Friday, August 25, 2006

What Will Joe Lieberman Say About This?

First Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) called for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from the conflict in Iraq. Now Representative Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) has joined him:

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), once an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, said yesterday that the Bush administration should set a time frame for withdrawing U.S. troops. He added that most of the withdrawal could take place next year.

Shays, who faces a tough reelection campaign because of his previous support for President Bush's war policies, made his comments after completing his 14th trip to Iraq this week.

He said he found a "noticeable lack of political will" among Iraqis "to move in what I would call a timely fashion" and concluded that Iraqi officials would act with greater urgency if the United States this fall set a timetable for withdrawal.

"My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal," Shays said from London in a conference call with reporters. "A timeline of when the bulk of heavy lifting is in the hands of the Iraqis."

...

Shays said it is essential to signal to the Iraqi government that there is no open checkbook or indefinite time frame.


Okay, let's work this out:

The Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut, Ned Lamont, has called for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawl from Iraq. Lamont has said that it is essential to let the Iraqi government know that there is no indefinite time frame for how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq.

Connecticut Senator Holy Joe Lieberman said such a policy would be a "tremendous victory" for the terrorists and agreed with Dick Cheney that a vote for Ned Lamont is a vote for more 9/11's.

Now Chris Shays, the same Chris Shays who endorsed Lieberman in the general election for Connecticut's Senate seat, calls for an Iraq war policy that mirrors Lamont's.

Wouldn't that mean that a vote for Chris Shays would be a vote for more 9/11's and Lieberman's acceptance of Shays' endorsement for Senate is akin to his accepting an endorsement from Osama bin Laden?

I'm sure Holy Joe, Connecticut's most circumsized Senator, will have a different spin on it when he gives his weekly blowjob to Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday this weekend. Oh, wait, Lieberman doesn't do FOX News ever since he realized Lamont's challenge was serious. Well, then he'll spin it on whatever Sunday show he does.

I can't wait to see it.

And one more thing: Why do Chuck Hagel and Chris Shays want the terrorists to win? I mean, don't they love their country as much as Joe Lieberman, Donald Rumsfeld, John McCain, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush do?

Comments:
Shays and Chafee and Snowe should just come on home to the Democratic Party. Their party is leaving them behind as they lurch even further to the far-right, and they are being blasted on a daily basis by the medianazis who now make up the corporate pundocracy.

Lieberman should just switch to the other side. He's there in every other way except the letter after his name.
 
I've never quite understood why the moderates like Shays, Chafee, and Snowe havn't switched parties. Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party when the Republican Party left him. There's no reason why Chafee and Shays especially couldn't become Democrats. Heck, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln are all more conservative than Shays and Chafee in so many ways, especially on social issues.

And you're right about Lieberman too. He's the preznit's best bud on the war, he loves harranguing Dems on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal and he's very comfortable as a FOX News regular and a guest on the Glenn Beck Show and Hannity and Colmes. Any self-respecting progressive would be embarrassed to have that kind of record. With any luck, Connecticut independents and Democrats will see that come November and send him into retirement.
 
reality, you wrote:

"Connecticut Senator Holy Joe Lieberman said such a policy would be a "tremendous victory" for the terrorists and agreed with Dick Cheney that a vote for Ned Lamont is a vote for more 9/11's."

It is possible Lieberman is right. You think otherwise.

How will muslim terrorists respond if we offer a fixed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
 
Actually, according to the AP yesterday, Liberman himself is now refusing to rule out a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawl. Asked about the Shays proposal, Lieberman said "It depends on what the details are."

Fair enough.

The proposed solutions to the Iraq occupation are pretty bad: keep 135,000 troops in country and wait for the Iraqi troops to stand up so the American forces can stand down (given the milita infiltration of the Iraqi security forces, when the Iraqi forces finally stand up, the result may not be to are liking anyway) vs. a timetable for troop withdrawls.

I think it comes down to this:

a) the invasion was a bad idea
b) but if you're going to invade, send in enough troops to handle the post-war occupation phases
c) when signs of a burgeoning insurgency hit you in the head, deal with it rather than deny it - even if that means having to send in extra troops into country or having to institute a draft in order to send in more troops to handle security and the insurgency.

The administration has not shown the courage to do what it takes to win this war. They have sent in just enough force to keep a lid on things and now it is almost certainly too late to turn back the clock. The cycle of sectarian and retaliatory violence seems too far advanced to stop. There was a time when more troops could have headed off this disaster (e.g., during the "looting" phase of the occupation, when the insurgency was first getting off the ground in 2003, after the UN bombing, after the Golden Mosque bombing.) Now it looks like it's too late, although keeping troops in country helps keep a lid on full-blown civil war. But how long can we reasonably keep 135,000 troops in iraq? The military is pretty stretched. They just had to call up 2,500 inactive marine reservists to involuntary active-duty. And other nations are pulling troops out, not ready to put them in. Where do we get the troop strength to stay indefinitely or even until 2009 when Bush leaves office and it becomes somebody else's problem? A draft would certainly solve the manpower problem, but the administration and the Grand Old Party are not about to institute a draft. That would be an act of political courage, but that kind of courage is lacking. So instead they deploy troops overseas three and four times and call up inactive reservists to involuntary active-duty.

It's a bad situation of Bush's own making.

As for the argument that the jihadis are just waiting for us to pull out so they can declare victory the way they did in Beirut after Reagan pulled out American forces after the 1982 barracks bombing, I wish Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie et al. would have thought about that problem BEFORE the war. But they were too busy with their rosy post-war fantasies to entertain the idea that things might not go as planned.

Frankly, the answer was don't go in. The Republicans and Democrats who enabled this war and the American people who cheer-led it until it starting going south all bear some blame. But the primary blame goes to the men and women who devised the policy and have continued to carry it out as conditions have deterioroated.
 
reality, you wrote:

"a) the invasion was a bad idea."

That doesn't address tomorrow.

You wrote:
"b) but if you're going to invade, send in enough troops to handle the post-war occupation phases."

The preceding does not address the future.

You wrote:
"c) when signs of a burgeoning insurgency hit you in the head, deal with it rather than deny it..."

Again, there's nothing forward-looking about the last statement.

You wrote:
"It's a bad situation of Bush's own making."

Your view in hindsight. Unimportant.

You wrote:

"As for the argument that the jihadis are just waiting for us to pull out so they can declare victory...I wish Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie et al. would have thought about that problem BEFORE the war.

Again, what about tomorrow?

You wrote:
"Frankly, the answer was don't go in."

But this is an impossibility. Why default to what cannot be?

Again, any plan must involve what we do IN THE FUTURE. The past is past.
 
Your insistence that the mistakes of the past mean nothing because they are already past seems short-sighted to me. Those who cannot learn from the past are bound to relive it. The same could be said for those who fail to hold the people who have made past mistakes accountable. I think you would agree with me that the Iraq occupation has not been handled well, that more troops were needed to handle security, that deBaathification was a bad idea, etc. But the same people who made these mistakes in Iraq (Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Bush) are now looking to take the war show on the road to Iran. How can you possibly trust the decisions they are going to make with the Iran policy when the decisions they made with the Iraq policy were so clearly disastrous? This matters. If these guys were out of power and nobody was listening to them, then perhaps your argument that the past is spilled milk would have some resonance. But these guys are still in power and still making decisions of peace and war and their track record is really, really bad. So before you dismiss the past as past let us remember that these past policy mistakes in Iraq have a direct connection to possible future policy mistakes in regards to Iran.

As for the future in Iraq, the nation is heading for dissolution along sectarian lines anyway, so partition is probably the least unsavory solution. Watching the Chris Matthews Show this morning, the consensus from Fineman, Bumiller, Duffy and Matthews was that privately even Bush administration officials were admitting that partition is where they're heading now, though publicly Bush continues to declare a unified, free Iraq is his goal.

Let's face it, n_s, it doesn't matter what I think should happen or what you think should happen or what Matthews, Fineman, et al. think should happen, or even what Dems in Congress think should happen. The preznit clearly told us this week that U.S. troops are not leaving Iraq as long as he's president. Unless the Congress cuts off the preznit's funds, he's got the last say on what happens. And for now, he has publicly stated it's "stay the course." maybe they've got a partition plan they've been working on in secret. If so, great. But so far, what they're saying is, "Stay the course."

BTW, what solutions do you propose for Iraq? Do you like the current policy or would you propose a change? And how do you trust the administration on Iran after their screw-ups in iraq?
 
reality, you wrote:

"Your insistence that the mistakes of the past mean nothing because they are already past seems short-sighted to me."

You continue to respond to a question I did not ask and a statement I did not make.

I asked for your opinion on what the US must do IN THE FUTURE to secure the country from muslim terrorism.

I would expect your answer to reflect your understanding of all pertinent and relevant events.

Your response was to claim that mistakes were made in the past.

But citing past mistakes does not answer the question about what to do in the future.

You wrote:

"I think you would agree with me that the Iraq occupation has not been handled well, that more troops were needed to handle security, that deBaathification was a bad idea, etc."

19,000 US soldiers were lost in the Battle of the Bulge in WWII in six weeks. Did somebody goof?

From the tone of your comments, I think you believe there are risk-free, error-free military options in front of our military leaders faces. If only...

You wrote:
"How can you possibly trust the decisions they are going to make with the Iran policy when the decisions they made with the Iraq policy were so clearly disastrous?"

Disastrous compared with what?

You wrote:
"As for the future in Iraq, the nation is heading for dissolution along sectarian lines anyway, so partition is probably the least unsavory solution."

It's a plan worth exploring. But it will have unpleasant consequences within Iraq as fighting over the oil breaks out. But I think it's an important idea to consider. It seems to have worked in the former Yugoslavia.

You wrote:
"Let's face it, n_s, it doesn't matter what I think should happen or what you think should happen..."

Yes it does. We vote.

You wrote:
"The preznit clearly told us this week that U.S. troops are not leaving Iraq as long as he's president."

Lyndon Johnson stunned the country when he announced he wasn't running again in 1968. Noting prevents Bush from changing course if he believes a change is for the better. However, since we really don't know what the future holds, it's tough to know when you're making the right move in situations like these.

You asked:

"BTW, what solutions do you propose for Iraq?"

I would kill Moqtadr al Sadr and any other phony muslim cleric who's running murderous militias.

Then I would kill the leadership of Syria and make it clear to the islamic world that anyone caught crossing the border from Syria into Iraq would be treated as an enemy combatant.

Next I would bomb any site where insurgents were shooting at US forces, making it clear that hiding among civilians won't work.

If mosques are used to hide weapons and fighters, I would destroy them and everyone inside.

Either we will kill enough insurgents to drive them away, or the Iraqi government will announce that the time has arrived for us to leave.

You asked:
"And how do you trust the administration on Iran after their screw-ups in iraq?"

First, you're suggesting you know of people who would have won the war in Iraq by now.

Second, we're now discussing Iran, the country that has openly threatened to use nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

I happen to think we should destroy Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as possible and eliminate its leadership at the same time. Killing the leadership of al qaeda has definitely cut into their operations.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?