21. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Also, rather than predicting the negative outcome in Afghanistan based on the party doctrine, why not support the efforts of Dr. Sima Samar and encourage her, and others who want a better country. Why wont you do that? I thought you supported human rights?
22. norm | December 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
the iraqi government has made no significant progress toward the fundamental goal of this escalation…national reconciliation. and you claim we are winning? murtha has said since the start that we don’t have enough boots on the ground……now we have the most boots on the ground that we have ever had and security has improved. so now you think he has come around to your way of thinking? biden and kerry and a bunch of other democrats, independents, and mccain, all said the same thing and the geniuses in the white house and their cult of followers refused to listen. now the so-called conservatives were right all along and we are winning…the spin is dizzying. the fact you cheerleaders won’t accept is that many of the tactics that are now being called a “winning strategy” were proposed as far back as 2004, but ignored and rejected by rice, rummy, cheney and scooter. now all the far right fringe cheerleaders are saying we are “winning” even though by the admin.s own stated goals we aren’t. amazing. the tragedy is that none of you had the wisdom to listen back then. all you could do is call those that disagreed with you traitors and question thier patriotism. i’ve learned to not expect much more. in the end how you all deal with the soldiers and civilians who died and were maimed while you and your cult leaders refused to listen is up to you. i suspect denial will play a key role.
23. DougH | December 19th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
If we judged how well a country does based on the government making progress on fundanebtal goals.
Then we’re in deep Shhhhht right here in America.
And we don’t even have insurgent or a terrorist organization (other than the Democrat Party) to fault for not accomplishing anything.
Social security?? Health care??? Education?? Drugs ?? Crime?? Organized gangs??
Hell you don’t have to look to Iraq to find a dsyfuntional governement.. we’ve perfected one for the past 100 years right here in the USA
24. Faceplant | December 19th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“The purpose of the filibuster was to prevent the tyranny of the majority with respect to LEGISLATIVE matters. It was never intended to be used to prevent the executive branch from exerecise of its rights and duties.”
Absolute nonsense. The Executive Branch does not get to pick federal judges. It gets to nominate them to go before the Senate. Under your logic, you wouldn’t even need to hold a vote in the first place.
“In fact it was never used this way until the dems did so against the President’s judgeship nominations. This set a new precedent which is guarunteed to be repeated by Republicans, now that the cat is out of the bag. This will only serve to further polarize the country. Thanks Dems.”
Really? I guess the Republican led filibuster against Associate Supreme Court Justice nominee Abe Fortas in 1968 just doesn’t count? This is what Republican Senator Robert Griffin said at the time,
“It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits.”
Republicans also attempted to filibuster two of President Clintons nominees Richard Paez, and Marsha Berzon in 2000. It actually took Paez four years to finally receive a vote, which is still a record.
How about when Republicans filibustered Clinton’s district court nominee H. Lee Sarokin.
This doesn’t even count the 60 or so Clinton judicial nominees that never even made it out of commitee, due to Orrin Hatch’s radical interpretation of the Blue Slip policy. The Blue Slip policy, is a policy that allows the homestate Senators of a judicial nominee to express their approval or dissaproval of the nominee. Orrin Hatch allowed Republicans to use the blue slip policy as a way of killing a nomination in commitee, by allowing one single Senator to block the nominee.
And hey, why should we confine this to judicial nominees?
How about when Republicans filibustered President Clinton’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Walter Dellinger. Or the filibuster of Clintons ambassidorial nominee Sam Brown.
This idea that filibusters of judicial nominees were some rare occurance until the Democrats came along, is nothing but pure fiction. It’s made up.
25. Faceplant | December 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
“AQ is running out of sanctuaries, with only the tribal regions of Pakistan their only current safe haven.”
That must be why terrorist attacks increased by 25% worldwide between 2005 and 2006, after tripling in 2004. The terrorists sure seem like they are on the run don’t they!
This idea that terrorists are centrally located, or need a “safe haven” in order to operate is a complete myth. Terrorists can be in two, three, twelve places at once.
“You might remember that Bush made Iraq the central front for the war against AQ, so that we could fight them there and not here. A strategy that effectively forced AQ to fight directly against our military…”
You actually believe that? Please tell me what forces terrorists to fight against our military? Are they all confined to Iraq? Wow, this is just one of the most ignorant statements I’ve heard. Even for this blog it’s still amazes me!
26. Blogs For Victory »&hellip | December 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
[…] Funny isn’t it, just the other day Harry Reid was complaining about Republican obstruction… […]
27. Devin | December 20th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Here are some Republican High Points.
1. Filibiuster Whores. Republicans have filibustered 62 bills, A reccord. They wer not content enough to have a “do nothing” label when they were in power, they cant help but continue.
2. AQ is as strong as ever, Neo Cons can spin it until thye are dizzzzzzzy and the facts still speak for themselves.
3. Republicans have the audacity to blame the Dems, it will take more than couple of years to clean up the mess the took on, just as it did after the 1st BUSH.
4. Chicken Hawks for Rudy!
5. Afganistan is falling apart, we bomb them back to the stone age and then leave them to rot, HOW AMERICAN!. The REAL war on Terror and what does Bush do?.
5. Conservative should be ashamed.
28. Sadly, No! » Space:&hellip | December 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
[…] Is it also part of the plot to install Hillary as dictator? Or is it part of that plot and the plot to surrender America to Mexlamohomofascist terrorists, not to mention the conspiracy to cripple industry via the hoax of so-called “global warming?” …Perhaps only time will tell. Funny isn’t it, just the other day Harry Reid was complaining about Republican obstruction… […]
29. USA | December 20th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
“USA,
Go back to remedial school and learn sentence structure.”
Ha ha ha. Translation, “I’m too scared to speak to you because I’ll lose in a debate.” Just further conformation that I’m way over conservative heads, and they are too scared to debate because they lose every time.
30. iognwshe&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 2:07 am
iognwshe
iognwshe
31. Gaining Control Of Workin&hellip | February 12th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Home Appreciation and Capital Gains
The last seven years has seen tremendous appreciation in home prices. This brings up the issue of home capital gains tax issues for people when they sell.