While I disagree with Joe Lieberman on virtually every one of his positions on social and economic issues, I have always agreed with his positions on the War on Islamic Totolitarianism. Perhaps his being Jewish and having relatives in the Holocaust has something to do with the fact that he clearly recognizes that totalitarian ideologies prey on weakness and can only be defeated with brute force.
He say down with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall St. Journal (subs req) this weekend to talk about Iraq, the president’s new plan, and his party. I know many of you don’t subscribe to the Wall St. Journal online so I will provide you with as many of the key excerpts as I can.
I only wish the answers he gave to the questions posed were positions shared by his fellow Democrats. It is obvious Lieberman was the last Truman-FDR-JFK Democrat left in the Senate before he officially became an Independent (he considers himself an “independent Democrat”). It’s too bad, because we need more men with the moral clarity and conviction of Senator Lieberman.
According to the Senator:
Iraq is the central part of a larger and ultimately longer-term conflict in the Middle East between moderates and extremists, between democrats and dictators, between Iran- and Iraq-sponsored terrorism and the rest of the Middle East. . . . Are we going to surrender to them, surrender that country to them, and encourage people like them to be in authority and power all over the Middle East and in a better position to strike us again?” asks Mr. Lieberman. If only Livy had his quill today.
He goes on to say:
In 2003 “we did something that was right and courageous, which was to overthrow Saddam Hussein,” says Mr. Lieberman. “He was a genocidal dictator, he tried to assassinate a former American president, he used chemical weapons [on his] . . . own people . . . He was a hater of the United States.” Saddam was a danger, not to mention a barrier to creating a democratic Middle East that ceases to be a threat to the U.S.
On Bush’s Mistakes:
Mr. Lieberman, who returned from his latest visit to Iraq in December, freely acknowledges what he believes were “the series of mistakes that were made after Saddam Hussein was overthrown,” from the disbanding of the Iraqi army to our reluctance to send more troops (something he has advocated since the fall of 2003). Still, “we were getting to a point where we were making some significant progress–and it is important not to overlook this. There were three elections held. Those were a powerful demonstration of what no one is able to deny, even those who now want to turn away and give up on Iraq. Which is that the majority of the Iraqi people want a better life for themselves and their families. The majority is not involved in sectarian violence and clearly not involved in terrorism.”
And what about critics asking whether there are any guarantees the plan will work?
“None of us can be certain [the president’s plan] is going to work; all the choices we have in Iraq right now are difficult. But by far, the one that is the worst, and would have disastrous consequences, is to pick up and leave, in small steps or in one large step, for all the reasons we know,” he replies, emphatically. He also wants to speak beyond the proposal itself, to its author. “I have admiration for the president, because I believe he gets it. He understands the challenge of our time, which is from Islamic extremism. . . . And he knows what he’s doing is not popular. But he’s doing it because he thinks it is right for the country.”
Democrat’s opposition?
Some feel let down because the WMDs were never found; others are “affected in a political context by the loss of public support.” But he ends up back at a baser truth, conceding that “some people, I just think have been partisan about this–and that, to me, is the worst reason.”
The dangers posed by the Democrat resolution to cut funding:
Mr. Lieberman is also frustrated that those supporting the resolution are dodging the tough questions. “The resolution that is being talked about, in one sense I’d say it is offensive, because it is only cosmetic. . . . It won’t affect the implementation of a new plan to succeed, to win in Iraq. But at the same time it will send a mixed message to those who are fighting for us in Iraq, and those who are fighting against us in Iraq. It will be a very graphic example . . . that we are divided.”
His challenge to fellow Dems:
“Part of the case would be, look, if you are really against the war and you are really against what the president is proposing, have the nerve to do what Congress under the Constitution is authorized to do: Move to cut off the funding and then let’s have a real head-to-head debate.”
Are there any alternatives?
The other alternative, of course, is to simply admit defeat. Some in Congress are working up the courage to say as much, and to further suggest that abandoning Iraq wouldn’t be all that bad. “People say this is just like Vietnam, we could leave, and that would be that. That won’t be that. We’re in a war which has it origins in this part of the world, in the Middle East, in the conflict within Islam. If we pull out and essentially surrender to the extremists and terrorists, they are naturally going to follow us right back to our shores.
“If we leave the place collapses. And it’s more than civil war, it’s ethnic cleansing. The Iranians come in and dominate a good chunk of the country. Al Qaeda takes over a good part and uses it as a base. The Kurds [can sustain themselves] but it gets very ominous. . . . And then the same group of people who attacked us on 9/11, they achieve a victory, and they will use that victory to strike at us again.”
And that is the very essence of the problem for Democrats. They have become the isolationist-anti-war McGovernite party who have not even begun to ask what would happen if we “redeployed” out of Iraq back home. Thankfully, Senator Lieberman has reminded them in addition to Republicans such as Snowe, Smith, and Hagel.
I hope they are listening.