Jolting Joe did the unforgivable though, in the eyes of the far left and the anti-war, anti-military Democrats... He used the words "win" and "victory" in regards to Iraq. OMG. The world is upside down and the Dems/far left are having a hissy fit over it. The other "crime" of Lieberman's in the eyes of the left/Dems is that he DARED acknowledge the threat Iran poses. This seems to have infuriated them to no end.
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
[...]
To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.
In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."
[...]
In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.
How DARE Lieberman even suggest that Iraq is "winnable" and victory can be achieved??!!!!
How DARE Lieberman call Iran a threat...my god, can't you see they are simply "misunderstood"?
This is not what they want to hear, they cannot stand to hear the word victory when speaking of Iraq, or winnable or success. It literally sends them into a tailspin as if their heads are going to explode.
That seems to be the prevailing attitude from the left about this article.
Remember folks... Don't annoy Lieberman TOO much, he IS the only vote giving the Dems the majority in the senate and when it comes to the issue of Iraq, his vote being for success in Iraq, puts the board at 50-50 on that specific issue. So be nice nice to Lieberman!!!!!
A few reactions from the left.
From Huffington Post:
Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?
And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.
For the record,in case the author of that Huffington piece missed the news flash, it is IRANIAN weapons that are arming the Iraq militias. I would ask that same author exactly how many times he, himself, has been to Iraq to form these "expert" opinions?
The rest of the Huffington post runs along in the same manner.
Greenwald seems to take offense at the fact that Lieberman included Iran in his op-ed piece....I guess Greenwald also missed the newsflash that by supplying weapons to the Iraqi militias, Iran is in effect already KILLING AMERICAN SOLDIERS, as they have done in the past. Not to mention Iran's most recent comments about "Death to America", then again, why bother mentioning things that "support" Lieberman's article when you are mad at him for daring have a mind of his own and an opinion after visitng Iraq for 10 days. No, by all means, lets not speak to the FACTS, lets just vent because Lieberman isn't walking lockstep with the other Democrats and repeating their rhetoric as if he believed it. HOW DARE LIEBERMAN??????
Reaction from Daily Kos, which I rarely ever visit but decided to since I was showing the far left reactions, we find this:
Today, that manifests itself in his stance on the war. He's the Democrat who'll bash Democrats, and provides the "bi" fig leaf in "bipartisanship," when that fig leaf becomes necessary to sell outlandish idiocies like escalating the Iraq war in the face of 89% public opposition.
I have to wonder how many of that 89% that Kos quotes has actually BEEN to Iraq, have actually spoken to the Colonels and how many have gotten their opinions by reading the NYT, AP articles or watching CNN, which by the way, to the left wing lunatics that are reading this...did ya know that CNN is now offering the "sniper video" (enemy propagnada) on CNN on Demand?
You should run right out and order it, quickly, to help CNN make MONEY off of a video showing snipers taking out our military. Right up your alley I bet.
Legal Fiction follows along in the same vein:
Not to get lost in the trees, the point here is that Lieberman is consciously misleading people to advocate a failed policy that will get more people killed. If someone wants to make an honest case about how escalation can help in light of inter-and-intra-ethnic civil war, fine. I will disagree but we can debate it. But to advocate for it by transforming Iraq into a fairy tale morality play with Iran as villain should not be tolerated.
See a pattern here? It seems ALL of the far left missed the newsflash about iran supplying weapons to the Iraqi militia!! Do we really believe they missed it? Or is it more likely, they cannot admit it, because to admit the fact of the danger Iran poses would not fit in with their "political message", now would it?
Last but not least we have Matthew Yglesias who is following the same pattern as the rest:
And what about al-Qaeda? Lieberman appears to be arguing later in the article that Iran and al-Qaeda are collaborating in Iraq since otherwise it's hard to make sense of the claim that "If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism." Needless to say, he's backing the Bush/McCain escalation plan.
Here are a few posts showing exactly HOW dangerous Iran is, on one page.
All in all the basic theme is that no one on the other side of the aisle has any clue how to achieve success, and they surely never will because all they want to do is admit defeat, see America defeated.
The right side of the aisle has made mistakes and will continue to make them, because this is war and mistakes have been made in every war in our history: Example- World WarII, but at least people like Lieberman understand the ramifications of losing this battle. The left/Dems, might understand those ramifications, if they do.....they simply do not care, otherwise they wouldn't be so quick to suggest we tuck our tail between our legs and run away crying.
Reactions from the right side of the aisle, the conservatives and even moderates.
The Raw Story:
"On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States," the Senator continues. "Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001."
In August 2006, Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary to challenger Ned Lamont but defeated him in the general election, criticized Lamont's Iraq exit strategy by saying, "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do ... it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England." Lamont responded, "That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney's comment... Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11."
Seems the word winnable doesn't make heads explode on the other side of the aisle. In fact, just the opposite....we believe victory IS attainable and we understand the dangers that Iran poses, not just to Israel, not just to us, but to the Middle East and to the world.
From Lebanon to Iraq, Iran has their hands in things, stirring up chaos and some people would rather close their eyes to that threat than to acknowledge it.
The Moderate Voice wishes to win:
Yes this war has been mismanaged, it is inconvenient, and it is expensive. And yes we may lose it still. But I can't support abandoning so many millions of people that WE put in harms way by surrendering them to ethnic cleansing. I feel shame when the most powerful society in history abandoned so many freedom loving southeast Asians after the Vietnam War, when we ignore those in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and other killing fields.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.
Good for him!!!
Ankle Biting Pundits "gets it":
No opening paragraph of any Op-Ed I have ever read better represents my exact thinking on any issue than the lead of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s piece in this morning’s WaPo titled, “Why We Need More Troops in Iraq”:
I’ve just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.There are very few politicians in Washington—especially among Democrats, which Lieberman remains at heart—who get it like this guy does. Lieberman wants more troops in Baghdad and Anbar province to establish security, which, in turn, will help the fledgling democracy in Iraq flower. He is spot on.
Op For wins Title of the day for hs post: "Sen Lieberman on Iraq: Lets fight to win."
There are a few points I take issue with, but on the whole it says much of what needs to be said, and it comes at a particularly critical moment in our history, as we change parties in Congress. It talks of victory, and of the need for courage and steadfastness.
I leave you with this, which needs to be echoed and trumpeted throughout the country and especially in DC, "In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home."
Well said!!!
Protein Wisdom pretty much sums up my feelings on what I am seeing from the left today:
In his opinion piece in the WaPo today, Independent Senator from Connecticut Joe Lieberman says the *gasp!* V-Word! He’s so over the line he’s, he’s . . . why, he’s trans-neoconic! If you’ve no better source of entertainment today, you can watch the sinistrosphere go ballistic over the temerity of the man.
Nothing about Iraq is amusing,well other than the soldiers incredible sense of humor with that picture that went viral after Kerry's supposed "botched" joke, but the lefts reactions here are so predictable, it IS kinda funny.
Blue crab Boulevard:
Read the whole thing. My son and I were talking the other day about troop levels. Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course. It is vital right now not to simply abandon the Middle East to Iran's ambitions. Yet that is what some want to do.
What I do not understand and perhaps never will, is there should be a couple things that both sides of the aisle agree on, yet it seems they don't. Conservatives understand that Iran is perhaps one of the worse threats in todays world and that victory in Iraq is essential.
The Liberals HAVE to know who and what Iran is and how dangerous they are, yet they refuse to admit it. I wonder if it is just their readers they are telling lies to or if they actually, really, think that Iran is not a threat.
They also cannot fathom the thought that Bush has certainly made mistakes in this war on terror, but it IS winnable.
What is it about liberals that they cannot stand the thought of America actually WINNING the war on terror. Would they rather sit back and wait for another attack like 9/11.
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, but facts show that Iraq DID offer protection to al-Qaeda members in the years before 9/11....if that isn't the bottomline in "states that sponsor or aid terror", what is?
Keep up with the discussions over at memeorandum.
Open Trackback Weekend.
Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, Rightwing Guy, Perri Nelson's Website, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Don Surber, Adam's Blog, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, and Dumb Ox News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
.
