I'm really going to try to make this diary non-confrontational, but, alas, all questions of clarification on iraq are, to some degree, confrontational. That's politics. Answering such questions is necessary if we're going to determine wether or not our representatives, employees who work for us, are standing up for our best interests.
In the past, a long time ago really, I asked "Why does Harry Reid get a Free Pass?" And I'll abandon that approach. The answer is pretty clear, anyway. He has reached out to Markos and the netroots in general. His involvement at Ykos, it is clear that when it comes to people powered politics, he gets it, the importance of engaging the forum directly, even if he may not agree with the netroots on a specific issue as large and as life threatening as iraq.
The key word in that last sentence is "may". Cause the point of this diary is that I simply do not know either way.
Over the course of the iraq debate three story lines have emerged.
1. Thinks the president was right to invade iraq unilaterally/pre-emptively. And thinks the president is doing a good job of it at that.
That is Joe Lieberman, and repug party loyalists.
2. While speaking out against a unilateral pre-emptive invasion, still voted for IWR, and now thinks that bush has mismanaged the situation in iraq to the point of criminal negligence if not worse, but still to this day, thinks that a failure to avoid civil war in Iraq will create more problems for our national security over the long term than staying in iraq for the time being.
in between 2. and 3. are the IWR "no" voters, and the IWR "yea" voters who have since impaled themselves on that vote and now endorse various plans that send the iraqis a clear message: get it together by such and such a date, either way, we're gone by that date. we might help with a surgical air strike or two if we get confirmed intel on an al qaida stronghold. we might still try to work through the UN to send in multi-national peacekeepers, but the occupation is over. we, the americans, will leave.
the important point to make about this argument is that it makes the case that the timetable will help to AVOID civil war, a war we exacerbate by our INDEFINITE presence. which makes sense.
3. that wether it was 10 years ago, 1 year ago, 1 day ago, or 2 weeks from now, 6 months from now, or 10 years from now, there WILL be civil war in Iraq, and america needs to get their men and women out of the way as soon as fucking possible. it's been my experience the people who have this view embrace the timeline argument because anything that brings home the troops sooner than later is just simply better than otherwise.
So that's, as I see it, the three views on the situation. If people want to parse out two categories under no. 2, that seems fine to me. Arguing about that isn't the point of the diary. Although feel free to do so.
Having the sado-masochistic tendencies I tend to have, I check in at huffpo.com at least once a day, and found the link to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry's name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as "cutting and running."
political stunt.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, one of many Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Kerry's amendment, rose to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Reid moved to remove the amendment from consideration, and his motion was approved by a vote of 93 to 6. Senate Democrats promised to return next week with additional amendments on an exit strategy for American troops.
boldface mine.
what does that mean:
"There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction."
Is he buying the repug argument that any withdrawal is cutting and running??
Is he, cleverly, refuting that argument??
this is Reid's Issue Page on his website:
http://www.reid.senate.gov/...
America's Armed Forces are unequaled in strength, unrivaled in professionalism, and unprecedented in success. As our troops defend our nation in Iraq, and Afghanistan we must ensure that our military stays the strongest fighting force in the world. As Nevada's soldiers and premier military facilities make valuable contributions to America's defense, I remain committed to ensuring that Nevada's military personnel and their families have the necessary resources and support. America's security must come first.
The uncomfortable observation is that, because he has engaged the forum (so we are less tempted to ask him hard questions that might divide the forum), and because he flies, pretty much, under the radar of MSM scrutiny, we might know less about Harry Reid's position on Iraq than we know of Hillary's.
And yet, he's the Minority Leader, I would still like to know his position on Iraq.
I'm not going to pretend to think I've heard everything he's had to say on the topic, so if he has made more definitive statements on this all important topic, then really, the reason for this diary is for people to post those statements and voice what they think Harry Reid's position on Iraq might be.
Did he say something at Ykos that was more definitive?
Did he endorse a timeline??
A withdrawal date??
What is Harry Reid's position on Iraq???