Decision ‘08

Who Said It?

The quote:

“Iraq is the central part of a larger and ultimately longer-term conflict in the Middle East between moderates and extremists, between democrats and dictators, between Iran- and Iraq- [sic - Syria was meant, I presume] sponsored terrorism and the rest of the Middle East. . . . Are we going to surrender to them, surrender that country to them, and encourage people like them to be in authority and power all over the Middle East and in a better position to strike us again?”

I’ll give you a hint - it wasn’t George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

The answer here…

6 Responses to “Who Said It?”

1 Anonymous Liberal Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Come on, Mark, anyone who didn’t guess Lieberman after the first sentence hasn’t been paying any attention. Lieberman, Bush, and Cheney, have been in absolute ideological alignment on these issues since the beginning. Oh, and he’s also totally clueless.
2 Mark Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
And you think I consider his ideological stance on this issue a bad thing? You know me better than that…too bad he’s apparently the only Democrat who realizes the threat takes precedence over partisanship…
3 Andy Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
What I’m struck with is that the Pelosi/Reid crowd consistently think the ‘04 election mandate is to get out of Iraq ASAP. Even cHillary has joined this lemmings rush, yet Ol’ Joe blew Lamentable out of the water. If the dems and increasing #s of GOPs continue down the redeploy path, they could be in for a big shock come ‘08.
4 joe Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I’m assuming Andy meant the election of ‘06, nostalgia being big among the right these days, like the Dem’s in 2000 walking around saying “What Happened”?

What happened was a mandate to quit wasting our money fighting the wrong war and not making any progress on the actual problem. No one is running from the enemy by leaving Iraq because the “enemy” isn’t there.

It isn’t the arrogance that is hard to take, it is the stupidity.
5 Andy Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Yes, I meant 06, thanks. I’m curious, just what is the mandate to quit wasting our money fighting the wrong war?

I thot Joe was pretty clear about this being the right war, in spite of lapses in planning & execution.

Considering how close George Washington came to giving up/being fired/being defeated, hardly made the reovolution the ‘wrong’ war. Close to being lost, yes. Going against conventional/populist wisdom? Yes. Wrong? No.

Considering how close Abraham Lincoln came to giving up/being fired/being defeated, hardly made the Civil War the ‘wrong’ war. Now that was a war that had changing definitions of victory. Close to being lost, yes. Going against conventional/populist wisdom? Yes. Wrong? No.

Considering how close we came to giving up and redeploying in defeat with WWI & WWII… see above.

Then there’s Korea… Started by a Dem (Did Truman lie and thousands die? Irrelevant!). Noteworthy is the infamous dispute between Truman and his General in the warzone. In this case, the General was right with regards to fighting the war and Truman was wrong in ignoring his General, but the General was wrong in his insubordination. Yet, here we are nearly 1/2 century later with a sizeable prescence in Korea.

Oh yeah, Vietnam… Started by a Dem (Did JFK lie and thousands die? Irrelevant!) Noteworthy is the micromanaging by LBJ & McNamara over the Generals in the warzone. Almost a decade later, we ‘redeployed’ and millions died — I guess it could be said that at least it wasn’t our troops dying then. Nonetheless, came the 100s of thusands of boat-people. Even today, a significant portion are stranded in refugee camps, unable to resettle and unable to go home.

Seems no matter what model Bush employs, conventional/populist wisdoms seems to scream out, “Wrong!” As Liberman pointed out, anyone can pan the effort, only leaders tackle the challenges head-on and slog on.

Now that sHillary has announced her run, I’ll like to see her concretely outline the execution of her WOT. Watch for this can or worns to get punted as far down the road as possible, not only by her, but all the other contenders.

I don’t find it unlikely that Joe will throw his hat in the ring after the early front runners have found themselves painted into a corner of redeploy. So here’s to Joe and may he have a good run at POTUS. I think the US is more than ready for their first Jewish-American at the helm.
6 Anonymous Liberal Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
And you think I consider his ideological stance on this issue a bad thing? You know me better than that…too bad he’s apparently the only Democrat who realizes the threat takes precedence over partisanship…

I know you agree with Lieberman. My point was only that the author of the quote wasn’t at all surprising. I think it’s great that Lieberman isn’t controlled by partisanship, but it would also be nice if he had even the slightest clue what was actually happening in Iraq. His latest statements on Iraq have been almost comical in their stupidity. He has claimed, repeatedly, that the war in Iraq is essentially a struggle against al Qaeda terrorists who are funded by Iran. That’s ridiculous. Only a small fraction of the Sunni insurgency is composed of al Qaeda and they are actively fighting the Iranian backed militias. Lieberman’s simplistic analysis of the situation in Iraq should get him laughed off any serious programs, but somehow he keeps getting invited back. Lieberman is the quintessential empty suit. He only gets attention because he is bucking his own party, not because he ever has anything insightful or intelligent to say. He just spouts slogans. Even Bush sounds more in touch with reality than him, and that says a lot.