Spencer Ackerman reminds us of a previous episode in Joe Lieberman's penchant for declaring victory -- back in November of 2005 he opined in The Wall Street Journal that "I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there." And of course back in December of 2003 he accused Howard Dean of being in a "spider hole of denial" for his inability to see all the progress we were making back then.
« More Earthquake | Main | Less Talk, More Investment »
Holy Joe's Eerie Prescience
13 May 2008 01:41 pm
Comments (10)
Let's remember Michael Ware's comments (made to Marc Maron on Air America) from that visit in November 2005:
I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting.
And of course back in December of 2003 he accused Howard Dean of being in a "spider hole of denial" for his inability to see all the progress we were making back then.
It was actually even worse than that. He was criticizing Howard Dean's completely unrefutable claim that the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make America any safer. Considering that we were in no danger from Saddam before his capture, this statement struck most thinking people as unremarkable. Holy Joe's comment and subsequent repetition of this particular right-wing frame was used to repeatedly hammer Dean up until Iowa. The rest, as they say, is history.
P.S.
I also distinctly remember the smug look of satisfaction on that sanctimonious prick's face when he trotted this out at a debate. I vowed from that moment that if I ever meet Senator Lieberman, I will strike him switfly and without remorse right in the ballbag.
Here's you being a little dishonest again, no? Is claiming "real progress" the same as claiming "victory"? And wasn't there some real progress in Iraq in 2005, even if much of this (particularly on the security front) was reversed in 2006, after the sectarian bloodletting unleashed by AQI's Golden Mosque bombing?
This is also case, on your part, of the pot calling the kettle black, because you have, on occasion, read too much into particular developments in Iraq. For example, when the Sadrists put up unexpected resistance to Maliki's Basra offensive a couple of months ago, you wrote that Sadr had "checkmated" Maliki. As the New York Times and your colleague Reihan ("Maliki's Southern Strategy") have noted, that wasn't the case at all.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000
The 10,000 must be some real tough mothers.
And wasn't there some real progress in Iraq in 2005, even if much of this (particularly on the security front) was reversed in 2006, after the sectarian bloodletting unleashed by AQI's Golden Mosque bombing?
No. The Golden Mosque Bombing simply accentuated the fact that things were terrible in Iraq.
The situation now is very similar to the situation in 2005. Iraq is in hell and only a U.S. withdrawal has any hope of making things better; Bush cultists still claim we're "winning" because you're committed to American defeat and humiliation (since staying in Iraq is the ultimate defeat). The only thing the Golden Mosque Bombing changed was that it made it impossible for conservatives to insist that Iraq was making "progress"; now that the situation in Iraq is as hellish and unwinnable as it was in 2005, we're back to conservatives pretending that we're making "progress" when we are not.
"The fantasy, the flutter, the rapture of fantasy.'
(Nabakov)
This is a guy (Liebermania) who for years floated on the shallow end of the Yale pool in a state of "First Jewish President" rapture, his yiddishe kup filled with kingmaker Ben Wattenberg's whispers that soon America the Beautiful would spread its bountiful legs with anticipation for his stalwart leadership. 'For you, Joe, for you."
Trevor,
Yikes. Nice Nabakov quote, I think you successfully established the fact that you're literate. But being cultured can't hide plain old anti-Semitism (see history of Germany, 1930-1945).
Fred: "And wasn't there some real progress in Iraq in 2005, even if much of this (particularly on the security front) was reversed in 2006..."
What's wrong with this sentence?
Also, the latest agreement over Sadr City between the Sadr movement and the Maliki government was brokered BY IRAN yet again - and about the only thing it does is give the government the right to arrest anyone carrying "heavy weapons" in Sadr City.
News flash: Nobody carries "heavy weapons" - that's one reason they're called "heavy" or alternatively, "crew-served". So this means that unless government troops find them stashed somewhere, Maliki loses again. Sadr's crowd retains their weapons.
Basically, what has happened in Basra and now in Baghdad is that Sadr has done the same thing he did back in Najaf in 2004. He's made a deal, laid low, and maintained his organization intact for later use.
This doesn't help Maliki in the slightest, except in terms of public spin that Iraqi troops "control Basra" - which is completely untrue. The same applies to Baghdad. We will hear spin that the Iraqi government now "controls Sadr City" - which is a complete joke.
Nothing has changed except that Iran once again has defused a potentially destabilizing situation while the US presence was doing nothing but make it worse.
Nothing will even begin to be resolved until the provincial elections this fall and the parliamentary elections next year. After that, we will see who has won and who has lost.
drjimcooper, i have often said that various senators have their particular hallmarks: mitch mcconnell is as slimy as they come, ted stevens is cantankerous and batshit crazy, etc., etc., etc.
joe lieberman is the senator you most want to punch in the nose.
Comments closed May 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Casts some doubt on Joe's diagnosis of McCain's bearings, doesn't it?
Posted by southpaw | May 13, 2008 2:21 PM