Admin

Admin

 

Verse of the Day

The Newsroom

Powered By
widgetmate.com 		Sponsored By
Digital Camera


Site Design By: SC Themes

Proud to be Americans



Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Newspaper Rack

Categories

This Senator could teach others in Washington a few lessons in civility and respect

Respect for any politician on either side of the aisle is becoming increasingly difficult as Washington shows itself to be so partisan and repetitive that those of us on the outside could probably write their dialogue for them.

But in the midst of all the in fighting, name calling and kindergarten atmosphere there is a man whom I have admired for many years. It made no difference to me that he was a Democrat, he was a man of conviction and faith and even when his own party betrayed him he stood tall and came back a winner.

This man is Joseph Lieberman. Some might say, well you like him because he stands on the side of the President in regards to the Iraq war..they would probably be right but that is certainly not the only reason this gentleman would have my vote in a second if he were to run for President. He is believeable..plain and simple.

When I read this article from today’s Opinion Journal, I was once again touched by the sincerity and frankness of the good Senator. You see, I for one find no rhetoric or politics in what he has written and while it is his opinion based on what he has seen or heard, it restores my faith that with reasoned thinking we can see this war through to completion with success.

I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.

The question of course is–is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.

In Baghdad, however, discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus–fixated not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda’s leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda–and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.

It is a bit of a lengthly read, but I leave you with Senator Liebermans closing paragraph.

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq–thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq–or will we betray them, and along with them, America’s future security?

Written by Sue

7 Responses to “This Senator could teach others in Washington a few lessons in civility and respect”

  1. ~J~ Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
    Visit ~J~

    This is a man who has always had a reputation of having integrity. He was once called the conscience of the Senate.

    That’s why so many people were disappointed in him when he ran on the Gore ticket in 2000. He seemed to have changed all his positions, and he should have in hindsight, seeing that he was the second man on the ticket.

    Ned LaMont tried to make the election about the war in Iraq, and maybe it was in Connecticut. My husband is from Connecticut but we have no more family there and his best friend is also dead so we have no one to gauge the feelings of the typical Connecticut Yankee.

    In the Democratic primary it certainly was about the war and Lieberman lost the primary due to his stand on the war. He ran as an Independent because he couldn’t quite bring himself to be a Republican, and he won as an Independent.

    The people of Connecticut knew they had a good senator and didn’t allow one issue to blind them to everything else he is and has done for that state.

    He is a humble man, and though he’s still a liberal, I respect him very much. Not just because of his stand on the war but mostly because he is a decent man.

  2. Ayschlay Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 8:11 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    I respectfully disagree with Senator Lieberman, and will try to bury my outrage over this war and explain my disagreement in a civil tone.

    Instead of talking like most warhawks, Senator Lieberman says “advocates of retreat,” which is just a nicer way of saying “cut and run,” or engaging in the macho questioning of the manhood of war critics.

    I do appreciate that, unlike Vice-President Cheney, the Senator doesn’t spread the dubious if not outright mendacious beliefs that Iraq under Saddam was an immediate threat to the US, and had ties to al Qaeda.

    But a person of civility and integrity can still be mistaken.

    Lieberman says that refusing to insist that we can win in Iraq means we “betray” our troops. I think it means fewer damaged or dead Americans. That’s betrayal?

    Lieberman says a “precipitous withdrawal” sends a message of weakness. We’re already sending that message now. And the argument that leaving will ensure that Iran goes nuclear? We’re so bogged down in Iraq that we pose less of a threat right now, and besides, this is a oversimplification of the military situation there, as if we can just move our game pieces in Iraq to Iran, as if our troops in Iraq are the linchpin of our Iran strategy. See the Center for Nonproliferation’s analysis or this NY Times article.

    Lieberman says the rise of violence in areas outside the surge means the surge is working. ?? Sounds to me like standard unconventional warfare. Insurgents hit where they can. And the Senator is understating the problems there, ignoring the growing and problematic dependence on mercenaries, aka “private security companies,” and declining social and economic indicators. See this Washington Post article or this analysis by the Brookings Institute.

    Lieberman says that leaving Iraq means an Iraq “overrun by al Qaeda and Iran,” which “would be catastrophic for American national security and our safety at home.” Leaving Iraq will remove one reason people join al Qaeda. And why believe that al Qaeda has the personal and resources to overrun the country? Ditto for Iran. The US, with its tremendous resources, can’t overrun Iraq with 150,000 troops. And I just don’t get this faith that we can somehow stop a domestic terrorist threat here by continuing to fight there. It’s like working on a car engine with a sledgehammer.

    Finally, the war in Iraq is not just about America. Iraquis are bearing the brunt of this civil war (see this BBC report). The title of the Senator’s opinion is “What I Saw in Iraq.” Evidently, he saw very few Iraqis. As is common in this country, our actions in a distant land are treated as all, and only, about us.

  3. ~J~ Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
    Visit ~J~

    If leaving Iraq will remove one reason people join Al Qaeda then what are the other reasons? Why did Al Qaeda attack us on 9/11 when we were not in Iraq but were just minding our own business?

    Explain to the families of those killed that day for no reason other than going to work or flying on an airplane why their loved ones died. What was it they did to Al Qaeda to make them kill them?

    Why is Al Qaeda setting up all over the Mid-East and Africa if not to do what they do so well…run a caliphate and kill those who disagree?

    And, finally, when was the last time you were in Iraq to get a first hand look at the situation instead of being influenced by what the NY Times and other papers and news outlets want you to read?

    I haven’t been there either, but I try to weigh the good with the bad, but if I depend on the news outlets I don’t see much good reported and only the bad.

    Things could be better in Iraq, but since we’re there and can’t unring that bell what would you have us do if we pull out of there and the people start getting slaughtered because they befriended us or because…?

    I am not minimizing the deaths of any soldiers or civilians in this war, but name just one war when death did not occur and then name just one war where the deaths over the period of time we have been in Iraq have been as low.

    We have an all-volunteer military, and when the troops signed up they had to know they might be sent to war. They are not as stupid as John Kerry tried to make them sound, and they knew what the stakes were when they signed the dotted line. Some have even re-enlisted. I have a nephew who has.

    I would like to see not one more drop of blood shed over there, but what are we going to do with the innocent civilians who were tortured under Saddam and now under the radical terrorists?

  4. smh10 Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
    Visit smh10

    I won’t get into a debate about why we are in Iraq as I believe most individuals have formed their own opinions as to whether we should be there or not.

    I do happen to admire someone who makes four trips to a very dangerous part of the world and attempts to give us first hand knowledge of what is taking place. It is easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and watch the horror the television chooses to show us or read the stories on the front page of the NYT.

    Ayschlay, I cannot answer if us being there is keeping us safer here at home as I am not privy to the information the President and military leaders see each day, but I do know that since 9-ll we have been fortunate enough to not be attacked on home soil or foreign in the ways we were in years prior.

    As for 150,000 US troops not being able to overrun Iraq..in a traditional war this would be long over as was shown with the initial invasion to remove Saddam Hussein. This is not and I do not believe there will ever be another traditional war. If the Iraqis continue to rise up and fight to take back their own country and a strong government can be formed then we will have accomplished something monumental.

    I was not in country with Senator Lieberman so I do not know if he saw or spoke with many Iraqis, and while we may disagree on many points mine still stands that I have a lot of admiration for any individual who under current circumstances at least attempts to show a positive side and provide some hope. Time is the only thing that will tell if this war will be a failure or a success.

  5. Ayschlay Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
    Visit Ayschlay

    “If leaving Iraq will remove one reason people join Al Qaeda then what are the other reasons?”

    That’s a great question, J. What causes terrorism? (and we’ll just ignore for now the debate over the definition of terrorism). Which factors matter the most, pyschological, socioeconomic, geopolitical, cultural? About the only thing people agree on is that it’s complicated (more complicated than the trite “they hate us” or “it’s all blowback.”)

    “Why did Al Qaeda attack us on 9/11 when we were not in Iraq but were just minding our own business?”

    I’m not suggesting that al Qaeda is all about Iraq. A particular set of factors drove al Qauda to attack the US on 9-11. The US invasion of Iraq added another factor to that terrorist mix.

    No, I have not been to Iraq, but in a democracy, for better or worse, all voters are armchair generals when it comes to foreign policy. It’s interesting, though, that this ‘expertise’ argument is used here–that I should trust Lieberman, the President, and military leaders–when other postings don’t for a second accept the expertise of government officials like Federal Judge Walton, Congressperson Pelosi, or Senator Reid.

    Also, please, we all talk about places and issues that we’ve not experienced first-hand. And, yes, I’m biased in all sorts of ways. But why I argue the way I do is one thing. What I argue is another. People can certainly criticize me for either, but it’s not enough to say a point is wrong just because of bias. It would be more helpful to lay out what the bias is, and how it is messing up my argument.

    Finally, both J and smh10 imply that I think poorly of Senator Lieberman, or don’t think highly enough of him. I just disagree with this opinion that Sue posted. I’m not attacking his character (though I did take a potshot at VP Cheney’s) And I hope others with whom I’ve disagreed at this site don’t think I’m attacking their character.

  6. ~J~ Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
    Visit ~J~

    I don’t mean to imply you think poorly of Sen. Lieberman. You just disagree with him about Iraq and that’s your right, just as it’s my right to disagree with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid.

    That’s the good thing about America and, I hope, this blog. We can disagree without fighting and walk away from the discussion still friends.

    I don’t know what causes terrorism as I have never been able to understand the culture of people who have no value for human life, no matter who they are or where they are.

    Not responding in Lebanon, Riyahd, Mogadishu, to the USS Cole all contributed to the idea we were a paper tiger and could be attacked at will with no repercussions.

    We stood together after 9/11 but now it seems Al Qaeda had us pegged right from the beginning if Reid, Pelosi and other anti-war lawmakers get what they want.

    Then we will have abandoned the Iraqis again and abandoned our friends and helpers in a second consecutive war.

    That’s not the America I was raised in.

  7. ~J~ Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
    Visit ~J~

    As to why I tend to discredit your argument, it’s that you quote the NY Times and the BBC, neither of which is known to be objective about Iraq.

    The Times has been pushing for withdrawal since we got there. We can argue as to whether or not it was right to go there in the first place, but the fact remains we are there now, so what is the honorable thing to do as Americans to a people who have been beaten down for years? Do we just allow the terrorists to roam free and kill every civilian over there?

    I doubt any of us is willing to see any more innocent children or old people killed for Allah, just as we don’t want our soldiers to die in this war, but death is a fact in war.

    So, now that we are there, what’s the solution that is humanitarian and will get our troops home? I don’t know.