Despicable
Many months ago, in a conversation about politics with friends, I stated something to the effect that I couldn't decide who was the more despicable politician -- John McCain or Joseph Lieberman. My reason for thinking this was was that while both of them had essentially taken a radical stand on Iraq--defer to Bush no matter what--the way they were treated by the press was with words like "moderate," "cetrist," "bipartisan," and "serious." I still can't decide which is more despicable, but now the reason is because they desire to send more troops to Iraq to make themselves appear tough. Joe Lieberman:
In words that should trouble any Democrats counting Lieberman in their camp, Lieberman was praising Bush as a "great leader" for bucking American opinion, as expressed in the 2006 election, in his determination to double down in Iraq. Lieberman then said something incredible:Even those opposed to the surge, he said, "ought to at least let us try it."
"The worst that could happen," he continued, is that this policy could become another partisan flashpoint in Washington.
Until the administration of King George, great leaders were described as almost precisely the opposite of what Bush is: cowardly, isolated and delusional. But Lieberman's sin is saying, in essence, that we need to sacrifice American soldiers in Iraq to a) see if it will work, and b) avoid partisanship in Washington.
Goddamnit, 89% of the American public is opposed to "doubling down." This isn't partisanship, this is the clear majority opinion in this country. Does Lieberman even realize why the Republicans lost in November? Does he notice any connection between the fact that he supports the war and he lost his own primary? Sure, he won in the general, but I guarantee that there is going to be major voter regret in CT after those people realize that they allowed this disgusting man to be their senator for another six years.
Then there's John McCain. He's such a maverick. In fact, he not only supports escalation in Iraq but he is such a wild hip-shooter that he doesn't even care how many troops we send, as long as we send 'em. As Think Progress documents, McCain has suggested a swing between 20,000-100,000 more troops, even stating that "We are not specific on numbers" during his recent appearance at the Neoconservative Welfare Office. Aren't "think tanks" supposed to house scholars who work with real numbers and statistics and who do academic work? I'm not saying McCain needs to be an academic, but you'd think that a prominent US Senator with a paid research staff who has the support of a think tank that recently released a "plan for victory" on troop escalation would have some sense of how many troops it would take to get the job done. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
In case I haven't been blunt enough, let me spell it out: McCain and Lieberman are NOT serious voices in this foreign policy discussion. They have repeatedly changed their opinion on whether to send more troops, when to send them and why it would or would not be necessary. And the only people who support them are the same neoconservatives who advocated for this war in the first place, the president, and the conservative activist sociopaths who think George Bush has a personal hotline to God. That's it. So take your pick. You can side with that motley crew or you can side with the growing supermajority of world opinion that either has always realized or is coming around to the fact that this war was a bad idea made worse by a failed businessman from Texas. Its that simple. And keep in mind that more people will die to satisfy that 11% and Dick and George and Joe and John.
These people are sickening and they do not deserve the trust of the American people nor the responsibility of guiding our military. And remember, there is a perfectly good alternative to this "strategy" of escalation: GETTING THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ.