So Who's Lying, Harry Reid?
Today on Fox News Sunday (transcript will be forthcoming), Harry Reid denied any links to Jack Abramoff -- insisting plaintively (and angrily): "This is a Republican scandal!"
So who's lying -- the Washington Post or Harry Reid?
Reid's other comments during the program raise some pretty serious doubts about his credibility. Repeatedly, he insisted that there was only one Iraqi battalion that had been fully trained.
Perhaps he should have checked with his colleague Saxby Chambliss, who was in Iraq last week. There, Chambliss and other senators heard from Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who told them that 30 Iraqi battalions are fully trained and equipped.
So who's lying -- General Casey, or Harry Reid?
If Republicans "misspoke" with such abandon on national news shows, the MSM would melt down in outrage.
So who's lying -- the Washington Post or Harry Reid?
Reid's other comments during the program raise some pretty serious doubts about his credibility. Repeatedly, he insisted that there was only one Iraqi battalion that had been fully trained.
Perhaps he should have checked with his colleague Saxby Chambliss, who was in Iraq last week. There, Chambliss and other senators heard from Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who told them that 30 Iraqi battalions are fully trained and equipped.
So who's lying -- General Casey, or Harry Reid?
If Republicans "misspoke" with such abandon on national news shows, the MSM would melt down in outrage.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:50 AM
4 Comments:
More ad hominem bluster from Carol, as usual.
Funny how a general's opinions have so much more credence when they don't run counter to the wishful thinking of the cabal (ie. the deposed General Shinseki vis a vis Rummy).
"Some critics dismiss this progress and point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the coalition."--George W. Bush, President United States, 11/30/2005
So who's lying, Carol--General Casey or President Bush?
Carol's then wrote, "If Republicans 'misspoke' with such abandon on national news shows, the MSM would melt down in outrage."
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
From the same speech by President Bush mentioned above: "To achieve complete independence, (emphasis added) an Iraqi battalion must do more than fight the enemy on its own. It must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries.
"Not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability in order for the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight against the enemy.
"As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard. (emphasis added)
"The facts are that Iraqi units are growing more independent and more capable. They are defending their new democracy with courage and determination. They're in the fight today and they will be in the fight for freedom tomorrow.
"We're also helping Iraqis build the institutions they need to support their own forces."
The president was describing "independence" not "fully trained." General Casey was describing "fully trained" units, not "independent" ones. I don't know what Sen. Reid was describing.
Bachbone to your hair-splittery I say, "So what?"
Harry Reid is claiming there is one independent Iraqi division. Carol is claiming that Harry Reid is lying. Harry Reid got this number from General Casey's testimony to the Senate, and the President confirms it is correct. By definition, Carol is the liar here.
Thanks for quoting the next bit of the President's speech, however. It makes the point explicitly clear that Iraq only has one battalion that is capable of acting without coalition forces in place to provide logistics, airlift, etc. Given this, I'm sure we'll be able to let the Iraqis provide their own security any day now.
Post a Comment
<< Home