Skip to main content

The Senator from the Independent Lieberman's Party of Connecticut dished a few stinkers today at the American Enterprise Institute (suprising, eh?).

I'm sure his briefers shook their heads in collective disbelief as they listened in on this one . . .

Highlights via the Washington Post.

"The enemy we are fighting is an axis of evil. It is totalitarian. It is inhumane. It has a violent ideology and a goal of expansionism and totalitarianism," Lieberman said. "It threatens our security, our values, our way of life as seriously, in my opinion, as fascism and communism did in the last century."

Lieberman, confused again

No he didn't.  No he didn't!

"The enemy we are fighting is an axis of evil".

Wow, try to build a war strategy around that one.  

Actually we did in 2003 and it was a disaster.  

No one needs to be reminded that there are some vicious players out there in the world.  No one needs to be reminded that the murder of civilians is flat out wrong.  

I understand that Lieberman is trying to play the emotional argument.  Here he is invoking things that we already known complete with the inevitable nod to the Cold War and the Nazis.  

But from a policy perspective, the moralistic framework is just flat out useless.  

This type of muddle-headed, impractical thinking leads to the following type of conclusions.

"Getting out . . . will lead to Iranian expansionism, the creation of an al-Qaeda base in Iraq, and, even more significantly, the intimidation of the moderate forces throughout the region and a drop in confidence in the credibility and strength of the United States of America not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world."

Wait a minute.  Wait a minute!

Let's get some baseline facts correct here.  

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is involved with the Sunni based insurgency.  

Iranian expansionism involves elements of the Shiite based majority government.

My understanding is that these two sides are currently fighting against each other in Iraq.

Ergo, when we withdraw, these two sides will not all of a sudden become friends.  The Iranian-backed Shiite government will not welcome an al-Qaeda backed Sunni base of operations in Iraq anymore than the al-Qaeda backed Sunnis will accept an Iranian-backed Shiite government.

But in the mind of Lieberman "it" being the Iranian backed Shia and the al-Qaeda backed Sunnis are one in the same.  Hence his confusion.  

What a disaster.

A few weeks ago Rep. Silvestri took some real heat for misidentifying the al-Qaeda's Sunni affiliation.  In my view that was a serious issue.

Lieberman's conflation of two distinct and diametrically opposed groups is no less serious.  This is no different than a doctor performing brain surgery on a heart patient because the ailment exists in the same body.

If we are going to get our Iraq policy right, we need to make sure that we understand baseline facts first.

By not making distinctions, and understanding the baselines facts, our leadership miscalculated the risks, and blundered the post-invasion planning.

And here were are, at the same place once again.  Four years later.  This is absolutely inexcusable.

In my view there are compelling reasons for NOT withdrawing immediately from Iraq, but please don't dish out tired moralistic arguments or muddle-headed analyses of the situation in country Senator Joe-Mentum.

Our soldiers deserve better.  And the American people deserve better.  

Enough said.  Here endeth the sermon.

Originally posted to NotGeorgeWill on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:05 PM PST.

Poll

Senator Lieberman's Iraq Analysis is . . .

7%2 votes
14%4 votes
3%1 votes
50%14 votes
25%7 votes

| 28 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site