Harry Reid: Let’s abandon the ‘War on Terror’?

I had to look at the story twice, but I think that's the bottom line of a statement made by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Wednesday in Las Vegas.

Speaking to the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce at the Four Seasons (and taking only pre-screened written questions), Reid responded to a variety of topics, from health care to the deficit. You can find the story by business reporter Jennifer Robison here. It's worth the read.

Two things caught my eye: First, Reid hinted he'd support some kind of tort reform to help bring down malpractice insurance costs. I'm glad to hear that and hope Sen. Reid (who has some power in Washington, don't you know) actually does more than opine about it.

Second, and more important, he sounded like he favors retreating from America's War on Terror to help pay for his party's massive deficits and social programs.

Aside from rumblings on the far, far left, I've not heard anyone of stature even suggest this.

The story says:

"Asked how the federal government can pay for looming entitlement deficits for Social Security and Medicare while piling on another $1 trillion for health care reform, Reid responded, 'I hope all of you ask that when we talk about spending $1 trillion on a war of choice.'"

A "war of choice"?

What the hell does that mean?

It can't mean anything else but getting out of Afghanistan in specific and the War on Terror in general, can it?

Had reporters been able to follow up on these questions, we might have been able to better get to the bottom of it. But this recess, Sen. Reid has been anything but accessible to the public and the media. We've invited him to come to the Review-Journal editorial board, but he's refused.

Yet, in a controlled forum he drops the bomb of getting out of our "war of choice" as a way of paying for his social programs.

Is that the choice?

That's how I took it. Next time I see Harry, I'll ask.