Sherman Frederick, the publisher of the conservative-leaning Las Vegas Review-Journal, is no fan of Harry Reid. Last week, on the Fourth of July, Frederick took Reid to task for his infamous 2007 comment that the war in Iraq was "lost," and questioned how he could possibly support Obama in an identical scenario with Petraeus in Afghanistan just three years later.

Brian Greenspun, the editor of the left-leaning Las Vegas Sun, responded yesterday by saying:

Last week, Sherm stooped to a new low — even for him — when he attacked Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Harry Reid, by accusing him of being unfaithful to the men and women of the U.S. armed services and less than supportive of the United States' efforts in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the truth is that Sherm knew it.

Greenspun dismisses Reid's originial comment by saying Reid "is not perfect," that Reid was "was right, but he just said it wrong," and that "malapropism is one of Sen. Reid's endearing strong suits." Read the two pieces for yourself and judge who you think gets the better of the argument.

Meanwhile, Jon Ralston interviewed Reid on Friday and asked him about the comment in question:

David Petraeus: Reid had essentially called the general a liar three years ago when he also made those “war is lost” comments. But the majority leader embraced Obama's decision a couple of weeks ago to put Petraeus in charge in Afghanistan.

Reid said his comments were “blown way out of proportion,” pointing out Petraeus said the war in Iraq could not be won militarily. Then this: “It wasn't won militantly. It was won politically, diplomatically and with the surge.”

I assume it'll be news to most Nevada voters that Reid either didn't know the surge was a military operation or, perhaps worse, that he considered it part of a broader overall strategy for victory but voted against it anyway.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------