• Not that this is surprising:

  WASHINGTON - As key Republican support for President Bush’s Iraq war strategy begins to erode, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman today urged fellow lawmakers and the public to give the American military surge time to work.

  “We’ve got to think not about the next election but the next generation,” he told a Capitol Hill news conference. The U.S. military surge, Lieberman contended, has the enemy “on the run.”

  “In places where the surge is focused,” he said, notably Anbar Province and elsewhere, “security is undeniably improving.”

  Yes, folks, keep your eyes on Anbar province (where just three soldiers were killed this week), and just ignore the 20 killed and 40 injuredin a car bomb today, and please, don’t glance at the 22 beheaded bodies found in Baghdad.  And those 13 Iraqis that were killed on Monday?  Or the 31 American soldiers that have died in the last 7 days? Take Lieberman’s advice, and think about the “next generation” (and not the generation that’s sacrificing life and limb on the battlefield, ok?)

  Lieberman, who recently visited Iraq, was asked whether he got solid, independent information that he could use in his judgment.

  “You’ve got to have confidence in our military leadership,” he explained, adding later, “I trust what they tell me.”

  Actually, it sounds like he trusts what the White House tells him, as Lieberman’s remarks were almost a carbon copy of the “Fact Sheet” released by the White House today.

  As more Republicans are forced to acknowledge the reality that the escalation has failed, clueless Joe continues to clings to his president, snuggling up closer to the “Commander Guy.” He is apparently unfazed by the growing body count, apparently not bothered by the stench of failure wafting from this president’s every action and every choice.  No, reality need not be acknowledged in the president’s shadow, for the darkness there, the thick atmosphere of ignorance that envelops all who bask in Bush’s presence, is so much more inviting to those enamored with war at any cost.

  

  
  Comments Off

• My Left Nutmeg captures the latest pukeworthy drivel from Lieberman:

  Here’s Joe on the Ray and Diane show from yesterday morning (mp3), in just his latest attack on Democrats - and Harry Reid in particular:

  Q. There was a big flap yesterday about some comments made by Harry Reid concerning Gen. Petraeus, and the outgoing Peter Pace, saying they were incompetent, basically. Is that useful, and do you know that to be true or not… It’s generally being reported in a lot of places.

  LIEBERMAN: I don’t know what Harry Reid is up to. I was very upset, even offended, by what he said about General Pace and General Petraeus. Look, you call General Pace incompetent? That’s abs - this is a man who has devoted his entire life to the Marine corps, the service of our country, defense of our country.

  Q. Why is he doing this? Why is Reid doing this?

  LIEBERMAN: I have no idea. Then to say that Petraeus is out of touch? I mean, Harry Reid in Washington says David Petraeus, who’s in Baghdad, away from his family, heroically trying to rally our forces and succeed over in Iraq… that he’s out of touch? I mean, it’s just - the danger here - my colleagues who have been opposed to the war have said “we’re opposed to the war, but we support our troops.” But when you start to attack the top two generals, you know, that’s… that’s wrong. I hope he apologizes, I just hope he misstated…

  So now the generals are “troops,” too. Poor grunt bastards.

  Look, I’m not military, but don’t the generals get the big bucks (in relative terms) and the brass trappings in exchange for taking the political heat?

  Have we really reached the point where criticizing generals — the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no less — is not “supporting the troops?” Give me a break, Joe. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for pulling that kind of crap. Doubly so because you won’t recognize it.

  Say what you will about Pace or Petraeus, neither of them would be so small as to hide beneath the “support the troops” blanket. They’re brass, and they take their medicine like grown-ups.

  Disgraceful.

  

  
  Comments Off

• Lieberman has been pushing an escalation of the war in Iraq claiming that a trip to Iraq convinced him to retreat on campaign promises that troop withdrawals would start this year. According to Lieberman, generals on the ground pleaded for more troops.

  Except that Sen. Susan Collins, who was also on the same trip, remembers things a little differently:

  Collins has written a column for the local Maine newspapers describing the discussions with commanders in some detail. The column hasn’t appeared in the newspapers yet, but her office has released an advance copy of what’s going to appear and sent one to me. Here’s what Collins wrote:

  In Basra, we met with British commanders who talked about the declining “consent line” — that is, when the British first arrived, their presence was welcomed by the population, but as time has gone on, their presence is less and less tolerated.

  Needless to say, there was much discussion in all of our meetings — whether with Iraqi leaders, American or British commanders, or rank-and-file troops — about whether or not more American troops are needed. My conclusion is that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. Prime Minister Maliki did not welcome the prospect of more American troops and indeed seemed frustrated that he did not have more control over his own troops. One American general told me that a jobs program in Baghdad would do more good than additional troops….

  The one region where an American commander, General Kilmer, did specifically express the need for more troops was in Anbar province. General Kilmer told us that he could use another brigade (about 3,000 troops) or even two to build on the positive developments in the region. I agree with his assessment, but think that a reallocation of troops, rather than an overall increase, could meet his need.

  Okay, so the British commanders told Collins that their presence was “less and less tolerated.” One American commander said outright that a “surge” wouldn’t do any good. And only one American commander said an increase might help — a small increase that could be solved by a reallocation. According to Collins’ account, then, not a single commander came anywhere near saying anything that could be construed as desiring — or even supporting — any kind of large scale increase.

  Yet Lieberman has repeatedly claimed that he emerged from these same discussions “strongly” convinced that an escalation is the right course of action. He even asserted that the commanders were “asking” for more troops. Either Collins or Lieberman is not leveling with us here.

  Collins is no saint, and she’ll get the Lincoln Chafee treatment in 2008. I mean, what “positive developments” in Anbar province could she possibly be talking about? But on the bigger picture, of whether generals are really asking to escalate the conflict, the evidence is firmly with the “hell no!” side. And Lieberman’s assertions to the contrary are more of the what we’ve come to expect from a man who will say and do anything to promote himself and his pet causes, no matter who else must be hurt or die in the process.

  

  
  Comments Off

• In an op-ed appearing in today’s Washington Post, Joe Lieberman manages to hit every talking point from the Bush administration to support the escalation of the war in Iraq.  From invoking September 11th, to denying the reality of civil war, to “victory in Iraq,” he doesn’t miss a beat.  Rarely has such delusional, disingenuous flag-waving been seen outside of a White House press conference.

  After taking care of the 9/11 reference in his opening paragraph, Lieberman lays out his case for escalation:

  Because of …the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable.

  Surely this isn’t the recent “coming together” he speaks of :

  Iraq’s most revered Shiite Muslim cleric has rejected calls for a U.S.-backed effort to form a bloc of moderate Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish leaders to isolate extremists in the government, Shiite leaders said Saturday.  […]

  
  Sistani’s endorsement of the proposal was considered key. But during the meeting, Shiite leaders said, Sistani called on them to keep the 130-member United Iraqi Alliance intact.

  For the record, that’s the alliance that includes Moqtada al-Sadr.  But Lieberman pretends that the proposed moderate alliance is alive and well because that means the war is winnable.  Much like he pretends that opposition to this war is simply frustration.

  The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action — and soon.

  What the American people think is needed is an end to this war, not an escalation of the mistake.  And beyond that, it’s frustrating to lose your keys.  It’s frustrating to be stuck in traffic.  To describe the American people’s feelings about this war as frustration is dismissive and insulting.

  
  Lieberman goes on to explain that the “most pressing problem” in Iraq is a lack of security.  One can’t help but wonder whether he required his own study group to come up with that bit of breaking news. And then, perhaps realizing that he had written several sentences without a recognizable talking point from the administration, Lieberman says:

  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.

  If?  Iraq descended into civil war long ago.  But ignoring that obvious reality, Lieberman moves onto the point of the op-ed:

  To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government.

  But does he believe it as strongly as he did last year when he said:

  If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007,

  Or as strongly as he did six months ago when he said:

  I believe, that we will be able to withdraw a significant number of our men and women in uniform from Iraq by the end of this year and even more by next year.

  Which belief should we believe?  Or more to the point, how many times can someone be wrong and still be taken seriously?  To be fair, Lieberman didn’t base everything on gut instinct.  He talked to military people in Iraq and they assured him that they wanted more troops.  Particularly touching was the anonymous plea Lieberman said he received to “finish the fight.”  It’s too bad he didn’t take the time to talk to people who were willing to give their names.    People like Spc. Don Roberts, who said:

  I don’t know what could help at this point. What would more guys do? We can’t pick sides. It’s almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions.

  Or Sgt. Josh Keim:

  Nothing’s going to help. It’s a religious war, and we’re caught in the middle of it. It’s hard to be somewhere where there’s no mission and we just drive around.

  But hey, what do they know?  They probably don’t believe strongly enough.  Lieberman says:

  In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.

  Like the one he described last November?

  Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

  It seems that sufficient troop strength would have been a part of a good plan and strategy for victory, doesn’t it?  Was he lying then or is he dissembling now?

   
  Lieberman finishes by saying:

  Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq.

  In other words, instead of facing reality and listening to what the American people want, we must continue and escalate the disastrous course in Iraq that we’ve followed for nearly four years. And somehow you know that this is something that Joe Lieberman strongly believes.

  

  
  Comments Off

RSS Feed