(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)
Seriously, guys…I’m not full of crap
This morning, Senator Joe Lieberman (C4L-CT) appeared on CBS’ Sunday morning talk show, Face The Nation. In it, he continued his amazing ability to serially bullshit his way through an interview without any hint of irony showing. His newest position on Iraq? Let’s fire Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and backed an international conference to find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.
[…]
“I think it’s still time for new leadership at the Pentagon,” he said on CBS’s Face the Nation.
Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.
“With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq,” he told Bob Schieffer.
Gee, Joe…it’s great that you think it’s time to change the person who has managed this war incompetently, leading to the death of over 2,600 U.S. soldiers. But how does he really feel about this issue? For that, let’s examine mcjoan’s entry on the Lieberman Principle:
Joe Lieberman today on Rummy:
I said that if I were President, I would ask Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. I first [NOTE: Lieberman never said it again until his appearance on the Ed Schultz show this week] said that in October 2003. [NOTE: In October 2003, when Lieberman called for Rumsfeld’s resignation, he was seeking the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.]
Joe Lieberman in May 2004 on Rummy:
[I]t is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.
Astonishingly enough, it seems like Lieberman is calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation in an electoral season when he is on the ballot. Of course, this isn’t a bold stand to take as a Democrat. Senator Tom Harkin was the first senator to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, way back on May 6, 2004, and the drumbeat for Rumsfeld’s head has only grown, including the endorsement of such action from six retired generals. No, this is pure political posturing, and it’s hard to conceal it. Hillary Clinton recently called for Rumsfeld’s resignation as well, but unlike Lieberman, she has consistently criticized the handling of the war. Lieberman has been a cheerleader on the issue.
Let’s take a look at some of the other things Lieberman had to say about the growing civil war in Iraq:
Lieberman said he would support an “international crisis conference on Iraq” with the United States, its allies and Arab countries worrying “that if Iraq collapses and falls into civil war that Iran will surge in and dominate and claim a victory.”
Ah, so now we’re going to raise the specter of Iran on this matter. On an amendment that was voted on back in June, Lieberman sided with most Republicans on a failed effort to lay the groundwork for an overthrow of the government in Iran. Anyone remember the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? The stated goal of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq officially became removing Saddam Hussein of power, and it was something Lieberman was quite enthused about.
What is going on is not a war between the U.S. and Iran, no matter how much the senator may want it to be so. It’s a civil war, something has become conventional wisdom, and we need to get our troops out of there safely. Furthermore, can we really expect an international conference to go well? We alienated many in the Middle East when we decided to invade Iraq, and our handling (or non-handling) of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict has probably not won us any friends. And as for our allies? Let’s look at the list of countries and see which would carry any real clout:
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.
That’s of a year ago. If we look at the Coalition of the Willing now, you’ll see that some of these countries have left. It’d end up being the U.S. negotiating with the rest of the world, and given our habitual nature of snubbing everyone else under the current administration, it’s hard to see how any sort of deal could be worked out.
Let’s examine some more golden quotes from Lieberman:
“He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that’s happened,” Lieberman said. “And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I’ve been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq.”
“As bad as things are now — and they’ve gotten worse in the last six months — it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we’re getting all of our troops out by a given date,” Lieberman said. “That’s a position Ned Lamont has taken.”
That’s right – Joe admits that he was critical particularly in 2003 and 2004 – the exact same time he was running his presidential campaign into the ground and creating new political lingo. But what have you been saying since then, Senator?
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
Of course, he takes note to point out it’s gotten worse in the last 6 months, outside of the time frame of this particular editorial that drew the ire of Democrats around the nation. But what should we do to ensure the safety of our troops? Lieberman simply points to his past criticism without figuring out any sort of change in strategy now. Calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation may be a symbolic way of trying to hang on to the 35% of Democrats who still support him, but it doesn’t solve the problems that exist. Lamont supports a phased withdrawal of our troops, as the Kerry/Feingold resolution called for. That’s change, and it’ll be something that resonates with voters. Lieberman just meekly offers up a stay-the-course strategy.
Finally, let’s examine this final line of BS from Joe at the end of the article:
“I’m worried that my party may become what we’ve accused the Republicans of, a kind of litmus-test party,” he said. “If you don’t agree with us 100 percent of the time, you don’t agree with us. I’m devoted to the Democratic Party.”
Totally devoted the Democratic Party, eh? He really should say the Republican Party, considering why the only reason he’s still afloat is that 75% of Republicans in Connecticut support him. He’s hired a GOP pollster who has only done work for Republicans and whose current clients include GOP Governor Jodi Rell and Representative Rob Simmons in Connecticut. Of course, if Lieberman was a ‘devoted’ Democrat, he would’ve dropped out of the race after losing the primary to Lamont. We know how that one turned out.
Quite simply, Joe Lieberman is full of shit. As I noted above, calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation, in my view, is an attempt to hold on to his rapidly decreasing base of Democratic support. If he loses all of it, there’s no way that he can beat Lamont in the general election. But the more Lieberman waffles on his positions, the claim that he’s a principled politician will become ever more diluted in the eyes of Nutmeggers. To quote an old adage, you can measure a man by the company he keeps. And we all know what company that is:
