Harry Reid – Traitor

Stoutcat calls  Harry Reid a Moron.

Alan calls Harry Reid a Jerk

OK, let me add my 2 cents worth.  Harry Reid is a traitor. For a United States Senator to stand in the halls of Congress and state categorically that he feels the war (in Iraq) is lost is to give aid and comfort to the enemy while our young men and women are over there fighting (and dying). Reid made this statement on April 19th 2007.

As a veteran of the Vietnam era, I say that this is nothing less than an act of treason. Unfortunately, in this era of political correctness, we have to make exceptions for the terminally stupid, so no one has the guts to act on this slap in the face to our young men and women in the Military.

Yes, he will probably be voted out of office this year. But that’s too honorable a fate. He should be BOOTED from Congress and stripped of his 100% retirement salary that you and I will be paying for the rest of his miserable life. And, he will undoubtedly remain in Washington as a high-priced whore lobbyist for some special interest group.

So, to “Moron” and “Jerk,” let’s add the most deserving of titles: Scum-sucking traitor.

Gerry Ashley


12 Responses to Harry Reid – Traitor

  1. Annie says:

    In defence of Senator Harry Reid’s comment about the Iraq war, I quote from that great American broadcaster, Ed Murrow (one of the few people to stand up to McCarthyism):
    ‘We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.’

    • Gerry Ashley says:

      Hi Annie,
      FIrst, thank you for your response. The best reason for people to come here is to get BOTH sides of an issue.

      That said however, I’m still going to have to disagree with you. Not about what Ed Murrow said, for I believe that is absolutely true (and you chose an excellent quote to attempt to back your position.

      However, in this case, for a Congressman to openly state we’ve lost the war when the surge, in hind-sight, was actually WORKING, is more than dissent… it was disloyalty DEFINED at best… and at it’s worst, treasonous.

      Let’s look at the definition of treason:
      a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

      the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

      Ask 100 soldiers who were serving in Iraq at the time of Reid’s statement if they feel he fullfilled those two definitions and I think you’ll find a large percentage who do. In my community, I know of 8 who do. But even if we set that aside, consider the two opposite ends of the spectrum used by Morrow in his quote:

      Dissent is to oppose a policy and he did that by voting against Bush’s policies when the opportunity was there.

      Disloyalty, on the other hand is something far worse. Unless you’ve been in the military, you simply do not know the impact of having one of your own statesman stand in the house of Congress and state categorically that you have LOST the war… WHILE YOU ARE STILL FIGHTING IT. That is not dissent, that is DISLOYALTY.

      Some additional thoughts:

      First and foremost: His statement turned out to be false. The surge did what it was supposed to.

      Second, it was demoralzing as MANY returning troops have stated.

      Third, the enemy used Reid’s statement over and over again to re-energize themselves and to recruit other terrorists.

      No ma’am. If you are going to use Edward R. Murrow’s quote here, Reid’s pronouncement clearly comes down on the side of disloyalty:

      Disloyalty to his President (in time of war)
      Disloyalty to his country, but most of all,
      Disloyaly to the young men and women who were fighting on behalf of OUR country as well as Iraq’s young democracy.

      There are certain things you DO NOT DO in time of war. Bringing aid and comfort to the enemy is near the top of the list. And until Harry Reid came along it didn’t need to be on the list, but sadly now it does: Being a statesman, in time of war you do NOT use your position to make such a bold statement in the halls of Congress to demoralize your own soldiers. It’s just too bad that none of the other Democrats had enough spine to call it what it was: Treason.

  2. Nate says:

    In response to Annie: There is no defense for Reid on this issue. Ed Murrow was a communist and McCarthy was correct on most accounts and accusations. (see Venona Project NSA http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/index.shtml ).

  3. Annie says:

    Golly gosh!
    Next they’ll be saying that the freedom of speech amendment to the US Constitution was a subversive commie plot…
    Actually the records show that Senator Joseph R McCarthy was a lying demagogue who died from drink after he had been discredited.
    His real brilliance lay in media manipulation though I do not recall that even he directly accused Mr. Murrow of being a communist.

  4. Annie says:

    Fair comment Gerry but your argument would have far more impact if Senator Reid had not been speaking almost exactly four years after President George W Bush had stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier claiming: ‘Mission Accomplished’.
    There is a distinct difference between capturing ground (which is the province of the military) and capturing hearts and minds of the populace (which is much harder to achieve).
    Even today (March 6, 2010) there are nearly 100,000 US Troops in Iraq with the long-term outlook for the country being still uncertain.

  5. Gerry Ashley says:

    Annie, I can’t believe you are actually falling on the sword of that photo of Bush on the aircraft carrier with the sign behind him. That’s the last gasp of a desperate liberal grasping for something to point at in defense of an indefensible position.

    First, Bush-whackers have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the truth of the matter: That sign was never meant to indicate the war was won. It was to indicate that the mission of removing Saddam Hussein was accomplished, nothing more. If you know that, shame on you for trying to use that. I’m not that gullible, and neither are the readers of this blog. You’ve merely defined yourself.

    Second, the mission to install a democratic government by holding free elections WAS accomplished and elections are being held again. Whether or not the Iraqis pull themselves up, put their big boy clothes on and learn to take responsibility for defending themselves in the future is still being established. Barack Obama has put a timetable on there. While I disagree with putting a timetable on any war (why give the enemy a date they can wait out) I do understand his position that this can’t go on indefinitely.

    That said, and to return to the original point, We DID NOT lose the war, and we HAVE NOT lost the war. We have accomplished the goal of allowing the Iraqi people to have a free and democratic election which is HISTORIC in that country. We are now there assisting that democratic Iraqi government build up their strength to defend themselves from terrorists whose goal it is to destroy that young democracy. Whether that succeeds or not is up to the Iraqi people. We will have given them the means by which to accomplish this. But at some point, they have to stand on their own two feet. I’m proud that America stood by these people who dreamed of a democratic election and more rights for women. Anyone who doesn’t see or understand that big picture is just responding to sound bites and is simply unwilling to do the research and find the truth in the matter.

    I suppose next you’ll complain that we didn’t find the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Once again, to be uninformed is inexcusable if you’re going to partake in this kind of debate. We DID find WMDs, although the liberal media chose not to give it much coverage. But so you won’t think I’m a Fox News ONLY junkie, here it is from MSNBC themselves: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

    Nope, Annie, no matter how you slice it (or which tired soundbite you lean on like the “Mission Accomplished” sign), you simply don’t have a case here. Harry Reid was OUT OF PLACE making that statement… and it smacks of bringing aid and comfort to the enemy. If you can’t (or WON’T) see that, I feel sorry for you… but my real respect goes to our young men and women who would still lay down their lives to protect your right to make such outlandish claims… and Harry Reid’s as well.

  6. Annie says:

    Several points:
    As you have brought up the subject of Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) I would respectfully point out that we (i.e. Joe/Jane Public) were told that his WMDs were capable of being fired within 45 minutes…
    That most certainly is not the same as a low-grade uranimum oxide which requires much processing even before it can be used as a fuel, let alone an explosive.
    Similarly, the democracy argument does not stand scrutiny.
    Other countries around the Persian Gulf are not democratic in the generally accepted sense nor does there appear to be any desire to force them to be. (E.g. UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

    I have lived in those countries and anyone who, like me, has experienced at first hand (me pre- the first Iraq war) the venomous hatred which middle eastern arabs hold against westerners knows the whole area is better handled with tact and diplomacy and not with military might.
    Having sent them there, I agree wholeheartedly that the military personnel should be fully supported.

    However, I do fail to see the connection you make about a military presence in Iraq as reinforcing my right to free speech, insofar as I have any such right in my country.

    • Gerry Ashley says:

      Then I guess we’re supposed to simply forget about the WMDs that Saddam used on his own people. Let’s just ignore the fact that Saddam had some 10 years of blocking United Nations inspection teams from doing their job of inspecting facilities in Iraq which gave him time to smuggle weapons out to Syria. And if you don’t see 550 metric tons of yellowcake as a viable threat then there’s no reaching you period.

      Saddam a threat to the middle east? Naw, nothing to see here, folks… keep it moving.

      Wow… I wish I too could choose to ignore the facts and just live in the land of la-la.

      As to the democracy in Iraq. You picked the wrong week-end to challenge that… this is the week-end they are having a democratic election. And even anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has urged Iraqis to turn out in large numbers in Iraq’s parliamentary election Sunday and give their support to those who he said were “faithful” to the Iraqi people. And it was Time or Newsweek that last week pronounced the war in Iraq as “won.”

      The surge worked.
      Iraq has a democracy.
      They are having their second Parliamentary election tomorrow (Sunday)
      Radical anti-American Clerics are urging Iraqis to vote – an endorsement of the democracy WE HELPED MAKE HAPPEN.

      Harry Reid was wrong to pronounce the war “lost” nearly 3 years go.
      He was wrong to stand in the house of Congress when he made that pronouncement.
      He disrespected our soldiers.
      He brought aid and comfort to the enemy by merely making that comment.
      He was wrong. Period. End of story. There is absolutely no justification for what he did, no matter how far you choose to shove your head into the sand.
      Harry Reid IS a jerk.
      Harry Reid IS a moron.
      And, by the very definition of the word, Harry Reid IS a traitor.
      And Nevadans finally realize it and will tell him in no uncertain words what a stain he is to their state this November.

  7. Annie says:

    A free and fair election that needs over 100,000 foreign troops to make it happen?

  8. Gerry Ashley says:

    Here we go again with the Sound Bites. Is that all you have? Don’t answer, Annie – that was a rhetorical question. The answer is yes and it’s abundantly obvious.

    How is it that you claim to have lived in so many different nations, yet know so little about establishing democracy? Where is your sense of American history?

    To answer your pathetic ludicrous question: Yes, we have troops there. How many troops did it take in America to establish democracy? Was there an Obama-like imposed deadline for the end of that war? How many troops did it take to SAVE democracy in the civil war? Did Lincoln give himself a deadline?

    The installation of free and fair elections, along with Democracy, in a land that has been ruled – for centuries – by religious fanaticism cemented in the 14th century (and earlier) doesn’t happen without a struggle. It doesn’t happen without sacrifice and long-term commitment.

    Iraq did not have the means to do this on their own. They may have had doubts about our intentions when the war started, but no more. They have come to embrace us as they have embraced freedom and democracy.

    It was John Kennedy – a Democrat – who said so long ago, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

    So yes, Annie. There are troops there still, and they are helping to build the infrastructure that is allowing this free election to take place that even radical clerics are endorsing. What is your problem with that? The job is not done yet. To leave prematurely would be the kind of mistake only a naive rookie of an American President would make. Establishing a deadline so the enemy knows how long they have to rebuild would be beyond ignorant. Oh, wait. That’s exactly what Obama has done, isn’t it? Annie, there comes a time when you either back your country in time of war or you don’t. If you don’t, then get the hell out of the way of those who do. Because we’re fighting for YOU as well as everyone else, even if you are incapable of understanding that.

    Eventually Iraq will have to stand or fall on their own. If they fail militarily, it will because they squandered the opportunity given to them by the US. If they fail politically by electing someone who takes them back to the stone-age, it will be because they CHOSE to do that, via a free and democratic election. Either way, The United States will have done our part to give them that choice… CHOICE, Annie. Do you get that? CHOICE. It’s something we take for granted here in this country. If they CHOOSE to go back to the 14th century, that will be their CHOICE. And we will have to honor that choice. But we will be able to do so knowing they CHOSE it and that it wasn’t shoved down their throats against their will.

  9. Annie says:

    Morning Gerry, I’ll take your points in order:

    Par #1: You misread my post about the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain & particularly Saudi Arabia. It was that none of those nations are democratic yet the US had not bothered to invade them as it did Iraq.

    Par #2: American Civil War: You picked a poor example Gerry. You support my view not yours. It took some 100 years after Civil War hostilities ceased (‘Mission Accomplished’) before freedom was established. And that was only when the US Supreme Court got its act together when prompted the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall at the NAACP and Rosa Parkes decided she would sit where she pleased on that bus. This was a change of hearts and minds, not military might.

    Par #3: You can’t realistically claim Iraq was rooted in the 14 th century yet at the same time argue it was capable of transmuting a load of Yellow*** into WMDs in 45 minutes. Also don’t forget that only a decade earlier the US supported with cash and weapons Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war.

    Par #4 ‘Embracing the US troops’: Any country that has been invaded by the strongest, best equipped army in the world and still has 100,000 of those foreign troops on its soil will ’embrace’ them and not (openly) dissent. This is called survival.

    Par#5: You quote President Kennedy in support of your view. However, in the same speech he also said:’…we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny’.
    I would suggest his later words have been forgotten.

    Par#6: You talk about infrastructure in relation to voting. The word means roads, mains services, phones and other forms of communication. That infrastructure is built by civil engineers, not by troops bearing arms.
    I have been in cities devastated by war. Rebuilding is a long arduous task.
    In the words of Dave Carroll (UBG Song #1): ‘You broke it. You should fix it.’

    Par #7: Pre-Iraq wars, Iraq was not in the 14th century. It was a civilized place. I agree Saddam Hussein was despotic and over-reached himself when he invaded Kuwait. But in democratic terms, the country was no worse than others in the Persian Gulf who have not (yet) had the benefit of the US thrusting its version of choice ‘down their throats’ (to use your phrase).

    Finally, I don’t think you believe that Senator Harry Reid is a traitor. If you really did believe that you would be calling for his impeachment and/or indictment and not just asking his electrorate to not vote for him.

  10. Gerry Ashley says:

    Annie, Let me respond to a few of your attempts at making points here, and then I’m done with this topic as you either don’t grasp or refuse to acknowledge certain critical facts. For example (and I’ll use your paragraph numbering even though you were off by 1 in each case):

    Your response, Paragraph (Par) 2:
    Your comment is predicated on the assumption that the Civil War was about slavery, period. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of American history knows the Civil War was over State’s Rights (of which slavery was just one of a number of factors). The 100 years you mantion is total nonsense in regards to slavery.

    Par 3: Yet more evidence that your goal is to twist the words of others in the mistaken assumption that people who come to Grand Rants will not see your real agenda. At no point did I suggest Iraqis were able to convert yellowcake into a ready-to-use WMD in 45 minutes. The fact is, the yellowcake is extremely dangerous in its own state, and Iraq had it hidden. Does it qualify as a weapon of Mass destruction? YES. ALL materials used to make WMDs were forbidden as part of the surrender terms… something that Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) clearly flaunted.

    Par 4: You write “Any country that has been invaded by the strongest, best equipped army in the world… will ’embrace’ them and not (openly) dissent.”

    Really? You mean the way Jews embraced the Nazis in WWII?
    Oh wait… That’s right they didn’t.

    The way France did?
    Oh wait… That’s right they didn’t either.

    Oh wait… That’s right they didn’t either.
    The way South Korea embraced North Korea?
    Oh wait… That’s right they didn’t either.
    I could continue on if you like…

    Instead, I’m going out on a limb here and guessing history wasn’t your strongest subject in school.

    Par 5: Kennedy’s words are NOT forgotten. The very POINT of helping Iraq build a self-sustaining democracy is to accomplish the very spirit of Kennedy’s meaning: To allow the people of a nation (in this case, Iraq) determine their own destiny in terms of how they are governed.

    Par 6: You are trying to limit the use of the word “infrastructure?” My God, you ARE desperate!

    Infrastructure refers to the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.

    While that can refer to roads, highways, distribution of utilities etc. it is also commonly used as indicated above. If you don’t believe me, look it up in dictionary.com. That’s the 1st definition, word-for-word. And in the application I used, it refers to the infrastructure that is necessary to support a Democratic form of government replete with free elections.

    As to your reference of “You Broke It, You Fix It” I would respond thusly:

    1.) Provisions for rebuilding the physical infrastructure of Iraq was established before the war began. I know this for a fact, because a friend of mine works for the company (Brown, Kellog and Root) who were given the contract to oversee the rebuilding of the infrastructure when the war is over. You assume we are going to “cut and run?” READ YOUR HISTORY before making such foolish assumptions! Throughout history, NO NATION ON EARTH has done more to help defeated countries rebuild after being defeated in war than the United States.

    Par 7: Unbelievably, you write that Pre-Iraq wars, Iraq was a civilized place.

    This is, by far, the biggest illustration of your naivite. Once again, you have no grasp of history. I’m not going to waste my time trying to educate you as I believe your mindset makes it impossible for you to grasp anything other than the ideology of your choice. But the FACT is, Iraq’s leadership was amongst the most brutal in the world. Anyone who wants a quick education need only look at Wikipedia for the condensed version, but take the time to read in more detail and the horrors of life in Iran quickly come to life.

    Looking at just the more recent history, Saddam Hussein’s regime was notorious for its human rights abuses. Perhaps the best-known example is the Al-Anfal campaign and the attacks on Kurd civilians inside Iraq, such as the Halabja massacre. At least 100,000 Kurds were killed.

    He and his sons regularly used torture and murder against their own citizens. Women were treated with the least amount of respect. At one point, his sons were known to take brides from weddings and, if the brides were attractive, they would be raped. If the husband complained, he was murdered.

    Couple this with Sharia law and if you seriously believe this was “a civiized place,” I’ve got some swell land for sale in Florida I’d love to show you. By your logic, it’s paradise. I hope you like alligators.

    And finally, I DID call for his impeachement and indictment back when Harry Reid performed his act of treason.

    Annie, this is the last post I will take from you. It’s not that you disagree with a position we have taken, I have no problem with that. I’m not trying to be rude, but we’ve given you more than adequate opportunity to make your point but you continue to come off as little more than a die-hard Obama fan with no real grasp of facts or ability to bring much of anything to the table other than unfounded challenges based on incorrect assumptions and a shortage of knowledge in the history department.

    But we’ll always have Dave Carroll’s music. Good luck to you.