Lieberman strikes (out) again

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can't bring myself to comment, much, on Joe Lieberman's latest bout of verbal diarrhea, this time at the WSJ. Quite simply, it's atrocious -- just as delusional as (or, given recent events, even more delusional than) anything he's written or said before about the situation in Iraq.

You may want to read it for yourself. Or you may not -- this would be my recommended option. If you know anything about Joe "bombs away" Lieberman, you'll know in advance what he has to say here. Put on your rose-coloured glasses and imagine how all is going well in Iraq, no matter what the naysayers are saying.

Lieberman claims especial insight here, and he sticks it to his apparently know-nothing colleagues on the Hill -- the Democrats, that is, for he is (and has been for some time) a warmongering and partisan Republican. He "recently returned from Iraq," where he had "discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight". And, wouldn't you know it, they are "more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus". So he reports, not that his reporting deserves our trust, let alone his insight.

What is amazing about this -- well, not so amazing; it's Joe Lieberman, after all -- is that he sinks to new lows of cluelessness. Is Anbar province doing well? No. It is neither as friendly nor as secure as he claims it is. One wonders what reality he witnessed on his travels. A fake reality, a manipulated reality meant to spin him clueless. Is the surge going well? No. It's been a miserable failure -- as I document here. Lieberman blames misleading headlines for misleading the war's critics, that is, for making the war seem worse than it is, but the headlines mean something when they point to daily bloodshed and chaos.

Other than that, Lieberman heads off into the now-common delusions of the Bushies and the neocons and the other supporters of this disaster of a war. The war in Iraq is a war against al Qaeda -- as if the U.S. occupation isn't making the situation worse by strengthening al Qaeda, as if al Qaeda isn't happy to have the U.S. bogged down in Iraq. Iran is behind America's opponents in Iraq -- the case made for going to war with Iran, with sketchy evidence (at best). And so on and so on. I could go on, but why bother? This piece of warmongering claptrap could have come straight from Cheney's office.

And so, Lieberman asserts, the war must continue. And it must continue because pulling out would be worse than staying in. But would it? How does he know that? How do any of the warmongers know that? The evidence is against them, the history of the entire war is against them, and, increasingly, the facts on the ground are against them. Lieberman and his ilk may reside in a fantasyland well removed from reality, but they are ultimately responsible for what the war has become. What does blood look like through rose-coloured glasses?