MoonDawg's Den: A "moral catastrophe"

MoonDawg's Den

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

A "moral catastrophe"

In the comments of my last post below, my friend Jeff implies that the 2006 election was some kind of referendum against the Iraq war. Certainly Iraq was a major issue in the election, but myriad other issues were at play as well, including conservative dissatisfaction with the big-spending Republican Congress. To the assertion that the last election was primarily a rebuke to the Bush Administration on the war, I have two words: Joe Lieberman.

Running as an independent, the pro-war Lieberman thrashed a liberal Democrat in a liberal Democratic state who was running on a strong anti-war platform. If Americans were so intensely anti-war, Lieberman would not be returning to the Senate this month.

Speaking of Lieberman, the good Senator had an eloquent op-ed in the WaPo recently about the calamity that a premature U.S. withdrawl from Iraq would bring:
As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.

Labels: , , ,


  • "If Americans were so intensely anti-war, Lieberman would not be returning to the Senate this month."

    Should we look at the rest of the senate races to try and prove your position?

    Pro-war Rick Santorum beaten by Anti-war Bob Casey

    Pro-war Mike DeWine beaten by Anti-war Sherrod Brown

    Pro-war Conrad Burns beaten by Anti-war, albeit moderate, John Tester

    Pro-war Jim Talent beaten by Anti-war Claire McCaskill

    Pro-war George Allen beaten by Anti-war Jim Webb

    This isn't even looking at the House, Garry. Pro-war Republicans were beaten in all areas of the country by Dems who promised change in Iraq and honest government at home. While I agree that some fiscal conservative voters jumped ship because of big spending, I can't imagine it taking precedent over Iraq and corruption. The exit polls and the election results don't prove that. Maybe in Connecticut they prove something, but the nationwide results don't support your theory.

    As for Lieberman, he's going to jump to the Republican side before '08 (I think it's even possible that he'll be McCain's running mate, but that might be a stretch. I think he's doing what he thinks is right, which makes it even more sad that he's so wrong.

    By Blogger Jeff, At 6:17 PM, January 10, 2007  

  • Personally, I don't think the anti-war stuff is so much about what we're doing right now in Iraq as it is about whether or not we should have gotten into this mess in the first place.

    I think that dissatisfaction with the Iraq war/bush's low approval ratings started when people started realizing that we're not "winning" and so the Bush-Iraq honeymoon was over. And so then they started examining all the fishy stuff that happened at the beginning-- reports of weapons of Mass destruction being flawed, Bush's misleading the American public into thinking that there was a connection between Saddam/iraq, al queda and 9/11.

    Now, I know that you're going to argue that there IS a link in that both Saddam and Al Queda would like to see America go down, and now Iraq is a nice place for Al Queda to hide, but really-- aren't there a ton of places for al Queda to hide? Somalia is one that has come up in the news a lot recently. How come we're not at war in Somalia, then, too? ANd what about Syria? And all the other places that would provide good "hiding places" for al queda. I mean, how big is our military anyway? Could we really flush out all the possible al queda hiding places?

    let's face it-- we (well, bush, at any rate) chose iraq for a very different reason.

    What was it?


    A desire to finish what his father wasn't able to?

    It wasn't al queda or WMD or 9/11, that's becoming more apparent.

    Hope you had a good holiday, Moondawg. I've missed your blog.

    By Blogger NoSurfGirl, At 12:02 AM, January 11, 2007  

  • In no other Senate race was the war the central, overriding issue as it was in the Lieberman/Lamont race. But let's look at the others that you mentioned:

    Bob Casey, anti-war? "Some people think that pulling out is a good idea and a timeline is a good idea -- I don't agree with that"

    I'll give you Sherrod Brown, although I don't know that I'd be bragging on Brown, who is a Barking Moonbat of the first order.

    As to Conrad Burns, he was killed by the Abramoff scandal, not Iraq - and Burns deserved to lose for that and for his other shady dealings with Indian tribes.

    I actually agree with some of what Claire McCaskill says on Iraq: "I think we should be doing whatever the military on the ground thinks we should be doing."

    As for Allen, he ran perhaps the most inept campaign seen since Kerry '04. In fact I'm grateful for that turn of events; it saved us from having the bonehead entering the '08 Republican presidential field.

    So let's get a grip here - a 2-vote edge in the Senate and a 31-seat differential in the House doesn't exactly represent an epic sea change, especially in historical terms for those bodies.

    By Blogger Garry, At 2:00 PM, January 11, 2007  

  • Heya Nosurf, yes I had a great holiday, hope you did too!

    But I'm so sorry to see you've been drinking some of the Kool Aid vis a vis Bush and Iraq prior to the war. Bush never said there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, in fact he's repeatedly said quite the opposite. However, Clinton's Justice Department did say there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as did the head of Clinton's Counterterrorism Security Group (per the 9/11 Commission Report).

    And since then, evidence has been found of substantial ties between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda.

    As to the "fishy stuff" with WMD...*sigh*. I'll beat this dead horse one more time: it was the UN, not Bush, who said that Iraq had unaccounted for WMDs. It was from Clinton's administration, not Bush's, from whence most of the existing intelligence on Iraq WMDs was formulated. Clinton himself attacked Iraq because of WMDs just two years prior to Bush's taking office (remember Desert Fox? Of course not, it seems that nobody does).

    And let us not forget Clinton's own words on this topic, in 2003: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

    By Blogger Garry, At 2:42 PM, January 11, 2007  

  • Hmmm.

    I'll have to do some more reseach, then.

    By Blogger The, At 11:08 PM, January 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home