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.

The Smug Sanctimony of Joe Lieberman

The MSNBC website has an article dated October 31, 2007 up that shows the smug sanctimony of former Democratic Senator and now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is shocked, shocked we tell you, that the amendment he drafted with right-wing Senator John Kyl of Arizona is being used to attack Hillary Clinton. He doesn't understand why we don't trust the Bush Administration not to get us into a war with Iran. To quote Smug Joe: "“At some point, we’ve got to get over this distrust and partisanship.”

Well, here is what's so aggravating about Smug Joe: When he makes comments like the one quoted above, he isn't talking about Bush and Republicans getting over being partisan and distrustful, no, the only people that SJ thinks need to change are Democrats. He apparently wants us to overlook the Bush record of lies, coverups, stonewalling, incompetence, and corruption in Iraq and all get behind Bush's plans for Iran.

Now, SJ doesn't want us to think that he is for war with Iran, no siree, he's not for that, but, then again, “I’m not gunning for military conflict with Iran, but if they keep killing our soldiers, you can’t just sit back and let it happen.”
Now what the hell does that sound like if not an excuse for a war with Iran? Is SJ suggesting that if his economic sanctions don't work, he won't be advocating for war with Iran? Is he telling us that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, he won't be calling for military strikes on Iran? If he isn't talking about war, just what in the hell is he talking about?

This is what the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, thinks about a war with Iran:
"[It]has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it." He went on to say that America should be very, very careful about getting involved in a war with a third Muslim country.

Now see here is the difference between professional military officers like Mullen and people like Cheney, Bush, and Lieberman: he has actually been in war and knows what it is like. He has responsibility for the lives of men and women serving under him. He didn't skip the Vietnam War and then spend the rest of his adult life trying to make up for not going by playing with the lives of other people's children. Wonder if Smug Joe would be so cavalier about a war with Iran if his children were serving in Iraq?

Lieberman Proposes "War Tax"

Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I-CT), proposed that Congress pass a special "war tax" to fund what he calls the "war on terrorism" and what the rest of us call the Iraq War. He pointed out in his remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee that people have pointed out that the only Americans being asked to sacrifice are members of the military and civilians serving in Iraq, this blog among them.

This is actually an intellectually honest approach to funding the war, much more so than Bush's budget. It would also probably drive home to most Americans what this war is costing us in terms of money as well as American lives. Lieberman did not give any specifics on his tax idea and, of course, it won't get anywhere. Republicans prefer a borrow and spend approach to this war, as well as almost every other operation of the Federal government, and Democrats opposed to the war will find it very difficult to support any proposal of Lieberman's.

Politically, though, putting this idea in a bill form and discussing it would put pressure on Republicans to justify the cost of this war. As Lieberman pointed out in his remarks before the Armed Services Committee, funding this war will push out other domestic spending that the Democrats consider essential. His "war tax" would be an addition to Federal revenues and would theoretically free up more money for domestic spending.

Update: A better idea might to try and pass a law requiring that every time Congress authorizes military action it has to impose a special tax to pay for that military action. It might have the effect of making sure that our elected representatives think before they act and it would force all of us to recognize what military actions cost in terms of money since, with the advent of a volunteer military, most of us don't stop and think what they cost in terms of causalities.

Cheney's Mid-East Views & U.S. Policy

Reed Hundt, a contributor to Josh Marshall's www.talkingpointsmemo.com, has posted a very interesting article on how Dick Cheney sees the U.S. role in the Mid-East. According to Hundt Cheney believes that for the next 60-80 years America will be dependent on imported oil, mainly from the Mid-East. During that same period America will be at war with Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, America withdrawing militarily from the Mid-East is dangerous to our economic security and we have to keep on pouring troops and money into that region. Cheney also believes that withdrawing from that region would imperil Israel, a point of view also espoused by Lieberman.

Hundt also argues that at some point Democratic candidates for president have to confront and debate Cheney's views, especially since they are also being articulated by McCain and Romney. All this leads to a another point and that is that while Democrats are very good at challenging Republicans on particular policy choices, we need to do a better job of attacking the philosophy that underlies what Republicans advocate. This means in debates over domestic policy attacking the Republicans' market fundamentalism. It means in debates over foreign policy, attacking the Republicans' belief in a go-it-alone approach to foreign policy. If we don't attack the underlying philosophy, then we are allowing them to set the terms of the debate. Ceding to them the power to set the terms of the debate weakens our ability to win the debate.