OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

Iraq a Tricky Issue for Ambitious Democrats
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 49 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a
Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his
strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his vote.



The scene underscores the risks facing every politician trying to determine
an appropriate and politically wise response to war that's become
increasingly unpopular with the public.

For those like Kerry eyeing a presidential run in 2008, the stakes are
particularly high. Any position they take is a gamble given the uncertain
terrain in Iraq and the United States in three years.

"If you stake out too specific of a position this early, you may have to
take that back, and you can only zig and zag so many times in American
politics," said Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in
Rhode Island.

So potential presidential candidates have stark decisions to make:

_Do they stick with President Bush's stay-the-course strategy in a war that
many Americans believe is going south, and risk being dragged down as well?

_Do they present their own detailed plans to bring U.S. troops home - and
open themselves to criticism of "cutting and running?"

_Do they take the same stance they always have, and leave themselves
vulnerable to claims that they failed to respond to the changing situation?

Governors and others beyond Washington considering a White House run are
under less pressure to declare positions on the war because they don't have
to vote on it. Nevertheless, some have been vocal.

"I was wrong," former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Nov. 13 in a column in
The Washington Post. "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002." He
advocated a "gradual process" of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq starting
early next year.

Another possible candidate, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico,
said in a statement Tuesday: "It is now time for the military commanders to
design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Other potential candidates outside of Congress have remained largely silent
on Iraq.

"Senators that are looking to run are walking a fine line between supporting
the troops and supporting their core constituents in the base of their own
party," said Scott Reed, a Republican who ran Bob Dole's presidential
campaign in 1996.

Senators vote several times a year on spending bills that pay for the war,
and sometimes on Iraq resolutions like the two the Senate considered last
week.

A Democratic measure, which the Senate rejected, called for a timetable for
withdrawing troops. A Republican alternative, which the Senate ultimately
passed, urged the Bush administration to explain "its strategy for the
successful completion of the mission in Iraq" but omitted a timetable.

Kerry, last year's Democratic presidential candidate who is said to be
considering another run, first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left
the chamber and was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to
his senior home state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting
record), D-Mass. Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote.

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, said Republicans weakened the resolution
"late in the game," and "Sen. Kerry mistakenly believed strong language
demanding benchmarks and timetables was still intact. Our troops deserve
better than half measures, and that's why John Kerry voted against it."

Before the vote, the Senate debated the main difference between the two
measures - one called for a timetable and the other didn't. In his floor
statement, Kerry said he intended to vote against the GOP resolution partly
because it lacked a timetable.

Last month, Kerry called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting
with 20,000 returning home after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. He is
one of several senators considering a presidential run who have recently
recommended changing Bush's Iraq policy.

The latest was Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who
said Monday that "measurable progress" must be made on the political,
reconstruction and security fronts in the next six months. "What we need is
for the president to change course and do it now," Biden said.

Also Monday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said immediately
withdrawing from Iraq would be "a big mistake" and suggested that the United
States wait for Iraq's elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis
can take over.

Other Democrats' positions have been more clear cut. Sen. Russ Feingold
(news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., has said the United States should set a
target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission in Iraq.

The two Republican senators who have taken arguably the most aggressive
positions on Iraq also weighed in recently.

"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded," said
Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "The United States
should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year."

Taking the opposite view, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record),
R-Ariz., advocated a "clear and stay" strategy in which troops rid an area
of insurgents and then secure it. Though it would mean more troops and
money, it has "the best chance of success," he said.

Craig Smith, a Democrat who ran Sen. Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign
last year, said the war is clearly the No. 1 issue.

"But anybody who thinks staking out a position now is going to have much of
an impact in 2008, I think, is kidding themselves," Smith said. "Anybody who
proceeds to stake out a definite position now does so at their own peril."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Kerry...first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left the chamber and
was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to his senior home
state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.
Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote."



I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



Iraq a Tricky Issue for Ambitious Democrats
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 49 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a
Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his
strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his
vote.



The scene underscores the risks facing every politician trying to
determine
an appropriate and politically wise response to war that's become
increasingly unpopular with the public.

For those like Kerry eyeing a presidential run in 2008, the stakes are
particularly high. Any position they take is a gamble given the uncertain
terrain in Iraq and the United States in three years.

"If you stake out too specific of a position this early, you may have to
take that back, and you can only zig and zag so many times in American
politics," said Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in
Rhode Island.

So potential presidential candidates have stark decisions to make:

_Do they stick with President Bush's stay-the-course strategy in a war
that
many Americans believe is going south, and risk being dragged down as
well?

_Do they present their own detailed plans to bring U.S. troops home - and
open themselves to criticism of "cutting and running?"

_Do they take the same stance they always have, and leave themselves
vulnerable to claims that they failed to respond to the changing
situation?

Governors and others beyond Washington considering a White House run are
under less pressure to declare positions on the war because they don't
have
to vote on it. Nevertheless, some have been vocal.

"I was wrong," former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Nov. 13 in a column
in
The Washington Post. "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002." He
advocated a "gradual process" of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq starting
early next year.

Another possible candidate, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico,
said in a statement Tuesday: "It is now time for the military commanders
to
design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Other potential candidates outside of Congress have remained largely
silent
on Iraq.

"Senators that are looking to run are walking a fine line between
supporting
the troops and supporting their core constituents in the base of their own
party," said Scott Reed, a Republican who ran Bob Dole's presidential
campaign in 1996.

Senators vote several times a year on spending bills that pay for the war,
and sometimes on Iraq resolutions like the two the Senate considered last
week.

A Democratic measure, which the Senate rejected, called for a timetable
for
withdrawing troops. A Republican alternative, which the Senate ultimately
passed, urged the Bush administration to explain "its strategy for the
successful completion of the mission in Iraq" but omitted a timetable.

Kerry, last year's Democratic presidential candidate who is said to be
considering another run, first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left
the chamber and was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly
to
his senior home state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting
record), D-Mass. Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote.

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, said Republicans weakened the resolution
"late in the game," and "Sen. Kerry mistakenly believed strong language
demanding benchmarks and timetables was still intact. Our troops deserve
better than half measures, and that's why John Kerry voted against it."

Before the vote, the Senate debated the main difference between the two
measures - one called for a timetable and the other didn't. In his floor
statement, Kerry said he intended to vote against the GOP resolution
partly
because it lacked a timetable.

Last month, Kerry called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting
with 20,000 returning home after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. He
is
one of several senators considering a presidential run who have recently
recommended changing Bush's Iraq policy.

The latest was Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who
said Monday that "measurable progress" must be made on the political,
reconstruction and security fronts in the next six months. "What we need
is
for the president to change course and do it now," Biden said.

Also Monday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said immediately
withdrawing from Iraq would be "a big mistake" and suggested that the
United
States wait for Iraq's elections for an indication about how soon the
Iraqis
can take over.

Other Democrats' positions have been more clear cut. Sen. Russ Feingold
(news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., has said the United States should set
a
target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission in Iraq.

The two Republican senators who have taken arguably the most aggressive
positions on Iraq also weighed in recently.

"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded,"
said
Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "The United States
should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year."

Taking the opposite view, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record),
R-Ariz., advocated a "clear and stay" strategy in which troops rid an area
of insurgents and then secure it. Though it would mean more troops and
money, it has "the best chance of success," he said.

Craig Smith, a Democrat who ran Sen. Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign
last year, said the war is clearly the No. 1 issue.

"But anybody who thinks staking out a position now is going to have much
of
an impact in 2008, I think, is kidding themselves," Smith said. "Anybody
who
proceeds to stake out a definite position now does so at their own peril."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

"Kerry...first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left the chamber and
was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to his senior
home
state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.
Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote."



I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Then you have others like Daschle that try to rewrite history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blo...evisionism.htm
l

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

There is always tomorrow. You have to have goals that are more than just
winning the next election.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been announced
by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses which
are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could lead to a
parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to predict. That would
make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave may not be a
nice, neat one made in a conference room.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could lead
to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to the
ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing to
allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's borders.



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing
to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's
borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing
to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's
borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.


No kidding. The plan is halfway complete. And you guys say that we're
making no progress in Iraq. ;-)



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be no
more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but
Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing
to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's
borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.


No kidding. The plan is halfway complete. And you guys say that we're
making no progress in Iraq. ;-)



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to
leave may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be
no more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.

Oh....OK. You think this war's gonna cool off soon.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.


What?!?? And abandon the age-old traditional "Conservative"
values of hypocrisy?

"NOBBY" wrote
Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be
no more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.


Excuse me? The U.S. forces stationed in Europe during the
Cold War were at risk of being swallowed by the Warsaw
Pact... if war broke out.

Are you saying there was *no* risk of war? Two generations
of military strategists would disagree strongly.


Doug Kanter wrote:
Oh....OK. You think this war's gonna cool off soon.


Of course it is. Our wise and honest Vice President has
assured us that the insurgency is "on it's last legs."

DSK

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but
Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is
willing to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of
Iraq's borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.


No kidding. The plan is halfway complete. And you guys say that we're
making no progress in Iraq. ;-)



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to
leave may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot
at. You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be
no more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.

Oh....OK. You think this war's gonna cool off soon.

So does Joe Lieberman, who just got back from Iraq:


`We Do Have A Plan'

Returning From Iraq, Lieberman Praises U.S. Strategy, Urges Bush To Tout
Successes

By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief

November 29 2005

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, just back from Iraq, wants President
Bush to give the American people details about the progress being made in
that country - from military triumphs to the proliferation of cellphones and
satellite dishes.

Bush is scheduled to give the nation a progress report on Iraq Wednesday,
his first such address since Congress erupted two weeks ago in bitter debate
over the war.

Supporters and critics alike have been urging the president to outline his
strategy for some time.

Critics sense a mission adrift. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., visited
Iraq last month, and came away saying "we need a major course correction" in
American policy - notably "we need to let Iraqis know we're not there
forever."

But Lieberman, D-Conn., who spent Wednesday and Thursday in Iraq, saw strong
evidence that a workable American plan is in place.

"We do have a strategy," he said. "We do have a plan. I saw a strategy
that's being implemented."

Lieberman, who is one of Bush's strongest war supporters in the Senate,
cited the remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who last month
told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the strategy in Iraq was to
"clear, hold and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them
securely and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions."

Lieberman spent his time in Iraq, his fourth trip there in 17 months,
conferring with American officials and Iraqi leaders, including Prime
Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, the country's interior and defense ministers, and
senior members of the Supreme Council. He also talked with about 50
Connecticut troops.

Other war backers shared the belief that the strategy would work. Rep.
Christopher Shays, R-4th District, said he was "pretty optimistic" after his
10th trip to Iraq last month.

"The [Iraqi] troops are moving forward in a very positive way," Shays
reported.

Lieberman and others acknowledge that the White House has a huge public
relations task convincing the American people that the United States has a
clear, winnable mission.

The White House has not released details of the speech Bush is scheduled to
deliver at the U.S. Naval Academy Wednesday, but the president's supporters
have been urging him to provide specifics about his plans.

John W. Warner, R-Va., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sunday
told NBC's "Meet the Press" that Bush should consider the kind of "fireside
chat" Franklin D. Roosevelt used during his presidency.

"It would bring him closer to the people," Warner said, "[and] dispel some
of the concern that, understandably, our people have about the loss of life
and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public."

One way to calm lawmakers and the public, backers said, is to stress the
good news.

"The Iraqi Security Forces are fighting hard. They're fighting well. They
are not cracking under pressure, as you see in some armies, and they are
making a tremendous contribution," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director,
plans and strategy, U.S. Army Central Command, told a Heritage Foundation
forum Monday.

Such descriptions, though, are unlikely to satisfy war critics.

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, said she wanted "a new strategy for
Iraq, one that both safely brings our troops home and brings stability and
security to the country and throughout the region."

She cited Democratic ideas, including specific exit strategies and
timetables, and expressed hope Bush "will use his speech Wednesday to begin
this discussion with the American people."

Dodd, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, listed a series of
steps he would like the United States to take, including using Arab League
nations to cool tensions between rival Iraqi factions, getting the United
Nations and NATO more involved and possibly moving "major blocs" of American
troops out of the country after the Dec. 15 national elections.

The critics were not optimistic the White House would announce any troop
pullbacks anytime soon.

"This administration is in a state of denial, and is very much in a
hunker-down mode," added Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for foreign
policy and defense studies at Washington's Cato Institute.

He said of Bush and Lieberman, "You can admire their consistency, but I
don't think there's anything more tragic than someone who's loyal to a
flawed cause."

Bush, Lieberman and other war backers have become increasingly isolated
politically.

A Nov. 11-13 Gallup poll found that 63 percent of those surveyed disapproved
of Bush's handling of the war, and 60 percent thought it was not worth going
to war.

Lieberman, a consistent supporter of action against Iraq since the Gulf War
in 1991, was one of five Senate Democrats to oppose a Democratic-led bid on
Nov. 15 to demand that Bush set timetables for troop pullouts.

And though 53 Republicans joined Lieberman to defeat that measure, Bush got
another message that day as 79 senators told Bush "the administration needs
to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the
successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

Two days later, Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., considered one of the Pentagon's
most ardent Democratic friends, went public with his misgivings about the
war and said troops should leave Iraq almost immediately.

Lieberman said he understands the mood, but is adamant that the war is a
just cause.

The White House is showing some hints of strain: Saturday, the
administration quickly rebutted criticisms by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
D-Del., a one-time war backer who recently has been vocal in calling for a
withdrawal timetable.

The White House sent reporters a three-page memo addressing Biden's points
and extensively quoting Bush's Nov. 14 speech at Elmendorf Air Force Base in
Anchorage.

In that address, Bush reiterated his strategy: "As the Iraqis stand up, we
will stand down. And when our commanders on the ground tell me that the
Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the
honor they have earned."

Bush is not expected to set any precise timetables for withdrawal in his
Wednesday address, even though supporters have suggested reducing U.S.
involvement next year.

"If all goes well, we could be in a position to draw down a significant
number of forces by the end of 2006, the beginning of 2007," Lieberman said.

The senator said he hopes Bush will emphasize details of progress Wednesday.

"There are more cars on the street and an amazing number of satellite dishes
on rooftops," the senator said, "and what seems like millions of cellphones.

"Most exciting is the political stuff. ... There is a campaign going on
there for the Dec. 15 National Assembly elections and there are a lot of
independent television stations and newspapers covering it."

Lieberman acknowledged that the United States should have had more troops
available after Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003.

"But what's happening on the ground now shows those leading our effort now
have learned from our mistakes," he said, "and they're going with what
works."

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot
at. You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.


What?!?? And abandon the age-old traditional "Conservative" values of
hypocrisy?

"NOBBY" wrote
Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be
no more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.


Excuse me? The U.S. forces stationed in Europe during the Cold War were at
risk of being swallowed by the Warsaw Pact... if war broke out.

Are you saying there was *no* risk of war? Two generations of military
strategists would disagree strongly.

I didn't say that were at no risk. I said that they would be in "no more
risk" than the US forces in Europe faced. Yet, nobody was calling for the
Europe-based US forces to be withdrawn.





Doug Kanter wrote:
Oh....OK. You think this war's gonna cool off soon.

Of course it is. Our wise and honest Vice President has assured us that
the insurgency is "on it's last legs."


`We Do Have A Plan'

Returning From Iraq, Lieberman Praises U.S. Strategy, Urges Bush To Tout
Successes

By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief

November 29 2005

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, just back from Iraq, wants President
Bush to give the American people details about the progress being made in
that country - from military triumphs to the proliferation of cellphones and
satellite dishes.

Bush is scheduled to give the nation a progress report on Iraq Wednesday,
his first such address since Congress erupted two weeks ago in bitter debate
over the war.

Supporters and critics alike have been urging the president to outline his
strategy for some time.

Critics sense a mission adrift. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., visited
Iraq last month, and came away saying "we need a major course correction" in
American policy - notably "we need to let Iraqis know we're not there
forever."

But Lieberman, D-Conn., who spent Wednesday and Thursday in Iraq, saw strong
evidence that a workable American plan is in place.

"We do have a strategy," he said. "We do have a plan. I saw a strategy
that's being implemented."

Lieberman, who is one of Bush's strongest war supporters in the Senate,
cited the remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who last month
told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the strategy in Iraq was to
"clear, hold and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them
securely and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions."

Lieberman spent his time in Iraq, his fourth trip there in 17 months,
conferring with American officials and Iraqi leaders, including Prime
Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, the country's interior and defense ministers, and
senior members of the Supreme Council. He also talked with about 50
Connecticut troops.

Other war backers shared the belief that the strategy would work. Rep.
Christopher Shays, R-4th District, said he was "pretty optimistic" after his
10th trip to Iraq last month.

"The [Iraqi] troops are moving forward in a very positive way," Shays
reported.

Lieberman and others acknowledge that the White House has a huge public
relations task convincing the American people that the United States has a
clear, winnable mission.

The White House has not released details of the speech Bush is scheduled to
deliver at the U.S. Naval Academy Wednesday, but the president's supporters
have been urging him to provide specifics about his plans.

John W. Warner, R-Va., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sunday
told NBC's "Meet the Press" that Bush should consider the kind of "fireside
chat" Franklin D. Roosevelt used during his presidency.

"It would bring him closer to the people," Warner said, "[and] dispel some
of the concern that, understandably, our people have about the loss of life
and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public."

One way to calm lawmakers and the public, backers said, is to stress the
good news.

"The Iraqi Security Forces are fighting hard. They're fighting well. They
are not cracking under pressure, as you see in some armies, and they are
making a tremendous contribution," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director,
plans and strategy, U.S. Army Central Command, told a Heritage Foundation
forum Monday.

Such descriptions, though, are unlikely to satisfy war critics.

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, said she wanted "a new strategy for
Iraq, one that both safely brings our troops home and brings stability and
security to the country and throughout the region."

She cited Democratic ideas, including specific exit strategies and
timetables, and expressed hope Bush "will use his speech Wednesday to begin
this discussion with the American people."

Dodd, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, listed a series of
steps he would like the United States to take, including using Arab League
nations to cool tensions between rival Iraqi factions, getting the United
Nations and NATO more involved and possibly moving "major blocs" of American
troops out of the country after the Dec. 15 national elections.

The critics were not optimistic the White House would announce any troop
pullbacks anytime soon.

"This administration is in a state of denial, and is very much in a
hunker-down mode," added Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for foreign
policy and defense studies at Washington's Cato Institute.

He said of Bush and Lieberman, "You can admire their consistency, but I
don't think there's anything more tragic than someone who's loyal to a
flawed cause."

Bush, Lieberman and other war backers have become increasingly isolated
politically.

A Nov. 11-13 Gallup poll found that 63 percent of those surveyed disapproved
of Bush's handling of the war, and 60 percent thought it was not worth going
to war.

Lieberman, a consistent supporter of action against Iraq since the Gulf War
in 1991, was one of five Senate Democrats to oppose a Democratic-led bid on
Nov. 15 to demand that Bush set timetables for troop pullouts.

And though 53 Republicans joined Lieberman to defeat that measure, Bush got
another message that day as 79 senators told Bush "the administration needs
to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the
successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

Two days later, Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., considered one of the Pentagon's
most ardent Democratic friends, went public with his misgivings about the
war and said troops should leave Iraq almost immediately.

Lieberman said he understands the mood, but is adamant that the war is a
just cause.

The White House is showing some hints of strain: Saturday, the
administration quickly rebutted criticisms by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
D-Del., a one-time war backer who recently has been vocal in calling for a
withdrawal timetable.

The White House sent reporters a three-page memo addressing Biden's points
and extensively quoting Bush's Nov. 14 speech at Elmendorf Air Force Base in
Anchorage.

In that address, Bush reiterated his strategy: "As the Iraqis stand up, we
will stand down. And when our commanders on the ground tell me that the
Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the
honor they have earned."

Bush is not expected to set any precise timetables for withdrawal in his
Wednesday address, even though supporters have suggested reducing U.S.
involvement next year.

"If all goes well, we could be in a position to draw down a significant
number of forces by the end of 2006, the beginning of 2007," Lieberman said.

The senator said he hopes Bush will emphasize details of progress Wednesday.

"There are more cars on the street and an amazing number of satellite dishes
on rooftops," the senator said, "and what seems like millions of cellphones.

"Most exciting is the political stuff. ... There is a campaign going on
there for the Dec. 15 National Assembly elections and there are a lot of
independent television stations and newspapers covering it."

Lieberman acknowledged that the United States should have had more troops
available after Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003.

"But what's happening on the ground now shows those leading our effort now
have learned from our mistakes," he said, "and they're going with what
works."

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

Are you saying there was *no* risk of war? Two generations of military
strategists would disagree strongly.


NOYB wrote:
I didn't say that were at no risk. I said that they would be in "no more
risk" than the US forces in Europe faced.

Actually, there is some sense in this. US forces in Europe
have been targeted by terrorists & suicide bombers... just
not on the scale they are in Iraq.


... Yet, nobody was calling for the
Europe-based US forces to be withdrawn.


Wrong again. A lot of people were calling for the downsizing
of the military and withdrawing from Europe & Korea...
including a number of isolationist Republicans.




WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, just back from Iraq, wants President
Bush to give the American people details about the progress being made in
that country - from military triumphs to the proliferation of cellphones and
satellite dishes.

It would make more sense if he reported that there was a
definite improvement in civil services in Iraq... how many
people are getting reliable water & electricity now?



Lieberman acknowledged that the United States should have had more troops
available after Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003.


That's funny, President Bush has been very insistant that
nobody ever told him they needed more troops.

DSK

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Oh....OK. You think this war's gonna cool off soon.

So does Joe Lieberman, who just got back from Iraq:

I liked these excerpts from the article you posted:

=======================================
Other war backers shared the belief that the strategy would work. Rep.
Christopher Shays, R-4th District, said he was "pretty optimistic" after his
10th trip to Iraq last month.

"The [Iraqi] troops are moving forward in a very positive way," Shays
reported.


"The Iraqi Security Forces are fighting hard. They're fighting well. They
are not cracking under pressure, as you see in some armies, and they are
making a tremendous contribution," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director,
plans and strategy, U.S. Army Central Command, told a Heritage Foundation
forum Monday.

=======================================

But, there's a problem with these glowing reviews of the Iraqi troops.
They're starting to sound like the South Vietnamese troops we put so much
faith in 35 years ago.

The New York Times
November 29, 2005
Sunnis Accuse Iraqi Military of Kidnappings and Slayings
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 28 - As the American military pushes the largely Shiite
Iraqi security services into a larger role in combating the insurgency,
evidence has begun to mount suggesting that the Iraqi forces are carrying
out executions in predominantly Sunni neighborhoods.

Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged in recent
weeks, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their
relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or
explanation.

Some Sunni men have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes
in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies
apparently made by electric drills. Many have simply vanished.

Some of the young men have turned up alive in prison. In a secret bunker
discovered earlier this month in an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad,
American and Iraqi officials acknowledged that some of the mostly Sunni
inmates appeared to have been tortured.

Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, and other government officials denied any
government involvement, saying the killings were carried out by men driving
stolen police cars and wearing police and army uniforms purchased at local
markets. "Impossible! Impossible!" Mr. Jabr said. "That is totally wrong;
it's only rumors; it is nonsense."

Many of the claims of killings and abductions have been substantiated by at
least one human rights organization working here - which asked not to be
identified because of safety concerns - and documented by Sunni leaders
working in their communities.

American officials, who are overseeing the training of the Iraqi Army and
the police, acknowledge that police officers and Iraqi soldiers, and the
militias with which they are associated, may indeed be carrying out killings
and abductions in Sunni communities, without direct American knowledge.

But they also say it is difficult, in an already murky guerrilla war, to
determine exactly who is responsible. The American officials insisted on
anonymity because they were working closely with the Iraqi government and
did not want to criticize it publicly.

The widespread conviction among Sunnis that the Shiite-led government is
bent on waging a campaign of terror against them is sending waves of fear
through the community, just as Iraqi and American officials are trying to
coax the Sunnis to take part in nationwide elections on Dec. 15.

Sunnis believe that the security forces are carrying out sectarian
reprisals, in part to combat the insurgency, but also in revenge for years
of repression at the hands of Saddam Hussein's government.

Ayad Allawi, a prominent Iraqi politician who is close to the Sunni
community, charged in an interview published Sunday in The London Observer
that the Iraqi government - and the Ministry of Interior in particular - was
condoning torture and running death squads.

The allegations raise the possibility of the war being fought here by a set
of far messier rules, as the Americans push more responsibility for fighting
it onto the Iraqis. One worry, expressed repeatedly by Americans and Iraqis
here, is that an abrupt pullout of American troops could clear the way for a
sectarian war.

One Sunni group taking testimony from families in Baghdad said it had
documented the death or disappearance of 700 Sunni civilians in the past
four months.

An investigator for the human rights organization said it had not been able
to determine the number of executions carried out by the Iraqi security
forces. So far, the investigator said, the evidence was anecdotal, but
substantial.

"There is no question that bodies are turning up," said the investigator,
who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, citing safety concerns.
"Quite a few have been handcuffed and shot in the back of the head."

As an example, the human rights investigator said that the group had been
able to verify that a number of Sunni men taken from the Baghdad
neighborhood of Huriya and shot to death last August. Relatives of the dead
told the group that more than 30 men had been taken from their homes by the
Iraqi police in what appeared to be a roundup of Sunni males.

In the Iskan neighborhood in Baghdad, the human rights group said it had
confirmed that 36 Sunni men had been abducted and killed in the neighborhood
in August. Sunni groups say the men were taken from their homes by men who
identified themselves as intelligence agents from the Interior Ministry.

"The stories are pretty much consistent across the board, both in the manner
that the men are being abducted and in who they say is taking them," the
human rights investigator said.

More than 15 Sunni families interviewed for this article gave similar
accounts of people identifying themselves as Iraqi security forces taking
their relatives away without warrants. The families said that most of those
said to have been abducted were later found dead.

On Nov. 12, according to the Samarraie family in Gazalia, a Baghdad
neighborhood, a group of masked men identifying themselves as agents of the
Interior Ministry broke down the family's door. Outside, the family members
said, was a line of white pickup trucks with machine guns mounted on them.

The men in masks said they were looking for Yasir, 36, one of the Samarraie
brothers, the family said. They took him away.

"We are intelligence people from the Ministry of the Interior," one of the
men said, according to Yasir's wife, Wuroud Sami Younis.

A few days later, the police found Yasir's body in an empty field a couple
of neighborhoods away. His skull was broken, and there were two bullet holes
in his temple, family members said. Officials at the city morgue confirmed
Mr. Yasir's death.

"The government is trying to terrorize and dominate the Sunni people," said
Yasir's brother, Shuhaib.

The claims of direct involvement by the Iraqi security services are
extremely difficult to verify. In a land where rumor and allegation are
commonly used as political weapons, the truth is difficult to distill.

Mr. Jabr, the interior minister, acknowledged that many civilians were being
killed in Baghdad and around Iraq, and that some of them were being killed
for sectarian reasons. "When we have cases like that, we investigate them,
and if we can find the culprits we arrest them," he said.

The chief suspects, according to Sunni leaders, human rights workers and a
well-connected American official here, are current and former members of the
Badr Brigade, the Iranian-backed militia controlled by the Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a principal part of the current
government. Since the fall of the Hussein government in April 2003, Badr
gunmen are suspected of having assassinated dozens of its former officials,
as well as suspected insurgents.

Since April, when the Shiite-led government came to power, Badr fighters
have joined the security services, like the police and commando units under
the control of the interior minister, Mr. Jabr, who is also a senior member
of the Supreme Council.

With Badr gunmen operating inside and outside the government, the militia
can act with what appears to be official backing. It is not clear who is
directing the security services, the government officials or the heads of
the militias.

"The difference between the Ministry of the Interior and the Badr Brigade
has become very blurry," the human rights investigator said.

"You have these people in the security services, and they have different
masters," said the American official in Baghdad. "There isn't a clear
understanding of who is in charge."

The alarm in the Sunni community is so great the Um al-Qura Mosque, one of
the largest temples in Baghdad, has begun documenting cases of allegations
of executions and abductions. Mazan Taha, who is overseeing the project,
said he has compiled the names of some 700 Sunni men who have disappeared or
been killed in the past four months.

In one Sunni neighborhood, Sababkar, residents said the Iraqi Army
surrounded the neighborhood and took away 11 of its Sunni men in July. Most
of the bodies were found the next day; television stations here showed
pictures of bodies that had been burned with acid and drilled with holes by
electric drills. Most of the men had been shot in their temples.

"How did these killers get police uniforms?" Mr. Taha asked of the details
surrounding many of the killings. "How was it that they were operating
freely after curfew? That they had police cars?"

Each day, Sunni families with little faith that the Shiite-led government
will help them line up at Mr. Taha's office instead, to tell of family
members who have been killed and disappeared.

"They took three of my sons!" wailed Naima Ibrahim, waving three
government-issued identification cards, as Mr. Taha quietly wrote the
information down. "They took three of my sons!"

The grief in Baghdad's Sunni neighborhoods has begun to spill onto the
streets.

On Friday, hundreds of Iraqi Sunnis marched through the Amriya neighborhood
to protest the killing of a prominent Sunni leader and three of his sons
last Wednesday. Witnesses said the killers were wearing Iraqi army uniforms
and came in the middle of the night, when the curfew has been strictly
enforced. The Sunni leader, Kadhim Surhid, was buried, but much was unclear.

"They killed them in their beds," said Jama Hussein, a friend who attended
the funeral. He jutted his palms out from his body. "I myself carried them
from their beds."

John F. Burns and Mona Mahmoud contributed reporting for this article.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:16:36 -0500, DSK wrote:


Of course it is. Our wise and honest Vice President has assured us that
the insurgency is "on it's last legs."


This Vice President?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4480638.stm

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:26:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could lead
to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to the
ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing to
allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's borders.



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.


I understand Lieberman had an article in the Wall Street Journal today. I don't
subscribe, but if you do I'd sure like to see the article.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:26:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead
to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the
ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing to
allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's borders.



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.


I understand Lieberman had an article in the Wall Street Journal today. I
don't
subscribe, but if you do I'd sure like to see the article.


"In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million
Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10
million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October,
and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a
full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been
given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for
self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists
offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community,
which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote
and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets.
Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large
number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition
forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, 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.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they
asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether
the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from
both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more
focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three
years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war
will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned
about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public
opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing
pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi
universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off
than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives
in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. 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.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George
Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of
our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy,
security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend
their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it
from them."



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, liberals. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

OT--I voted for the resolution...before I voted against it
 

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


I understand Lieberman had an article in the Wall Street Journal today. I
don't
subscribe, but if you do I'd sure like to see the article.


"In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million
Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10
million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October,
and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a
full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been
given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for
self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists
offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community,
which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote
and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets.
Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large
number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition
forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, 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.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they
asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether
the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from
both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more
focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three
years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war
will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned
about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public
opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing
pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi
universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off
than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives
in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. 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.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George
Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of
our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy,
security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend
their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it
from them."



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, liberals. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



That's the one. Thanks a lot.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]