Lieberman makes the case for an escalation

December 29, 2006

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Neocon-Conn.) just returned from a 10-day visit to the Middle East, but it appears the senator didn’t learn much.

…While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

The entire argument — more troops in Iraq, more confrontation with Iran — is so detached from reality that one almost suspects the Bush White House helped Lieberman draft his op-ed in advance of publication. It is strikingly painful to read.

It’s an agonizing reminder that those who helped orchestrate and execute this fiasco are not only proud of their work, they’re intent on making it worse.

There’s a lot of quality analysis of Lieberman’s piece out there, I’m partial to Steve Clemons’ take.

Lieberman notes, for example, “The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security.” Clemons responds:

What Lieberman doesn’t understand is that his realization of the “security problem” is not new. Our forces have been struggling for a number of years now and not solving this problem. Our troops are considered by many in Iraq to be just another militia among many — or to even be the primary cause of the insurgency for others. Senator Lieberman fails to deal with either of these impulses behind the violence.

And he seems to be advocating just starting from scratch. Just get the security problem fixed. With what Senator Lieberman? Do you honestly believe that twenty thousand troops will matter in this mess? […]

Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable — and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?

Where is the political and diplomatic aspects to your suggestion on what next should be done? Do you see this only in military terms — if we just had a few more troops now?

For that matter, Atrios noted, “Of course, no one will bother to ask the Last Honest Man why a year ago he said everything was working and 6 months ago he said we’d be able to start substantial troop withdrawals by now.”

The mind reels.

Hopefully, Lieberman finally wakes up and smells the coffee brewing for him at the DNC and switches parties once and for all. We will give him any Committee chair he wants.

  • Let’s face it. Lieberman has been Bush’s poodle for years and reveals himself as such more with each passing day. Any sign of buyer’s remorse from the people of Connecticut yet, or do they really agree with the nonsense he spouts?

  • We still didn’t have to “saddle” Gore. Gore was a spineless SOB for running away from, oh, the most successful president of the past 40 years. Gore would have fared better running as an extension of Clinton/Gore. He badly miscalculated when he chose to sever himself from a President with extraordinary approval ratings. I thought his petulant, almost Oedipal “I’ll prove I can be my own man” bit was stupid then; while I like Gore better now and he has done some redeeming things, his 2000 campaign tactics remain stupid in retrospect – including, and perhaps particularly, Lieberman.

  • Keep it up, guys. Better yet, send your comments directly to the good Senator from Connecticut (helpful hint: don’t include the white powder this time). In no time, Joe will pull a Jeffords on you.

  • Lieberphlegm is pro-escalation for Iraq and more war because it’s now all about getting Iran so Israel will feel more safe. Shrub’s debacle in Iraq was supposed to create a democracy that would be an ally to Israel which is why Lieberphlegm supported Shrub’s War in Iraq to begin with, not forgetting all the campaign contributions from military contractors, the icing on the cake. Now the Armageddon Administration headed by the semi-retarded Bush is supposed to get Iran next. By the way, Lieberphlegm was on his little ME outing with 5 Republithugs including John (it’s not torture if I can be president one day) McCain. Thanks for nothing, Connecticut! Maybe if we hurry and execute Hussein, there will be enough of an increase in violence to cover a staged attack on US forces, which we can blame on Iran. We all know what will happen after that.
    Lieberphlegm fully supports Shrub sending more troops to Iraq

  • Lieberman is already a Republican–and a Bush Republican at that–in one crucial respect: his “positions” are formed not by reality, but by his own unassailable opinions.

    It would be laughable were it not so tragic. Read Thomas Ricks’ “Fiasco”–the most depressing holiday present I’ve ever gotten for myself–if you want the gory details.

  • LIEberman always manages to forget that Iran is only meddling in Iraq because we made it both possible and necessary. What F**King idiot thought the “Axis of Evil” was high diplomacy I don’t know, but they have given Iran every reason in the world to see continuing disorder in Iraq for no other reason than to keep us there and out of Tehran. Syria has the same motivation because the Bushites believe groundless lies that the WMD was smuggled into Syria right before the invasion.

    I’m totally with Steve Clemens here. LIEberman is deeply responsible for the chaos and death ongoing in Iraq. Not as much as Cheney, BG2, Rumsfeld or even my own Senator John Warner, but responsible none the less.

    Thomas, it seems for you like so many NeoCons and Bushite supportors, apparantly the worse your guys screw up the world the less we have a right to point out their failures. If LIEberman can’t handle the truth let him betray his state and defect to the losing side. Two years from now there are far more vunerable Republican’t senators than Democratic senators, and he can join the permanent minority where he belongs.

  • Lance:

    I’m fine with your right to point out alleged failures. In fact, I hope Lieberman gets an earful every day up to and including the dayl he finally pulls a Jeffords on you guys. I doubt that will be very long with Pelosi and Reid in charge now. Keep it up, please.

  • Steve,

    There’s another glaring problem with this editorial I wanted to point out to you, and it’s not Lieberman who made it. This is what the WaPo put at the bottom of the editorial:

    “The writer is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.”

    Someone needs to patiently explain the following realities to the WaPo so as to avoid making this glaring mistake in the future:

    1. It’s true Lieberman is a senator, and it’s true he’s from Connecticut. But while Lieberman used to be a Democrat, he is NOT a Democrat anymore, just like Jim Jeffords is not an Independent Republican Senator from Vermont just because he used to be a Republican. Reagan used to be a Democrat, but he became a Republican, NOT a “Democratic Republican” Governor or President.

    2. Lieberman stopped being a Democrat when he joined the Connecticut for Lieberman party, after he his fellow Democrats showed him the door in Connecticut’s August 2006 primary elections.

    3. Jeffords and Lieberman are both INDEPENDENT, meaning they are men without a party. Both men have chosen to caucus with the Dems, but that does not make them Democrats.

    I should also point out that Senator Lieberman no longer has any business proclaiming he is for “bipartisan” consensus in the Senate, since he belongs to neither of the parties in question. That makes him an outside party to the entire discussion. If he wants to be an arbiter of bipartisanship, he would have to either become a Democrat again, or switch to the Republican party (which he has done in everything but name anyway).

    Just thought I’d point this out.

  • Funny thing, I’m not familiar with Lieberman’s voting record on most issues. In what way is he on the other side, besides this big one, the war?
    Ok, Ok, there was the bankruptcy bill, too.
    I am comfortable that he’s securly on the Dems side, because the Dems are used to working with diverse views. Unlike Dick (F.U.) Cheney & his lockstep group, the Dems can tolerate more than one view.
    Can we just ignore him on this?

  • Lance #8: That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. At this point, ’08 looks troublesome for the GOP in the Senate. If Lieberman were to jump ship, and the Senate reverts to BoyGeorgetheDeciderer’s rubber stamp, ’08 will be an absolute bloodbath for the GOP. Not even Lieberman is that short sighted.

  • Thomas,

    You again seem to think LIEberman has some right, after hearing the critiques of his failed positions, to go whinning off to join the Republican’ts. Is he such a f**king wimp than that any bad opinion of his obvious failures of logic and analysis is grounds to run away like a spoiled little child? Is that what you advocate? Is that what you admire? Is that what you hope for?

    It is a sad image you cut then, to encourage Joe not to stand up like a man and face his critics, but to run like a dog and hide behind your petticoats.

  • BT:

    While I think Joe’s official registration is “Independent” (that is a valid party in CT), he says he still considers himself an “Independent Democrat” (there were some of those after the Civil War in the 43rd through the 47th Congress). I’m not sure if that is an official party in CT, but would it satisfy you if it was? Also, do you think Harry Reid was right or wrong to give Joe his committee chair(s)?

  • Lance:

    Was that your opinion when Jeffords switched parties? As I said above, I certainly do hope Lieberman does the same.

  • Let Joe hitch his wagon to the Iraq surge and enjoy the same dire political consequences as McCain and Bush when voters realize that surges only create more “insurgents”.

  • “Also, do you think Harry Reid was right or wrong to give Joe his committee chair(s)?”

    “Is he such a f**king wimp than that any bad opinion of his obvious failures of logic and analysis is grounds to run away like a spoiled little child?

    Boy, I’ll tell you, the Dem party leaders really stood up to “the spoiled little child” post his win last election! Now tell me Lance, who’s the “f**king wimp”?

  • Buzzmon,

    My point is that Lieberman has forfeited his right to call himself a Democrat unless and until he declares himself an official member of the Democratic Party again. He left the party to form his own, and you cannot be both an Independent and a Democrat at the same time. It’s like saying you’re pregnant and you’re not pregnant at the same time, and it’s not just a matter of semantics. If he wants to call himself a Democrat, he should declare this in full, without the “Independent” qualifier attached. To be a maverick within the party is one thing, but he is a maverick without the right to call himself a Democrat until he unambiguously declares himself to no longer represent the shell game that is the “Connecticut for Lieberman Party”.

    This is not just about semantics. It’s about declaring to the world who you are and where you stand. Lieberman must either be a Democrat all the way in order to call himself a Democrat, or stop calling himself a Democrat. He can’t have it both ways, and nobody should allow him to get away with it.

  • Exactly, JRS Jr. Was Reid a “f**king wimp” right after the election he told Lieberman that he would recognize Lieberman as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which would facilitate Lieberman’s move into the post (technically, Carl Levin of Michigan is the senior committee member elected as an official Democrat).

    However, Lieberman had promised – before the election – that if he won he would continue voting with the Democratic Senate Caucus. Reid is evidently seeking to reward Lieberman for his loyalty with the chairmanship. Reportedly, Reid told Lieberman that if an unexpected challenge is made against him for the chairman’s post, Reid will side with Lieberman. Joe was chairman of then then-named Governmental Affairs Committee in 2001 (after Jeffords ironically) but lost it after the 2002 elections returned GOP control to the Senate. It was Lieberman who first called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security BTW. As an “Independent Democrat” or “Republican”, I am just glad he will be Chairman rather than Levin).

    P.S. to BT — please, please, make your opinion known to Reid and every other “Democrat” you can get in touch with. Please.

  • At the risk of feeding trolls: What are you going on about, Thomas? Jeffords did not switch to the Democratic party, the way you’re hoping Lieberman will jump to the repubs. Last I checked, both are Independents. Both won re-election as Independents. I don’t know if Jeffords would win an election as a Democrat, but Lieberman would go down in flames as a republican.

    Just because I don’t care for Lieberman, doesn’t mean I think he’s fundamentally stupid. Holy Joe isn’t going anywhere. He’s not that stupid.

  • JoeW:

    Joe may go if the Dems finally decide to withhold funding for Israel or Iraq (or worse yet, if we have to attack Iran). Perhaps you missed all the vindictive posts above? Jeffords switched because the White House forgot to invite him to a Teacher of the Year cermony, for God’s sake. And, if Joe is denied his Committee chairs, why wouldn’t he caucus with the GOP?

    BT:

    Did you know there were a DOZEN different parties whose candidates for 2nd President of the United States got at least one electoral votes? It’s not really that big of a deal to have more than two (2) national parties — in fact, some of our Founding Fathers were very concerned about there being ONLY two.

  • For the record, here are the past three Committee chairs for Governmental Affairs and then Homeland Security:

    Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) 1997-2001
    Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) 2001
    Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) 2001
    Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) 2001-2003
    Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) 2003-2007
    Joseph I. Lieberman (I/D-Conn.) 2007-?

  • Thomas & JRS, Jr.
    I enjoy your posts, and I am glad that you are here. And while I agree with each of you infrequently (yes, it does happen), the comments do need balance.
    Thomas, here’s a part of one of your comments:
    Jeffords switched because the White House forgot to invite him to a Teacher of the Year cermony, for God’s sake.
    Do you honestly believe that this is the case? I know that it happened, but I also know that Jeffords was a moderate, and Commander Codpiece don’t do moderate. Doesn’t youe oversimplification undercut your argument?

  • If you were having a party, and you arranged for all your guests who were already there to stay, while inviting others to arrive early, could that be construed as a “surge” of guests? Some people are failing to notice that such will be the case in Iraq – it won’t be a rush by fresh, well-equipped troops to turn the tide at the eleventh hour; it’ll be poor bastards who have managed to eke out their tour without being killed, now directed to stay a few more months. It’ll be troops who were trying to snatch a couple of months with family before being rotated back to the meat grinder, being rotated back early.

    Say what you like about Lieberman; he hasn’t been asked to sacrifice anything. During his 10-day tour of Iraq, do you suppose they gave him an M-16 and sent him out on patrol? Hell no. The most dangerous moments for him were landing and takeoff at the airport. He is looking at the war through the filter of the non-combatant, from where it is easy to dispense philosophical judgments on how necessary it is that the war be won by America. He posits that a withdrawal would be a “huge battlefield victory for Al Qaeda”. Leaving aside the oft-proved reality that Al Qaeda is a minority among the insurgents, what’s it going to look like if you throw everything you have into winning….and still lose?

    Lieberman’s editorial brought a storm of vituperation from commenters, because that reflects majority opinion and because he deserved it.

  • Anyway, getting back to Joe:

    “One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, ‘Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it.'”

    That kind of reminds me of the scene in Gettysburg where Pickett’s Virginians, having lost the charge, rally around General R.E. Lee and beg him to send them back in the fray again.

    I’m glad he at least had the clarity of vision by that point not to. Sad it is there is no man in power either here or in Iraq with similar clarity.

    30,000 more troops are not enough. 300,000 might do the job, but no less.

  • All of these comment and we’re overlooking the fact that, despite the advice of everyone in the entire world except McCain and Bush, Lieberman has called for the death of more US Soldiers. Hell has a special place for evil like those three.

  • CB wrote: Sen. Joe Lieberman (Neocon-Conn.) just returned from a 10-day visit to the Middle East …

    Since Sen. Lieberman is totally committed to the interest of Israel–over the interests of the United States (also known as an “Israel-firster”)–shouldn’t the above read: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I – Israel) [the “I” doesn’t stand for independent, but just Israel] just returned from a 10-day visit to the Middle East …

  • This is ALL “Stay The Course In Camouflage”
    Since KING ABDULLAH and the Saudi Royal Family
    are now the ones seemingly DICTATING FOREIGN POLICY to the U.S.
    (Via Dick Cheney’s summon last month to Saudi Arabia)
    It conveniently Helps Lieberman’s cause…
    Sure… Watch him take credit…
    Watch him do his Song and Dance
    (UGH!!! THAT WHIMPY VOICE…)
    But it’s ABDULLAH calling the Songs…
    ABDULLAH has ordered the U.S. to ESCALATE…
    In order to maintain STABILITY and BALANCE…
    American Troops will now be dying for SAUDI INTERESTS…
    Everything else is merely “Window Dressing”

  • A surge of troops to battle the insurgents will only leads to surge in action for the surgeons who will have to piece together the carnage wrought to give W’s polls a surge for his dismal ratings. How many lives must perish so that a few egos should live?

    Lieberman is the walking definition of a loose cannon: he is more dangerous to the friendly troops on his own ship that he is to the enemy he should be aimed at. And like all loose cannons, when the waters are stormy, lives and limbs will be lost before he finally is safely moored again.

    • Comments are closed.