Say It Ain't So, Joe

Joe Lieberman visits with the troops in Baghdad, and McClatchy Newspapers' Leila Fadel is on hand to see what the troops weren't willing to say to Lieberman's face. Things like "We're not making any progress. It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at."

Lieberman himself endorses the Green Lantern theory. "I think it's important we don't lose our will. To pull out would be a disaster." I hear willpower cures gunshot wounds these days.

Comments

I think it's important we don't lose our will.

Good advice, considering. He should collect all their wills bring it to the US and hand them to his lawyer for safekeeping.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 9:25 AM

I hope I don't come across as a dick when I say this, but why would the troops be concerned about saying certain things to Lieberman's face? It's not as if he's commander-in-chief, like Bush, or even a former military man, like McCain. I can understand how they wouldn't want to act like raving lunatics in front of a senator, but why not simply say what they mean? Why hold back?

Posted by Brian | May 31, 2007 9:26 AM

This piece is worth remembering the next time you read one of Lieberman's op-ed column in the Post (which occur roughly every three months) calling for more "will" in Iraq and how all the soldiers he meets are bent on exerting more "will" to, um, well, I guess, prop up a sectarian Shia government.

Posted by Cas | May 31, 2007 9:27 AM

For any of you who haven't done so, go read James Fearon's Foreign Affairs piece on Iraq' Civil War:

www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html

It is truly excellent. Too bad there isn't more clear-eyed discussion like this out there. Here is the abstract:

Summary: The White House still avoids the label, but by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun. The record of past such wars suggests that Washington cannot stop this one -- and that Iraqis will be able to reach a power-sharing deal only after much more fighting, if then. The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.

James D. Fearon is Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University.

Posted by Castorp | May 31, 2007 9:29 AM

Typically Senators and suchlike walk around with military public affairs officers during their visits with "the troops." Enlisted men are not likely to speak their minds in front of officers of any kind for fear of getting in trouble with their chain of command. You do NOT have freedom of speech in the military. You are governed by the UCMJ.

The guy who asked Rumsfeld the armor question back in '04 was a ARNG specialist. In other words, a very low-ranking NG soldier who probably has no real aspirations for a military career.

Posted by tequila | May 31, 2007 9:48 AM

More "WE" Bullshit in this quote,

"I think it's important WE don't lose our will," he said. "To pull out would be a disaster."

Meanwhile Liebermans 18 yr. old daughter continues "studying abroad" in Israel and his coward son Matt,Who ran away from CT when his Daddy was rejected by Cts Dems, cowers in a job Daddys connections got him as Headmaster of a Jewish Dayshool in Atlanta.

http://shalomatlanta...

Where the hell do you get off using the word WE Sen. Lieberman while your kids will NEVER even think of doing what those kids you just used for a photo-op are doing?

What a COWARD!!

Posted by ctkeith | May 31, 2007 9:56 AM

Jesus, that article was depressing.

Posted by Adam | May 31, 2007 9:57 AM

If the war so worthwhile, enlist, Joe.

Posted by Rich | May 31, 2007 9:59 AM

Why did Ms. Fadel write that it's "unclear" whether the soldier asked the Senator those questions, or if the Senator answered? She couldn't have asked a quick follow question of the soldier or the Senator after the lunch? Sounds like shitty reporting to me.

Posted by Fred | May 31, 2007 10:00 AM

I've been in Lieberman's presence. Trust me, there is nothing about him that should make people be afraid to tell him he's still wrong.

Posted by bajsa | May 31, 2007 10:02 AM

Re Lieberman

Sounds like Senator Lieberman suffers from the same disease as Charles Krauthammer, an inordinate affection for Leni Riefenstahls' movie, "Triumph of the Will."

Posted by SLC | May 31, 2007 10:32 AM

SLC: This disease seems to be quite common among conservative circles. The Vice President's daughter and official hachetwoman Liz Cheney has also caught the bug:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201103.html

Posted by Castorp | May 31, 2007 10:42 AM

Give him credit. He announced he would stay in Baghdad until the last troop left.

Posted by della Rovere | May 31, 2007 10:52 AM

I hear willpower cures gunshot wounds these days

I think this is the most horrifically fantastic response to Bush supporters. For my part, I will be trying to spread it as far as I can.

Posted by sheila | May 31, 2007 10:54 AM

Lieberman (D-Israel) doesn't care in the slightest what this war is costing the U.S. as long as it keeps U.S. forces in the mideast as an insurance policy for Israel.

Posted by kafka | May 31, 2007 10:55 AM

It's well documented that the US national 'will' and other vital bodily fluids have been waning ever since the introduction of flouride into our water. So I don't know what else Mr Lieberman could expect.

Posted by AJ | May 31, 2007 11:09 AM

I can understand how they wouldn't want to act like raving lunatics in front of a senator, but why not simply say what they mean? Why hold back?

Probably wouldn't go over well with the C.O.

Posted by JP | May 31, 2007 12:11 PM

Re kafka

"Lieberman (D-Israel) doesn't care in the slightest what this war is costing the U.S. as long as it keeps U.S. forces in the mideast as an insurance policy for Israel."

Aside from being totally inane, this comment doesn't even make any sense. If all that Lieberman is interested in is an insurance policy for Israel, then he would be advocating placing the troops in Israel. They would sure be a hell of a lot more effective defending Israel if they were based there then they are being in Iraq.

Posted by SLC | May 31, 2007 12:12 PM

i hear he overlooks murder for a tattooed crucifix

Posted by looj | May 31, 2007 12:49 PM

God, Joe looks good in a uniform. Damn good!

Posted by The Next to Last Pope | May 31, 2007 3:58 PM

Why hold back?

"I want someone to tell me," Lieutenant Schiesskopf beseeched them all prayerfully. "If any of it's my fault, I want to be told."

"He wants someone to tell him," Clevinger said.

"He wants everyone to keep still, idiot," Yoassarian answered.

"Didn't you hear him?" Clevinger argued.

"I heard him," Yossarian replied. "I heard him say very loudly and very distinctly that he wants every one of us to keep our mouths shut if we know what's good for us."

"I won't punish you," Lieutenant Schiesskopf swore.

"He says he won't punish me, " said Clevinger.

"He'll castrate you," said Yossarian.

Catch 22 by Joseph Heller

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 31, 2007 4:03 PM

Lieberman is a powerful Committee chair. You typically don't want to piss of the the chair of a committee, esp one that has jurisdiction over you, the Chair might cut off funding to your pet project.
That's why some soldiers (I read that as meaning the brass) may be reluctant to get in Joe's face.

Posted by Michael L | May 31, 2007 7:21 PM

The Real Rationale for the Surge?

1. Flood the streets of Baghdad with thousands of American soldiers in the name of creating stability for the “Iraq political process”.

2. These troops will draw unprecedented snipers, bombers, etc. from the area and all over the region to “bag an American trophy”.

3. The seeds of “Iran” involvement in deaths of Americans was planted months ago. Increase public pronouncement regarding the connection of Iran’s responsibility for the “tragic killing of American troops”.

4. Add an additional, unnecessary US Carrier (opposed by leaders in the military as reckless and not in US interest). Provocative, but also increasing the chances of major confrontation, if even by mistake.

5. Send a belligerent VP Cheney into the region, cast him on the War Ship and have him utter bellicose and threatening comments regarding the Iranian government.

8. Coordinate and cultivate the usual Propagandists at the National Review, Weekly Standard, WSJ and WaPo to pointedly reinforce the Iranian connection-- conflate with War on Terror; Mushroom Cloud over the US; Fight Them There Not Here; Iran equals Al Queda and is connected to 9/11.

9. Accelerate the internal attacks against the “surrender monkeys” at State that want to pursue diplomacy to avoid a potent WW111 incident or situation. Use insider Cheneyites and stories and whispers by the aforementioned Propagandists.

10. Once again, tap into the Rove/Bush total focus on political, power and control. Easy manipulated, with no thought given to casualties, costs, or potential historic catastrophic consequences, emphasize that with the polls down, and time running out, there is nothing to lose by throwing the Hail Mary bombs at Iran. The country will rally around the War President, with the added benefit of justifying the continued elimination of Constitutional protection and civil rights-- not because there is rational justification, but “because we can”, much like pulling the wings off of a butterfly.

Is a rationale for the surge that includes the exploitation of the expected increase in American casualties cynical? Didn’t Wolfowitz at one point admit that WMDs and Mushroom Clouds were always just a pretext for the invasion? The Surgites are smart people, and there is no way they could actually believe that the Surge could really have a meaningful impact in creating stability.

Posted by erict | May 31, 2007 10:11 PM

Lieberman (D-Israel)

Not to noodge, but that should be "I-Israel".

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 1, 2007 12:16 AM