home

Lieberman on Iraq: We Have A Good Plan

Lieberman on Iraq, December 2005:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

Lieberman on Iraq today:

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Oh, and the lie Lieberman told Connecticut during the 2006 campaign:

What I don't think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush Administration's decisions regarding the planning for and execution of the war.

The most dishonest, dishonorable person in Washington, DC today, Joe Lieberman.

< Padilla vs. Anna Nicole: The U.S. of Entertainment | Where I Agree With Lieberman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The most dishonest, dishonorable person (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    in Washington, DC today, Joe Lieberman.

    and not only that, he won't do what we tell him to do!!

    Of course your plan was, is and will be.

    Get out! Cut and Run!!

    Cut and Run? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    Get out! Cut and Run!!

    Since "Cut and Run" is a term invented in wingnuttia, perhaps you can translate it into english for us, ppj aka Mr. Military?

    And if you are able to do that, tell us what it has to do with either the Democrats or anti-war republicans?

    Parent

    Cut and Run Defined (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    It's not so much a military term as it is a military industrial complex term. You see, if we RUN out of Iraq now, it will CUT into the profits of the companies that PPJ is heavily invested in.

    Parent
    Yep, that's the true definition (none / 0) (#8)
    by Electa on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    of cut and run.  "if we RUN out of Iraq now, it will CUT into the profits of the companies that PPJ is heavily invested in"

    Parent
    This is what it means, squeaky. (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    It means, as you have commented that:

    "I won't fight."

    Now if you won't fight, and the terrorist will, it also means:

    "I am ready to negotiate a surrender.

    What will you let us keep, oh mighty terrorist?

    Can we keep, of great and wonderful killers of the adultress women, three of our now numerous religions? Oh. Okay. We can have one. You are so kind dearest ones. Yes. We understand the one is Islam...

    Can we keep educating our daughters? No? Please generous sirs just until the third grade. We do want them to be able to read menus and be able to shop in our supermarkets? No? Oh, forgive your humble servant... I did not mean to trouble your greatness with such petty things.

    And yes. We will round up all of our gays and lesbians and deliver them to you. Yes, we understand their actions will not be tolerated..."

    Hope the above gives you a start.

    BTW - Doesn't look like the negotiations are very well. But, after all, one pays little attenion to slaves, infidels and Jews.

    Parent

    Cut and Run? (4.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    I still do not see what your oft repeated term means.

    As for your non-answer:

    Iraq had one of the highest education, health care and social services standard in the entire mid-east. It was a secular contry, socialist, I believe.

    We helped to destroy that system with a very unfair sanction system, and now have destroyed the country with the current war.

    Are you suggesting that now we go against the will of the majority of the Iraqi people and turn it back to a secular country with a new dictator?

    Why Iraq? How about other countries that are different than the USA? China? Pakistan? How about Switzerland?

    Cut and Run is something that you have mastered as evidenced by your relentless non-answers and  smears.

    Parent

    Sadam's apologist....Squeaky (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:21:24 PM EST
    Uh, you understand my answer. Anyone who can read understands the answer.

    You then apologize for Saddam. Wow:

    Iraq had one of the highest education, health care and social services standard in the entire mid-east. It was a secular contry, socialist, I believe.

    We helped to destroy that system with a very unfair sanction system, and now have destroyed the country with the current war.

    Saddam violated the UN resolutions time and again, including throwin the Inspectors out, violating the no fly zone and attacking UN/US flights.

    His regime of terror is well documented. That you choose to deny it speaks very poorly of you, but it does further define who you are.

    The war could have been avoided at anytime by Saddam stepping down. That he didn't speaks to him believeing, in spite of the fact we were putting troops into Kuwait, that his friends in Germany and France, and others in the Oil For Food program would save him.

    Saddam was a dictator and a killer. He got what he deserved. That the Sunis and Shia want to kill each other over religion speaks to things within their religion that cry out for reformation, just as the Catholic Church had to be reformed to allow civilization to progress.


    Parent

    Did he lie? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    At least you are honest enough to accept that he did.

    As for cut and run, you and Cheney are peas in pod, and you like it that way apparently.

    Parent

    Could you explain (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    your last sentence?? Insults are no fun if I don't understand them.

    BTW - I did 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    Did you serve??

    Parent

    Did I serve? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    I assiduouly avoided it by not volunteering.

    What that has to do with you mimicking Cheny's cut and run nonsense is not apparent to me.

    Parent

    No answer (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:55:31 PM EST
    Well, I asked you a question that you did not answer.

    What's the matter, beat you to the point?

    As to not serving, when trouble starts, some come running, others don't. No big deal either way. Just curious abour you background since you seem so intent on claiming what is or is not a good strategy.

    Actually I had you down as an ex-instuctor at the War College..... ;-)

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    and yet another personal insult.

    Parent
    What's the plan? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Al on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    PPJ, since you leap to the defense of Lieberman's plan, I assume you know what it is. Enlighten me.

    Parent
    There is no plan (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    and they have no answer, Al. Except to try to change the subject, and endless repetition.

    Parent
    I am content (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    to let Bush run the military.

    Unlike you guys I don't claim to be a strategic expert.

    Parent

    That's not a plan (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Al on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:50:34 PM EST
    A plan sets out goals, and tells how they are going to be achieved. Try again.

    Parent
    Al, is English your second language? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    I said I am content to let Bush and the military run the war.

    That means, I have no plan.

    Now, if you want to make me Emperor, I have several things I would do....

    (An evil laugh follows...) hahahahahah

    Parent

    My biggest political regret (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:14:25 PM EST
    Is voting for this lying, treasonous creep in 1988.

    Others can now substitute in the year "2006" in the above statement...but they should have known better.

    It looks like Joe Loserman (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    isn't the only loserman who hasn't figured out that stopping an illegal occupation is not "surrendering"to the forces of evil.

    But supporting it is.

    Edger's getting close. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    Well, looks like you almost have it down pat.

    You are surrndering and they are a force of evil.

    Parent

    stay the course! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    the standard mantra for bushlickers.

    We're in the middle of a civil war that we instigated.

    We're not fighting terrorism, we're inviting it.

    Parent

    Excuse me it's not we're (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Electa on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:22:05 PM EST
    inviting it, but more appropriately the Decider (Cheney) and decided for(Bush)are the sole sources for this escalation in terrorism.  Terrorism begets terrorism.  Bush terrorized Iraq with his illegal invasion and now our troops and their families are being terrorized daily with the threat of death and permanent mental and physical disabilities.  

    Parent
    Wow, that's deep stuff, almost as good as (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:50:39 PM EST
    "food is." Let me quote you:
    Terrorism begets terrorism.

    And what terrorism beget 9/11?

    And the US Cole

    And the embassies

    And the foiled attack on LAX?

    and etc., etc...

    Tell us Electa... What did all those people in the WTC do???

    Can I tell you what the head terror dude himself said in an interview when asked if all would be okay if the US left the Arabian Pennisula?? Ready? Setting down??

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Link

    Pretty plain. Don't try and stop us from doing what we want.

    Parent

    You're spinning 2 different incidents,ppj (none / 0) (#26)
    by Electa on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    the invasion of SA would have been more appropriate since the majority of the 911 alleged attackers were of Saudi decent.  Furthermore OBL doesn't have the authority to call for jihad because he's not a spiritual leader and came under criticism from Clerics for his jihad propaganda claims.  

    You ask what terrorism begot 911, years of flip flopping by the US.  During the Russian/Afghanistan war OBL was their best bud, then he became the enemy when the US failed to dismantle their bases and leave Saudi Arabia.  Saddam was their boy to keep tabs on Iran until his rebellion and invasion of Kuwait, then Georgie had to get revenge for Saddam picking on his Daddy and he used the fears of 911 to satisfy his rage.  Now let us not forget the opportunity to seize a major oil supply and the billion$$$$$ war profittering game.

    You Bush diehards need to face the cold reality that your man is a loser and he has taken this country down a dark, dark road.  It will take a miracle to bring it back into the light.

    Parent

    electa (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    The quote you are reading was in March '97 to then CNN's correspondent, Peter Arnett and is a definitive statement of what the terrorists aims are. They are simple, plain and easy to understand.

    "I don't care if you leave the pennisula, and the bases, you must not mess with us.

    And the subject of jihad doesn't come up. He's just saying, stay out of our way.

    And since then we haven't, and various jihads and attacks have happened.

    Plainer. The results speak for themselves.

    As for your attemped explanation, I am well aware that we utilized OBL to attack the Russians. Happens all the time in real politics... a enemy of my enemy is my friend... everybody accepts the concept...until it comes to what Fitzgerald said in the 9/11 commission... what he said was just that. That al-Qaida and Iraq had agreed to work together.... That the Left doesn't believe!!!!

    I call it selective acceptance of reality. If gravity ever is seen to help us in this matter every anti-war Left person will fall off the face of the earth. ;-)

    OBL also writes about our assistance to Israel. That, of course, is a no-no for any radical Moslem terrorist...

    As for your oil claim, that one is so old that it has whiskes. Let me share with you what would have happened had oil been the driver.

    What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

    That's what a war for oil would look like. It's entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

    Link

    Parent

    Not a war for oil, a war for NOT oil (none / 0) (#31)
    by PatrickColorado on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    You are correct.  This was not a war for oil.  If you look at the effect of this war, the price of oil has gone up.  This was - I believe - one of the intended consequences of this war.  It is a war for NOT oil.  Reduce supply, increase price, and lo and behold Exxon reaps $75,000 per minute of pure profit.

    My analysis of what this war was about:

    1. Force a vote on the war before the 2002 elections so that Democrats could be painted as weak on terror, thus giving control of the Congress to Republicans.  If this had not been the intent, the vote would have been after the elections.  What was the hurry??  Essentially our soliders have been dying to give the Republicans political power.  Way to support the troops!

    2. As stated, reduce the supply of oil globally to force prices up

    3. Send a clear signal to countries who were thinking of trading oil in Euros (as Saddam was) that we won't tolerate that (hence the current ginning up of war on Iran since they are talking of doing the same)

    4. Find a way to funnel the U.S. Treasury into the hands of Republican contributors in the form of no-bid contracts and other shady deals

    5. Incite the Middle East into all-out war with the U.S. so defense contractors can justify multi-billion dollar contracts to support this perpetual war.  None of this being nostalgic for the Cold War, get us a new war!

    And because of Joseph Wilson's op-ed piece and the subsequent leak of his wife's identity, the administration got the following added bonuses:

    1. CIA operatives were shown clearly that disagreeing with the administration would get you outed, which could lead to deaths (and probably did) or at least a swift end to your career.

    2. Our intel operations in Iran were either weakened or destroyed by the demise of Brewster Jennings as a front company, which will undoubtedly make it easier to lie about what Iran is doing in the leadup to the comming attack on Iran.

    So you're correct.  We liberals need to change our talking points.  It's a war for NOT oil, not a war for oil.

    PB

    Parent

    Have you ever heard of OPEC?? (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:38:42 PM EST
    This was - I believe - one of the intended consequences of this war.  It is a war for NOT oil.


    Parent
    So much for the woulda, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Electa on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    shoulda, coulda scenario.  

    "What "would" a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes "would" have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy "would" essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region."

    "There "would" have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots "would" never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: "probably would" have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?"

    "That's what a war for oil "would" look like. It's entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality." These WOULDAs are merely your opinion and as the adage goes like an a-hole, everyone has one.  BTW are you a FauxNews military analyst?

    It's all been a crock of hearsay with no concrete proof presented to the American peoples.  Where's the proof, ppj?  

    As in everything change is inevitable.  You cite an interview from 1997 w/OBL. I take it you place emphasis on Peter Arnett being a CNN correspondent because of righties' phobias of what they coin as LIBERAL media networks.  

    It has been reported betimes that OBL's descent against the US was in direct correlation with US foreign policy as it relates to its presence in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.  

    Bottom line is the region don't want the US there dipping in their affairs and trying to make their region adopt and mirror Western culture and politics.

    Of course, I'm just a layperson hanging out here in the wilderness, dumbfounded, trying to make sense out of what this monstrous administration has done to our country and the world.

    Parent

    What he is saying is pretty simple (none / 0) (#30)
    by PatrickColorado on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    What I think bin Laden was saying is that the bin Sultan air base was one of his concerns, but getting rid of that wasn't going to stop him from doing what he does.  Pretty straightforward.  The question is, if there are a few other things he wants us to stop doing, or if he wants to just keep finding excuses to attack us.

    So the flaw in your argument is that you are saying: "We took away the base and he still wants to attack us, therefore he will always want to attack us no matter what we do".  Logically you can not conclude that from the evidence we now have.  It may be found to be true at some point, but you can't do a ConservoLeapOfLogic, despite your intense desire to do so.

    What bin Laden wants is for the United States to stop being an imperialist power when it comes to the Middle East.  If the situation were reversed, and Saudi Arabia had decided it was in their interest to meddle in our politics, disrupt our elections, and outright invade territory we consider ours, you would be screaming bloody murder, no?  We (and Europe) have interfered in the Middle East since before World War I.  Can we be surprised that they are tired of it and want us to stop manipulating the geopolitical forces in the region to our benefit?

    Parent

    That's pretty simple. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:41:01 PM EST
    I made no argument about air bases, merely quoted what he said, and noted that he has done what he said.

    BTW - Love your excuse making for the terrorists..

    Parent

    PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    Electa (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 07:16:21 PM EST
    Every single thing that ppj has just brought up has been answered for him and refuted for him hundreds of times over the past few years, and weren't posted for honest discussion. He's the local troll.

    The only reason he brings it it up again here is that he hasn't seen you here before and no one else bites anymore on his troll posts, so he's hoping that he can bait you into his game to enable him to hijack the thread.

    But, if you've been reading here before the other day you know this already.

    Parent

    Hi Edger, I suspected as much... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Electa on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 08:48:05 PM EST
    ppj being the neighborhood troll running around pestering everyone.  Thanx for the heads-up, no more troll baiting from here.

    Parent
    Welcome :-) (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 08:52:36 PM EST
    Hope you stick around.

    Parent
    electa (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    If you can't keep up, make an excuse and drop out I say.

    BTW - Don't pis* edger off. Here's his commenting guidelines.

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    And he actually calls himself a liberal.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    and consisting of nothing but personal attacks.

    Parent
    Somehow (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    I don't think he likes either me or the topic, Sailor. ;-)

    Parent
    And being it (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    and creating it, unfortuantely

    Parent
    edger, what's the phase of the moon?? (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    flays large bleeding chunks out of Liebermans hide at Salon today:
    This is rank deceit of the lowest order. Lieberman wrote almost exactly the same Op-Ed, on the same Wall St. Journal page, more than a year ago. Whereas today he is pretending that the problem has been one of insufficient troop strength and a lack of a coherent military strategy, he said exactly the opposite in his  November, 2005 Op-Ed. Back then, he assured Americans that we did have an effective strategy for preserving order and also had a sufficient military force, and not only that, he insisted that we were succeeding in our mission to bring security to Baghdad and that conditions in Iraq were rapidly improving:
    ...
    Most despicably, and most destructively, Bush followers like Lieberman and Bill Kristol have actually been insisting that Americans have a duty to allow them to spew their lies about Iraq without challenge. That's what Lieberman means when he demands that Congress "put the brakes on" criticisms of the war and that "instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed."

    ...underlining almost exactly what some of the local trolls have been begging for here lately re Iran as well as Iraq.