Lieberman seeks 'more troops' for 'winnable' Iraq war. Oy vey.

[Roland99]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055_pf.html

bloodshed ... is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.

...

As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. ... One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region.

Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda.

What the heck is this? A Bush speech?

Oh, Joe. You've sold your soul to the neocon devil.

[dave_p]

1. Huh?

AQ has provoked Iran-aIigned counter-violence. So civil war is "a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran". How can two enemies coming into conflict be "a battlefield victory for both"? It may be a policy success for both, but it can only be a battlefield victory for one - or neither.

Unholy Joe's fearmongering fails even its own miserable excuse for logic. If AQ and Iran are both the enemy, then why not let them fight it out? But the point here isn't logic, it's to identify two sworn enemies as the same thing, i.e. the Israeli line.

"Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism." That's funny, because it was once a fairly secular state where Islamism was kept in check despite twelve years spent by the west trying to cripple all central authority.

And of course Joe thinks Baghdad and Anbar are the key to "clamping down"... like the insurgency's not going to move elsewhere as it did when the US "clamped down" on (i.e. destroyed) Falluja. At least we know he's heard of two places in Iraq.

[Skidmore]

2. Maybe someone should hand ole Joe a gun and tell him to

lead by example for a change. I truly loathe this smarmy snake oil salesman.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. Another neocon "EXPERT" on all things military?

The type that planned Iraq?

[AndreaCG]

4. Is this REALLY what you wanted, Connecticut?

A delusional wingnut for your senator?

[AtomicKitten]

5. Lieberman has become the nemesis of the Democratic Party.

[Roland99]

6. He's Zell Miller without the spittle.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I find Lieberman's cloying, fake sincerity worse.

At least Miller's crazy was up front.

[Roland99]

8. He's one of the biggest reasons I didn't vote for Gore in '00.

There was just something about him that always seemed creepy to me. Confounded me why Gore picked him as a running mate.

[lapfog_1]

11. He thought it would win him Florida...

But the butterfly ballots (a lot of retired Jewish folks voted for Pat Buchannon!) and, yes, the Greens voting for Nader, cost him the election.

I think it was also an attempt to win moderate republicans, but that didn't work either.

[bigscott]

9. many of us

did not vote for this asshole - please don't paint us all with THAT brush!:puke:

[AtomicKitten]

10. huh?

[Clark2008]

12. And more entertaining.

That's one of the differences between the North and the South. Southerners aren't afraid to let their crazy show, while Northerners try to stiffle theirs. :rofl: