Reading Lieberman’s op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post quickly became a game of ‘how many disproven canards can I find in this piece?’ Let’s count 'em.
- *All the Muslim extremists are on the same side. * Joe gets into that one in the very first paragraph:
We were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda, a Sunni organization. Iran is Shi’ite, and they aren’t leading or sponsoring Sunni terrorists or extremists.
- “the war is winnable.” Sure, Joe: on what basis do you say that?
Here’s his basis: “the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad” (Who?? Hakim isn’t a moderate, even by comparison with a thug like al-Sadr!) and:
- The notion that we can improve security in Baghdad by military means, and
- that would tip things our way in Iraq.
This is freakin’ crazy. We’ve already been upping the ante in Baghdad for the past six or seven months, and by all accounts, things have gotten worse. But a few more troops will surely put us over the top. Only a fool would believe this. This is Joe Lieberman speaking. But I repeat myself.
And of course, security in Baghdad was much better a year or two ago than it is now. Lot of good it did us then. The overall situation is much, much worse than it was a year ago. Even if we improve security in Baghdad to where it was this time last year, Iraq as a whole is still much worse than a year ago, and we couldn’t win then.
- Al-Qaeda (allied with Iran!) is behind the violence:
- “Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.”
Yeah, he really said that. Shee-yut, how dumb can a guy be? This is why people like me supported Ned Lamont: we figured that a guy with a brain would be a huge improvement over Joe.
Anyone paying attention realizes that the conflict in Iraq is between Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs, between competing Shi’ite factions (principally the Sadrists and Hakim’s outfit, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI), and between Kurds and Sunni Arabs. Al-Qaeda’s involvement is incidental (as evidenced by the infinitesimal effect of Zarqawi’s death this past summer) and if we leave Iraq, everybody there is going to be too busy fighting each other, just like they are now, to follow us home.
- Training more Iraqi troops will help.
Which ones, the Sadrist troops or the Badr Corps (SCIRI) troops? What evidence is there that we’re capable of identifying any troops to train that aren’t allied with one faction or another? All we’re doing is arming and training various sides in Iraq’s kaleidoscopic civil war.
- Our troops believe we can win this if we just get more troops. Joe knows this because he even talked to colonels as well as generals.
Excuse me, Joe, but what do most colonels want to be? Sheesh. Did you talk to any noncoms? The grunts might’ve had a different message.
- There is a substantial and growing alliance of moderates in Iraq. (He won’t say who they are, of course.)
Simple question, Joe: is SCIRI (the Iraqi party with the strongest ties to Iran, much more so than the Sadrists) supposedly part of this coalition? If not, then the two largest Shi’ite factions aren’t playing, and exactly who’s left on that side? If so, you’re fooling yourself, and Hakim is playing you.
- We’re making progress in winning over Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar.
How many times have we heard this one during the war? It’s less likely now than ever.
I give up. Gawd, what a tool.
I’d say I can’t believe the WaPo gave over a big chunk of its op-ed page to print this tripe - except that, lately, it’s become all too easy to believe it.