Posted on 11/30/2007 7:31:42 PM PST by Libloather
Lieberman: Friendly with GOP, lying about Democrats
PETER URBAN Purban@ctpost.com
Article Last Updated: 11/30/2007 10:01:46 PM EST
As an independently elected Democrat, freed to pursue issues outside the restrictive partisan lines, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman has done little to foster bipartisanship on the central issue of the day. In fact, Lieberman had done more to widen the partisan divide on the Iraq war than mend it.
Fresh from his most recent visit to Iraq, Lieberman went on Fox's "Your World with Neil Cavuto," where he chastised Democrats for failing to acknowledge post-surge progress in Iraq.
"This is the third time I've been in Iraq since last December. And last December al-Qaida was winning, it's as simple as that, and we were losing. Today al-Qaida is on the run. We are winning," Lieberman told Cavuto last Tuesday.
Iraqi people are returning to their homes and businesses have reopened, he said.
"So it's been, I think, one of the most remarkable turnarounds in modern military history. And it's time that everybody, including Democratic candidates, acknowledge reality and get off of this story line of retreat and defeat that they've been too committed to," Lieberman said.
This is rhetoric straight out of the Republican political playbook and patently false.
The Democratic presidential candidates have acknowledged security improvements in Iraq. Just look back to their last debate in Nevada nearly two weeks before Lieberman's return from Iraq.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates bluntly if Gen. David Petraeus was correct in saying the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq.
"There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. And they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods," said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Although there is less violence, Obama went on to note that was only in comparison to earlier in the year when violence was at its height.
"We're back to where we started back in 2006. And so the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence, and that somehow that justifies George Bush's strategy, is absolutely wrong," Obama said.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said that the surge's success in quelling violence is not the proper yardstick to measure success in Iraq.
"There is less — right now, less possibility of a political solution. Three out of the 18 benchmarks of the General Accounting Office have been fulfilled. Even among Republican math, that is a failing grade," he said.
Later that week, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards acknowledged the military's "hard-won progress" but said that was not a substitute for the "comprehensive national political solution" needed in Iraq.
"Despite the surge, the al-Maliki government is disintegrating before our eyes," Edwards said in a press statement. "Even worse, President Bush's mistakes in Iraq have only helped make terrorism worse in the world. As the National Intelligence Estimate recently found, al-Qaida is as strong now as it was before 9/11."
Ironically, The New York Times published an article by Patrick Healy two days before Lieberman's appearance on Fox News that said the leading Democratic presidential candidates are "undertaking a new and challenging balancing act" that acknowledges the security gains in Iraq while shifting the focus of their criticism on the lack of political progress there.
"Advisers to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq," Healy wrote.
The Times asked the presidential candidates about their views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad for Healy's article.
"Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference," Clinton said in a statement.
"The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks."
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden agreed in a statement that there had been "real progress on security" in Iraq.
The balancing act that Healy described was evident in last Saturday's Democratic response to President Bush's radio address.
"The keys to securing the future of Iraq are aggressive regional diplomacy, political reconciliation and economic hope. Yet as our current commanders in Iraq have recently noted, the improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country," said Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, a former American commander in Iraq. "There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result."
Lieberman's cheerleading for Bush's Iraq policy seems to be pushing him politically further to the right even as Republicans are moving closer to Democrats.
He should drop the pompoms and instead work with Democrats and Republicans to develop a realistic plan that gives Iraq a chance for lasting security without committing the U.S. military to an endless engagement there.
That seems to be where his Republican friends are headed.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican candidate for president, returned from the same Thanksgiving Day trip to Iraq as Lieberman with a far less optimistic impression. The same was true for Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who were also on the trip.
McCain told reporters on Monday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki was "more upbeat" than in the past. Local city councils were beginning to govern effectively and members of the Sunni minority were being integrated into the military and were obtaining jobs. But he said corruption was still rampant in the country, noting that oil destined to Iraq's northern regions was being illegally siphoned off, according to the Associated Press.
McCain also cautioned that Petraeus was expecting a new round of violence because al-Qaida was being flushed out of its strongholds.
"He thinks they are not finished," McCain said.
Graham and Chambliss told reporters in a telephone interview that recent military gains are remarkable, but they agree with Democrats that the political progress has been disappointing.
Graham, an early ally of Bush's troop buildup, said he would lose confidence in al-Maliki's government if it could not pass by January a law that would ease curbs on former Baathists from holding government jobs.
"If we don't see positive results by the end of the year, I think you'll probably see a strong message coming out of Congress calling for a change in administration," Chambliss said.
Peter Urban, who covers Washington for the Connecticut Post, can be reached by e-mail at purban@ctpost.com.
And to think - the Lieberdood was Altoast2000's right-hand-man.
If you don't follow the RAT playbook, watch out. You'll pay...
“This is rhetoric straight out of the Republican political playbook and patently false.”
Patently false? Hmmmm lets ask Nancy and Harry.
Even Murtha has now suggested that the war is winable.
He probably made Walter Cronkite CRY.
If you don't, YOU are PARTISAN.
Hey, Peter Urban, Lieberman won the election.
I fell off my chair when I saw that. Murtha has a lot of ring kissing to do before I even give him any credence. But this is one of those ...its about dang time.
Hillary called Gen. Petraeus a liar when he reported progress.
Quote: “This is rhetoric straight out of the Republican political playbook and patently false. “
Ahh yes, the auto-reaction of the dino-media. They are so invested in defeat that hearing anything else is met with a reflexive, and even childish, “IS NOT!!!” Charles Krauthamer was on PBS last weekend with two dino-media members. He carefully laid out his position as to why Iraq had turned around and was winnable. The dino-bots response, “balooney!!!” Nothing else, just “balooney.” I just had to laugh. No refuting Charle’s position or facts, just knee jerk reversion to the dino-media and dems’ narrative.
I got no time especially for hypocrites such as Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman is the worst sort of politician that there is.
And why do you feel that way...
“He’s done some back tracking since then. “
Of course he has. He is the biggest coward. Mama Nancy and Papa Harry probably had a nice chat and put him in the corner.
I do not feel that way. I think that way.
LIEberman is a shallow full time politician who spends his days spewing bullshit of all sorts, and he gets paid for it out of my salary.
The man clearly believes in nothing other than his Judaic heritage, and that is debatable.
That would be just fine with me because I completely, totally, and with out reservation support the state of Israel in just about all of their State sponsored endeavors.
Clear?
LIEberman supports his own funky self despite the fact that he has been rejected by the same group of folks who do not subscribe to his Judaic heritage.
You really do not want me to spell it all out for you, but, I like to post on FR.com now and then, just for fun.
Isn’t Walter Cronkite in a home?
Lying about Democrats? It’s the Democrats who lie.
“Peter Urban: Friendly with other Jew-hating Nazis, shilling for Democrats”
Gee, it sounds like we should "speak truth to (Dem) power"....I HATE THAT EXPRESSION, and I'd like to toss it back to THEM!
Ping for later read.
Dear Peter Urban,
It’s not about your “Peter Principle” of ‘bringing the country together’ (i.e., compromising our principles so you may appear momentarily to “win” in order to pad your resume),
‘IT’ IS about WINNING.
That is... kill them there, not here.
Works everytime.
This “journalist” quotes the rhetoric of Democrat presidential candidates as a reality of what is happening in Iraq. (”Even worse, President Bush’s mistakes in Iraq have only helped make terrorism worse in the world,” said Edwards.) Urban would have quoted Gus Hall of the Communist Party USA but he’s dead.
Peter Urban, one of several reasons why I canceled my subscription to the Connecticut Post.
The shredding sound you hear is the credibility of the left on the war on terror. Why they think surrender is a winning political strategy is beyond me.
Didn’t the left tell us Iraq had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda?
I’m trying to recall. In the rhetoric leading up to Bush’s call to increase troops via the surge, were any prominent democrats demanding an increase in troops? I seem to remember so, but can’t prove it. If so, Bush rope-a-doped them once a again by calling their bluff.
This, in itself, is ample proof that to the Dhimmis, power is everything. To put two together that would have been butting heads constantly and causing division and discord among their own ranks, to them, is irrelevant, as long as they are “in office.”
Stalinists.
I guess Mr Urban did not see the Hildabeast lecture Davivd Petraeus with we Have to suspend disbelief to think that the surge is working . I live in the distribution area of the Liberal rag that Mr urban writes for and I am in the constituency of Mr Lieberman though I did not vote for him.
I think Poor Mr Urban is still upset that even though the So called American people were so upset about the Iraq war and were going to vote out everyone who supported it and Ned Lamont was the man who would defeat Lierberman ,well we saw how that worked out ,so much for the frauds like Urban and now that the rooters who have invested in defeat are trying to have it both ways .
I have one word for them TRAITORS
Well I live in the area Joe Lieberman represents and I have never voted for him but he has always been strong on National Defense especially when it comes to the middle east because of Israel . It is in the area of social issues where he is Left wing all the way
“The man clearly believes in nothing other than his Judaic heritage, and that is debatable.”
Lefties, like you, are not even trying to contain their antisemitism.
Interesting that right wingers aren’t allowed to post on Huf Po.
Dems, party of tolerance..ha!
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly/
media 'rats, they just gotta lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.