Harry Reid: Fool Me Twice

Kagro X has an excellent post at Kos on Harry Reid's support for a "temporary surge."

Taken "in context," Kagro X proves Reid is willing to support it with no conditions.

And as Kagro X reminds us, it was the lack of strict conditions on the 10/02 Authorization for Use of Military Force that allowed Bush to invade Iraq, even though Saddam really had no WMD's or ties to Al Qaeda.

Here's the bad news: Harry Reid voted FOR the AUMF, and hasn't figured out that he was utterly and completely fooled.

By supporting Bush's "temporary surge," he's asking - no, begging - to be fooled twice.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Harry Reid became Senate Majority Leader for one and only one reason: the American people want to get out of Iraq. So why is Reid betraying the American people?

Because Reid doesn't think he represents the American people - he thinks he represents the Pentagon.

Reid: George, what we are considering is what we always have considered. We’ll give the military anything they want. We’re going to make sure that they get every dollar they need.

The question Reid and most Democrats are unwilling to ask is - need for what?

Congress voted for the AUMF only because Bush insisted Iraq had WMD's and Al Qaeda ties. Both were lies. So what is our military mission in Iraq?

Reid doesn't understand that this is the central question - not just for the voters who put Democrats in charge of Congress, but even for the Armed Forces!

According to today's Pentagon Post, the Joint Chiefs of Staff - are unanimously opposed to a surge. Why? Because Bush cannot explain their mission, and is just using the surge as a gimmick to hide it.

the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military.

What are those "potential disadvantages"?

1. Getting killed
2. Getting maimed
3. Destroying our military

Those sound pretty "disadvantageous" to me. 

There's a reason Bush can't explain the military mission. It's because there isn't one.

Our troops are in Iraq for just one reason: permanent occupation. No matter how long we stay, we will never be able to form a pro-American democracy, which is the fantasy Bush has peddled since WMD's weren't found. The Iraqi people have come to hate America, they want us gone, and they will continue to kill our soldiers if that's what it takes to get us to leave.

I don't like that one bit. But it doesn't matter what I like. The Iraqi people have lots of weapons and lots of money to buy more, so the killing of American soldiers will never end as long as the occupation continues.

It's time for Harry Reid and the Democrats to take control of the Iraq debate by changing the language. It's not a war, it's an occupation, and we need to call it that. As soon as we change the language, the appropriate policy change will inevitably follow: we'll get out.

In 2002, Bush didn't ask Congress or the American people to approve a permanent occupation of Iraq. But that's what he's given us - at a devastating cost in lives and dollars.

Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was a criminal act of fraud. As a former prosecutor, Harry Reid should take the lead in exposing it and punishing those responsible through impeachment.

But that is a secondary task. The immediate task is to end the occupation and bring our troops home. Now.

Harry Reid, are you listening?

Or do we have to find a way to whack you over the head to get your attention?

Update 1: Greg Sargent found additional remarks by Reid during his interview with Stephanopoulos that did not get reported by AP or Reuters:

We have to change course in Iraq. That was determined on November 7th and the people feel even more strongly today than they did on November 7th. Change of course, what does that mean? It means that by the first quarter of 2008, American troops should be out of there. That's what the Iraq study group says. That's what we've said. We have to change course. The war will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically.

I'm glad to see that Reid does not support a permanent occupation. But if Reid lets Bush fool him into supporting a "temporary" surge now, what would stop Bush from extending that surge until his last day in the White House?

Here's some insight into Bush's "mind" courtesy of courtier Fred Barnes:

It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."

Bush will be no more willing to "lose" in Q1 2008 than he is now. So the question for Reid and the Democrats is whether to begin their unavoidable battle with Bush now - with their mandate fresh and popularity high - or put it off for 15 more months, at the peak of the Presidential primaries.

Delaying this inevitable battle is both politically wrong and morally wrong. If Bush cannot explain the "mission" to the Joint Chiefs now, then no more soldiers should be killed or maimed just to keep Bush from admitting he has no clue how to "win."

Harry Reid and the Democrats must cut off all funding for the occupation now.

Update 2: TPM Reader MD games out the Bush strategy:

It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Bagdhad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working (though in the interim I would predict the first really horrendous event in which our troops suffer a big loss, like 200 men in one blast), then it will be the end of 2007 and the argument will be about whether we should remove some of the surge troops. That will take a few months, at least, and we'll be in the throes of a presidential election. Bush won't want to do anything too "political" at that point, of course, so he'll happily leave it to the new prez to make shitcakes out of shit. And Bush and Cheney will spin it for all it's worth for the rest of their lives...

Update 3: There's no need to game out Bush's strategy, since the man who "has the President's ear" - American Enterprise Institute's Fred Kagan (brother of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan) - told CNN his/Bush's plan:

A surge of two or three months is not going to be productive. We’re proposing a surge that would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months. At the end of that, we would expect that we will have brought the security situation sufficiently under control.

Update 4: On using the word "occupation," here's Nancy Pelosi in October 2002:

“When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”

Does she still consider it an occupation? Does she still use the word? If so, why isn't she calling for the immediate end to the occupation?

Update 5: Reid blogged at Huffington Post to softly oppose a surge:

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.

Then Reid repeated his devotion to representing "commanders in the field," rather than the voters who made him Majority Leader.

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.

But finally he came around to the phase-out position supported by most Congressional Democrats.

My position on Iraq is simple:

1. 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)

2. 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.

3. 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.

Reid's position isn't mine - I support an immediate cutoff of all funds for the Iraq Occupation.

But as a friendly word of advice, Reid would save himself lots of trouble with the anti-war majority if he began all answers with "my position on Iraq is simple," and then applied his position to the policy debate of the moment.