Sunday, August 20, 2006



You just can't keep a good man down, and though his latest offenses aren't enough to warrant his third trip to the top slot (it's gonna be tough to beat Hugh Hewitt's condescension), a couple of points he made today on Face the Nation sort of stuck in my craw. Via Reuters:

"I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004 about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country," [Lieberman]said.
But he said there would be all-out civil war and a "disaster we pay for a generation" if Washington sets a deadline for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, a call that helped his Democrat rival Ned Lamont win the primary vote.
"The position that my opponent and others take to set a deadline by which we will get out is the surest way to get to a civil war, which would be dangerous for our troops, a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East and for the United States of America."
He said the president and Congress may need to consider a troop withdrawal in the event of "all-out" civil war in Iraq.
So, he was critical "particularly in 2003 and 2004" when he just happened to be running for president. If he was such a critic of Bush's policies in Iraq, why not make mention of all the times you questioned his policies in '05 and '06, huh?
"There would be all-out civil war and a 'disaster we pay for a generation' if Washington sets a deadline for troop withdrawal," except we already have a civil war going on (and the mainstream media, no longer sidetracked by the Israeli/Hezbollah fracas, has finally started to focus in on this fact) and the disaster is already going to cost future generations, if for no other reason than what this war monetarily costs on a daily basis (currently estimated at $195 million a day according to the website), though Bush seems blissfully unaware of this cost as he continues his tax cuts on top of tax cuts, of course.
As for the final statement, about the president and Congress needing to consider a troop withdrawal in the event of "all-out civil war in Iraq," well, I think it's about time we consider it since that's what is going on! Yet, we cannot consider it because to do so would be to question the authority of the president at our own peril or some other such nonsense.
Perhaps we should come to Lieberman from time to time in the future and ask him if he feels Iraq has crossed over into "civil war" territory. Dems are often accused to jamming their heads in the sand as they refuse to make the tough choices in this "post-9/11" world, but I'm starting to think of Lieberman as the head ostrich, blissfully unaware of what a disaster Iraq has become. Maybe he has a "pre-Iraq civil war" mindset.

1. Hugh Hewitt
3. John McCain (-1)
4. Orrin Hatch (-1)
5. George Felix Allen Jr.
7. Dick Cheney
8. Rick Santorum
9. Carl Romanelli
10 Katherine Harris

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Paul, on this unique blog concept. I can see it is a lot of work. Best wishes for the future of this blog.

Nova - a dailykos lurker