<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5344443236411396584', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Friday, December 29, 2006

Lieberman: More troops needed...Iraq war still winnable

Ah, exactly what we need, another Washington Post op-ed from the party of one
complete with the famous neo-con scare tactic, references to 9/11.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) has written an op-ed for The Washington Post in which he explains his reasons for why more troops are needed in Iraq. Lieberman argues that the war is "winnable," yet acknowledges that "more U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success" in the fight.

"I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there," writes Lieberman, "all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging.

"On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States," the Senator continues. "Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001."

In August 2006, Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary to challenger Ned Lamont but defeated him in the general election, criticized Lamont's Iraq exit strategy by saying, "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do ... it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England." Lamont responded, "That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney's comment... Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11."
At this point, aren't people sick and tired of the 9/11 slight of hand from neo-con politicians in their justification for this war?
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
Yeah, I'm sure Joe saw this firsthand from the semi-safety of the greenzone in Baghdad. I mean who's STILL drinking this kool-aid...notice the nice placement of the buzz word al-Qaeda in his sentence (slight of hand).

Lieberman's rant is so full of vagueness and spin that it's not worth the time to take his op-ed and rip it to shreds...I'll leave that for other bloggers as I have more important things to do (such as get my daughter's bottle ready). Joe's just giving us more of the same talking from the soapbox without any details (i.e., calling for more troops without clearly defining what their mission would be THEN claiming that the surge in troops might not work).

These are people's lives were talking about here and if morons like Lieberman can't define the mission for the increase in troops, then the troop level should not increase.

Joe, do us a favor and spend less time explaining how the U.S. can win in Iraq and EXPLAIN the following to the public:

Explain how you spent 387,000 in COLD HARD CASH days before the primary.

Explain to us why you (MR. Anti-violence in videogames and television) took money from the WWE: A company that makes it's money from selling sex and violence to children.

Explain why you haven't apologized to the Lamont supporters you accused of hacking your pathetic 50-hits per day site.

While you're at it, tell everyone what really happened to your site (likt the fact that you were too cheap to pay for a ISP that could handle the surge in bandwidth).

Hey, don't look at me, I voted for the other guy.