Yeah, yeah, I know....lather, rinse repeat. But just when you think that he has gone too far, even he can surprise you. The cover of today’s Wall Street Journal has a heading called “Sen. Lieberman On a Truce – In Washington”, which is laughable enough, but the OpEd itself is called “The Choice On Iraq” and you can guess where this is heading.
Now it may be behind a firewall, but I will post a few of the more batshit insane paragraphs here. As we have seen Holy Joe insult his constituents with insults, lies and power hungry greed, we have also seen him do the same to his Democratic Senate colleagues. But this latest post of his is no mere “call for a truce” or for civility. It is chock full of lies and not-so-subtle digs at not only Congressional Democrats and republicans who are for a true change of course, but it shows a reckless disregard for (1) the truth about Iraq, (2) what an overwhelming majority of the American people want and more importantly (3) doesn’t even consider what those who were in favor of the escalation wanted either.
The fun kicks off with the third paragraph – which is meant as a dig against those who “don’t want victory” but is most applicable to Joe himself:
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq -- or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?
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.
Um, Joe---republican Senators like Hagel, Warner and at least five others, not to mention the republican congressmen and women who voted against the escalation certainly are changing their views based on the conditions on the ground. As did the American people who were pretty much in favor of this debacle back in 2003, only to change their minds when they realized that they had been lied to, or that there was no real consideration given to any post-invasion planning.
And correct me if I am wrong here, but didn’t both Secretary of State Powell and General Shinseki want to use hundreds of thousands of additional troops, so that there WOULD be security from the very beginning?
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.
Well, considering that there are proposals in Congress that would cut off funds, I think that qualifies as “an option that is being proposed”. However, when the obstructionist republican Senators won’t even vote on a non-binding resolution against the escalation, how is a bill going to get voted on for defunding? As for those pesky “readiness” standards, well I guess we should disregard a war veteran like John Murtha and send our troops into Iraq without the proper armor, equipment or training. What a pompous ass.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger -- forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill -- probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
Um, Joe—I hate to break it to you, but there truly isn’t one accurate statement in this paragraph. The thousands of troops already deployed in Baghdad are in great danger – they are without equipment, without armor, being bombarded by all sides. The vaunted Baghdad offensive was nothing short of, well, offensive. To the troops, that is. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were against the escalation. Even the
As for the gaping security hole – you must be referring to the gaping whole in your
conscience, um, sanity, um, attachment to reality, um memory. There has been a gaping security hole since Rumsfeld didn’t feel the need for a post invasion security plan and Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army (which General Zinni called “the worst mistake” in postwar Iraq). Terrorists, insurgents and militia (”oh my!!”) have been there since 2003. And Iran has been trying to influence the country since before Rumsfeld and Reagan armed Saddam with the very weapons that Bush and Cheney overthrew him for having.
He closes the OpEd with a bang as well (actually it is the 2nd to last paragraph:
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.
About that constructive legislative agenda-- then-candidate John Kerry wanted to increase the military by 40,000, to which Bush responded that the country would be “less safe”. Less safe with more military. More troops that you are now proposing. Wouldn’t they have been real helpful back in 2004, 2005 and 2006? Funding for the equipment would be a good idea too. Of course, both Senators Landrieu and Dodd proposed just that back in 2003 but both proposals were tabled. Interestingly, not a single republican voted against tabling these proposals.
What about the treatment for veterans? Well, besides the way this administration has treated the facilities at Walter Reed hospital, you also have a 2006 budget from Bush that gives a LOWER funding level to the VA. There is also instance after instance after instance where this administration has given veterans the royal shaft.
So please, Joe – spare us the pleas for sanity or requests that we all just clap louder. It is insulting beyond belief at this point. Not only to Democrats and your fellow congressmen and women. Not only to Americans. But most importantly, to the troops.