I'm amazed at the "Okay, everything's cool now!" response in delphine's heavily recommended diary to Harry Reid's Huffington Post non-retraction. I'm irritated both with the many turn-off-the-heat comments and with delphine's conclusion:
I'd say we have our answer. I don't think we need to beat him up over this topic any further.
What answer? Harry did not retract the pro-troop-surge comment he made on This Week: he speaks in generalities and the word "surge" is not even in his new statement (posted below). That means the This Week comment is still operative: Harry will still "go along" if the commanders on the ground say they want a troop surge. And, OF COURSE, the commanders on the ground will say they want a surge if the President tells them to say that!
Any 'out soon' Democrat should be upset with the scared to death of the military-industrial complex Democratic Party leadership, but I'm getting more and more frustrated too with how quickly and easily 'Get Out of Jail' cards are issued to Big Dems here on dailykos!
Can we at least wait till Harry actually says he's against a surge?
I mean, when someone says they're for something I'm against and then they issue a new statement that is not a retraction, I don't start shouting "All is forgiven!" Why is it so hard, so painful, to wait till Harry (more or less) says the following before we whimp out and give him a big hug: "I'm against a temporary surge in the number of troops in Iraq. In fact, I oppose any increase in troop numbers."
Relying on Kagro X's transcript, here's the key exchange between Harry and George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week:
Stephanopoulos: I know what the Iraq Study Group called for. If the president calls for adding more troops to Baghdad, for adding more troops to Iraq, will you oppose it?
Reid: If it’s for a surge, that is for two or three months, and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure I’ll go along with it. But, if it’s to put 40,000 more troops in there, we’ve lost in Nevada about 30 troops killed, scores have been wounded. We’re now approaching 3,000 dead Americans, costing the Americans 2 ½ to 3 billion dollars a week. This is a war that we have to change course. The president has to do that.
Stephanopoulos: You say you would support it if it’s temporary. The question is how will you know that it’s going to be temporary. I mean, once you, even if that condition is set, even if the president says we’d like them to come home in two or three months, there’s no way you’re going to know they’re going to able to come home, is there?
Reid: If the commanders on the ground said that this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that. But, to put more troops in there. Keep in mind, I repeat, the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of some of the finest patriots we have in this country – Democrats and Republicans, Iraq Study Group.
And here's Harry's entire statement on Huffington Post:
Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:
- I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)
- The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to that country.
- These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.
I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.
It's been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to change the course and bring our troops home. Since then, the President has been on a fact finding tour of his own administration -- apparently ignoring the facts presented by those in the military who know best. The President needs to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of this deadly civil war.
Let's just face it, Harry Reid is open to a surge if he hears pro-surge words from the Generals. Those Generals will all obediently mouth those words when the Comander-in-Chief tells them too.
Now where in there is a change of position on a surge?
And his statement isn't a clarification either, since Harry was already clear on This Week that his support is for a two to three month surge, and he was already clear that his support was conditional on the 'commanders on the ground' saying they wanted the additional troops.
In sum, Harry Reid has given the 83% of the American people who oppose more troops in Iraq (see the December 7-11 ABC News/Washington Post Poll reported in pollingreport.com) the middle finger. He's with the 17% (and the President) who want more troops sent to Iraq. Oh yeah, he still needs the President's Generals to say they need them. I'm sure Bush is really sweating that condition...
So here's what I say we do: if we're against a surge in troops, we keep beating up on Harry till he retracts his statement saying he'll "go along with" a surge in troops. And maybe sign this petition: Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.
But for any of you with the President and the 17%, relax. Right now, Harry's your man.