Thank You Joseph Lieberman

Joe, if you’re reading Headlife right now (I know you check it regularly) I just want to say “thanks”. I know you’ve got bad hair and a non-chin but in spite of these obstacles you have proven to be a true mensch.

Thanks for your article this morning in the WSJ (for which I can’t currently find a link).

Thank you for making a visit to Iraq and returning to reject the partisan impulse. Thank you for being the first credible Democratic leader in a long time to stop looking at electoral gains and start considering both moral and strategic imperatives in the Iraq War. Thanks for calling out sissy Republicans who have started making similar calculations.

Thank you for penetrating the hysterical haze of negativity and politics that have obscured urgent facts on the ground and for framing the historic struggle in Iraq for what it is–the fate of 27 million Iraqis pitted against 10,000 Islamofascist medievalists.

Thank you for observing and crediting their courage in voting in huge numbers, in building civil society and in establishing a beachhead for a Muslim alternative. Thank you for noting the achievement of the Coalition in creating the environment where this (and a general sense of change in the Middle East) could take root.

Above all thank you for exploding the notion (by reporting the direct pleas of Iraqi leadership) that we should be seriously considering a full (premature) withdrawal from Iraq just at this critical juncture.

If you run for president in 2008 you might just get my vote.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Thank You Joseph Lieberman

  1. Hey Stu– I was going to post < HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html" REL="nofollow">this<>, but since you brought it up in your post, I’ll just leave it in the comments. It’s a piece in the <>Guardian<> and discusses Prof. Martin van Creveld’s rather pessimistic view on the Iraq situation.If you find the Lieberman op-ed, post the link. I’d like to read what he said!

    Like

  2. I’ll find that link Lancer–right now I have it in today’s hard copy, I’m sure I’ll turn it up. Really well done by Joe.I’ll check out this other article. I read the Guardian every day for the three years I lived in England and found that it periodically manages to break beyond its political lean into objective ground.

    Like

  3. On Van Creveld’s discussion I’d reduce it, for brevity’s sake, to this excerpt:“The professor’s puzzlement is understandable. More than two years after the war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is difficult to see any real benefits.”This claim can only be made by someone who has a predisposition to hate the Iraq War and a absurdly politicized view of what constitutes a “benefit”.*Is the removal of the world’s most erratic and menacing dictator of the last 50 years not a benefit?*Is liberation and rapid liberalization of Iraqi Kurdistan not a great human benefit?*Is the author too narrow to see the powerful benefit in 10 Million Iraqis defying terror and violence to cast votes?*Is the proliferation of civil society and independent television stations and vigorous public debate not truly beneficial?*By “benefit” does the author mean “illicit oil contracts for Saddams buddies”? Would that constitute a benefit?*Is the progress in Lebanese and the thaw in Egypt not a benefit (by the estimation of once skeptical Lebanese, progress that would not of happened if not for Iraq)?*Is Qadafi’s handover of his nuclear keys not a benefit? (before you try to claim this was not related to the Iraq War ask yourself–why did MQ make his approach and his concession NOT to the UN or anyone in Holland or Brussels but to Mssrs Bush and Blair?). There are many benefits. And many yet to be realized. There are also many costs. But if anyone like Van Cretin or the Guardian goofball that wrote this wish to make serious inroads in this discussion, they could begin with a token nod to some of the more obvious benefits.

    Like

  4. True– as I said, ridding the world of Saddam is a <>good<> thing. (But doesn’t the award for erratic go to North Korea?) And the Kurd issue is another good thing– they seem to be the only people on the ball over there!! I’m not sure if things are quite “civil” there though– I recall reading/hearing reports that violent cimre, theft, etc. are very, very bad, even in the so-called Green Zone. But I do like that various independant news sources are growing. That is certainly key for any success.Still, while those are <>good<>, there’s lots that’s just an absolute mess. Most of it, it seems to me, was pretty foreseeable, too. I mean, did they <>really<> think the “greeted as liberators” thing was true? And if so, the people who thought it should be fired, because, well, <>come on<>!Oh– and I found the article on-line. Problem is that the WSJ lets you read it only if you’re a subscriber. Alas…

    Like

  5. The decidedly liberal but still very good AmericaBlog noted < HREF="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/clueless-joe.html" REL="nofollow">these<> comments from Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware…

    Like

Comments are closed.