Washington Post To Publish Another Reid Hit-Job?
Washington Post To Publish Another Reid Hit-Job?
Today’s op-ed by David Broder attacking Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) over Iraq apparently won’t be the last we hear from the Washington Post on this issue. ThinkProgress obtained this email from an editor of the Post’s Sunday Outlook section, soliciting essays on the topic, “Is Harry Reid right? Is the Iraq War lost?”
Is Harry Reid right? Is the Iraq War lost?
The Washington Post’s Outlook section wants to hear how people in the know would answer this ringing question. So we’re asking a variety of people around town and in the political/military/media/diplomatic community to tell us what they think. We’d love it if you could send us no more than 50 words from the senator, starting with a blunt “yes” or “no” and then explaining why, for publication in this Sunday’s Outlook.
You can send responses directly to this e-mail. I’ll need your reply by 2 p.m. Thursday, April 26.
Look forward to hearing from you soon, and many thanks.
We hope this will result in some balance on this topic from the Post, but we’ll be watching on Sunday. You can write in and encourage them at outlook@washpost.com.
UPDATE: Atrios has some important points for any prospective Outlook writers.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, the occupation has failed to even come close to its stated objectives, the present commander has less than 50% confidence in the plan (handed to him by meddling civilians), and even conservatives don’t want to talk about what comes next.
It’s over and it’s been over for some time. The only reason Americans are still dying is so Bush can save face.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm.
I miss the old Washington Post that used to do investigative reporting instead of hit pieces.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pm“Asking a variety of people around town and in the political/military/media/diplomatic community”, huh?
The proof is in the pudding. We’ll see who was ‘available’ to the Washington Post to lend their insight to this issue…
April 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI guess Moyer is next??? They already look like IDIOTS and LAP DOGS for the BUSH administration…
So what is new about this latest attempt?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pmI actually disagree with Reid, though on purely technical terms alone.
The war, those actions which resulted in the fall of Saddam Hussein and his government was won. I wish Mr. Reid would make this clear. It’s the aftermath, which is purely the fault of the administration, which has gone so terribly wrong.
This is now nothing more than an occupation of a country whose citizens, by 70-30 majority, want us out.
I suppose it matters on how we define our terms.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pmAre the republicans really trying to get democrats to make Harry Reid step down as majority leader? He must really scare the poop out of them!
April 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThe editor in question likely isn’t in the same tax bracket as the lives Bush is wasting in his vanity war in Iraq, so why should he give a damn?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm.
It’s a theme. I’ve had enough. On CNN this morning-mind you I was only surfing to ESPN-I saw a segment titled “Are these Hearings Even Necessary?”
SO GODDAMNED SICK OF IT
April 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pmThis is now nothing more than an occupation of a country whose citizens, by 70-30 majority, want us out.
And 70% the troops in Iraq wanted a firm timeline for withdrawal … LAST YEAR.
But Republicans don’t give a shit about the troops.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:23 pm.
well, nico, from what i’ve read, and heard, i think YOU would
April 26th, 2007 at 12:23 pmdo a great job with that “assignment”…
just sayin’…
My God….
The Democrats are acting like they have a majority in the Senate and the House AND have the support of the majority of the American People!!
How Dare They!!
What’s that?
oh…
nevermind
April 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI suppose it matters on how we define our terms.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 26, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
True enough. How about, “the war as defined by George Bush is lost.”
April 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pmTruth does hurt the blind followers.
Their cognitive dissonance is getting to be too much for them to handle, and they are looking for reinforcement of their cherished beliefs.
Damn reality and its liberal bias….
April 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pmThe truth becomes a hit job..LOL
April 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pmJoe,
I would agree with that whole heartedly
April 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pmThe problem with WaPo is the editorial page and its editor.
They all need to be fired and replaced with human beings.
The WaPo editorial page is so bad that it often makes erroneous statements that are contradicted by facts printed on the front page of the same edition of the paper!!
This means the WaPo editorial writers are illiterate. They can’t even read their own newspaper.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm“The Washington Post’s Outlook section wants to hear how people in the know would answer this ringing question. So we’re asking a variety of people around town and in the political/military/media/diplomatic community to tell us what they think. We’d love it if you could send us no more than 50 words from the senator, starting with a blunt “yes†or “no†and then explaining why, for publication in this Sunday’s Outlook.”
So this is what the WaPo has become–a “letters from readers” column…
What happened to real journalism? Are there any jounalists or investigative reporters left?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm“I actually disagree with Reid, though on purely technical terms alone.
The war, those actions which resulted in the fall of Saddam Hussein and his government was won …”
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 26, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
You’re making a meaningless distinction. Saddam’s troops never stood a chance on the field of battle, and everyone involved knew it. The battle never ended, merely shifted into a guerrilla stage, which also had been widely predicted. There was no “winning” the war, because it technically never ended, merely shifted gears.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pmThey can try all they want, but, its like my grandma used to say: You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. This is a badly fucked up war, that won’t get better if all pretend it isn’t fucked up. The Washington Post is permanently harming what little is left of its reputation.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pmTrue enough. How about, “the war as defined by George Bush is lost.â€
Comment by joe — April 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Exactly. They keep changing why we’re there and what we want to accomplish, so how could anyone know what is won or lost? Besides, it isn’t our war, so how can we win?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pmChris Matthews and other left wing nuts didn’t know it. They were talking about 100,000 and other tripe. Trying to live past Vietnam glories, similar to the corrupt Reid.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pm“Victory means exit strategy, and I think ti is important for the president to tell us what that exit strategy is.”
April 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pmBarfly,
I think you make a good point. But I guess I’m trying to get people to see that “war” is actually a technical term. And part of war is the aftermath of the initial outbreak. That is true. And in that vein, the administration has lost it.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pmGreat PBS show last night called “Buying the War”. It details the ineptness of the mainstream media leading up to the war. Only watched the first half and taped the rest but the first hour was pretty good. Seems like a few reporters out their knew something was up but no one wanted to listen. Now some of them have their tail between their legs.
Still, the media hasn’t been doing much better even though they know they dropped the ball. Too many pundits and not enough reporting. Or rather, too many average joe’s believe the pundits and confuse them with reporters.
At least some truths will be comming out with the new Congress.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pmThe soldiers did everything they were asked to do… unfortunately for us all what they were asked to do lead to a miserable deadend… the civilian leadership lost when they waged a war of aggression and then an occupation on the cheap.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:38 pmChrissy Matthews is a left winger? LOL!! That’s a good one.
Chrissy has a huge crush on Chimpy and is a Repuke supporter.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pmPatrick1,
Why is it that anyone that doesn’t tote the Bush line (I refuse to call it the party line anymore because the Pres has lost about 15% of his own party do to his own ineptitude) is a “nut”.
Are you really so fearful of honest debate that you must start off by calling your contrymen names in the hopes that will simply cower down and walk away from the debate?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pmWhat happened to real journalism? Are there any jounalists or investigative reporters left?
Comment by mongo
Check out Bill Moyer’s Journal from last night if you want to see what happened to real journalism. It didn’t start with this junta. When the old WaPo quit the field during the rayguns regime that started or perhaps accelerated the slide to where we are. Real journalist? Knight/Ridder now McClatchcy did great work in the run up to the war and AP has done decent work in Iraq. All of it was ignored then and is being ignored now.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:40 pmOr you can try the direct approach: bassw@washpost.com.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:41 pm“Is the Iraq War lost?â€
There is no “Iraq war.” There is only an illegal invasion of a soverign nation which has created an internal conflict within that nation. The United States never declared war on Iraq nor did Iraq declare war on the United States.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIf the Republicans know so damn much about running a war, then WHY CAN’T THEY WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ? These idiots have had 4+ years and a blank check to fund the Iraq War, and we’re no closer to “winning it†than we were in 2003.
Republicans/Conservatives: Explain WHY Bush has not yet won a war that was expected to take “no more than six months,†and to be “paid for by the Iraqis.”
April 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pmPatrick1 shows up to make shrill comments and to try to get people to respond to his rants.
I can make up an example right now:
“Are you afraid that Harry Reid will be exposed as the enemy of America that he is?”
See? anyone can do it.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:45 pmQuoth Crump’s Brother: But I guess I’m trying to get people to see that “war†is actually a technical term.
Do you mean a “technical term” in the Constitutional sense that war can only be declared by Congress (Article 1, Section 8)? Because if you want to get really technical, there never was a war in Iraq. Only an authorized use of military force.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pmThe war was lost with the seizing of the reins of power by Al-Dawa (the party of Al-Maliki) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the party of Al-Hakim).
Al-Dawa (the party of Al-Maliki) and the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the party
of Al-Hakim) have been fighting to transform Iraq into
a fundamentalist Shi’a state for over twenty years.
They will **never** be a pro-US ally.
They will **never** recognize Israel.
Here’s a few supporting documents from the present and
past:
1) Iraq: Bush’s Islamic Republic, NYRB, Volume 52,
Number 13 · August 11, 2005, by Peter W. Galbraith
Real power in Shiite Iraq rests, however, with two
religious parties: Abdel Aziz al-Hakim’s Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and
the Dawa (”Call,” in English) of Iraq’s Prime Minister
Ibrahim Jaafari. Of the two, SCIRI is the more
pro-Iranian. Both parties have military wings, and
SCIRI’s Badr Corps has grown significantly from the
five thousand fighters that harassed Saddam’s regime
from Iran in the decades before the war; it now works
closely with Iraq’s Shiite interior minister, until
recently the corps’ commander, to provide security and
fight Sunni Arab insurgents.
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They
propose to make Islam the principal source of law,
which most immediately would affect the status of
women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than
Iraq’s relatively progressive civil code—would
govern personal status, including matters relating to
marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa
draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious
freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such
freedom altogether to peoples not “of the book,” such
as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan),
Zoroastrians, and Bahais.
This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam’s
fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto
control over Iraq’s southern cities. There
Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative
Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on
alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases,
the religious authorities govern—and
legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and
certainly without any reference to the freedoms
incorporated in Iraq’s American-written interim
constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law
(TAL).
Dawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style
political system —they are also directly promoting
Iranian interests.
2) Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?, Foreign Affairs,
September/October 2005, by F. Gregory Gause III
The Bush administration contends that the push for
democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S.
security. But this premise is faulty: there is no
evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a
democratic Middle East would probably result in
Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with
Washington.
3) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported
Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984
The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for
the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French
military headquarters here may be a front for an
exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in
the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic
sources.
Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of
suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and
French embassies indicates a clear link between
Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried
out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the
main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein.
Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it
wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to
replace the secular Baath Socialist government of
Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.
It draws its strength from the large Shiite population
in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant
members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the
outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa
there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon
among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.
While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear
whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian
control or merely have Iran’s tacit acceptance.
[Keywords: Al Maliki, Bayan Jabr, Al-Hakim, Al Dawa,
April 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSupreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
I wrote: “In it’s current state, the Iraq War is not lost. And it is probably winnable, in theory. But let’s get real – Bush is going to stay the course until the war IS lost. We need a drastic change in strategy, and we need to work on a solution that doesn’t include more military involvement. I don’t think Bush is capable of making those changes – which is why I can mostly agree with Harry Reid’s comments.”
April 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pmChimpy is the ENEMA of America. He is a shitstain on the American flag.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pmToasterhead,
I agree with you. I have made that argument as well.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pmMy Reply: “The simple answer is YES. The Iraq war was lost the minute it began. It was based on manipulated, trumped-up intelligence and outright lies that all turned out to be false. WMD’s? Nope. Ties to 9/11? Nope. Imminent threat to the U.S.? Nope. Saddam is reconstituting his weapons program? Nope. A senseless war of pure aggression to bolster control of ‘American interests’ (oil) in the Middle East.”
April 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pmHow do you debate surrender?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm5. Comment by Crump’s Brother
So you believe in nation building? Well, this is what you’ll get…Iraq! If we were truly looking out for our own best interests, then we would impeach George W Bush. Presently, we have a 8.5 trillion dollar dept. This dept is honored by countries such as China, Russia, Japan…..If they decided tomorrow to group together and dump the dollar as the monetary exchange choice of the world. Because of this dept the dolor would loose it’s value by 60 – 95% depending on circumstances.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pmMoyers interviewed the reporter who covered the mysterious Prague meeting with Al Queda & Iraqies…NEVER HAPPENED.
They also show Big Dick lying his ass off on Meet the Press. Russert never questioned any of these lies.
Will Dick be given a subpoena? Doubtful, Exec privilege will be touted.
Seeing how all this was fabricated, reported & initiated makes me sic.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pmAgain.
Patrick1 shows up to make shrill comments and to try to get people to respond to his rants.
I can make up an example right now:
“Are you afraid that Harry Reid will be exposed as the enemy of America that he is?â€
See? Anyone can do it.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pmPatrick1,
Your Dear Leader has already lost the war. We can’t surrender from something the Republicans already lost.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pm“Are you afraid that Harry Reid will be exposed as the enemy of America that he is?â€
Too late.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pmHow do you debate surrender?
Comment by Patrick1
You don’t have too. I suggest sending your ugly ass, and those that support the war to go fight it. Little quips like yours may work on the Limbaugh show where the average IQ of listening audience is equal to George Bush, but not here. So as your corn-holling Rush, and whispering sweet nothings in his ear, remember this; the Dem’s arn’t passive anymore!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pmMy 2 cents, sent also to bassw@washpost.com:
Just as the Vietnam “War” was lost in 1945 when Harry Truman foolishly permitted France to take back its colonial territories in Indochina, the Iraq “War” was lost the day George Bush decided to engage American troops illegally in aggression by invasion, without a mandate from the United Nations (as is required by the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a signatory) against Iraq, a nation that did not threaten the United States and had never attacked the United States; and then lied to the American people and to the world in his attempt to justify that illegal invasion.
George Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq was no less a war of aggression
than Hitler’s illegal invasion of Czechoslovakia or of Poland.
It is not in America’s interest to share international mindspace with
Nazi Germany, but George Bush, using the tools of invasion, occupation, kidnapping and torture, has put us there firmly in six short years.
Just as a corrupted tree brings forth no good fruit, there can be no
good outcome resulting from such an evil act as George Bush’s illegal
invasion of Iraq.
No moral, patriotic American has any business using the word “victory”
April 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pmin relation to the ongoing occupation of Iraq. The best we can do now is harm reduction, and we had damned well get serious about reducing the harm we have done to Iraq as quickly as possible, quickly replacing
our troops with payment of reparations to the survivors of our criminal invasion, else we shall be truly damned by historians for generations to come.
No, too late for you, Pee 1.
It’s too late to claim anything about this invasion was right.
It’s too late to claim we have to ’stay the course’.
It’s too late to claim an escalation will solve the problems.
It’s too late to claim VV is anything but a sociopathic liar & narcissist.
Too late, Pee 1, too late.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pmNo. 5 Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 26, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
You said:
“The war, those actions which resulted in the fall of Saddam Hussein and his government was won.”
Do you believe that there was a “war” in Iraq at all? I don’t believe this was a war. It was an invasion. Is this a semantic differance?
As you said: I suppose it matters on how we define our terms.
Please clarify yours for me.
Thanks
April 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pmThe Dems have been passive since 1972.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThe Dems have been passive since 1972.
Comment by Patrick1
Sure. Just ask the Serbs.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm.
“Are you afraid that Harry Reid will be exposed as the enemy of America that he is?â€
Americans agree with Reid, if you’ll notice.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm.
Patrick, at least try to stay on topic for a change.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pmMerlin,
I actually agree with you. There was no formal declaration of war. The President didn’t follow the language of the Authorization of Force which required him to use every other method necessary to insure that war wasn’t necessary.
That being said, I think that we are (as a society) calling this thing a war. I was merely trying to point out that the troops did the job of a military in a war. They won. Now all the other crap, secctarian violence, civil war, and the ongoing occupation, is without question not their responsibility. THat is the responsibility of the civilian leadership.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pmHow about we see what Bush declared to be the objective at the outset:
“helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
So how’s that scorecard:
United? Er, no.
Stable? Not so much.
Free? I’m going with “no” again.
Now what is it the Post is wanting to debate?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pmAsk Al Qaeda.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pmAsk the boat people.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAsk the Soviets.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAsk Iran, or better yet the hostages held for over a year.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:26 pmAsk Al Qaeda. Comment by Patrick1
Hahahaha! It’s your boy who let them commit the worst terrorist attack in U.S. History. And that’s after receiving multiple warnings. Seems you would want to avoid bring up Al Qaeda here.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#55: IRAN too? But, Reagan ILLEGALLY SOLD arms to Iran? Again, you should probably take that off your list of arguments.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:31 pmJust sent a letter to the Post telling them I agree with Harry on this one. Also suggested they watch the Bill Moyer’s special that was on last night. The Fourth Estate should hang its head in shame.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThe Path to 9/11.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pmAnd Reagan was stupid. As is Bushie. And all our little trolls. Comes from belonging to the Republic Party for too long – holding all those contradictory ideas at once shorts out the circuits. Come away from the dark side, boys.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#59: now your citing propaganda that was shown to be rife with lies and falsehoods? Again I advise you, don’t embarrass yourself.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pmComment by Crump’s Brother — April 26, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with your view of how the public sees the invasion… er “war”. I see the problems that people have with just about everything that has to do with the Iraq debacle, in the framing. Semantics aside, if we, the American public, call this a “war” we are playing by BushCo’s rules. They framed it that way and the enablers pushed that way. Now we are having trouble cutting off funds for this illegal “war”, for instance.
How would it sound to the public if we said ” We need more money for our invasion and occupation of Iraq”? Totally different sound and feeling, and I bet, response as well. Lets work to change the frame to reality!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:46 pmLet’s see Patrick1; from your little list of “arguments”:
1.- On whose watch were the 9/11 attacks perpetrated?
2.- If by “boat people” you are referring to the Vietnamese refugees after the US withdrawal from their country, I believe it was Nixon who signed a peace accord with them commies (in Paris, no less!).
3.- If by “ask the soviets” you are referring to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, may I remind you that Reagan was in office five (or six?) years before Gorbachev came into power.
Your reference to Iran already backfired.
Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is one of the biggest blunders in US military history. Some say in the world’s military history.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pmNo.61 Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — April 26, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
You commented:
#59: now your citing propaganda that was shown to be rife with lies and falsehoods? Again I advise you, don’t embarrass yourself.
Embarrass myself? Just look at all the money I’m making. Aren’t you envious… I can introduce you to this guy with horns who for a small price, something he called a soul, you can get rich like me!…he spouts from the troll locker room.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pm#59 – ‘The Path to 9/11.” Comment by Patrick1 — April 26, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
yet another great example of a partisan hit job!
Good going there, Patrick! It helps when people remember all the ultra-radical rabid-right hit pieces done against Democrats and other patriotic Americans!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pmYes. It has been a no-win situation from conception in that there is no scenario under which the US could possibly say that it has “won” something of political, moral, social, economic, or philosophical value
April 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pmMy dear sweetie, Patrick 1,
It must be very painful to see all your delusions of grandeur going down the tubes, Patrick 1. I understand, never mind what these bullies on the left keep saying to you. I feel your pain sweetie. I know you believed that it was “neocons forever,” and you were on board their ‘express to success.’ You must admit sweetie, you’ve had a long run, starting with the grandest puppet of them all, Ronnie Re-Gun way back in ‘80.
Well, all “good” things must come to an end, unfortunately for you. So now you have only a few paltry days left to flail against the emergence of truth and reality. (Don’t cry now, everything will be OK.) And then you will be relegated to the dustbin of history. That reality being that “guy with horns” who has come for his pound of flesh that you sold to him. Something called your soul. When the reality of the world hits you in the balls, try not to show any pain. After all, you know it is just a frat house prank, like waterboarding. Be strong sweetie. I feel your pain.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThe comments section for the Broder piece has gone down. I guess the editors got sick of logging so many excoriating comments.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pm