The Smug Sanctimony of Joe Lieberman Continued

Lieberman gave a speech at John Hopkins University in which he attacked left-leaning blogs as "paranoid and delusional." The theme of his speech is summarized by this paragraph:

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”

There is a lot to criticize in both the paragraph quoted above and in the speech in general. First of all, the only reason why Lieberman can claim that we are drawing down troops in Iraq is that Bush raised the number that we have in Iraq. Under Lieberman's logic, increasing the number of troops in Iraq, and then drawing them down to more than there were before the increase, is progress. Progress toward what? Where is the evidence that politically that the government in Iraq is more viable than it was before?

Lieberman goes on to note that almost every member of the United States Congress supported the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well, that makes sense, Joe, because the Taliban supported those who attacked America on 9-11-01. He goes on to note that where Democrats parted with the Bush Administration was over the war in Iraq. He claims that Democrats who oppose this war and the Bush Administration's foreign policy are politically paranoid, hyper-partisan ideologues.

Well, Joe, here is another way of looking at the Iraqi War. We have lost over 4000 American soldiers, have seen thousands more wounded, have spent almost half a trillion dollars, in a war in a country that did nothing to the United States. Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan, the one that everyone supported, is not going well and the Taliban is enjoying a resurgence in Afghanistan.

We don't oppose Bush because we are "politically paranoid" or "hyper-partisan", we oppose Bush because his administration has been profoundly wrong for America. A sentiment, by the way, that is apparently shared, to some degree, by the 65% of Americans who disapprove of his performance in office, according to a new poll out from the AP.

Lieberman wants to see himself as the lone voice of reason in the Democratic Party. He wants to see his critics as people unwilling to see what a threat "radical Islam" is to the United States. The issue isn't whether radical Islamists hate America, the issue is how to successfully confront them. Wouldn't it have been better for the United States to have rooted out the Taliban from Afghanistan, located and killed bin Laden, and then worked on building up Afghanistan than starting a war in Iraq?

Like Bush, Lieberman presents a false dichotomy. The choice wasn't between doing nothing against al Qaeda and bin Laden or fighting a war in Iraq. It was between going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and starting a war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11.

Thanks to Bush, we are now fighting in two Middle-Eastern countries. If Lieberman has his way, we could well be fighting in a third against Iran. There is a limit to how much we can sacrifice in the sands of the Middle East. Of course, Joe Lieberman, who never fought in a war, and whose children have never fought in a war, won't be the one to pay the price for Bush's follies. No, that price will be paid by other families, families who aren't as connected and aren't as well-off as his.