Here's exactly what Reid said (to liberal bloggers about Peter Pace)

[BurtWorm]

According to Bob Geiger, one of the bloggers present for the teleconference (all of the remaining comes from Geiger's blog):

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/06/politico-fails-journalism-100.html

"I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the Senate… Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was."

So, did Reid utter the word "incompetent" in the same sentence with General Pace's name on the conference call? Yes, he did.

But in the context in which it was said -- and based on Reid's tendency to speak like the straight-talking, former boxer that he is -- it all makes sense. And to those of us not looking for a Matt Drudge-worthy story, it hardly seemed remarkable.

The overwhelming majority of the American people are against this war and are angry about the totally incompetent way it has been handled since 2003. And most Americans would probably use much stronger words than "incompetent" to describe the people who have helped Bush conduct this disastrous war and who have, by commission or omission, assisted in misleading the American people about how badly things are going.

Harry Reid talks every day about the thousands of American military dead and the tens of thousands wounded as a result of the Bush administration's lies and incompetence. What he told us on that call was that he had the character to tell one of the principals in this mess exactly what he thought right to his face.

And, for that, the Senate Majority Leader should be applauded.

[babylonsister]

1. And here's what Reid said, from Reid:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1116901&mesg_id=1116901

[BOSSHOG]

2. This tears me up

I'm seeing another military man of honor ruined because he had contact with bush. Pace had his foibles but he wanted to follow orders as any good Marine would do. Ergo, he was a bush yes man. Sad, sad, sad. How many fucking good men and women will be ruined before bush's time comes to an end?

[11 Bravo]

3. Right on target, Boss.

I have long been astounded by the fact that virtually every field grade officer I have ever met has described themselves as a Republican. I think Bush may be responsible for a sea change in that regard. He treats the military with contempt, the spoiled little kid who used to set his toy soldiers on fire.
It also kills me to see honorable men who swore to defend their country slammed on this board as "war criminals". There's a certain naivete revealed on the part of some folks who don't understand that a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine doesn't have a Hell of a lot of leeway in deciding whether or not to obey a lawful order in pursuit of a policy determined by the civilian leadership. It's easy to say that if the troops just refused to participate everything would be OK. The people making that statement have probably never faced the possibility of a stretch in Leavenworth.

[sandnsea]

4. Generals can damn well quit

I can't stand the constant defense of the only people who had the ability to stop this madness before it got started.

And for about the thousandth time - where was the special ops mission to secure the known WMD sites to protect our troops before the invasion.

Generals didn't have one?? And didn't question why they didn't have one?

Fuck these Generals. They're war criminals.

[gaspee]

5. hmmm, you could be right... however

personally, I'd rather face a long prison stretch than murder someone. Now, here's where logic comes in.

Soldier killing soldier in a war is =/= murder.
Soldier killing unarmed civilian in an unlawful war == murder.

I've got a third, but I'm pretty radical on this one.

Dropping bombs on civilans is not only murder, but also terrorism. Just ask the Brits who were alive in the 40's if they think bombing is terrorism.

So, the question is, is this a lawful war? My answer? No fucking way. It has been an illegal war of aggression since the beginning

I'm kind of reminded of the words to "Universal Soldier" whenever I think of this war.

I think people need to go with their gut. My gut says illegal war and there's no power on Earth that would make me fight it. I would actually rather go to Leavenworth. I would lean toward desertion even if it meant *execution* -- that is exactly how strongly I feel about murdering people.

A few brave men and women have done just that. And like the draft dodgers of the 60's and 70's, the war resisters will be vindicated in the end.

[BOSSHOG]

7. To the uninitiated, the military is not a democracy

And thank you my friend. Pace isn't killing Iraqi's because he wants to and his Marines aren't in Iraq because he wants them there. Yeah, as one poster says, Generals can quit but would there not be a godawful good chance they'd be replaced with a Boykin type? Our kids can't quit. They are in a catch-22.

bush let it happen, then lied about who did it. I find no satisfaction at beating up Generals (and certainly not Admirals.)

[blondeatlast]

6. Like him or not, if Harry didn't criticize the mishandling, it would get

virtually no attention from the lazy media.

Good for him--and shame on those who never wondered about the context (and there were many right here on DU).