Lieberman: Obama couldn’t go to Iraq today if we’d followed his plan
posted at 1:21 pm on July 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From Fox News Sunday by way of Team McCain, a succinct reply to Obama triumphalists. His point at the end about Afghanistan is also well taken, although Hitchens’s formulation from last week is more elegant:
If it is true, as yesterday’s three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that “U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan,” then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about “the hunt for the real enemy” or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.
That first sentence was echoed by Maliki himself in the Spiegel interview but, curiously enough, most of the U.S. media’s coverage of the story glossed over it. As for Afghanistan, Obama told CBS this morning that the situation there is grave enough that we can’t wait for the next president to take office before doing something about it. See this post at the Nation for an example of which way leftist sentiment is trending on what that “something” should be. Exit quotation: “[E]ven though the cover of the latest edition of Time magazine refers to the fight in Afghanistan as ‘The Right War,’ and even though Obama seems to have bought into this particularly dangerous variation Washington-insider spin, there is nothing right or smart about deepening the US troop commitment in a country that has a long history of thwarting the best-laid plans of great military powers.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
By my own self, yes…!
J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Let’s see, Saddam’s torture chambers, where Saddam’s “enemies” (a very loosely defined term in Saddam’s Iraq) had their fingernails pulled out, were hung from the ceiling while electric shocks were administered to their genitals, etc. (all before they were savagely murdered) . . .
vs. Abu Ghraib — where some prisoners were scared by dogs and “humiliated” by receiving orders from U.S. servicewomen.
Wow . . . it’s really a toss-up as to which one was worse.
AZCoyote on July 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM
barry norris, try this for size:
The 9/11 report cites Clarke’s words from 1999 when he was serving in the Clinton Administration.
Do historical facts have relevance to you only when they fit your narrative? Is it common practice for Obamatrons to delete inconvenient details as “distractions”?
Heh, I just saw a commenter at freerepublic refer to the adolescent candidate as Backtrack Obama. The label fits.
onlineanalyst on July 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Frank Rich???!? Now there is a voice of conservative thinking…NOT! Rich’s credentials in evaluating economic issues are equally anemic. Try again.
onlineanalyst on July 20, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Attacking the messenger instead of refuting, or at least making some attempt at countering, the points made, like you just did.
You try again.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Iraq??? Yes, IRAQ! Before teh shrub invaded them for noe reason whatsoevah, they had flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!”
wise_man on July 20, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Alphie, the debate here hinges on the surge. Nothing more. Without the success of the surge (if Obama’s plan had been followed) Iraq would be a hell-hole now. This is Liberman’s point. If you don’t understand why that it, read Michael Yon’s book. (Please don’t just dismiss him. He’s been writing from and living in Iraq longer than most soldiers have been there and he is completely apolitical)
Rod on July 20, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Hitchens would be more widely known if he also gave some thought to being sometimes quotable.
Kralizec on July 20, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Boy, it sure shows how far in the sinkhole the democratic party has fallen. When they push out guys like this, it signals real trouble for all of us.
The Al Frankin roaches are running the roach motel.
saiga on July 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM
That is too damn funny. Oh God. Thank you, wccawa, for making me laugh to tears.
hillbillyjim on July 21, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2