Which Reid doubletalk are we to believe?

To the editor:

I found Brian Greenspun's defense of Sen. Harry Reid (Sunday Las Vegas Sun) somewhat curious. What seemed to set Mr. Greenspun off was a Review-Journal column reference to a past statement by Sen. Reid on Iraq: "This war is lost."

First, Mr. Greenspun tipped his ideological hand by personally attacking the motives and journalism of both the "reactionary" Review-Journal and Sherman Frederick, its publisher. OK, no surprise there.

But then his defense of Sen. Reid was all based on Harry Reid mis-speak, which even Mr. Greenspun admits occasionally makes him cringe. But, according to Mr. Greenspun, one has to ignore Sen. Reid's words and read what's in his heart. After all, Harry Reid is "a man of good conscience, great decency," even if sometimes he doesn't mean exactly what he says.

Does this mean that Sen. Reid didn't really intend his health care bill to tax the sale of medical devices, such as prosthetics and wheelchairs? And does it mean that Harry Reid didn't really mean it when he voted down an amendment to exempt our wounded warriors from that tax?

Does this mean that Harry Reid's failure to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose policies are largely responsible for Nevada's foreclosure crisis, wasn't intentional? In his heart, does Harry Reid really believe reform will help? He just doesn't know how to articulate it?

When Sen. Reid calls Sharron Angle "wacky" for suggesting Social Security reform, is that more Harry Reid mis-speak? In his heart, does he really believe our current Social Security system is going to fail?

When Sen. Reid says the economy is recovering and jobs are being created, is that what he means? Or does he just have trouble getting out the words, "14 percent unemployment"?

Mr. Greenspun, just exactly when are we supposed to believe what Harry Reid says?

Robert R. Kessler

Las Vegas