Lieberman Calls for More Troops In Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 10:50:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Connecticut voted for the Iraq Debacle. Anyone who saw Joe Lieberman on Meet the Press today must accept this.

He joined McCain in calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq.

Oh by the way, he also did not rule out caucusing with the Republicans though he said he was going to caucus with the Dems. It is Joe Lieberman doubletalk. But to be fair, he was pretty dismissive of the idea of caucusing with the GOP after that. He realized I think that his two-facedness was TOO obvious. He would need some excuse first.

Timmah was funny in that he challenged Lieberman to demand certain action for his support. Joe hemmed and hawed and said he was not going to do that.

The transcript will be available here.

Update [2006-11-12 13:35:43 by Big Tent Democrat]: atrios thinks the Iraq Study Group will say either double down, more troops, or bug out. And that Dems will be forced to acquiesce to doubling down.

I don't know what ISG is going to do, but more troops is politically untenable. It is a nonstarter. Any fool that signs on to that will be voted out in 2008. I completely disagree with Atrios. The Dems will NOT go along with that. Heck, no one will.

< Russ Feingold Won't Run in 2008 | U.S. Using Sting Tactics in Great Britian >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Lieberman Calls for More Troops In Iraq | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

That's not the answer.... (none / 0) (#1)
by Kitt on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:16:52 AM EST

We don't NEED more troops in Iraq. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

So what's the catch? Why? (Something beyond the BS answers: we broke it, we gotta fix it.)

re (none / 0) (#2)
by Deconstructionist on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:21:39 AM EST

The time for more troops was 2003. If we were going to invade at all we needed to commit the resources to do more than destroy the existing regime. The convergence of Neo-Con hubris about the viability of nation building and Rumsfield's desire to demonstrate the efficacy of his low cost battle plan has us in this disaster.

A primary reason we are in this situation now is Rumsfield and Bush ignored the military command and embarked on this war on the cheap because they either could not or lacked the courage to convince the American people to support the commitment and sacrifice that would heve been necessary.

Lieberman might have a pretty good point in terms of military reality (the most realistic way to ensure the ability of a "sooner" withdrawal without leaving complete chaos may be a massive commitment to a higher intensity engagement) but not only is it politically probably far too late for that now but we have allowed the situation to devolve where even the level of commitment that might have worked in 2003 will not do so now.

Hey let's send his daughter there (none / 0) (#3)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:29:09 AM EST

Certainly he has draft age kids somewhere in his family.

Come on, Joe, this is for the future of the free world. Cough up the cannon fodder.

Incremental steps into oblivion.... (none / 0) (#4)
by jerry on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:05:41 PM EST

You're right if you expect a Dem would not say, "I think we should double troop strength." You're wrong if you expect Dems won't say, "McCain and the Generals, Not Rummy, are asking for 10,000 more troops for _ months during this critical period." And they will say that again and again and again because they do want to be reelected, and they do not want to be smeared, and because it is hard for any of us to recognize sunk costs.

At a time when you are extending your big tent to include back stabbing rightwing DINO scum like Lieberman and acknowledging that McCain will be the strong thugtard candidate in 08, how can you think that some Dems will not have a strong motivation to approve more troops, if only for a month or two until "this critical period" is over?

: Jerry (none / 0) (#10)
by aw on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:01:40 PM EST

Are you my ex-husband?

doubling down (none / 0) (#5)
by dalloway on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:18:09 PM EST

The Democrats are damned if they do support more troops in Iraq and damned if they don't. If they vote in favor of "doubling down" they alienate their base and fracture the party. If they oppose it and Iraq shatters into a failed state, guess who gets the blame in 2008? This is a trap with Rove's fingerprints all over it --and obviously the reason he got into bed with Lieberman. It's a rerun of the original Iraq war vote that Hilary drags around with her like Jacob Marley's chain, the shadow (cast from the left, of course) on her presidential run.

: If Iraq shatters into a failed state? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:27:23 PM EST

IF Iraq shatters? IF? Iraq is already a 'failed', or more accurately, a 'destroyed' state'. The country is in civil war and rapidly descending into a chaotic hell created by Bush's invasion that sadly probably nothing that can stop now, short of setting up the same kind of heavy handed brutal police state that Saddam ran.
There was complicity by the democrats who supported the invasion. There is plenty of blame to go around. The republicans, rove, and bush will try to shift the focus of the blame to the democrats, but their efforts will never wash the stink off themselves.
It is too easy a tactic to rebut, with only one question.
Would a Democratic administration have unilaterally without the support of the UN and its member nations launched an illegal aggression against a county that had not and could not attack America? I think the answer is "No".
But so what. It's too late for blame. The only reason anyone is interested in assigning blame is a simple one: to avoid responsibility and accountability. It will not help the people of Iraq.
I think it is probable that Iraq will splinter. Perhaps the Kurds will form a small country of their own, which likely won't last long, and the rest of Iraq will become one of the world's and Bush's worst nightmares.
A client state of Iran. The definition of "failed state" depends on who'd defintion you use. I doubt Iran will consider it a failed state. The foreighn policies of America and the power balance of the world will either shift and be accepted or, and I think this is more likely, we will fall into a cataclysmic world war.
Thanks, Mr. Bush.

F**k the politics (none / 0) (#6)
by Sailor on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:06:54 PM EST

This isn't about politics. It's about our children dying in an illegal war for nothing.

We need to stop worrying about politics, stop worrying about 'the message we will send' and start concentrating on fixing this debacle by asking the world for help, via the UN.

We never should have gone in, saddam was no threat to the US and had no WMDs, it was about the childish insanity of our leaders who equated 9/11 with iraq ... with less than dubious proof.

Restart the ME peace process with grownups in charge, get the world involved and help Iraqis and Americans stop dying, and do it NOW!

The Iraq Debacle... (none / 0) (#8)
by desertswine on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:35:08 PM EST

This isn't the kind of war that at this point more troops are going to help. It's not like they are going to smash the Siegfried line or anything like that. More troops just means more casualties without accomplishing anything much.

What they needed was ace intelligence, a reconstruction plan, and intelligent civilian leadership, none of which we had.

Double down (none / 0) (#9)
by Kitt on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:09:17 PM EST

Quick question to clarify.

Double down in my vocabulary means to double whatever I have. Am I reading this correctly - double down the number of troops would mean another 100K+ wouldn't it? Don't we have roughly around 140K in Iraq now?