Senator Lieberman, This is Your War Too!

-

liebermancheney.jpg
Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He’s penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.
It’s a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America’s engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us.
In the very first paragraph, Lieberman writes:

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.

Many critics of this war — including this blogger — always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran’s “balancer” would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran’s pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman’s confession that he and others were warned of this and didn’t see it coming?
And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.
Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants — al-Maliki. Lieberman’s entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan.
Later in his esssay, Lieberman shifts the profile of his “thugs and extremists” to be those “who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.” Now, Iran seems to be out of the picture here — though they were a primary driver of his fear-mongering at the start of the piece.
He suggests that:

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. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq’s nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people.

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?
Zbigniew Brzezinski — who believes we should withdraw in order to trigger a round of stabilizing deal-making between the chief thugs inside Iraq — suggested in January 2005 that it would take 500,000 troops to occupy and stabilize Iraq. After considering the crimes at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the collapse of America’s moral prestige, Brzezinski said that not even that number of troops might succeed.
So, what is Lieberman suggesting other than doubling up on an extremely bad bet he and others made on a war that should not have been fought? Lieberman, who is smart on so many other issues, has become utterly blind when it comes to sensible applications of military force and American influence.
Lieberman writes:

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

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?
Lieberman mentions a single colonel who ran up to him and said: “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.”
Lieberman needed to talk to more colonels. I hear from a lot of them — and from less decorated soldiers in the field. The views on this war are mixed and the morale among our soldiers low as it has taken the President years to finally see that victory was not ever achieved.
This is Bush’s war. But it is Joseph Lieberman’s too — and every Member of the House of Representatives and Senate who don’t have the ability to open their eyes and be square with the public that huge mistakes were made and that America’s precipitous loss of influence in the world can’t be easily fixed.
The first step though is assuring Americans that the same kind of reckless gamble that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Lieberman-types in Congress won’t be made again.
But what does Lieberman want to do — just pour more American dollars and American lives into the morass of Iraq.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

60 comments on “Senator Lieberman, This is Your War Too!

  1. Shawn says:

    Lieberman makes no sense and completely contradicts himself multiple times in his piece.
    He even went so far as to claim that the Sunnis have been “ruthlessly attacking the Shiites”.
    I think he made up about 60-70% of his “facts”. If he is right in claiming the following, then I think names are in order: In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops.
    Lieberman should state what the ‘evidence’ is: I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army

    Reply

  2. NH Dem says:

    A remarkable exercise in carefully wordsmithed dishonesty. Examples:
    “After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province…”
    Note that he doesn’t say that the commanders and soldiers encouraged him in that belief, or were in any way responsible for it, or that he didn’t believe precisely the same thing before speaking with them. He just says “After A was true, B was true,” and leaves it to us to assume that B became true because of A.
    “The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.” And when this pet idea of mine fails utterly, I will earnestly point out that the surge didn’t meet one or both of these criteria, so I’ll bear no responsibility for its failure.
    “…the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran…” Is this meaningfully true? Is Iran really sponsoring and/or arming the Mahdi Army to any significant extent? Aren’t they pretty much backing the Badr Organization to the hilt? I’m not 100% certain of the answers to these questions, but I know that my faith in Lieberman’s desire to give honest answers to them is exactly zero.

    Reply

  3. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads, I hadn’t looked closely at the picture Steve put up of Cheney and Loserman…
    An appropriate caption…….
    “Then, after Lindy got the leash on ‘im, I took a broomstick and….”

    Reply

  4. eatbees says:

    Steve, I think you’re making a comeback in terms of principled opposition and slow-burning righteous indignation. Unlike most commentators in the big newspapers, you understand that America bears a moral burden for what is happening in Iraq. Keep beating that drum. It’s too late to fix now, but at least we have the duty not to make it worse with more troops (and still no plan) or God forbid, an attack on Iran. You hit all the right points here, and we need that clarity.
    Thanks for reminding us about Brzezinski’s stance. I saw him speak at Columbia in 1989 and he was predicting the imminent fragmentation of the Soviet Union. No one would have believed it then, but just two years later, look what happened. If this eminent realist believes that a U.S. withdrawal will make Iraq more stable, not less, I’m willing to bet he’s got it right again.

    Reply

  5. MP says:

    “Second, if you outlaw lobbying, what happens to all the “good” lobbying groups–and how do we tell the difference so that one is outlawed and the other isn’t? Include yours and ET’s.”
    Name one other lobby group that has been caught in actual criminal acts of espionage against the USA.”
    I don’t know that AIPAC, the organization, has been accused of spying. Individual employees have been and, I believe, they are being (properly IMO) tried. Not sure where those trials stand.
    I assume that you can distinguish between individuals and the organizations they work for. After all, many of our worst spies have worked for the Navy, the FBI, and the CIA, not to mention other government organizations.
    As to other countries, even our friends, spying on us, I believe that’s been fairly common.
    As to whether AIPAC is “just like any other lobby,” I believe W&M, no friends of The Lobby, assert that they are, though much more effective at what they do than most. In fact, W&M go out of their way to say that AIPAC, as an organization, acts legally and does what all lobbying groups do–try to influence public policy.
    MJ Rosenberg, a former AIPAC employee, and no friend of AIPAC at all, has asserted at tpmcafe that AIPAC doesn’t have the power to get politicans elected or defeated–any more than any other powerful lobby.
    I happen to agree with you that AIPAC’s position, at least now, is right-wing and works against peace in the ME, so I oppose them. If it turns out that AIPAC is simply an espionage front, then I will support their prosecution.
    BTW, Carroll’s point SEEMED to argue against ALL lobbying as a perversion of the democratic process. So I was speaking to what I thought her point was.

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    ONCE AGAIN, FOR MP…………
    Name one other lobby group that has been caught committing espionage against the USA.
    (Lets bury this fucking LIE that “AIPAC is just like any other lobby group” for once and for all.)
    ANSWER THE QUESTION, MP.

    Reply

  7. Alex says:

    Right on, Steve.
    Every day I become a little bit more convinced that the future of Israel is toast, and that understandably terrifies the likes of Joe Lieberman.
    The mind’s capacity to delude onself is truly fascinating and the range of potential exit strategies from the perpetual hunt for ponies that is the morass of the war on terror is amazing. One of my favorites is the amusing Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ salvation exit strategy…apparently some folks don’t realize that the Left Behind series is fiction.
    And if we could just vaporize the UN, we’d find the prettiest pony of all, eh, Robert?
    All this while right under the noses of the American people the single most anti-US Constitution crowd ever hides in plain sight.

    Reply

  8. Silver Warrior says:

    LaDainian Tomlinson is the correct spelling.
    And check out the community work this amazing person and truly gifted athlete does. Talks with lots of little kids and says “hey, you don’t have to be violent.” Yeah. There are people other than those of the Joe L. Archtype.
    And here we go: S. Hussein has just been executed.

    Reply

  9. Silver Warrior says:

    McCain – Lieberman is being arranged now by the script writers in Cable/Cabal/MSM conference. There will be some awful crisis and mass mind will follow the lead. Unless Paul Revere sees the signal and goes for a ride, don’t ya know Robbin Williams, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Shakira, Beyonce, You Tube, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Vince Young, LeDainian Tomlinson, Spearhead, Collective Soul, Laurie Anderson, Carlos DelGado, maybe Chuck Hegal, certainly me and you. Gonna let ’em go on are we?

    Reply

  10. ... says:

    aipac? lol.. political science for 200..

    Reply

  11. David says:

    Never should have lost sight of the fact that Lieberman supported Reagan/HW’s Contra War against Nicaragua. Lieberman’s good on the issues on which he makes sense, but mind-numbingly misguided on US military aggression. I don’t think it’s just Israel, because I don’t see how supporting the Contra War bore any significant connection to Israeli interests beyond the fact that the Reagan administration was able to secure the assistance of Israel in its homicidally misguided arming of the Contras.
    Another problem that emerged after he lost the Democratic primary is just how egotistical he is, although he is an amateur compared to Henry Kissinger.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    “Second, if you outlaw lobbying, what happens to all the “good” lobbying groups–and how do we tell the difference so that one is outlawed and the other isn’t? Include yours and ET’s.”
    Name one other lobby group that has been caught in actual criminal acts of espionage against the USA.

    Reply

  13. Matthew says:

    PrahaPartizan: And to think this guy almost became the Vice President of the United States. What was Al Gore thinking?

    Reply

  14. PrahaPartizan says:

    Matthew, I do seem to recall that Lieberman has been tagged as the senior Senator from Israel on a number of occassions. I burned a number of weekends volunteering in Lamont’s campaign so we could get rid of this incompetent bum. We send our representatives and senators to Congress because of their good judgement and his article displays clearly that Lieberman offers none worth exercising.

    Reply

  15. Matthew says:

    Joe Lieberman is the greatest Senator in the Knesset.

    Reply

  16. pauline says:

    “Every week another apologist for President Bush compares “Bush’s fight for Iraqi freedom” to Abraham Lincoln’s “fight to free the slaves.” The American civil war was not fought to “free the slaves,” as Thomas DiLorenzo and other scholars have thoroughly documented, any more than the purpose of Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq was to “bring freedom to Iraqis.” The freedom excuse was invented after it became impossible to maintain the fictions about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connections to Osama bin Laden. Bush has yet to tell the real reason he invaded Iraq.”
    “When scholars, such as John Walt and Stephen Mearsheimer, or President Jimmy Carter, who has tried harder than anyone else to achieve Arab-Israeli peace, point out that Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians is a cause of Middle East turmoil, they are immediately denounced as anti-Semites. Columnists and academics who know nothing about the Middle East or its troubles nevertheless know what they are supposed to say whenever anyone mentions Israel in any critical context. And they have no compunction about saying it, the truth be damned.”
    http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10239

    Reply

  17. MP says:

    The problem with Rubinstein’s quote: “Lieberman has the duty to serve his God and the people of his God, His people, before he serves the people of his country, and, if necessary, at their expense.<<
    Except that the expression is God and Country. It says nothing about “his people” and nothing about favoring one people over another at anyone’s expense.

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    rubensteins comment >>When speaking of Loyalties the phrase is always “God and Country,” i.e., God first, Country second. Lieberman has the duty to serve his God and the people of his God, His people, before he serves the people of his country, and, if necessary, at their expense.<<
    you are saying that liebermans loyalty lies with his jewish faith and those of the jewish faith(israel) more then his tie to the usa…
    i am impressed with your honesty.. it is too bad americans are slow to wake up about lieberman and others who have been elected to serve their religions first over their country- usa… one day it may happen, hopefully before the usa becomes the backward republic it is rapidly becoming..

    Reply

  19. Marcia says:

    Off subject but so typical.
    “TOWNSEND: Well, I’m not sure — it’s a success that hasn’t occurred yet. I don’t know that I view that as a failure.”
    In a nut (literally) shell from an interview on CNN concerning the capture of Bin Laden, the administration’s “philosophy”. You cut the pieces in the jig-saw puzzle to fit the opening.

    Reply

  20. Marcia says:

    “But what does Lieberman want to do — just pour more American dollars and American lives into the morass of Iraq”
    It looks as though he wants to go to Teheran, that he is actually ready to roll the dice for Iran. That was the plan–total make-over of the ME
    L’oracle à Crésus (d’après Hérodote).
    Comme l’oracle ne doit pas se tomper, les réponses sont souvent ambiguës, ainsi, en 546 av JC, Crésus, roi de Lydie, demande à l’oracle s’il doit partir en guerre contre Cyrus le roi des Perses. L’oracle lui répond :
    « Si tu fais la guerre aux Perses, tu détruiras un grand empire. » Crésus part en guerre, mais il est battu et
    fait prisonnier, il revient donc à Delphes accuser le dieu de l’avoir trompé, la Pythie lui réplique :
    « Tu aurais dû demander au dieu de quel empire il parlait, le tien ou celui de Cyrus ? ».
    The Cheney-Bush war-lords with their ever dwindling number of courtisans, Lieberman and hangers-on, are still capable of accomplishing a huge amount of damage before 2008.
    Their dismal poll numbers are the only positive aspect of the situation, but unless Congress takes action not even the Pythie can know what the next catastrophe will be.

    Reply

  21. Tony Foresta says:

    Tragically, the Lieberman-McCain-Bush government “surge” approach is most likely the policy America and unfortunately our military will be forced to hazard and burden. The fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government, like Lieberman are pathologically narcissitic and selfabsorbed. So long as they can continue pimping the hollow promise of some better day, sometime in the unknown unknown future, – they are perfectly willing to continue slaughtering innocent Iraqi’s, wasting our fine soldiers, and heaping the terrible enormous costs of the Iraq horrorshow on the shoulders of our children.
    The Bush government is bent on stretching the Iraq horrorshow out through the 2008 election, and discarding the catastrophe on the next leadership. The Bush government propagandists, sloganeers, and disinformation warriors will then majikally lay the blame for the entire bloody, costly, deceptive, noendinsight horrorshow on Clinton, libruls, and “demoncrats” – proclaim themselves as righteous christian warriors in an eternal struggle against evildoer – and of course continue relentlessly profiteering wantonly from the war, occupation, and reconstruction.
    Deliver us from evil.

    Reply

  22. vachon says:

    Oh no. I just flashed on a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Note to self: increase meds asap.

    Reply

  23. bob h says:

    The real threat today seems to originate from the Pakistani-connected/Sunni jihadists, as in the recent aborted Heathrow aircraft bombing plot. For Lieberman to suggest that Iran is behind all this just shows him to be a demagogue.

    Reply

  24. MP says:

    Carroll, care to cite the quote?
    A couple of things…
    • First, I don’t see the word “traitor” there, nor mention of the punishment that true traitors are due.
    • Second, if you outlaw lobbying, what happens to all the “good” lobbying groups–and how do we tell the difference so that one is outlawed and the other isn’t? Include yours and ET’s.
    • Third, Lieberman has not sworn “alleignce to Israel instead of America.” He believes that he is working for America’s interests and, apparently, citizens of Connecticut agree with him enough to have re-elected him. He certainly hasn’t hidden his feelings about Israel or the Iraq War for that matter.
    • Fourth, if you don’t like the likes of Lieberman, all you have to do is vote him out. He was certainly vulnerable this time around. As was Chafee.
    • Fifth, it seems that the US has ALWAYS played favorites with certain nations and disfavored others. In fact, your plan for bringing back jobs to the US will involve favoring certain nations over others–heavily.
    Anyway, all of this is a matter of policy and strong feelings about it. None of it is a matter of treason. I like your quote though. Pass on the cite when you have time.

    Reply

  25. pauline says:

    from NYTimes 10/05/06 —
    Lieberman Queries Lamont Over Commitment to Israel
    Senator Joseph I. Lieberman questioned his opponent’s commitment to Israel at a fund-raiser in Manhattan yesterday, saying he had received important support from several Democrats who have been critical of Israel. Speaking to a largely Jewish group of a few dozen supporters, Mr. Lieberman said that Ned Lamont, who …
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10612FB3E540C768CDDA90994DE404482
    Hello Mr Lieberman! Try looking down at the ground you are standing on! It’s called the United States of America. If your priorities, actions and beliefs (other than for your own personal power and money gains) are so pro-Israel, please kindly move there. This country needs (and demands through the oath of office) leaders who place America first, second, third and fourth. Get it? Were you crossing your fingers when you took your oath of office?? All your arguments about who cares the most about Israel only underscores your total lack of concern for the USA.

    Reply

  26. Carroll says:

    George Washington nailed the AIPAC’ers and the pro- zionist, and other groups like them operating in America today a long time ago….the constitution needs to be updated to define this type of treason….
    “So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases **** where no real common interest exists, and ***infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
    ** And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens ****(who devote themselves to the favorite nation), ****facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
    Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and ****serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
    **Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, ****to surrender their interests.
    However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and ****unprincipled men will be enabled to ***subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. ”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Read the last sentence carefully….”destroying afterwards the very engines..(free speech, diversity, representation,ect)..which have lifited them to unjust dominion”….
    Most of us recongize the use of our “democratic engines”..like “free speech” which they pervert to ‘lobbying”, like “representation” which they also pervert to buying influence, like “diversity” which they pervert to anti-semitism slurs.. ..and use as “rights” and justifications for a group of American jews to swear alleignce to Israel instead of America, to lobby for foreign interest even when it is not in America’s interest and use America and it’s citizens for their own interest in a **foreign country.
    If it walks talks and quacks like a traitor it’s a traitor. *A rose by any other name..is still a rose.* I am not ‘surrendering my American interest” for anyone so whoever takes offense at the truth is welcome to bring it on….

    Reply

  27. Dalivision says:

    Do we need to worry that the senator will move to the other side of the aisle? With Johnson in critical condition his move to the other side will make it 52-48 or is my count off?

    Reply

  28. MP says:

    Bakho writes: “Outside of his youthful support for civil rights (many organizations back then excluded both Jews and Blacks so self-interest was involved) when has Lieberman demonstrated smart?”
    He beat the Democratic candidate, didn’t he? Which makes him a smarter than Ned Lamont, at least as far as getting elected goes. Unless, of course, you believe in losing for the cause.
    In the larger sense, as MLK pointed out when he said that no man is free when one man is a slave, civil rights was and is in ALL of our self-interests. But you’re right: Oppression of Jews has made Jews highly sensitive to the suffering of others.
    But, of course, not in all cases. Read the Prophets, and you’ll discover that the Jews may be God’s LEAST favorite people.

    Reply

  29. hemlock says:

    Were Joe truly a friend of Israel *AND* an American patriot, he would welcome 2007 with a magnum of Tattinger Brut La Polonium ’06.

    Reply

  30. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve,
    You say:
    *Many critics of this war — including this blogger — always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran’s “balancer” would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran’s pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman’s confession that he and others were warned of this and didn’t see it coming?*
    I think Lieberman *did* see it coming. The difference between normal people like you, Steve, and fanatics like Lieberman, is that Lieberman is *glad* there is a broader, regional struggle underway. Catalyzing such a struggle, spreading war and “creative destruction”, and riding them to a revolutionary transformation of the Middle East was the plan of Lieberman and his radical neocon buddies from the very begining. I’m not speculating or positing conspiracy theories – look at their speeches and writings from the days before the war.
    The details might be somewhat different than they expected, and consequently managing the domestic politics has been more challenging than they hoped. But overall, things are moving in the direction they want. Lieberman is a supporter of a World War to defeat the “terror masters” in Iran, crush Islamists and any remaining Arab nationalists everywhere, and bring about the pro-American, pro-Israel Golden Age in the Middle East.

    Reply

  31. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “I think it’s correct to say our constitutional definitions of treason haven’t yet “legally” caught up to the AIPAC mode of operation, but the public has already and increasingly called it treason…that is what counts.”
    Only if you don’t believe in the rule of law…and don’t believe that the Constitution is the law of the land. In which case, Bush probably has a job for you. Even W&M and Carter will tell you that AIPAC operations–except for those instances of actual espionage — are legal. Sorry, but true.

    Reply

  32. Capeman says:

    Sen. Lieberman (Me-and-only-me-CT) appears to be on the McCain track, hoping that he can suggest something that won’t be done so as to be able to say, “See, you should have done what I said to do” when the occupation ends in failure in Iraq.
    Not one more American soldier should die or be wounded in this folly, no, travesty, no, disaster, of an occupation. First, I need a clarification on a definition. What the hell is a “full-scale civil war”? Are we waiting for General Lee to march 50,000 troops to the Green Zone? If so, there will never be one. This civil war is different, a war of snipers, IEDs, and suicide bombers. More soldiers can’t stop these types of attacks from happening. More American soldiers only means more targets. The Iraqi army/police force is so infiltrated that nobody has any body’s back. In addition, fake soldiers and police make it so that one cannot trust that the roadblock up ahead or the policeman at the door is legitimate.
    Soldiers will always think any war is winnable, that is how they are trained. If they aren’t winning, there is a reason too few troops, too few weapons. Maybe, as noted, if there were a half a million soldiers at the beginning of the occupation, the story would have been different. Too late for that. We are now at the Yanqui go home phase of the war. We don’t speak the language, we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, all we can do is kill indiscriminately.
    “Kill them all. God will know his own.”
    This war and occupation was ill-conceived, ill-considered, and ill-managed. And it makes me ill to think that a US Senator is so delusional that he thinks that this can end up any other way but badly. More soldiers means more casualties, not victory. We won the war but lost the occupation. There is nothing one more soldier’s death will do to change that.

    Reply

  33. bAkho says:

    “Lieberman, who is smart on so many other issues” WTF? Outside of his youthful support for civil rights (many organizations back then excluded both Jews and Blacks so self-interest was involved) when has Lieberman demonstrated smart?
    Neutering of the SEC? Pandering to corporate interests? Enron hearings? Not standing for counting all the ballots in FL fairly? His failure in the debate with Cheney? Being the VP nominee but refusing to campaign on Saturdays? His criticisim of Clinton? His constant repetition of GOP talking points on talk show and open criticism of Democrats? His lack of criticism of ANY Republicans or Republican policies? Is he a mole?
    The GOP correctly nailed him in 2000 as “Loserman”.

    Reply

  34. Carroll says:

    Heheheh…I love all this alice down the rabbit hole reasoning about Lieberman’s loyalties…and all the definitions of treason.
    I think it’s correct to say our constitutional definitions of treason haven’t yet “legally” caught up to the AIPAC mode of operation, but the public has already and increasingly called it treason…that is what counts.

    Reply

  35. S Brennan says:

    Great post Steve, two thumbs way up, five stars, kudos.
    Lieberman really is the dullest tool in the shed.

    Reply

  36. PUBLIUS says:

    “The War on Terra(h)”
    Take note:
    http://www.reliefweb.int/mapc/afr_ne/reg/hornofafrica.html
    Let’s see if the front page of this Sunday’s New York Times will enlighten the public on this question: what are they doing in our name? …

    Reply

  37. alan says:

    However annoying it is to contemplate, Rubenstien, above, is basically correct in his thoughts, and he is well supported by none other than Alexander Hamilton a founding father of your government who wrote,
    “Let an association be formed to be denominated ‘The Christian Constitutional Society.’ Its objects to be:
    “1st. The support of the Christian religion.
    “2d. The support of the Constitution of the United States.”
    It is clear by these words that Hamilton believed that loyalty to ones religion super-ceded loyalty to ones country; or, better put, ones religion should determine ones allegiances first and foremost, and one must use the precepts of ones religion, and the God of that religion, to inform ones decisions before taking direction from secular documents.
    Thus, it would necessarily follow, that the well-being of ones co-religionists takes precedence over the general mass population of ones country.
    Hamilton would understand Lieberman’s machinations fully, although Hamilton, not being a Jew, would have to consider first whether Lieberman’s position was good for Christians, and lastly consider what was for the good of the country as a whole.

    Reply

  38. MP says:

    Is Lieberman a traitor? Here from Wikipedia:
    “To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or “in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating treason-like offense with different names (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) that do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
    The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.
    In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed.
    After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson when he left office in 1869.
    Several people generally thought of as traitors in the United States, including Jonathan Pollard, the Walker Family, Robert Soblen, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were not prosecuted for treason, but rather for espionage. John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” fighter in Afghanistan, was also thought of as a traitor by many. However, instead of being tried for treason, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder US nationals, aiding the Taliban and terrorist offenses relating to Al Qaeda, even though he joined the Taliban during the period before the September 11, 2001 attacks.
    Senator Joseph McCarthy referred to “twenty years of treason” (1933–1953, the administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman) when numerous communist spy rings involving hundreds of agents were operating inside the United States government. As documented in the VENONA papers, these rings included the Rosenbergs ring, the Perlo group, the Nathan Silvermaster group, the Harold Ware group, the Jacob Golos group, the Karl group, etc. (During World War II, when some of this activity occurred, the United States and the USSR were allies in the war against Germany, and the United States and the Soviet Union were never at war.)”

    Reply

  39. yahaddasayit says:

    Ruby, you are a funny guy. At least I hope your post was intended to be for the purpose of entertainment only. However…
    During the run-up to the Iraq invasion I kept asking myself why the NYT and WaPo kept pushing for military engagement in light of all the contrary facts and opinions they themselves were printing. Then I read an article by some Jewish guy calling on his fellow Jews to state their position related to Israel if they sought publication. I believe this article was in the NYT. He said the American public deserved to be forewarned of any hidden prejudice or divided allegiance. I coupled this with something I heard Dennis Prager once say on his radio show when he was backed into a corner by someone with a difference of opinion on an Israel related topic. Dennis said that any non anti-semite in America would be sympathetic to Israel’s cause.
    It is sad that some obvious variable such as religion can be used to exploit humanity after all these centuries of “progress”. To so readily accept killing other humans because you don’t have a minimal intelligence to see through religious simplicity keeps you just simpletons. Admittedly, dangerous ones.
    And that applies to ALL religions(but I’m still checking into the Sufis).

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    Joe is determined to get a war on with Iran isn’t he.
    The only people on earth that still think Iraq can be “won” or that attacking Iran is a good idea are the Israeli cultist, the political pandering cultist and the retarded.
    Instead of executing Saddam, we should keep him alive and in prision to preach his new found “non hate” mantra and execute all the “PNAC” and “Clean Break” people instead…that would do more to unite the Iraqis than anything else.

    Reply

  41. joejoejoe says:

    Well said Steve.

    Reply

  42. Ben Rosengart says:

    Lieberman’s “Highest Power” is Lieberman. I do not believe that all this talk of other allegiance is useful or credible.

    Reply

  43. Zathras says:

    Sen. Lieberman may in this case be a good indicator of White House thinking. I’m sorry to say this, as I see no reason to think that a modest increase in troop numbers around the Baghdad area for a short period of time will change anything substantial in this war. At best it will mean that basic decisions in Washington can be postponed for three months or so instead of being taken now.
    There is one caveat to this, however, that we should consider carefully. At some point during most modern civil wars a point of exhaustion is reached; stress on the civilian population, damage to the infrastructure of contending armed groups, and dim prospects for any of these groups to attain through fighting the objectives to which their leadership are committed combine to make continued offensive operations less attractive. Sometimes this provides an opening for a political settlement, as in the Balkans ten years ago; sometimes it only produces a momentary pause before new issues arise, and/or the armed groups recover enough strength to make a new try at achieving their objectives through violence, as in several of the last decade’s civil wars in Africa.
    This state of exhaustion will manifest itself in Iraq at some point. We can’t say when. We can say that when it does, many Americans will ascribe the resulting decrease in violence to the most recent American policy decision, whether this is to send more troops into Baghdad or to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.
    Now, it is always possible that American actions can have some influence on the course of the fighting in Iraq and on Iraqi politics. The history of other civil wars, however, strongly suggests that any likely American action in Iraq will be much less influential than the simple cumulative burden of years of violence and disorder.
    In putting forward this caveat I am not advocating a specific course of action. As I’ve written here before, I do not consider the future of one, mid-sized Arab country to be central to America’s own, and have long regarded the commitment in Iraq as an expensive adventure that needs to be liquidated, sooner rather than later and regardless of what this means for Iraq itself. The reality is that my view is not widely shared among policymakers in Washington, and that being the case I think it right to note one key but little-discussed variable likely to affect the situation in Iraq regardless of what the Bush administration chooses to do there.

    Reply

  44. Sue says:

    from Ned Lamont’s website:
    http://nedlamont.com/issues/27/iraq
    “Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.”
    Ned never asked for a quick withdrawal.

    Reply

  45. Frank says:

    Oy vey.. This op ed once again reveals how much of an Israeli national treasure Lieberman is.
    Little Joe will never live that dem primary down. His subsequent actions and comments, like his latest op ed, has even more enshrined that humiliating “kick” out of the dem party in Ct.
    Ct democrats will forever be remembered for its prescience in unmasking this Isaeli shill. What has been, has been, and the democrats, sick of this criminal war, have had their Connecticutt hour.

    Reply

  46. RJ says:

    Steve-
    Thank You!! Only if the MSM would report your wise opinions would I be content. Keep up the great work you are doing my fellow American.
    RJ,Colonel, USAF(Ret)

    Reply

  47. Rubenstein says:

    When speaking of Loyalties the phrase is always “God and Country,” i.e., God first, Country second. Lieberman has the duty to serve his God and the people of his God, His people, before he serves the people of his country, and, if necessary, at their expense.
    Iran is a grave threat to Israel, and thus to Lieberman’s true people. He is duty bound under God to protect Israel, his people, with whatever means are at his disposal. Not to do so would be traitorous to the Highest Power, his God. Lieberman uses his power and influence in the United States to defend his people, which is the highest service he can give onto his God.
    Iran must be cut asunder for the good of Israel and Lieberman hopes to grease the wheels for this in the minds of the feeble thinking American masses. He knows what buttons to push, and although you here see through his designs, most of the American population can not, and will support war against Iran when the time comes after the stage is well set.
    The Chutzpah is always a few steps ahead of the American masses.
    God first; Country second; and always your Country in the service of your God. Amen.

    Reply

  48. MP says:

    Thanks, Publius, for always contributing to a serious discussion.

    Reply

  49. Cycledoc says:

    Kerry/Lieberman ????????
    I wonder how Connecticut voters feel now?

    Reply

  50. Dan says:

    Furthermore, in this “coming regional war” just who’s side are we going to be on?
    Let’s see.
    Majority of Iraqis are Shi’ite, who are strongly connected to Iran. Minority Sunnis are the insurgents against us, but are brothers to the Saudis. Hezbollah are brothers to Iraqi Shi’ites. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are Sunni brothers.
    Uh, just who is on our side?

    Reply

  51. Dan says:

    Steve,
    Well said.
    You know I’m starting to be really glad that Kerry/Lieberman lost in 2004.

    Reply

  52. PUBLIUS says:

    Well said. What’s most troubling in Lieberman’s remarks is: “a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran …”
    Senator Lieberman, predictably, appears to be positioning himself squarely in the camp of the neoconservative delusionists who favor escalating military tensions with Iran or outright expansion of the “war against terrah” to include military hostilities with Iran. We can predict that these military hostilities will soon be marketed in the guise of “defensive” doctrines of the laws of war, not unlike the unchallenged and failed tactics of another Middle East state in recent years.
    Senator Lieberman’s recent re-election underscores the folly of having permitted challenging candidate Ned Lamont to remain persistently wedded to the unserious suggestion he offered of supporting the withdrawal of American troops immediately or precipitously. This is a great pity. Lieberman should have been removed from office for helping give birth to this disaster.
    I heartily agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s analysis of the force size needed to remedy this mess by providing the security necessary before any hope of democratizing or stabilizing this war zone can be achieved. (I naturally assume his suggestion of withdrawal of AMERICAN troops is made with due concern for prudent timing rather than the precipitous withdrawal advocated unwisely by Lamont in his public remarks during the campaign season.) As I have always argued, the differential between the current U.S. force size and the sufficient number needed for remedying this situation must be satisfied through contributions from allied nations. Unfortunately, that remains an unrealistic option under the current administration. No nation is likely to offer significant troops to this enterprise under George Bush’s leadership.
    Interestingly, Brzezinski seems to allow for the possibility – even in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, demolition of civilian homes in Iraq by U.S. forces, etc. – that a serious stabilization force approaching half a million troops might provide basic security through neutralization of the chaos in Iraq. Yet again, such a force would have to be seriously multilateral if there is to be any hope of success.
    We wait to hear what the commander-in-chief has to say about solving the mess he, Senator Lieberman, Bill Kristol and the rest of the PNAC crowd created. I do not expect serious commitment – in rhetoric maybe, in application no – to the political and diplomatic solutions necessary to improve the situation in the final two years of this presidency. The narrowly divided Congress is in no position of strength to force important policy changes by the Executive branch on this matter.
    In sum, the next two years will most likely create more cause for lamentation by realists and those of us concerned with recovering our national prestige. More reason to focus on planning for 2008 and the ensuing task of repairing the damage that will have been done to our alliances and national interest over the preceding 8 years…

    Reply

  53. tomz says:

    Hey Joe, if you want more troops, ask your benefactors in Israel to send them. Traitor.

    Reply

  54. John says:

    “Lieberman, who is smart on so many other issues, has become utterly blind when it comes to sensible applications of military force and American influence.” That’s what happens when you represent Likud.

    Reply

  55. pauline says:

    A fitting caption under the Lieberman/Cheney photo
    might be, ” Look, Joe, I know you find it hard to believe. . .but Bush is God.”
    A U.S. military officer told CBS News Thursday that Saddam Hussein would be turned over to the Iraqi government within the next 36 hours. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports the officer expects that the Iraqis will execute their former leader before the start of the Eid religious holiday on Sunday.
    Al-Dulaimi, speaking from Amman, Jordan, said he could not say when the handover will be, or when Saddam’s expected execution will happen.
    Al-Dulaimi warned that turning over Saddam to the Iraqis would increase the sectarian violence that already is tearing the country apart.
    “If the American administration insists in handing the president to the Iraqis, it would commit a great strategic mistake which would lead to the escalation of the violence in Iraq and the eruption of a destructive civil war,” he said.
    Issam Ghazzawi, another member of Saddam’s defense team, said there was no way of knowing when Saddam’s execution would take place.
    “The only person who can predict the execution of the president … is God and Bush,” Ghazzawi said on Thursday.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/28/iraq/main2304318.shtml

    Reply

  56. Hans Suter says:

    It’s a wild mixing of thugs, terrorists, extremists, insurgents etc. e.g. on 9 11 extremists attacked, not terrorists.

    Reply

  57. JB (not John Bolton) says:

    It astounds me that anyone – anyone – pays attention to what Lieberman says.
    He is narcissism personified.

    Reply

  58. Pissed Off American says:

    Steve seems to have a hard time recognizing the Israeli influence on many our politicions. He doesn’t yet accept that Lieberman works for Israel, not for the United states.

    Reply

  59. pauline says:

    from Joe’s own site —
    “AIPAC is an organization of American patriots committed to promoting America’s interest in strengthening ties with our democratic ally Israel. Since its founding fifty years ago, AIPAC has served its fellow Americans by promoting peace, justice and security in the Middle East and beyond. AIPAC deserves our gratitude and support for its important service and devotion to our country.”
    http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=225627&&
    I wonder what AIPAC means by “peace”? I suppose it depends on what the the word “is” is?

    Reply

  60. MP says:

    Steve: What can one say, except: Amen.
    The ability to admit one’s mistakes and change course should be a requirement for all politicians. Maybe they should receive mandatory therapy post election and before they take the reins of power.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *