I can’t for the life of me understand why so many people underestimate Harry Reid, forgetting that he served as Nevada state gaming commissioner from 1977 to 1981.

The past…

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was complimentary of [Harriet] Miers. He raised Miers’ name during a September 22 breakfast meeting with the president in which Sens. Frist, Specter, Leahy and he discussed possible candidates with the president, Reid spokeman Jim Manley said. Reid believes Miers would bring a “fresh perspective” to the court, Manley said.

“I like Harriet Miers,” Reid said in a statement. “As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.”

… reveals the present.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday he would support a short-term increase in U.S. troop numbers in Iraq being weighed by President George W. Bush if it is part of a broader withdrawal plan.


“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,” Reid, who will become the majority leader when Democrats take control of the Senate next month, told ABC’s “This Week” program.

10 thoughts on “Tricksyness

  1. and to add to wat i just wrote:
    If Dim Son insists on going ahead with an open-ended commitment, then he’ll have the opposition of every democrat in Congress, and then, they can point out the election results and the public’s desire for change.
    and when the “surge” policy fails, as it’s likely to do, that opposition will only grow stronger, as will the power of the democrats in the government. George will effectively be marginilized.

  2. and, saying “go ahead”, as long as it’s part of a plan to have our troops home by 2008.
    Bush can either go ahead and send the troops with an open-ended commitment, where he will not have the support of democrats, or he can have support of democrats, but commit himself to have them home by 2008.
    either way, troops will get sent, and will probably have little effect on preventing Iraq from falling further into chaos. But only one way gets our boys home by 2008. and if Bush chooses to go the other way, then the entire sad sorry state of affairs rests with him, and him alone.
    sad, yes, that more of our soldiers will die. but as long as Bush is the decider, they’re gonna die anyway. and this tactic is just one more step toward removing Boy George from the position of decision-maker.

  3. The president will use the rope any way. Reid is not providing the rope, but since he has no power to stop him from using the rope, he is just saying go ahead. Morally off, but not as much as the moral depravity of the administration.

  4. Isn’t that “rope” constructed out of the flesh of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians?

  5. It’s a case of “when your opponent is drowning, throw him an anvil”. Bush is drowning in Iraq, and is actually begging for the anvil.

  6. He dealt with mobsters in Vegas…and won.
    Now he’s dealing with K-Street mobsters…
    Thor Heyerdahl

  7. Holden,
    I’m not grasping your point — are you saying Reid is sly for appearing to support the possibility of a “surge” while knowing it’s good politics somehow to tacitly go along with a policy and plan that is surely doomed, like the Miers nomination? OR, are you suggesting that Reid has been hanging out a bit too much with his “close friend” Joe Lieberman?
    I just wish he would have said, “Over 60% of the American people don’t support the president’s floated policy shift of a “surge”; they want the troops home as soon as possible, without more needless, fruitless deaths of American servicemen and Iraqi civilians.”
    Why couldn’t our leader have said that?

Comments are closed.