Joe Lieberman Weekly's Peter Beinart once again demonstrates his utter lack of political and policy horse sense in a
Washington Post column lambasting Democrats for protesting
Maliki's congressional appearance:
Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats' attack was not security, it was politics.
. . . Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right, unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for Iraqi peace in the process.
Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.
Beinart has some nerve. The guy who led the charge in support of the Iraq Debacle now presumes to lecture Democrats on "playing politics"? Oh, and by the way Peter, there was some pretty significant GOP congressional opposition to that ports plan as well. But that's easily forgotten when you have a chance to try to beat up Democrats on Iraq yet again.
This is utterly predictable for Beinart and for TNR, and points up the main problem with their "advice" on policy and politics: the big issues that never seem to occur to them. In this case, it's fact that Maliki absolutely cannot criticize Hezbollah. That fact doesn't seem to trouble Beinart, even though his TNR editorial board wrote this:
The ascendancy of Ahmadinejad's perfidious Iran is a spectacular problem for the United States, and a spectacular challenge. Iran is now the single most powerful force arrayed against American ideals and interests in the Middle East. The various Islamist movements pose various threats; but here is Islamism incarnated in a large and ambitious state. For this reason, U.S. policy toward Iran must consist of more than an attempt to frustrate its nuclear designs. If we do not isolate Iran regionally and globally, if we do not do everything we can to support the democratizing forces in Iran, and of course if we do not move ruthlessly to prevent Iran from acquiring the deadliest arsenal of all, then we will have presided over the creation of a nightmare worse than the nightmare of Saddam Hussein. If we succeed in Iraq (a considerable if) and fail in Iran, we will have failed in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it is not clear that President Bush grasps this. [Emphasis added.]
Reading this in TNR and reading Peter Beinart, who along with Lieberman were the leading cheerleaders for the disastrous Iraq Debacle, makes you wonder if these people can hold two thoughts together. Perhaps we can spell it out for them. The Iraq Debacle has emboldened Iran and Hezbollah, and brought their influence into Iraq. Maliki's reticence to say anything negative about Hezbollah or about anti-semitic ministers in his government is perfectly predictable.
Can TNR, Peter Beinart and Joe Lieberman explain how they did not know this would happen? And when do they just shut up about the whole thing? Well, Atrios points out that at least Joe has shut up about his foreign policy "greatness":
One of the enduring mysteries of our times is why people who have shown either no leadership, or even absolutely disastrous judgment, on foreign policy issues are still given credit for being important foreign policy voices. One can find many partial explanations for this phenomenon, but even those can't explain the odd case of Joe Lieberman.
The war in Iraq is the issue of our time. Where's Lieberman on the issue? What does he think we should do about it? On his campaign website he offers no information.
TNR and Beinart should take a hint from their friend Joe, and just stop talking about it.