Yes.  Harry Reid is a brave man.  A strong man.  A man who speaks his mind and is not afraid to tell a General to his face that he’s incompetent!

Or maybe that’s not what he was saying at all.  Here’s Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe, schooling us on the importance of “context”:

[Reid’s “incompetent” remark concerning General Pace] was in the context of a discussion of Alberto Gonzales and other administration incompetents, not Iraq. The reference to Pace was an aside—brought up solely to highlight Bush’s loyalty to Gonzales. Reid’s focus here wasn’t on Pace or the commanders.

To suggest this, Sargent posts the “relevant” portions of a transcript made from a taping of the recording—given to him on the condition that he not release the audio tape.

Personally, I would have found a full transcript more useful—not being a “progressive,” I like to suss out what’s relevant on my own, rather than have it spoonfed me by my better-credentialed mouthpieces—but then, a full transcript would likely bring out what Reid said about General Petraeus, the current commander who breezed through his Congressional confirmation.

What we do know, though, is that Reid is now acknowledging the remarks—and he is not being quite so nuanced in his interpretations.  From FOXNews:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is “incompetent.”

Reid also disparaged Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq.

But Reid, whose comments to bloggers first appeared in The Politico, also told reporters: “I think we should just drop it.”

Reid’s admission came as reporters peppered him with questions about Pace and Petraeus, overshadowing a Capitol Hill press conference designed to highlight Democratic attempts to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency.

Reid said he told Pace face-to-face recently that he had performed poorly as an adviser on the conduct of the Iraq war.

Interesting.  I wonder what his exact words were.  Because I somehow doubt they were filled with the bluster that they took on in retrospect, while regaling a conference call of liberal bloggers with tales of his statesmanship, prompting some anti-war commenters to commend him on his integrity—which could possibly bump his favorability rating up into the mid-twenties!

I’d be curious to hear Pace’s recollection—though it is doubtful he will dignify the comments, or at least, without a modicum of grace.

[…]

Prior to Reid’s remarks, White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that he hoped what he had read about Reid is “not true, because in a time of war, for a leader of a party that says its supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq.

“Indeed, Senator Reid has at some point declared the war lost and also has declared the surge a failure, even though it has not yet been fully enacted,” Snow said, adding that Reid should apologize.

Snow said Bush had decided not to reappoint Pace, not because of mistrust over the handling of the war, but so as to avoid a “spectacle” on Capitol Hill.

“What they decided to do was to spare the general and also the American public the kind of spectacle that I think in some ways explains the low esteem with which people regard the entire political class in Washington, especially Congress,” Snow said.

“I think the president has constantly stood up for General Pace, and has also made it clear that he values his 40 years of service to this country,” Snow added.

The decision not to reappoint Pace to a second term was based not only on Democratic objections to the chairman but to Republican desires to avoid a fight on Capitol Hill, FOX News learned Thursday.

Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John Warner, R-Va., revealed that he and fellow committee Republicans had conveyed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Pace would be too easy a target for Democrats to rehash past mistakes and issues regarding the Iraq war.

“I made it clear that it was the president’s decision. I had worked successfully with Pace,” Warner said. “But I supported the secretary’s conclusion that we have to look forward and not go back over and over the issues of the past, like WMD and the like,” Warner said of the fight over the weapons of mass destruction.

Make of this what you will—but my reading of it is that to the Administration, what is of paramount importance is winning the war in Iraq by fighting a successful counterinsurgency, and that General Pace is a casualty of both the Democrats’ insistence that their war criticisms be used as bold-type political bludgeons, and the Republicans’ recognition that, in order to appease the Democrats and keep them from turning tail and running, they have to make a series of symbolic changes that reflect shifts in overall strategy as the situation on the ground unfolds.

One would think such changes would satisfy the Democrats, who could claim that the strategy, if successful, was brought about by their criticisms —and indeed, the changes seemed to satisfy them, until, that is, Reid and Pelosi checked their poll numbers and, panicking, began acting as puppets for the anti-war base—but at each and every turn, these Democratic leaders manage to put their foot in it, on this occasion, out of a perverse desire on Reid’s part to impress a group of liberal bloggers.

Taylor Marsh, to her credit, has excoriated Reid for the gaffe (though in doing so she shows a troubling unfamiliarity with the military and very recent military history)—even as her readers strive to defend Reid by labeling Pace a “yes man” who was rightly and bravely denounced by the ashen Senator (D-Dubious Land Deals).

The ridiculousness of the accusation, though, is put into perspective by a soldier who shows up in the comments to explain to the proud, free-thinking war dissenters just how the military works:

And how is Pace responsible for ToraBora?

CJCOS is a political position. Pace has no “Command Authority” over the military. He is a Staff guy, an advisor. As for being a “yes” man… that is stupid. Ultimately ALL military officers are “Yes” men. You are told to do something, you have two options. a. do it or b. bring up your concerns… then, unless your commander changes it, you do it.

All this hubub just shows how little the Democrats know or care about the military. Reid (and the party) lost a lot (you prob don’t even know how much) with his statements that the “war is lost”. The fact remains that many in uniform support the war for many various reasons. It is very personsal for us. Some Dem strategist wrote a great article from Iraq that you can fight for the end of the war because you believe it is the right thing but 1. stop saying “it’s for the troops” and 2. Don’t expect us to be grateful. Strange, but he seems to be one of the only dems who “gets” the Military. Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, and Reid sure don’t.

Brad

CPT US Army

In the FOX piece, Reid says he doesn’t believe General Petraeus to be “incompetent”—which makes me wonder what exactly he did say about him.

Perhaps someone with nothing to hide will release the “relevant” part of the transcript so that we can all have a gander. 

True—such might allow the conservatives to frame the comments to reflect poorly on the Democratic leadership with respect to its commitment to the military (as Taylor Marsh worries).  But does that really mean the information should to be quarantined?

Perhaps Mr Sargent will reconsider and release the transcript in its entirety.  Before, you know, Sandy Berger gets hold of it and wears it like a shame-filled diaper.

To be clear, I don’t believe criticism of Pace is beyond the pale.  As James Joyner and others note:

The senior-most members of the armed forces, certainly the service chiefs and Chairman, are policy makers and fair game for criticism.

Pace, if he’s doing his job, is not some platoon leader, or even division commander, merely carrying out his orders to the best of his ability. Rather, he is — by statute — the chief military advisor to the president. One can not discuss military affairs, let alone the conduct of a war, without implicating his decision-making.

All true—but it is certainly fair, then, to turn around and question the competency of Reid for the manner in which he handled the criticism.

Being caught disparaging an outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in a phone call to liberal bloggers is not the most savvy of political moves—unless, of course, one’s goal is to court the anti-war contingent of the blogosphere disappointed that Reid and other Dems haven’t held to their promise of ending the war.

Further, Reid didn’t stop with Pace—but, again, attacked General Petraeus (in a way that is unclear, given that the specifics are being withheld).  And that is beyond the pale, given that Petraeus is the commander for the about-to-begin-in-earnest counterinsurgency strategy—and Reid did nothing to stop his confirmation.

Couple this with Reid’s statements that we’ve lost the war and that the “surge” isn’t working, and what you find is that the true incompetent here—from a political standpoint—is Reid.

Because I don’t think any of this will sell well to those not already part of the anti-war choir.  And even some of them, in their more honest moments, will question Reid’s political acumen.

(h/t Pablo, Taylor Marsh)