Is There Anyone More Clueless Than Joe Lieberman?
I've been out of town on business all week, so forgive me for dredging up week-old news, but I just couldn't let Joe Lieberman's performance on Meet The Press last week go with comment. In response to a question by Tim Russert about the difficultly of conducting a war that is so unpopular, Lieberman began by noting that there are only two exit stragies in Iraq--victory and defeat--and that all proposals other than the President's "surge" plan amount to "retreat and defeat." This is par for the course for Lieberman: analysis consisting of little more than empty slogans delivered in a pious, condescending way. But then Lieberman put his astounding ignorance on full display:
Lieberman makes two factual claims here regarding the nature of the enemy we're fighting: 1) that we were "attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy we're fighting in Iraq today" and 2) that this enemy is "supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran." Neither of these claims is true, at least in any meaningful sense.
Indeed, the day before Lieberman offered this "analysis," this article was published in the Guardian detailing the evolving nature of the Sunni insurgency. Toward the middle of the piece, the reporter relays the following dialogue from a meeting of Sunni insurgent leaders:
From just this simple exchange, the magnitude of Lieberman's wrongness is apparent. Though al Qaeda has indeed become a significant player in post-invasion Iraq, the vast majority of insurgents are not al Qaeda members. They're not the people who attacked us on 9/11. They're not jihadists with global ambitions. They're just Sunni Iraqis, fighting for objectives relevant to the lives of Sunni Iraqis.
And one of those objectives, perhaps the primary objective now, is protecting themselves and their interests from the Iranian-backed Shia majority. Does Lieberman really not get this? Does he really think that we're fighting al Qaeda terrorists backed by "a rising radical Islamist super-powered government in Iran"?
Sometimes I think people like Lieberman are just incapable of understanding a plot-line that is any more complex than Good fighting Evil. Perhaps he read too many comic books as a child. Whatever the explanation, it's well past time to stop treating this guy as some kind of foreign policy expert. He has no idea what he's talking about. Ever.
“I think the consequences for the Middle East, which has been so important to our international stability over the years, and to the American people, who have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran, the consequences for us, for — I want to be personal — for my children and grandchildren, I fear will be disastrous. That’s why I want to do everything I can to win in Iraq. And, and, and I think that’s what my, my oath of office requires me to do.”It's astounding to me that someone with so little understanding of the nature of the conflict we're engaged in continues to be paraded around as some sort of expert on the subject.
Lieberman makes two factual claims here regarding the nature of the enemy we're fighting: 1) that we were "attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy we're fighting in Iraq today" and 2) that this enemy is "supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran." Neither of these claims is true, at least in any meaningful sense.
Indeed, the day before Lieberman offered this "analysis," this article was published in the Guardian detailing the evolving nature of the Sunni insurgency. Toward the middle of the piece, the reporter relays the following dialogue from a meeting of Sunni insurgent leaders:
A heated discussion was raging. One of the men, with a very thin moustache, a huge belly and a red kuffiya wrapped around his shoulder, held a copy of the Qur'an in one hand and a mobile phone in the other. I asked him what his objectives were. "We are fighting to liberate our country from the occupations of the Americans and their Iranian-Shia stooges."
"My brother, I disagree," said Abu Omar. "Look, the Americans are trying to talk to us Sunnis and we need to show them that we can do politics. We need to use the Americans to fight the Shia."
He looked nervously at them: suggestions of talking to the Americans could easily have him labelled as traitor. "Where is the jihad and the mujahideen?" he continued. "Baghdad has become a Shia town. Our brothers are being slaughtered every day! Where are these al-Qaida heroes? One neighbourhood after another will be lost if we don't work on a strategy."
From just this simple exchange, the magnitude of Lieberman's wrongness is apparent. Though al Qaeda has indeed become a significant player in post-invasion Iraq, the vast majority of insurgents are not al Qaeda members. They're not the people who attacked us on 9/11. They're not jihadists with global ambitions. They're just Sunni Iraqis, fighting for objectives relevant to the lives of Sunni Iraqis.
And one of those objectives, perhaps the primary objective now, is protecting themselves and their interests from the Iranian-backed Shia majority. Does Lieberman really not get this? Does he really think that we're fighting al Qaeda terrorists backed by "a rising radical Islamist super-powered government in Iran"?
Sometimes I think people like Lieberman are just incapable of understanding a plot-line that is any more complex than Good fighting Evil. Perhaps he read too many comic books as a child. Whatever the explanation, it's well past time to stop treating this guy as some kind of foreign policy expert. He has no idea what he's talking about. Ever.
6 Comments:
Don't you believe that the Sunday talk shows breed this kind of foolish spin? These politicians surely know the subject matter and their opponents before the show, so a certain amount of what we see is just doctored speech to further their individual causes. Rarely do you see the host or moderator try to trip up what they have to say, most often the questions the pundits receive are just for validation. Some of the seminars these people attend cost $10,000 for a weekend just to learn how to master answering questions. A good example would be Ken Mehlman or Karen Hughes, they are masters at their craft and can twist a question to the point the moderator won't risk embarrassing himself to pursue.
Lieberman should ask for a refund, I can't think of an American political character since Nixon that is so off base and disliked at the same time. Rethinking the format for Sunday talk shows would help diminish Joe Lieberman for good.
How can people who have been repeatedly wrong in their positions on the war, in addition to making such idiotic statements, continue to be taken seriously? That interview reveals that Lieberman doesn't know jack shit about Iraq, and yet he is still considered "strong" on foreign policy for some reason.
How can anyone believe that Joe Lieberman is wrong about the iraq war. He is a religious man, with the highest of morals and integrity. Iraq has always been an enemy of Israel, a true threat to their egsistance. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Scooter Libby, Joe Lieberman and many other choosen people, are doing, and have done, Gods work here on earth. If they must lie about WMDs, so be it. If they have to connect Iraq with al-Qaida, let it be done. To be true or false with the goyim - what difference does it make! The goal – to make the American military take up arms aganist Israel’s enemies. This is the zionist dream. And by their actions, and with the help of their media, they have suceeded in making Israel’s enemies our own. Thousands if not millions of Americans will have to die, but to the Joe Lieberman’s of the world, that’s a risk they’re willing to take.
I wouldn't put it quite as bluntly or unequivocally as anonymous, but I will say that if it's untrue, Lieberman, the others mentioned and some not mentioned have laid themselves wide open to suspicion on these grounds.
Isreal is a friend and ally. Israel is not the 51st U.S. state. Lieberman needs to be reminded of that.
As for Lieberman being so clueless about the nature of the enemy, I don't buy it. I think he has a much better idea of who's doing the fighting and why than his statements indicated.
More clueless than Lieberman: many citizens of Connecticut who voted for this rootless weed in the soil of politics.
What we're seeing, though, in Lieberman's current deployment, is the reductio ad absurdem proof that the political methodology of changing one's tune to match the way the wind is blowing (of which Lieberman has been a leading proponent)leads, in the end, to incoherence and idiocy.
We can only hope that he can continue to serve -- as an example to others what happens when being re-elected is more important than anything else. I fear it may be too late for Hillary, but perhaps Barack can take a lesson from this.
I'll have you know many comic books have very complex plot lines, thankyouverymuch!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home