GM's Corner : Sen. Joe Lieberman's Iraqi Views Rejected by Left

November 29, 2005

Sen. Joe Lieberman's Iraqi Views Rejected by Left

In an opinion piece to the Wall Street Journal, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman presents a rational case for the U.S. mission in Iraq and provides optimism for success. That might explain why the left has been so outraged when I mentioned Leiberman's article to some and suggested that Lieberman offers a centrist candidate that could help the Democrats. But, they don't want to hear or believe that the U.S. has noble motives in Iraq and they reject anyone who suggests that we do. However, for those who want to believe someone who puts his country ahead of his politics, you might want to read the entire article. Portions of it are reproduced below.

Our Troops Must Stay: America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
BY JOE LIEBERMAN, Tuesday, November 29, 2005

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation...unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. ...the Iraqi economy is growing. ... People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy....

It is a war between...27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists...who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. ...the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. .

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. ...What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq...have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress....

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. ...The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week. ...military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S.... ...American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. ...I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi

Why aren't the people in this country hearing more messages like this? Rather, I hear comments about journalists from Time Magazine smugly discussing on Air America that Lieberman must have been visiting a different country than Iraq from his article. During the Cold War, some of us said that liberals, sympathetic to the Soviet Union, viewed the struggle through pink colored glasses. With this war on terror and our soldiers in Iraq, they must be viewing the struggle wearing blinders. It's time for journalists to write honest stories and good news about our mission in Iraq so as to discourage those who would pull out early and undermine our military and the Iraqis who have put themselves at risk for democracy.

Also, if the Democrats have any sense (which they don't), then they should follow Sen. Lieberman, who can bring them more to the center and make their party viable. He's one Democrat who could get my vote.

Posted by GM Roper at November 29, 2005 06:00 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Still talking to 'progressives' ? More importantly still talking to 'progressives' and expecting any answer other than a variant of Bush Lied ?

Ah the media. My least favourite collection of what I feel can be aptly described as sociopaths.

As I said in another forum re the media :

"I don't think that there should be any further attempt to 'explain' or 'contextualise' MSM activity. They don't require 'self-examination' or excuses; they require to be called what they objectively are.

And that is : Deliberately tendentious opponents of their own Nation in a time of International Crisis. In short perfidious propagandists. The 'nuance' of trying to 'understand' why they do things is lost in translation to the final audience. The way to confront their enervating and self-fulfilling variant of the BIG LIE is to BOTH point out the more complete truth ,AND to ascribe motivations at every opportunity.

Their 'output' should be treated constantly as coming from bad-faith ideologues not as 'careless' and 'clueless' mistakes. If you make the same 'mistake' over and over and over again, despite shouts of objection, is it any longer a 'mistake'?

In short---- Question Their Patriotism, their judgement,and their motives, and force them to the defensive at every opportunity. It's not only a FAIR tactic; it's a REQUIRED tactic. They must not only lose this battle; they must lose the larger war as well. There is a reason they have tried desperately to take this line of reasoning off the table, and it's not because they they are 'defenders of the Republic'. When 'individuals' act in concert to present a like-minded reality(whether by conscious design or group-think ), they cease to be individuals and become a they or an it . Freedom of the Press is freedom from State intrusion; it is NOT Freedom from criticism from whatever sources are available(including organs of the State). "

The media is the enemy. They must be 'defeated' as surely as the the monsters running amok in Iraq must be crushed and defeated. The Islamist monsters really require an iron hand and a policy of zero tolerance. So does the current incarnation of the media. I doubt they can even spell 'patriotic' at this stage of their evolution. Insidious decay from within is infinitely more dangerous than threats from without.

Enough is enough, don't you think?

Posted by dougf at November 29, 2005 08:39 PM

Doug, well said. And I don't need to say more!

Posted by GM at November 29, 2005 08:52 PM

Did you honestly expect the left to agree? I am putting a blogging moratorium on pointing out then they dont agree...bc it will be NEVER.

Posted by rick at November 29, 2005 09:48 PM

Lieberman versus Cheney in 2000...now that would have been quite a race! I remember thinking that when I watched the VP debate between the two of them.

Posted by civil truth at November 29, 2005 10:12 PM

Me? Still talking to "progressives?" Expecting reason out of them? Why that's crazy! Well, okay, I had temporary insanity.

Doug, your remark should be put up as an entry rather than a comment. It's great.

Of course, when you question the patriotism, judgment, and motives of the left, they go ballistic and act outraged rather than discuss the merits of the claim. How do you put someone on the defense when they won't discuss your points and try to put you back on the defense by saying that you have no right to question their patriotism?

I guess there's no use discussing these issues with them, which leads us to simply trying to expose them--although, they control the media, which makes that more difficult.

It's a tough job being conservative and right and trying to get the left to behave itself.

Posted by Woody at November 30, 2005 09:13 AM

As I told GM I am not really an 'objective' seeker of the 'truth'. If I have formed an opinion then it takes some relatively strong contrary evidence to persuade me to abandon the postion I have assumed. More of a propagandist than a 'debater'.

And that is what I believe this slice of history requires. There has been altogether too much acceptance on the part of the 'right people'(and I do not mean Conservatives, of which I am definetely of the neo variety), of the 'right to dissent'. Rights imply some form of opposite balance which we have for clarity always referred to as ' responsibilities' or 'duties'.

The current situation is merely the dysfunctional 'social model' writ large wherein everyone LOVES those 'rights' but denies any 'DUTIES. Dissent is required in any successful society, but there are boundaries beyond which it becomes merely an excuse for what used to be called perfidy. I think we have surpassed those boundaries. It is now both right and proper to call the practioners on their behaviour and their 'objective' results.

What do I care if a thief whines when he is called by his proper designation? If he does not want to be called a thief, stop stealing.

Similarly, why should anyone care if the certain segments of the 'progressive' spectrum and their lap-dogs in the media whine about how valid criticism is 'suppressing their right to dissent'? The object is not to convince them of their folly, or make friends; it is to tar them with the proper brush.

When I advocate confrontation it is not to change the 'opponents', or to improve civic discourse; it is to defeat the 'opponents' by exposing them for what they are.

The reason the 'liberal' media, and 'intelligensia' is so influencial is clearly not their scintilating reservoir of 'ideas'. It is that they have defined the playing field ,and taken all YOUR best options out of the play-book.

I merely suggest throwing away that set of rules and substituting another.

Bush Lied us Into War !!!

Ok, I see that and raise you --- The Evidence of That Is Non-Existent. AND Your Mindless Biases Are Harming The Nation In a Time Of War. More Especially They Are Harming The Troops Who Defend Us All.

What I would do were I GWB is have constant reports from the troops, in Prime Time outlining how they see the MEDIA. No restrictions and no punishment for telling it exactly like it is. Name names and examples. If the position we hold is 'objectively' correct, what fear should we have of a completely 'open' civic debate ?

Were I GWB, I would work to make the media the 'enemy' of the troops. Not of 'me' but of the fighting men at the front. Shouldn't be hard, I wouldn't think.

Just my uninformed opinion, anyway.

Posted by dougf at November 30, 2005 10:06 AM

And, yet, Lieberman's piece is not void of criticism. But that criticism is credible because he argues from a principled position AND because he readily gives credit for the actions and postions he believes are right, regardless of the fact that Bush is his political adversary.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. speak many words but say nothing. Their tactics are patently obvious to anyone with a modicum of awareness and good sense. Their criticism is worthless because they only say that GWB is always wrong. Sort of a "boy who cried wolf" sort of thing.

Three cheers for Joe Lieberman: a principled man and patriot. And not just because I agree with him, he has a long history of honesty and for standing up for principle.

Posted by too many steves at November 30, 2005 02:47 PM

Agreed, Mr. Lieberman has maintained a consistent and principled position here. He is exhibiting that rare Washington trait called courage, rather than playing the opportunism game. I'm also confident that he understands the broader implications of our Iraq policy on the whole Middle-East and on the (non-Iraq) tensions roiling that area and that he recognizes the need to change the calculus of the previous 55 years. We need to hear more voices like his -- and pray that the White House continues to act in a manner worthy of that support.

Posted by civil truth at November 30, 2005 03:14 PM

I just read over at my favorite radical blog, DailyKos.com, that MoveOn.org is seriously thinking about financing a Democratic candidate to run in the primary against Sen. Lieberman because they don't like Lieberman's views on Iraq.

Posted by Woody at December 1, 2005 07:47 PM