Question for Lieberman bashers....

[MrBenchley]

Joe has been criticized recently (sometimes unfairly) here, for this...

"At a time when this nation's partisan divide seems to be ever widening, Senator John Warner (R-VA) and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) teamed up at a recent installment of the monthly Aspen Roundtable Series in Washington, DC, sponsored by the DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund, to speak out about the critical need for bipartisan policymaking. Both senators offered foreboding predictions for the situation in Iraq if America's political setting continues to be as divided as it is currently. "I anticipate a very stressful situation]unless this Government takes strong control in Iraq—120 days from now is when serious stress on where we're going to go will begin to set in," said Warner. "I don't want to see us digging around anymore for who did what in 2003," said Lieberman, stating that continued partisan finger pointing is damaging the public support that is needed to complete the efforts in Iraq and finally bring US troops home."

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.1184451/k.7247/Senators_John_Warner_and_Joe_Lieberman_Call_for_Bipartisan_US_Foreign_Policy.htm

Let's leave aside for the moment the question of whether what Joe said is true (and I am far from convinced it is)....

We Democrats do not have a majority in Congress, so any solution to the Iraq quagmire during 2006 is going to require bipartisan support from people like John Warner. Even givien extremely good fortune in the November elections, it's unlikely we're going to get anything better than a very slight majority in Congress for the 2006-2008 session, and we will still need bipartisan support for any plan to extricate ourselves from the Iraq mess.

So my question is this: if Joe Lieberman were able to broker a bipartisan deal that brought the troops home at the cost of any Congressional inquiry into how the war came about, would you support it? Is the inquiry as important as saving lives?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I don't trust Bushco to honor any deal

If the troops come home, it will be done purely for political reasons, and the repukes will spin it to show that Iraq has been "won". They use Lieberman only for political ends, and they would give him credit only if they felt it would help them.

[MrBenchley]

6. Again, my question wasn't "Do you trust the GOP"

it was which is more important to you, getting the troops home or getting them home and holding a congressional inquiry. Would you give upthe inquiry to bring them home sooner?

"They use Lieberman only for political ends"
And we'd be using Warner for political ends.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. I want the troops home now

I protested to try and keep them from going to Iraq in the first place. But I don't think anyone will leave unless Bush decides to do it for political ends. And if Bush withdraws some troops, it will be only a token amount. We won't leave Iraq for decades.

Sooooo...I want to have the investigation. Perhaps it will make it obvious how Bushco has lied and continues to lie and deceive.

[MrBenchley]

32. So both or neither....right?

Jus ttrying to get a gauge of how people feel.

[Reciprocity]

68. Zell Lieberman can go to hell. That's my feelings.

[saberjet22]

75. Perhaps it will make it obvious

You're telling me it isn't obvious yet that bush has lied and continues to lie. His lying is as obvious as the nose on George Washington's face at Mt. Rushmore, and THAT'S a nose!

[radio4progressives]

76. False Choices -Lives should not be traded for Accountability or Vise Versa

this a perfect example of the collusion of political games and evil policies.

trade the necessity of accountability for human lives.

so we save a life today, but because we traded accountability for saving more lives today, we become appeasers of the very policy that killed innoncent lives in the first place, so that end up repeating the same killing policy over and over and over again.

Presenting False Choices is presenting conditions to continue the practice that bring us to this 'quagmire' in the first place.

[bearfan454]

2. Nope. Holy Joe is a DINO like Zell Miller was

I want the troops home AND an inquiry into how the war came about.

[MrBenchley]

4. So that's one for only both or none at all....

[Zenlitened]

5. "I want the troops home AND an inquiry into how the war came about."

Totally agree. :thumbsup:

[MrBenchley]

7. That's two for both or none at all

[Zenlitened]

20. Really? Where did I vote for none at all?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

24. Did you not agree with the post that said that?

I guess I didn't get what you meant by your post.

[Zenlitened]

29. No, I agreed with the poster who wanted the troops home AND an inquiry.

Edited to add: I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel this hypothetical deal by Lieberman would be the end of all discussion, even if it came to be. I'd rather forgo deal-making and continue working on getting the troops home -- perhaps even sooner than Joe would -- while making sure one of the gravest deceptions in American history is investigated properly.

[MrBenchley]

34. So that would be both or none at all....

as opposed to getting the troops home earlier at the cost of not having an inquiry, right?

I'd love to get a head count....just for curiosity's sake...

[Zenlitened]

36. Well, keep on spinnin.'

That's what makes hypotheticals so much fun.

[MrBenchley]

39. Thanks....

I just wanted ot make sure I got your opinion correct.

[Zenlitened]

55. That'll teach me! :)

:D

[Lyle]

10. I do agree Lieberman is a DINO...

...and I have a hard time being comfortable placing my trust in him.

[MrBenchley]

13. That's not the question, though....

Would you forego the inquiry to bring the troops home sooner than January '09?

[Lyle]

51. ok. Then no.

[MrBenchley]

54. "No answer"...correct?

[Tarc]

3. What about the cost to lives in the future

if we don't expose the fraudulent buildup for the Iraq invasion, they (hopefully) preventing similar things from happening in the future?

[MrBenchley]

12. Leave that aside for the moment....

after all, Nixon escaped unscathed legally and avoided being grilled by Congress...but that didn't help him one bit.

Would you forego the inquiry to bring troops home before January '09?

[Tarc]

15. bad premise

I really do not accept the premise that it is an either/or situation. Accepting one should not mean a drop in support for the other.

[MrBenchley]

22. So that's one no answer.

Two both or neither...
And two troops home only if necessary...

[Skwmom]

83. BINGO!!!! nT

[Lyle]

8. Hmmm....very good question

I suppose I might support that...my feeling is that saving lives (both Iraqi and US military) is the highest priority. In addition, I don't think there is a statute of limitations on the crimes this administration has commited. (Is there!?) Perhaps under the scenario you described, a formal inquiry could commence after the troups are home - and further military conflicts (future wars) have been avoided. Thoughts?

Having said all that...I'd certainly LOVE to see a formail inquiry - taking this administration to task. I can only hope that materializes.....

[MrBenchley]

21. Thanks for the thoughtful answer...

I would agree with you...I reluctantly think bringing them home sooner is more important than an inquiry, necesssary though the inquiry might have been.

Of course, even if an inquiry is ordered, a presidential pardon ala Iran/Contra could short-circuit the proceedings while Chimpy is in office.

On the other hand, a pardon for US crimes would not extend to the International Criminal Court. You might recall the Pew Study just after the election that discovered that a majority of GOP voters supported issues such as the ICC and the Kyoto Protocols and were unaware that their party's leaders opposed them. If a Democratic president and Senate decides to join the ICC and they issued an indictment, it would make for VERY interesting times.

[Phlem]

9. I'll take a stab

I guess for me is it more important to bring the troops home now or do we continue with inquiry so this kind of S#@T doesn't happen again.

In the long term the inquiry seems best for the country, but that's a hard one to call.

I know if I were there in IRAQ I'd want to come home NOW!

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this war is illegal incomprehensibly wrong.

just a couple pennies

Phlem

[MrBenchley]

25. If push came to shove, though, how would you vote?

I'm not saying such a compromise is even possible...but it is at least hinted at on the horizon here....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. alleged pragmatism vs. ethical stance got us into the trouble we have.

Alleged pragmatism, supporting the GOP only to seek some momentary gain, then to have that trust and agreement abused by the radical right, is a major mistake.

Joe Liberman may be an ethical man, he may be a religious man, he certainly is not a democratic man. I happen to think he is dead wrong about his position concerning Iraq. It is far better for us to take an ethical stance that we honestly believe in, and have other pols and the public move to our position. Moving away from our only serves to weaken us and cause more unnecessary deaths in Iraq.

[MrBenchley]

27. Yes, but that doesn't clarify anything.

There are people of good will who would feel that bringing the troops home sooner, no matter what the cost, was ethical...

There are people of good will who would feel that bringing the troops home sooner, no matter what the cost, was pragmatic...

There are people of good will who would feel that bringing the troops home sooner without an inquiry on how they got there, was UNethical...

There are people of good will who would feel that bringing the troops home sooner without an inquiry on how they got there, was NOT pragmatic....

I don't much care whethery ou consider one or t'other ethical or pragmatic. I want to know where you stand, for whatever motive you wish to ascribe.

Fussing about whether Joe Lieberman lives up to your ideal of a "democratic man" is not an answer (by the way, what is more democratic than bipartisan agreement?) . But if you want to say "no answer" that's perfectly okay with me. I'd just like to be clear where people stand.

[hwmnbn]

14. A deal!?! sort of like amnesty for the criminals...

that foisted this illegal war on us? It sounds like you are holding the troops hostage. Their safe homecoming in return for no prosecution. Hell no I wouldn't support that.

The troops will come home one way or another, in body bags or upon withdrawal. That's the choice. Either way the criminals must be held accountable. And Lieberman is near the top of the collaborator list.

[MrBenchley]

28. So that's another "both or neither" vote.

[MrModerate]

16. No. Because the outlines of "how the war came about" . . .

Have already been sketched and time will be filling in the details. So why give up the possibility of an inquiry that will definitively nail the bastards who've murdered or are complicit in the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, coalition country forces, and third-country nationals?

A bipartisan plan to get out WILL emerge because America isn't going to support keeping troops there much longer.

Liebermen gives Bush cover that interferes with the primary thing this country must do to recover from the neocon-Bushie-Christianist disaster we're now in: get rid of 'em, and let the country be governed by non-insane Republicans and Democrats (with Greens nipping at their heels to keep them honest).

Lieberman is a disaster.

[MrBenchley]

31. And another "both or neither"

I'm still waiting to hear which way the person above is leaning so I can give a count...I thought when he pasted and copied what was said before that he agreed with you, but then he protested.

I'm leaning toward troops out, but I could be convinced the other way. To be honest, when I read Joe's comment it made me wonder myself which way I'd go if that compromise emerged.

By the way, I wouldn't consider Joe a "disaster"...he's as solidly liberal as anyone on issues like reproductive choice, the environment, worker rights, etc.

[MrModerate]

49. OK, I'll give him his due on the issues you cite . . .

. . . just as I give credit to ANY moderate Republican.

[wtbymark]

17. Inquiry = Impeachment proceedings

get the truth out, the thugs in jail and the troops home. DO NOT sacrifice the truth or we will be living this nightmare for years to come.

[MrBenchley]

35. So that would be "both or none at all" right?

[Pirate Smile]

18. Interesting question, but I don't think you can just drop finding out

how and why we ended up in this enormous disaster. An investigation needs to take place so that this NEVER happens again.

I just can't blow off how we got to this point.

Plus, these aren't exactly mutually exclusive. The troops can be brought home AND an investigation can happen. I know your hypothetical is one or the other but, frankly, right now we can't do either.

Take back Congress in 2006.

Even if the troops were brought home, it will take time. It wouldn't happen tomorrow and it wouldn't be all of them. The quickest would probably be Murtha's plan with some coming home and others redeployed in 6 months or so.

[MrBenchley]

37. Yes, but IF that was the bipartisan compromise offered

which would you take?

"Plus, these aren't exactly mutually exclusive."
I agree, and I'm not even trying to hint that any such compromise is in the works. It's purely a thought exercise...and since I can see good arguments on both sides, I thought I'd toss the question out to others.

[punpirate]

19. The problem is not that...

... Joe would broker a deal. It's that he would make the Republicans look good in exchange for no inquiry.

I don't think we're ever going to see all the troops home, because that was never in the plan--and it's still not in the plan. Joementum would happily arrange a deal for enough (but not all) of them to come home to inadvertently help the `pugs in `06.

Besides, an honorable man would see the two issues as intimately linked and would not forsake one for the other. Soldiers would not be there in the first place had they not been sent by this president, and if that president, as many of us suspect, used subterfuge to put those soldiers in unnecessary harm, that president should face the consequences.

Your suggestion is a sort of Sophie's choice, but is still an artificial one. We can and ought to do both. A majority of the country now feels that the war was wrong and that we were lied into it. If the Republicans want to protect their party over the issue, I say no deal--let them suffer the consequences at the ballot box.

[MrBenchley]

38. So that's another vote for both or neither, correct?

"Your suggestion is a sort of Sophie's choice, but is still an artificial one."
Which is not to say that we aren't, all of us, occasionally confronted by exactly those kinds of choices. I'm curious to see what others feel on this.

[punpirate]

50. No...

... it's just a vote for both. :) "Neither" is what the Republicans most want. Elections may cure that problem.

As I say, no deal will result in the withdrawal of all troops (sorry if I seem to be adamant about that point, but having troops in Iraq on a permanent basis was one of the primary objectives of the war in the first place, and neither Bush nor his advisors would ever give that up). Therefore, any deal made will not accomplish the aim you describe. So, one gives up the opportunity for justice in exchange for offering the administration precisely what they want--the appearance of a withdrawal for political purposes which they can then use to their advantage in the coming elections.

As well, this is not a deal that Lieberman would make, even if there's scuttlebutt to that effect. His political background suggests otherwise.

In any event, I don't see any brokering of a deal by Bush. This war was to alleviate the problem of the Saudis demanding withdrawal of US troops from Saudi soil (something that Bush, Sr., suckered them into fifteen years ago). The US is intent on keeping US forces in the region, and eventually controlling the economics and flow of oil in the region, and military force is there for that purpose. Bush isn't going to deal that away to save his own reputation, because he's never been called to account for anything he's done in life. He doesn't see that need. !

Cheers.

[MrBenchley]

56. But in this scenario

it IS both or neither. You can have one at the expense of the other, or you can hold out for both (and take a chance on neither)....

and there's no wrong answer...I can see points connected to both sides of that argument.

"this is not a deal that Lieberman would make, even if there's scuttlebutt to that effect."
Actually, I think it is the sort of thing he would do...Connecticut voters respond well to bipartisanship. And the only scuttle butt was the paragraph I quoted, which set me thinking.

"I don't see any brokering of a deal by Bush."
Nor do I, so I didn't mention him...the hypothetical deal would be with moderate Republicans in Congress. And I could see them making a bipartisan deal with Democrats under any number of scenarios; I'm just picknig an extreme one, and i'd be curious to hear your opinion.

[punpirate]

61. Okay, so this is not based on any pragmatic concern...

... or real-world possibility, but, rather, is a simple ethical dilemma. Lieberman is irrelevant to it, in fact. It could be anyone suggested to make this deal.

In that case, it's quite simple, because lives, both Iraqi and US are at stake. I'd take a complete withdrawal. That would not completely eliminate loss of life, but it would reduce it all around.

That said, Lieberman is unlikely to do any such thing--if we're speaking strictly of complete withdrawal, all troops come home, etc., not just pull them back to the Kuwait border and continue air bombing, etc.

Just not going to happen.

Cheers.

[MrBenchley]

67. Thanks....

The reason Joe crept into it in the first place is that he and Warner WERE discussing Iraq together, and his comments got me thinking.

From what I understood, Murtha was proposing " pull them back to the Kuwait border and continue air bombing, etc." Or did I misremember?

[punpirate]

82. I didn't see Murtha's speech...

... but from what I've read, yes, that's the substance of his "withdrawal," But, that's not withdrawal in any plain and absolute sense--which is the only thing which will quell the resistance.

But, it's no real deal is it, since Sy Hersh has written recently that the intention of the Bushies is to substitute "boots on the ground" for bombs from the air--anyway. That means continued US presence in the country and its affairs--and that's what's fueling the resistance, not the mere fact of uniformed soldiers inside Iraq, patrolling the streets.

The resistance wants the US out of Iraqi affairs, not just hiding in the closet on the border and bombing the shit of the country on Shiite brigade orders. In this regard, it's well to read Nir Rosen's article in this month's Atlantic Monthly, titled "If America Left Iraq." It's a pretty good thumbnail sketch of the situation now (it also mentions an interesting situation--that the US might well get its bases in the region--if the Kurds proceed, as he suggests they will, with complete autonomy from Iraq).

Regarding withdrawal as Murtha's proposal, making a deal with the Bushies to give something up for something they already intend to do doesn't sound too bright, does it? So, this is a question of what "is" is, isn't it? The definition of that withdrawal. Murtha's won't solve the real problem. If his definition is to be the one on which someone brokers a deal, it will simply be another dumb move on the Democrats' part. It will reduce our troop losses, but it won't stop the destruction going on there now, if the current government is seen as continuing to collaborate with the US, and there's little doubt that the insurgency would see it that way were US airpower still to be used to prop up the current government.

Moreover, moving the ground troops to Kuwait causes another problem. Relations have never been great with Kuwait, and their assistance has been grudging (it was not that long ago that Kuwait was condemning the US at every opportunity in the UN General Assembly). We saved their bacon, and because of that they accepted a quid pro quo arrangement for US troops to stage in Kuwait in 2003. I doubt they would take kindly to having 140,000 US soldiers milling around more or less indefinitely on their territory.

Getting out entirely is another matter. Doing so doesn't undo the damage Bush has done, but it is the quickest way of returning the country to normalcy. That I could see as a reasonable exchange for the hides of the Bushies. Any other arrangement would just be American neo-imperialism by some other name.

Cheers.

[MrBenchley]

87. No matter which way you look at it it's a fucking mess

And sometimes I think the thing to do is to stick Saddam back in power and announce, like Dallas, that it was all a dream...</sarcasm>...

And I'm not sure absolute withdrawal will quell any resistance. It will end attacks on American troops...but leave the Iraqi people much worse off, since I don't see the factions settling down gently.

I'm not sure the Turks would let the Kurds get autonomy...and if they decided to seize "Kurdistan" who could stop them? (Hell, I'm not sure the present military could stop them in that case.)

I'll have to check out the Altantic Monthly article. Thanks.

[Dhalgren]

23. Let me see if I understand the proposition correctly.

Joe makes a deal with the Bush administration to essentially pay a ransom for our soldiers in Iraq. We will agree not to pursue an investigation into Bush/Republican wrong-doing, if Bush will free our soldiers and stop having them killed. But if we don't agree to this, Bush will continue to have our soldiers killed for nothing. Is that the proposition? Pay the ransom or have our soldiers killed? Just clarifying the choice we're being asked to make...

[MrBenchley]

40. Sort of....

It's more along the line of, Joe brokers a deal with moderate Republicans in Congress giving us a majority that pull the plug on Chimpy's war in Iraq, in exchange for the Democrats passing up a big messy show trial that embarasses the GOP. We get the troops home sooner instead of later but we give up an investigation in return.

If you want to think of it as ransom, that's okay with me. I'm just curious as to whether you'd pay it or not.

[mike_c]

26. no I would not-- the inquiry is MORE imortant IMO....

That's a Faustian bargain you've proposed, but if I had to make a decision, I'd decide in favor of a full inquiry, hopefully to be followed by war crimes prosecutions.

[MrBenchley]

41. Thanks. "Both or nothing" for you then.

Many others are lining up that way so far.

[mmonk]

33. No

To be free, you need both.

[MrBenchley]

42. "Both or nothing"

So far, the popular choice.

Interesting.

[mmonk]

43. My thinking is that without

a real withdrawal plan, our presence will sustain violence since we are the targets. To not address how we got there, then the precedent of lies means we are subject to no real checks on those in power. Therefore, I say don't compromise. That's how we got to this point.

[MrBenchley]

46. I can see good arguments for and against

that's why i'm asking.

[mmonk]

52. I can see both the points

and dilemma. I'm real particular on transparency and checks and balances. Maybe I try too hard for a perfect world.

[Skidmore]

44. To support such a deal would mean that those who have died

have indeed died in vain. They deserve justice. And if this bunch is allowed to get away with this criminal war, they will come back again. They've done it before and will do it again. We don't need mealy mouthed suckups like Lieberman, willing to service anyone who whistles. We need people with integrity, willing to stand for what is right--and, believe me, this is not right.

[MrBenchley]

47. So that's "both or neither," correct?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Throughout my entire adult life

bipartisanship has meant, "The Republicans state what they want and the Democrats agree to it."

Color me skeptical.

[MrBenchley]

48. So is that "no answer"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. My answer is that the outcome is unlikely, and even if it were

a thorough investigation would be necessary to prevent what happened after Vietnam, the right-wing whispering campaigns about how "we could have won if those anti-war protestors hadn't encouraged the Viet Cong/demoralized our troops."

It would have to be clear to the American public that the war was based on lies, lies, and more lies, that it was against international law and violated the principles laid down at Nuremberg, that all the crap about the troops building schools was just crap because Iraq HAD schools and education for girls before the invasion; that our troops were NOT always noble, that the pulldown of the Saddam statue was staged, that the war made life worse for Iraqis in every conceivable way, and that our mass media aided and abetted the Bush snow job.

With revelation of the truth, we wouldn't have to deal with revisionists insisting that the Iraq invasion was a noble cause sabotaged by traitorous liberals. Instead, the aftermath would be more like the aftermath of Watergate, where Nixon's corruption and meanness were revealed in all their overwhelming ugliness.

[MrBenchley]

59. So then you would want both or none

if such a compromise as on the table, right?

[ulysses]

64. how is that even a compromise?

A suspected serial killer sends the police a letter promising to stop killing people if they grant him immunity from prosecution for his crimes.

That's a compromise?

[MrBenchley]

65. So that's another no answer, correct?

[ulysses]

70. nope.

My answer is below. I'll take it you make no comment to my question, however.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. As I said, Congress doesn't really have the authority to withdraw the

troops.

So it's a moot question, one of those silly either/or questions beloved of freshmen in philosophy classes.

But I do believe that once the troops are out, Congress needs to expose the lies and crimes behind the war, as was not done and should have been done for Vietnam.

[MrBenchley]

69. So is that "both or none"?

Congress certainly has authority to pull the funding...

[Elidor]

71. Freshmen? I think it's much more sophomoric than that

;)

[onenote]

73. actually Congress has a lot more authority than you give them credit for

They can cut off funding for the war, which effectively forces the administration to wind it down. That was an approach taken during Vietnam. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS20775.pdf#search='vietnam%20cutting%20off%20funding%20congress'

onenote

[Aaaargh]

96. Hi, Lydia

I'm new here. I'm just responding to your post because I relate to the points you make.

Isn't this thread pitiful? Is this whole forum this sad all the time?

[Aaaargh]

53. The question makes no sense at all

In the first place, Congress doesn't have the authority to simply vote on a measure that ends the Iraq mission and brings the troops home. They could cut off funding or something like that, if they could get a veto-proof majority to vote for it, but it's silly to even speculate on that, because it's not going to happen. If any troops are withdrawn, it'll be because President Doofus's handlers make a decision to withdraw them -- POSSIBLY in consultation with key members of Congress, but the Bush regime doesn't like to do things that way, and besides, there's no scenario in which Lieberman would be the one to 'broker' a deal that brought more troops home sooner than otherwise.

Why? Because Lieberman clearly doesn't WANT to end the Iraq mission, and is only employing rhetoric when he talks about "bringing the troops home." He's currently an advocate of IRAQIZATION, a retread of the old failed VIETNAMIZATION: training troops loyal to the US-created regime in Baghdad to do the job now being done by US troops. What Lieberman means is, 'bringing the troops home once the mission has been a success,' which, according to his recent Op-Ed in the Hartford Courant, he doesn't expect to be the case anytime soon:

"...Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to lead the fight themselves with logistical support from the U.S. military, and that that number should double by next year.
If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come."
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentlieberman.artdec04,0,1346869.story

The rhetoric we're hearing from Iraq hawks like Lieberman about 'drawdown' is intended to take the steam out of anti-war sentiment among the majority of Americans by asserting that the mission will be a success and a lot of the troops will be able to come home once the IRAQIZATION program really gets going.

In short, it's just a stall. They want to keep this mission going come hell or high water, and they'll keep coming up with excuses to do so. "If we stay just a little longer, we'll have a stable Iraq and bring home (some of) the troops! Oops, there's been a little setback, so we can't bring them home YET, but if we just STAY..."

In fact, Lieberman makes this comment in the text of the page you link:

"The American people would be prepared to accept the casualties if they had two things: an understanding of why we're there and an understanding of what the plan is. The President has done a good job in the last month of explaining why we're in Iraq, but we need more about a plan."

In Lieberman's view, the PROBLEM is that the American people are currently not inclined to accept the casualties.

So, it's nonsense to talk about trading a Congressional inquiry into the war's origins (which wouldn't happen meaningfully anyway without a solid Democratic majority in Congress) for a withdrawal-of-troops deal with Lieberman as broker. He doesn't have that intention, and the decision-making power lies beyond him. If (that is, when) things in Iraq get so fucked-up that the decision is finally made to withdraw US troops, Lieberman will likely be on the sidelines ranting that we need to stay.

As for the prospects of IRAQIZATION, Gen. William Odom has argued:

"On training the Iraq military and police: The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty."
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

[MrBenchley]

57. Then say "no answer "and move on....

I don't want to sidetrack this thread.

[Aaaargh]

63. Hahahahaha!

"Sidetrack" the thread by pointing out that the question posed is bullshit!

You're a riot. You're just trying to cheer me up by making me laugh, aren't you?

[CrackpotAmerica]

60. Don't you mean Lieberman, (R) ?

Join the movement~!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5546643&mesg_id=5546643

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/is_it_already_t.php?comments=1

[ulysses]

62. no.

Without an inquiry, they'll just do it again. Hell, they'll probably do it again WITH an effective inquiry, especially as long as we keep going along like chumps.

But no. I can't see letting them essentially grant themselves immunity as the price for ending the shit they started in the first place.

[MrBenchley]

72. Thanks.

[ulysses]

80. I'm assuming that we won't be seeing you

use this thread later to claim that those who wouldn't buy this non-compromise are unwilling to compromise on Iraq.

[MrBenchley]

85. You won't be seeing me use this thread for

anything except a springboard to productive discussion here....

On the other hand, if Joe does broker a bipartisan compromise with Warner and brings the troops home for Xmas, I expect the thanks of a greatful nation </sarcasm>....

[onenote]

74. I'm neither a Lieberman fan nor a Lieberman basher, but I'll bite

I'd be willing to take the deal in your hypothetical. Why? Because it saves American lives and gets us out of Iraq where I think our presence is only further endangering our country. Given that I doubt that either a sufficient portion of the American public nor their elected representatives have the will or stomach for a meaningful inquiry, I figure the imagined compromise gets something for nothing.

onenote

[MrBenchley]

78. Thanks!

I'm still leaning that way myself. Hadn't thought about the "national will and the prolonged inquiry," though. Food for thought.

The reason I put Lieberman in here was both to attract attention and because it was his comment in the quote that gave me the question.

[Norquist Nemesis]

77. Nope. It's politics and in the political dickering

the country loses.

Do you really and truly think Bush and the GOP are going to go out to the American people and say, "Thank you, Joe Lieberman for creating the plan that brings home the troops. Let's give him a Medal of Freedom and have a party!" Won't happen. Plus, I don't believe they're going to ever bring "the troops" home. It's a ruse...the National Guard and Reserve will be drawn down and returned. They are being used in a greater percentage than any previous war, so when they're back it's going to have the appearance to the American people that it's all over and they're coming home.

US Bases are being built and contractors are profiteering. Regular military is going to be stationed over there permanently in greater numbers than we've seen. Don't forget the re-alignment of a couple or so years ago, either. Long-standing bases closing overseas are being moved into new and improved facilities in and around the ME.

In the end, everything stays pretty much the same and Democrats once again get slapped as anti-war, weak-kneed, liberals.

[MrBenchley]

79. Are you saying "Both or nothing"?

No wrong or right answer--I just want to be sure I understood your post correctly.

[Al-CIAda]

81. On The Absurdity Of Refusing To Ask How We Got To Where We Are

hvn_nbr_2
Original message


On The Absurdity Of Refusing To Ask How We Got To Where We Are


"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said. (quoting Gov. Warner of Virginia, but echoing a major portion of the Democratic and media establishments)

I submit for your consideration how the same attitude and line of thought might apply in other life situations:


1. criminal defense lawyer in murder trial
"Your Honor, the appropriate task before us is not to determine how the decedent became deceased or by whose hand it happened. We must instead focus on how to make things better and what we can do about the future. Clean the blood off the sidewalk indeed, for the future, but pay no mind to how it got there. Comfort the grieving indeed, but it is pointless to argue about how their grief came be."

Unspoken subtext: Leave the murdering bastard free to roam the streets unfettered.


2. incompetent high school coach
"Distinguised Board of Education, the past is gone and done, and we can't change it; we must instead look to the future. It is utterly useless for us to ask if Coach Ninncompooooo made mistakes when he went for it on 4th and 28 from his own 2-yard-line, with 25 minutes left to play; or whether it was a mistake to put that kid back in the game when he'd already had three concussions that night; or whether it's a problem that our players can't tackle or block; or whether the coach lied on his resume about his experience. We need to focus on how to make it better and where we go from here."

Unspoken subtext: If we don't identify errors, lies, or blunders, we can't identify incompetence and bad judgment, so let's all just continue on the path of incompetence and bad judgment. No change can be needed if no mistakes are identified.


3. embezzling company president
"Fellow shareholders, the money is gone and that's just how it is. I don't think we need to re-fight where it went or how it disappeared. We need to focus on how to proceed from where we are."

Unspoken subtext: Our president is a crook and a liar, but we shouldn't talk about that. Support our employees, support our customers, support our shareholders, support our lying, thieving, embezzling pretzeldent.


4. drunk driver's passengers
"Fellow passengers, we must not ask if our driver lied when he said he was sober enough to drive. Rather, the task for us is to clear the pedestrian body parts from our windshield, to keep adding water to the mangled radiator, to help push the car out of the ditch it is in."

Unspoken subtext: If we asked how we got to where we are, we might have to consider changing drivers in mid-trip. Horrors!

[MrBenchley]

88. So yours is a vote for "both or none"

I have to admit, i'm surprised at how many have indicated thischoice. I thought "get 'em home any way we can and damn the consequences" might be more popular than it is.

I lean toward "get 'em home any way we can" but there's really no right or wrong answer.

[Aaaargh]

84. New one, kids! IF YOU COULD BRING THE TROOPS HOME BY...

I have to apologize -- I didn't realize at first that this was a PARLOR GAME, and not intended to represent a serious prospect.

Since Mr. B's original question has been chewed over a lot already, let's move to another 'hypothetical':

IF YOU COULD BRING THE TROOPS HOME BY MAKING OUR GOVERNMENT INTO A MONARCHY AND PROCLAIMING JOE LIEBERMAN TO BE KING JOSEPH I, WOULD YOU DO IT, AND IF NOT WHY NOT?

I'm sure many people here realize that this question is comparable in sheer foolishness to the one posed at the start of this thread.

[LaPera]

86. What kind of hypothetical bullshit question is that?

Lieberman supports Bush's war efforts, to stay at least through Bush's term, 100%!!! As does Israel, they also want the US to stay fighting in Iraq as long as possible.

Lieberman, is a lying republican piece of shit!!! A republican in everything but name only...It perfect for the republicans, to have one of their own listed as a Democrat to put down and disagree with "his own party"!!!

Just think if the democrats had a republican in name only, on their side, what a coup, but the Dem's are too fucking dumb for that.

[sojourner]

89. clever question... but truth is I'm sick of these f*s getting away with

murder. if they get off scot free, I fear they'll just do it again somewhere else.

Joe's no hero IMO

[MrBenchley]

90. So you're saying both or neither, correct?

[AlinPA]

91. ..criticized unfairly? The guy is sucking up to Bush** !

I can't abide his pro-war stance.

[MrBenchley]

94. Criticized unfairly

Yesterday I saw part of his quote in that paragraph ripped out of context by someone who dishonestly then tried to imply that the second half didn't exist.

I've also seen him lambasted as anti-environment (in fact he's one of the most pro-environment voices in the Senate) and as anit-reproductive choice (again he defends that and always has)...

There's enough to legitimately criticize him for; it annoys me to see people just make shit up.

I also don't mind people who want to replace him with another Democrat...but that's not what some people have in mind, which is uttterly clueless.

[robbedvoter]

92. Lieberman aside, ending the war TODAY is worth anything

But it would have to do NOW - no ifs and buts.
And no, I don't believe for a second Lieberman wants this.

[MrBenchley]

93. Thanks...

Again, the main reasons Lieberman is mentioned is that

a) His name attracts a dogpile and
b) I thought of the question while reading his comment

[IndianaGreen]

95. Lieberman supports Bush, and that's enough reason to hate the sob!

Bush on Lieberman

One of those who has seen that progress is Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has traveled to Iraq four times in the past 17 months, and the article he wrote when he returned from his most recent trip provides a clear description of the situation on the ground. Here's what Senator Lieberman wrote -- Senator Lieberman wrote about the Iraq he saw: "Progress is visible and practical. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraq hands than before." He describes an Iraqi poll showing that, "two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein."

Senator Lieberman goes on, "Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years." The Senator says that mistakes have been made. But he goes on to say that he is worried about a bigger mistake. He writes, "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory." Senator Lieberman is right.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 7, 2005

President Discusses War on Terror and Rebuilding Iraq
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, D.C.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207-1.html

Cheney on Lieberman

I realize that some have advocated a sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. This would be unwise in the extreme: a victory for terrorists, bad for the Iraqi people, and bad for the United States. To leave that country before the job is done would be to hand Iraq over to car bombers and assassins. That nation would return to the rule of tyrants, become a massive source of instability in the Middle East, and be a staging area for ever greater attacks against America and other civilized nations.

As some of you know, when I first ran for Vice President five years ago, my Democratic opponent was a fine U.S. senator named Joe Lieberman. We disagreed on some issues, but we stand together on this war. After visiting our troops in Iraq last month, Senator Lieberman said, quote, "almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country." He is entirely correct.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
December 6, 2005

Vice President's Remarks at a Rally for the Troops
U.S. Army Garrison
Fort Drum, New York

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-2.html

Lieberman on Bush

It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 6, 2005

Remarks of Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Forum on Next Steps for Successful Strategy in Iraq

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249522

Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by the Progressive
A New Low for Lieberman
by Matthew Rothschild

There are fewer and fewer people around for Bush to call on to make his case on Iraq.

So he has put himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice on a propaganda merry-go-round.

But there is one other person he’s been calling on: the execrable Joe Lieberman, who has discredited what little remained of his Democratic bona fides by parroting the Bush line.

You just can’t get more obsequious than Joe Lieberman, who wrote in The Wall Street Journal on November 29, “The Administration’s recent use of the banner ‘clear, hold, and build’ accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented” in Iraq.

Now when you start praising the propaganda slogans, you know you’re deep in the Bush pocket.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1208-26.htm

[Vickers]

97. No. It's exactly that sort of spinelessness that would practically

guarantee this shit will happen again.

[MrBenchley]

103. Another both or neither...

thanks...

[Bucky]

98. If you don't examine the truth honestly and openly, you shame the dead.

After 2000 Americans have died and thousands more have enduring life altering wounds and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died first by our smart bombs' bad aim and then by our leaders' ineptitude, can you really imagine any deal to never investigate this war would stick? So to answer your question...

Yes, I'd gladly take that deal. I would lie to them and say, "Bring the troops home in six months, soon as we can prop up enough surviving Iraqi men to form an army, and I won't ask any more questions about why we went then in the first place." Then I'd wait for the hue and cry from the public to know just why we went over there, shrug my shoulders to my Republican friends and say,

"Sorry guys. Looks like the people want an investigation. Dang this democracy thing."

The only way this would work, of course, would be if, you know, we the people continued to scream out for the truth. I'm game.

[MrBenchley]

104. Now I REALLY like that!

After years of being beat up for being "moral relativists" by right wing pseudo-intellectuals, it would be fitting in a way if WE liberals actually practiced what THEY preached.

"The only way this would work, of course, would be if, you know, we the people continued to scream out for the truth. "
Of course, we would also have to lay low for a while, until the troops actually GOT home, then pounce. But that does sound like a good idea.

What I especially like is that the only practical counter the Republicans could pull is "look how unfairly they're attacking our popular president." And this corrupt is not popular now...imagine how unpopular he'd be if the GOP Congress pulls the plug on his war and walks further away from him than they are now (especially if he ended up fighting Conggress to keep the war going).

[MrBenchley]

107. Another thought I just had....

We could agree that we were "not going to investigate the causes of the war" and then when we get control of Congress, announce we're going to investigate the Plame outing instead....which would cover the exact same ground, since the motive for outing Plame is that they lied about the causes of the war...

[jackbourassa]

99. I would support it

But unfortunately the premise of your entire post is false. Bush is using Lieberman, as he always has. And Lieberman is letting him do it, as he always has.

You must accept facts. Lieberman is one of them.

[MrBenchley]

105. Thanks...

Since you want to mention facts...I don't think this is exactly "one of them""

"* Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)
* Keep abortion safe, rare and legal; with 24-week viability. (Dec 2003)
* FDA’s RU-486 decision stands; it’s made properly by experts. (Oct 2000)
* Leave abortion decision to a woman, her doctor, and her god. (Oct 2000)
* Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)
* Supports abortion rights within his faith, not despite it. (Sep 2000)
...
* Allow driver's license for immigrants. (Jan 2004)
* Support reparation legislations. (Jan 2004)
* Sunset the Patriot Act. (Nov 2003)
* Marched with Martin Luther King in 1963; keep dream alive. (Sep 2003)
* Marched with MLK, fought for voting rights in Mississippi. (May 2003)
* Opposes laws against gay sex & sodomy; focus on real crime. (May 2003)
* Better economy helps blacks: Rising tide raises all boats. (May 2003)
* Support Equal Pay Act for women; plus loans & lawsuits. (Oct 2000)
* Equalize pay for women; it’s unfair and unacceptable. (Oct 2000)
* I do support, and will support affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
* Never supported CA Prop. 209 banning affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
* Support affirmative action and end all discrimination. (Aug 2000)
...
* Expand “Hate Crimes” to include women, gays, and disabled.
...
* Raise CAFE standard from 27.5 mpg to 40, including SUVs. (Jan 2004)
* Support Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline; opposes drilling ANWR. (Nov 2003)
* Accept some American responsibility for global warming. (Nov 2003)
* Declaration of Energy Independence. (Sep 2003)
* Raise mileage standard to 40 mpg. (Sep 2003)
* Destroying pristine ANWR not worth 6 months of oil. (Oct 2000)
* Save 3 mpg and we conserve same as drilling Alaska. (Oct 2000)
* Incentives for business to reduce greenhouse emissions. (Aug 2000)
...
* Enforce existing laws & reduce threats to air & water. (Nov 2003)
* Texas is last in social programs; but first in pollution. (Oct 2000)
* Religion is the foundation of environmentalism. (Oct 2000)
* Continue strong commitment to clean air, water, land. (Aug 2000)
* Strengthen CAA; protect ANWR; create more national parks. (Aug 2000)
* Advocates for robust environmental protections. (Aug 2000)
...
* Free AND fair trade, with labor and environmental standards. (Jan 2004)
* Avoid pro-business extremism and protectionist extremism. (Jan 2004)
* Stop the hemorrhaging & enforce rules of trade. (Dec 2003)
* Can't build walls and still create jobs. (Sep 2003)
* I'm for "Made in the USA" and sold abroad. (Sep 2003)
...
* Universal benefit to all seniors-no $12B for HMOs. (Jan 2004)
* National health insurance pool-free for poor and children. (Jan 2004)
* Pharmaceutical prices are unfair-import drugs from Canada. (Jan 2004)
* Allow reimport of drugs with FDA approval & price decontrols. (Sep 2003)
* Rx drug costs whack seniors. (Sep 2003)
...
* Tax the richest 2% to pay for a tax cut to the other 98%. (Jan 2004)
* Fresh Start on tax cuts for 98% of all taxpayers. (Nov 2003)
* Tax fairness & tax relief for the middle class, not the rich. (Nov 2003)
* Repeal Bush tax cuts on highest income Americans. (Sep 2003) "

http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

He's dead wrong on the war and often clueless in public...but trying to pretend that Joe is "one of them" or "Zell Miller" is ignoring the actual facts.

[Neil Lisst]

100. Johnny Fontane never gets that part!!

Joe L. can't broker squat, because he's not respected in the party.

I say let him talk, he's answerable to his state constituency, not me. And don't run him off. We're hurt if he goes, so keep him. But remember he did this, and make him pay in future, when it can be done without hurting the party.

[leesa]

101. What kind of Bullshit question is that?

If we agree to let them get away with murder and war crimes, he'll agree to work to get the troops come home? This is the kind of crap you admire in a human being?

[No Exit]

102. "Your husband has agreed to stop beating you as long as you

don't press charges for the time he beat you so badly that your facial bones were fractured, your spleen was ruptured, you lost a limb, and you ended up having to be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life."

"Okay, honey? Take the deal! You'll be safe from him forever!"

[MrBenchley]

106. If I count correctly

there are fourteen "withdrawal AND inquiry or no deal" and five "take the deal" so far. Interesting.

As I said several times, I can see arguments for both.

Although I must say, I DO like" take the deal and then renege and have the inquiry anyway" as a pragmatic strategy.

Thanks all.