« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Lieberman: Hooray!
Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have given an overall positive review of U.S. progress in Iraq today, but both have laden those statements with clear caveats. When asked about political reconciliation in Iraq, Crocker has tended to prefer characterizing it as "moving in the right direction."
But Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) thinks that all too much emphasis has been put on the caveats. Clearly criticizing the questioning by Democrats today, Lieberman said that "there's a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq."
Lieberman, at least, sees no harm in overstating the progress in Iraq: "The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has."
Finally, he seemed to indicate that if only Democrats would accept the clear success of the surge, we "can move to more success so we can bring more of our troops home."
Thereafter, Lieberman went into a kind of reprise of his questioning last September, wanting to know about Iran's activity in Iraq.
The transcript is below.
General and Ambassador, thank you for your extraordinary service in the cause of freedom in Iraq.I must say that, as I listen to your testimony, which is encouraging and yet quite realistic, and in my opinion, not overstated -- you've told us that the strategy associated with the surge is working, progress has been made, but it's entirely reversible. You've been very frank about some of the problems that we still face.
What I'm about to say, with respect to my colleagues who have consistently opposed our presence in Iraq, as I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there's a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.
The fact is, there has been progress in Iraq, thanks to extraordinary effort by the two of you and all those who serve under you on our behalf.
I wish we could come to a point where we could have an agreement on the facts that you are presenting to us, the charts you've shown, the military progress, the extraordinary drop in ethno-sectarian violence, the drop in civilian deaths, the drop in American deaths, and the very impressive political progress in Iraq since last September.
Hey, let's be honest about this: The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give credit for that.
I repeat, I wish we could have an agreement on the facts which you presented. You work for us. I don't distrust those facts.And I wish we could go from an agreement on those facts to figure out how we can move to more success so we can bring more of our troops home. That's apparently not going to happen in the near future.
LIEBERMAN: Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands -- excuse me -- hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?
PETRAEUS: It certainly is. I do believe that is correct.
Again, some of that also is militia elements who have been -- subsequently have been trained by these individuals. But there is no question about the threat that they pose, and, again, about the way that has been revealed more fully in recent weeks.
Comments (21)
I guess Tailchaser Joe just doesn't care about the useless, futile deaths of over 4000 US soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths either.
I guess the words "success" and "progress" have turned Orwellian. They just don't mean anything anymore.
I almost feel pity for the sorry excuse of a human being Senator Lieberman has turned into. But I don't. His love of other people dying for some ambiguous, and undefined cause is disgusting. He should know better, but he doesn't. I can't feel any pity for him. It's sad though, to see anyone so clearly on the way to an eternity of damnation before his God.
April 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is so busy,whispering in McCain's ear one moment, decrying Islamofascism the next, but always the cheerleader for war.
April 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One word: despicable.
April 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i guess iran's brokering of the ceasefire last week didn't make it inot joe's addled brain. or the fact that al-hakim is iran's boy (and ours)
April 8, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LIEberman is showing himself yet again to be what we've known him to be for years: a two-bit AIPAC shill who uses "bipartisanism" as a cover for his rampant wankery and widely apparent douchebaggery.
One wonders if Petraeus et al. give the good Senator kneepads for his devotion at the altar of TEH SUCK?
Again, CT voters, thanks so much for this scion of idiocy!
April 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Ned Lamont, why doesn't that make me feel any better?
April 8, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that he is still caucusing with the Democrats, and is necessary to ensure that the Senate remains Democratic until next January, just makes this all the more painful to watch.
Holding onto the Senate is the more important thing, I guess, but... it would be just lovely to see Joe get kicked out of the party. Publicly. On live TV. With the use of a carnival dunk tank.
April 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon dude - he "ducks and covers" with the Rethugs whenever it's most crucial that he doesn't. So my 2 cents: kick his worthless ass to the curb so he can be the full-time AIPAC lobbyist he's always dreamed of being.
April 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not necessary to hold onto the Senate. He was necessary to take control of the Senate, but the organizing resolution is specifically valid until the end of this Congress, regardless of any party-switching.
However, I would imagine things would get really ugly if the majority switched and they kept to that resolution, so we're probably stuck with him until January (as well as the matter of not counting your Senators until they're hatched.)
April 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim the cynic
Technically, Jews don't believe in hell, per se, so Joe isn't troubled by much except the dust falling from his blinkers into his field of view...THAT he swats away with his tail.
April 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This *seems* to suggest that success in Iraq is dependent on the American people agreeing with his viewpoint, which is the strangest thing.
As for things like ethno-sectarian violence, no one ever seems to mention that a good deal of the ethnic cleansing has already occurred, and that one in seven Iraqis is currently a refugee.
As far as political progress goes, can the guy give a concrete example, or is this just blather?
That last was rhetorical, I guess.
This is sort of Doctor Seuss, but the poor bastard doesn't even bother to rhyme.
April 8, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stormin' Joe Lieberman is a one-issue jackass. What is he achieving for the people of Conn. exactly?
April 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually believe what we're seeing here is a coordinated effort to bring Iran to the front of the fear-mongering theatre. In 45 days, we will be at the beginning of June, at which point the democratic primary will likely (hopefully..) be settled, and the republicans machine will begin shelling the democrats on national security. A big part of this message will be the threat of Iran... A diversion, for sure, but Patreus' update in 45 days will likely contain more talk of the threat of Iran, which not only distracts from the disaster in Iraq, but allows the right wing to make a case to independents that we need McCain in the white house. Honestly, I really think we're starting to see the thematic outlines of the republican bid for the white house, which may include not only dialogue against Iran, but military action as well. The shit is going to get deeper.
April 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the voters of Connecticut that they would actually reelect this fool. Do they actually LIKE eating feces?
April 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! You must think I'm just a dumb, kool-aid sippin' Obama Cultist....I should have done my homework before responding to you! Again, my bad.
Just blame Lieberman on those Obama loving CT fools.
April 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe speaks like the confused neocon that he is. Get a life joe boy.
April 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy there...fella, I like a Shit Sandwich about as much as the next guy, but we didn't all vote for Old Joe. Basically the guy we dug up to run against him was even more pathetic than Lieberman himself. Don't get me wrong, Ned Lamont is a nice guy, but he looked and acted like a stiff wind might blow him over, to say nothing of the hot air often vented in the Senate. He didn't stand a chance against the incumbent and newly "independent" Joe Lieberman. And please realize that some of the same people that voted Joe back to the Senate are the people that gave Obama a surprise 51-48 victory in CT last February. This despite HRC's big wins in all of our surrounding states, RI, MA and NY. As an Obama supporter in CT, I was actually quite proud of that. There is a lot of independent thinking here, and we aren't as liberal as you might think...and also, during that campaign there was a constant cry from the National Dem Party telling us how to vote, and asking if we liked eating shit, that sort of thing. It rubbed alot of people the wrong way, and put Lieberman back in the Senate. In retrospect, I think alot of people here regret their vote for Lieberman, as he seems to think his election gave him a blank check on supporting the Iraq War....So sure, CT voters f&*)cked up that one, our bad.
April 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone explain why Lieberman is allowed to serve on this very important Senate Committee? Not only does he lack the requisite credibility on national security, but on a purely political level he is working for John McCain.
Why haven't Reid and the Dem caucus replaced him with someone credible?
April 8, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think techincally Lieberman is right... there has been "more" political reconcilation, in Iraq than the U.S.....
but consider,
In Iraq the political groups are much much much farther apart.
However, just like going from 0 to .1 on a scale of 0 to 1 million represents an infinite amount of growth....
so what? In absolute terms that's not much action.
April 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's been more political reconciliation in Iraq than in the U.S.? Really? That's what you're going with, Senator Lieberman? Just days after the government waged an unsuccessful military campaign against the private militia of its chief political rival? OK, if you say so.
April 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, wait a minute here. Lieberman's referring to "political leadership." He's comparing Maliki and his guys to Bush and his guys.
What kinds of reconciliation have Bush et al. attempted in the last year? Zip.
So, Lieberman's correct.
April 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink