Bad analogy, Mr. Majority Leader

A week ago, as Israel began pounding Gaza in retribution for rocket attacks by Palestinian militants, I observed that Democratic leaders had been just as complicit as Republicans in giving Israel's government their blessing to drop as many bombs and lob as many shells as they want:

Democratic leaders in the United States are busy releasing statements of sympathy and support for Israel. No condemnation of Israel's blockade of Gaza. No acknowledgment that there simply isn't a military solution to the hostilities in the Holy Land. We keep hearing, over and over again, "Israel has a right to defend itself." How many times have U.S. politicians uttered those words?

Now, in addition to offering one sided statements that don't encourage an end to hostilities, elected leaders are offering the usual assortment of bad analogies in an attempt to justify or explain their position. Jon Stewart showed clips of several of these dumb comparisons on The Daily Show tonight.

One, in particular, caught my attention - yesterday's episode of Meet the Press with David Gregory, who had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as his guest.

From the transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the ground invasion into Gaza. Do you think on the part of this Israeli - of the Israelis this was offensive or defensive?

SEN. REID: I spoke to Prime Minister Olmert a couple of days ago. He indicated that they would do the ground activities. Let's understand the background. For eight years they've been firing rockets into Israel. They've become more intense the last few months. Israelis have been killed, maimed and injured. Sometimes more than 200 a day coming into Israel.

If this were going on in the United States from Vancouver, Canada, into Seattle, would we react? Course we do. We would have to.

When I first heard this, I was left wondering, Where did Harry Reid come up with this useless and odd analogy? I'm very much used to hearing worthless conjecture from right wing talking heads, but I expect my party's leaders in Congress to be more thoughtful and tactful than this. Especially on national television.

Washington and British Columbia - whose largest cities are Seattle and Vancouver - have long had a peaceful and friendly relationship. The Blaine-Surrey border crossing is one of the busiest in the nation. The Peace Arch, which stands at that crossing, symbolizes our friendship. Furthermore, the United States and Canada cooperate more closely on defense than any other nations in the world:

U.S. defence arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country. The Permanent Joint Board of Defense, established in 1940, provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defence matters.

The United States and Canada share North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mutual security commitments. In addition, U.S. and Canadian military forces have cooperated since 1958 on continental air defence within the framework of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

There is also an active military exchange program between the two countries under which Canadian Forces personnel have been involved in Iraq. Moreover, interoperability with the American armed forces has been a guiding principle of Canadian military force structuring and doctrine since the end of the Cold War. Canadian navy frigates, for instance, integrate seamlessly into U.S. carrier battle groups.

Canada has been our closest ally for many decades.

Given our extensive history of cooperation, especially our mutual defense agreements, why would any U.S. political leader think it acceptable to justify their political posturing on the conflict in the Holy Land by depicting a scenario that pits our Canadian friends against us as imaginary villains?

Reid's comments may not fracture U.S.-Canadian relations, but they were still undiplomatic. There's already enough animosity in the world these days without this kind of careless commentary. Our elected leaders shouldn't be inadvertently souring the air by unnecessarily slighting our closest allies.

We could all surely benefit from having thicker skins, but that's no excuse for not being empathetic and polite, especially to people who have our backs.