Must reading on the Joe Lieberman front.
Apparently Joe deliverd another lecture on Iraq from the pages of the Wall
Street Journal, encouraging, nay demanding, that we all shut up and let he,
George and Dick have their way in Iraq. Glenn
Greenwald exposes Joe's lies quite
effectively:Lieberman has
stood up today to assure us that we now have a great, brand new strategy in
Iraq, that the fundamental problems with our prior tactics have been fixed, and
that it is therefore our duty as Americans (still) to keep our mouths shut and
be led to Victory:
And a new strategy is being put into
action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi
capital. . . .
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering
and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually
entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts.
For the first time in the
Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous
forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
security--meaning an end, at
last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has
paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle
these problems. Where
previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they
had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are
either in place or on the way.
Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable
to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their
Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital. . .
.
But the fact is that we are in a
different place in Iraq
today from even just a month
ago--with a new strategy, a new
commander, and more troops on the ground. . . .
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to
step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen.
Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his
troops the time and support they need to
succeed.This is rank
deceit of the lowest order. Lieberman wrote almost exactly the same Op-Ed, on
the same Wall St. Journal page, more than a year ago. Whereas today he is
pretending that the problem has been one of insufficient troop strength and a
lack of a coherent military strategy, he said exactly the opposite in his November,
2005 Op-Ed. Back then, he assured Americans that we did have an
effective strategy for preserving order and also had a sufficient military
force, and not only that, he insisted that we were succeeding in our mission to
bring security to Baghdad and that conditions in Iraq were rapidly
improving:
I have just returned from my
fourth trip to Iraq in the last 17 months and can report real progress
there. More work needs to be
done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation
from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing,
self-securing nationhood unless the great American military that has given them
and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. . .
.
The leaders of America's military
and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad,
have a clear vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in
which Iraqi democracy, security, and prosperity can take
hold and the Iraqis themselves
can defend their political progress against those ten thousand terrorists who
would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for
doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we
do. . . Mistakes, some of them
big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should
hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in
characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the
ground in Iraq. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold, and
build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last
week.
Today, Lieberman
said that the U.S. is focused on preserving security "[f]or the first time in
the Iraqi capital" and that "previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold
key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias." But
in 2005, Lieberman assured Americans that he had just returned from Iraq and
that "the administration's recent use of the banner 'clear, hold, and build'
accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last
week."
So whereas
Lieberman is claiming now that everything is different today because we had no
real strategy before for ensuring security, it was Lieberman himself who
promised Americans in 2005 that we did have exactly such a strategy and that it
was working so well that "we can have a much smaller American military presence
there by the end of 2006 or in
2007."
At this point it's fair to
say that Joe really has no incentive to be either consistent or honest. His
platform to spew this nonsense is guaranteed. The press never calls him on the
inconsistencies, with noble but insignificant exceptions such as Greenwald. For
Joe, now that he has lied himself back into a six year term, there are no
consequences for this type of behavior. In fact, there are only rewards: column
space in the Wall Street Journal, air time on Fox, and lionization by the
sociopath in chief.