Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Holy Joe Lieberman Was Resurrected After Three Days
I don't get it.
Why is it so hard for the Democrats to
kick Holy Joe Lieberman to the curb that he has so dearly
earned? There are some reasons at the link (they're not afraid of
him using his committee chairmanship to attack Obama, the
president-elect wanetd them to forgive and forget), but are they
the last people on earth who realize that Lieberman is one of the
true scrubs of American politics, an unliked and unlikeable scold
who can only elicit applause at John Hagee's church and the
occasional PMRC reunion tours?
Let's turn the clock back a little. When Lieberman endorsed John McCain, it was supposed to help McCain court a few sought-after groups of voters. First, Jewish voters who might have a problem with a candidate who wanted to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and, oh yeah, was named "Barack Hussein Obama." Second, independents. Third, voters in Lieberman's own state of Connecticut, a swing state as recently as 1992, and New Hampshire, a swing state every year since then.
How'd it go?
Jewish voters: John Kerry won them, 74-25 percent. Obama won them by more, 78-21.
Independents: Kerry won them, 49-48 percent. Obama won them by more, 52-44.
Connecticut and New Hampshire: Kerry won them, 55-44 and 50-49. Obama won them by more, 61-38 and 54-45. Obama's victories in both states were the biggest for any Democrat since LBJ, and I believe he's the first Democrat to every sweep every county in New Hampshire.
Senators protecting their own, nothing new. Senators protecting such an obvious loser... that's more unusual, isn't it?
UPDATE: There's some murmuring in the comments about why any reasonoid should care about this. Well, two years ago, when it looked like the video game-banner and drug warrior from Connecticut had lost his Senate seat, we fired off 21 guns. A Lieberman-free Senate would be a better Senate, insofar as such a thing might exist. It's been amusing/irritating to see Lieberman heralded, in his post-Democratic career, as a force for bipartisanship and independence. He's not: He's a full-scale nanny stater who gets squeamish when people behave in ways he doesn't like. Watching his McCain endorsement backfire or fall flat should have killed Lieberman's image once and for all, but apparently that image has George Romero and Lucio Fulci qualities.
ellipsis|11.18.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Much as I dislike vinegar Joe, those numbers reflect on Kerry
mostly, if not completely. Joe Biden isn't much less of a
scold.
And BTW, they can't kick Lieberman out until January. If they did,
the GOP would have Senate majority until then.
|11.18.08 @ 3:49PM|#
1. He is a reliable liberal on most things.
2. The only thing he broke from the party on was the war. Now that
the Dems are in charge they are going to have to fight so that
isn't such a big deal anymore.
3. No Senator wants to have to have a self criticism session
because the nutroots demands it.
Not That Michael|11.18.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Are you saying that The Dems should boot Lieberman because he
bogged down the McCain campaign enough to allow an Obama
victory?
Huh?
|11.18.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Senators protecting their own, nothing new. Senators
protecting such an obvious loser... that's more unusual, isn't
it?
In the Senate, I don't think there's really any difference between
one of "their own" and "an obvious loser."
|11.18.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Senators protecting such an obvious loser... that's more
unusual, isn't it?
That's a rhetorical question, right Dave?
|11.18.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Are you saying that The Dems should boot Lieberman because
he bogged down the McCain campaign enough to allow an Obama
victory?
There's no way to know, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised that
McCain's obsession with pushing his bipartisan cred, embodied
on-stage by Joe Lieberman, wasn't one of the bigger drags on his
campaign. I think the current analysis is that McCain lost not
because he was swamped by a tidal wave of new pro-Obama voters, but
because the Republican base declined to turn out for him.
|11.18.08 @ 3:55PM|#
The Democrats can't kick Joe too hard, because he is one of
their own. Take away his anti-Muslim foreign policy, and he agrees
with them on nearly everything else. He's one of the most liberal
Senators for a very very blue state. If you start criticizing him
too hard, you end to criticizing liberalism itself, and the
Democrats can't have that.
If the Dems didn't capitulate to the moonbat KosKids and kick him
out of the party, he would never have endorsed McCain. It's their
fault for making it personal.
p.s. Not that I'm defending Lieberman. I think that 98 of the
senators need a good kicking to the curb, and I'm only excusing the
remaining two because I can't remember their names.
Tingle|11.18.08 @ 3:56PM|#
"I don't get it. Why is it so hard for the Democrats to kick
Holy Joe Lieberman to the curb that he has so dearly earned?"
Who made you judge and jury, asshole?
|11.18.08 @ 3:57PM|#
2. The only thing he broke from the party on was the war.
Now that the Dems are in charge they are going to have to fight so
that isn't such a big deal anymore.
He endorsed the other party's presdential candidate and some of
their Senate opponents. They wouldn't kick him out of the caucus,
just strip him of his seniority. This also happened when some Dem
Senators backed AuH2O. Once again, the Democrats show they're a
bunch of pussies.
Hopefully, Joe will be gone in 2010.
|11.18.08 @ 4:01PM|#
What if a Senator had broken ranks with the Republicans and endorsed Barr and the Republicans were kicking him to the curb? Reason would be having a fit. Well, Lieberman as pointed out above, agrees with the Dems on damn near everything but the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is over for intents and purposes. Why should the Dems kick out a guy who agrees with them on so much? Party loyalty? Since when did Reason become such a big proponent of major party solidarity?
the innominate one|11.18.08 @ 4:01PM|#
If the Dems didn't capitulate to the moonbat KosKids and
kick him out of the party, he would never have endorsed
McCain.
Yeah, darn those voters, choosing the wrong person.
|11.18.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Lieberman is a complete tool, but the lack of Dem action on him is, I think, more of a symptom of the growing chasm between the political class and the rest of us proles. No matter how much of a dickwad he is, he's one of them, has been for years, and has shown he can get re-elected and continue to be one of them.
|11.18.08 @ 4:03PM|#
"Hopefully, Joe will be gone in 2010."
Unless he commits a felony or dies, he will be in office until 2012
since he was re-elected in 2006. The people of Connecticut like the
guy. I doubt he is going anywhere even in 2012 when he actually has
to stand for re-election.
|11.18.08 @ 4:05PM|#
"I think, more of a symptom of the growing chasm between the
political class and the rest of us proles."
All of the proles in Connecticut re-elected the guy. How is not
punishing him showing a chasm between the political class and the
rest of us. The only people who seem to have a problem with
Lieberman are nuts on the web and journalists. The voters in his
state don't seem to.
|11.18.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Lieberman does suck. But so do most other Senators. Lieberman's presence does, however, have the advantage of annoying that douchbag Kos. It is not like the guy who would have replaced Lieberman would have been any better. At least with Lieberman you know the nutroots are pissed off.
|11.18.08 @ 4:09PM|#
John -
he's wasn't elected as a Democrat, recall? Ned Lamont beat him in
the democratic primary. If anything, isn't that an indication that
Connecticut voters don't consider him much of a democrat? So if
you're going on whether or not the Democrats should kick him out of
their caucus based on whether or not the voters who elected him
think he's a democrat, wouldn't the answer to that be that they
should kick him out of their caucus?
The Senate|11.18.08 @ 4:10PM|#
We accept him! We accept him! One of us! One of us! Gooble gobble, gooble gobble! One of us! One of us!
Tingle|11.18.08 @ 4:11PM|#
"Since when did Reason become such a big proponent of major
party solidarity?"
Weigle isn't Reason.
the innominate one|11.18.08 @ 4:12PM|#
If anything, isn't that an indication that Connecticut
voters don't consider him much of a democrat?
No, it's just an indication that they preferred Ned Lamont over
him.
|11.18.08 @ 4:13PM|#
"If anything, isn't that an indication that Connecticut voters
don't consider him much of a democrat?"
No I think it is an indication that the people of Connecticut for
whatever reason like their Senator and weren't going to let a bunch
of dickheads from out of state tell them who to elect. Should he be
kicked out of the caucus? I don't know. I think that is up to the
Dems. I don't see how the fact that he wasn't says anything one way
or another other than that the other Dem Senators seem to like him.
Why Reason should care whether he is kicked out is beyond me. Like
I said above, it is not like Tom Colburn or someone. The next guy
is going to be just as bad or worse than Lieberman.
Gus|11.18.08 @ 4:13PM|#
"Ned Lamont beat him in the democratic primary. If anything,
isn't that an indication that Connecticut voters don't consider him
much of a democrat?"
No, it means the voters don't consider Lamont Senator material.
Abdul|11.18.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Lieberman is one of many Democrats who supported the war in
Iraq, never wavered when the going was stiff, and still supports it
today. Most other Democrats supported the war, wavered, and are now
relieved because the Surge took Iraq off the front page.
Lieberman might, therefore, lend a little national security
credibility to the party that seems to support wars based on what
the front page looks like.
(Disclaimer: I know Obama never supported the war to begin
with)
Fluffy|11.18.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Joe Lieberman is actually no longer popular in Connecticut. His
approval ratings there are in the toilet. His approval ratings
among Democrats in Connecticut are even worse.
It's difficult for me to see how anyone can assert that the only
Democrats who hate Lieberman are the "nutroots". It seems like it's
the opposite to me - the overwhelming majority of Democrats hate
his fucking guts, and the only people who like him are Democrat
Senators. Maybe we could call his supporters the "nutofficeholders"
because his detractors go wel beyond the "roots" and beyond the
internet, at least among Democrats.
Personally, I find few politicians today more contemptible than
Lieberman. If you sat down and deliberately decided to be wrong on
every last issue, you would turn into Lieberman.
Fluffy|11.18.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Lieberman might, therefore, lend a little national security
credibility to the party that seems to support wars based on what
the front page looks like.
If you don't read the front page, how would you know if the war
enhanced our national security, and how would you know if the
amount of the national security enhancement was proportional to its
costs?
Personally, if you don't read the front page I don't think you're
credible on any issue whatsoever.
|11.18.08 @ 4:17PM|#
2. The only thing he broke from the party on was the war.
Now that the Dems are in charge they are going to have to fight so
that isn't such a big deal anymore.
Not quite. He supports torture, opposed Gitmo detainees from having
access to the US courts, and has refused to hold any hearings or
investigate any actions by the Bush admin as chairmain of the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee he so
desperately wanted to maintain.
He has basically neutered that committee (the House equivalent,
which is run by Waxman, has been holding tons of hearings since the
Dems took over)
All of the proles in Connecticut re-elected the guy. How is not
punishing him showing a chasm between the political class and the
rest of us. The only people who seem to have a problem with
Lieberman are nuts on the web and journalists. The voters in his
state don't seem to.
Republicans in the state are who got him re-elected, not Democrats
-- he lost the Democratic primary and formed his own sore loser
party remember -- and recent polling is showing a bit of buyers
remorse (most polls show Lieberman losing to Lamont if the rematch
were to be held again today).
The problem with Lieberman is that he is not a fucking democrat and
why the democrats are giving him a committee slot boggles the
mind.
shecky|11.18.08 @ 4:17PM|#
It seems to me the biggest reason to kick Joe to the curb would be for revenge, and mostly just make the Dems look petty and mean. They could probably afford it, but why waste such capital on a weasel like Joe? That Joe comes crawling back like a dog with his tail between his legs seems like enough revenge.
Tingle|11.18.08 @ 4:17PM|#
"Why Reason should care whether he is kicked out is beyond
me."
Because Weigel = Lonesome Rhodes. He's not really a Libertarian;
it's just an act for Reason's audience (or in Weigelese, rubes)
|11.18.08 @ 4:17PM|#
ABdul,
You make good points. But remember you can't mention Iraq on
Reason. In Reason world time stopped in about January of 2007 and
we lost the war and all those who supported it are to be purged.
That is why Weigel cares so much about an inside baseball story
regarding the Democratic Senate committee chairmanship. Liebermann
supported the war, he must die.
|11.18.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Funny guys, but no. Ned Lamont got 40% of the final vote and Lieberman 50%, while the republican got 10%. Wouldn't this imply that Lieberman was elected by a large chunk of conservatives? Why would the Democratic party want him based on the people who voted him in, again?
Tingle|11.18.08 @ 4:22PM|#
"Liebermann supported the war, he must die."
Kill the Warriors! For the sake of world peace and harmony, kill
the Warriors!!!
Fluffy|11.18.08 @ 4:22PM|#
But remember you can't mention Iraq on Reason. In Reason
world time stopped in about January of 2007 and we lost the war and
all those who supported it are to be purged.
What are you talking about? We talk about Iraq all the time.
Mostly it's to point out that surge or no surge anyone who thinks
that what we achieved in Iraq was worth the costs to the United
States is a fucking idiot.
How did that whole "McCain will campaign based on the success of
the surge" thing work out for you, John?
|11.18.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Lieberman must have some old pals up there on the Hill to let
him get away like that. He is a toxic combination of everything I
pretty much hate. Lieberman was one of the significant factors in
evaluating McCain's judgment that soured my impressions of him, low
as they were to begin with.
Liberman is a religious totalitarian zealot on social issues, a
pinko-commie on economic issues, and a chicken-hawk for every
chance to empower the US Government to drop a JDAM on someone,
somewhere. He is the antithesis of everything I think and believe
just about, kind of a twisted re-animated corpse of Woodrow
Wilson.
|11.18.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"Mostly it's to point out that surge or no surge anyone who
thinks that what we achieved in Iraq was worth the costs to the
United States is a fucking idiot."
No anyone who thinks the costs and legacy of the war can be
adaquitely judged when it ends is an idiot. Also, you agrued for
years that we would lose and the cause was hopeless. Well we won.
So fuck you. No really. Fuck you. Be sure to watch when your boy
Obama goes over to Baghdad to bring down the flag and take credit
for winning in 2011. He can have the credit for all I care. All
that matters is that we won. Thank God.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Yeah John, the war was like a big video game, or a basketball tournament. All that matters is WE WON GODDAMNIT!
|11.18.08 @ 4:42PM|#
BDB,
Actually I was surprised that I missed all the troops coming home.
You'd think the dastardly mainstream media would at least have
mentioned it in passing.
robc|11.18.08 @ 4:42PM|#
A Lieberman-free Senate would be a better Senate
Even if replaced by Lamont? I know very little about Lamont and I
still find that questionable.
|11.18.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Liberman is a religious totalitarian zealot on social
issues, a pinko-commie on economic issues, and a chicken-hawk for
every chance to empower the US Government to drop a JDAM on
someone, somewhere
100% correct. I wish, as a CT resident, I could tell you why
Lieberman is (was?) popular, but I don't think I can, because I
don't think about politicians like most people.
The best I can say is that New Englanders in general tend to be
pretty stubborn, and the way outside Dems came in after Lieberman
and for Lamont raised Nutmegger hackles. If Lieberman is gonna get
ousted, it's gonna be their call, and not Kos and crew's.
Fluffy|11.18.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Also, you agrued for years that we would lose and the cause
was hopeless.
Link.
I argued that war supporters were engaging in the sunk cost fallacy
for YEARS.
I demanded evaluation of the war's merits on a cost/benefit basis
for YEARS.
And the benefits haven't gotten any better, John. We haven't
achieved any more now than we had already achieved in 2003. We've
just spent more and lost more men.
I can admit that I expected the war to end with helicopters taking
off from the roof of the Baghdad embassy, and that didn't happen
and doesn't look likely to happen. But that doesn't change
anything. In fact, the entire reason you're a fucking idiot is
because your definition of success is "We didn't have to flee
Baghdad like Saigon". Avoiding complete disaster /= success, John.
A success is when an adventure achieves more than it costs.
"As long as we didn't have to push helicopters over the side of
aircraft carriers into the waters of the Persian Gulf, that means
we won and the pro-war side was right!" = Something A Fucking Idiot
Would Say.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:44PM|#
I'm sorry, but I don't get real excited about phyrric victories. If saying "Sure, we WERE headed off the cliff at 90 miles an hour with no breaks, but I managed to steer the car into a ditch instead" is "success", well, you can have it.
|11.18.08 @ 4:44PM|#
"Yeah John, the war was like a big video game, or a basketball
tournament. All that matters is WE WON GODDAMNIT!"
No it wasn't BDB. It involved real people's lives and real issues.
I served in that war and so did a lot of my friends. I tend to get
a little emotional about it. Especially when people who, for the
sake of making a point, wanted it to go badly, predicted it would
go badly, talk trash about it. The fact is a lot of people on here
would have been damned happy if the surge had failed and the US had
left Iraq in disgrace and seem almost disapointed that it didnt'
happan that way.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Who would have been happy? That is a fucking strawman saying there would have been people dancing in the streets if the war ended in the worst way. Who else besides Michael Moore and handful of loons think that way?
|11.18.08 @ 4:46PM|#
No fluffy of sucess is a stable Iraq and a defeated insurgency. What is yours? Making Iraq into the 51st State?
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:47PM|#
It is hard to tell what "success" is since war supporters have moved the goal posts five million times since April 2003.
|11.18.08 @ 4:48PM|#
"Who would have been happy? That is a fucking strawman saying
there would have been people dancing in the streets if the war
ended in the worst way. Who else besides Michael Moore and handful
of loons think that way?"
True people like Weigel would not have been dancing in the streets.
Just saying i told you so like smug teenagers. Why do I know that?
Because that is exactly what they did when things were going badly.
If the tone back then had been, "holy shit we might lose and that
would suck", I would agree with you. But that wasn't the tone.
|11.18.08 @ 4:49PM|#
No anyone who thinks the costs and legacy of the war can be
adaquitely judged when it ends is an idiot. Also, you agrued for
years that we would lose and the cause was hopeless. Well we won.
So fuck you. No really. Fuck you. Be sure to watch when your boy
Obama goes over to Baghdad to bring down the flag and take credit
for winning in 2011. All that matters is that we won. Thank
God.
Would you care to type that up and mail it to every dead Iraqi's
family. And use resume paper, for God's sake. This shit is
important.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:50PM|#
When we didn't find WMDs, the war was a failure. Because that was the reason for going in--to find WMDs Saddam Hussein was stock piling. Not achieving the goal of the original mission=fail, even if the end isn't fleeing Baghdad like Siagon.
|11.18.08 @ 4:51PM|#
"It is hard to tell what "success" is since war supporters have
moved the goal posts five million times since April 2003."
My goal posts have been the same. Anyone who has ever been anywhere
near the place knows it is not going to be some great American
democracy. But, that doesn't mean it has to be some shia theocracy,
a failed state, or some murderous dictatorship. A stable country
that doesn't murder its citizens or invade its neighbors is a
really good thing especially when compared to its neighbors or what
it was under Saddam. Further, the 1000s of dead jihadists and the
ill will Al Quada created in the Muslim world by killing so many
other Muslims is not a bad thing either.
robc|11.18.08 @ 4:51PM|#
The War was a success when the Baathists were overthrown and
Saddam was captured. We should* have left the next day. Everything
since then has been a complete waste of lives and dollars.
*Insert standard libertarian disclaimer that we shouldnt have been
there to begin with
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:52PM|#
I don't know about you, John, but a lot on the right (go back and read the NRO archives) were trumpeting how Iraq would turn into Belgium, how the Arab Spring would blossom throughout the region, etc, and when that failed to happen they kept lower the goals lower, and lower, and lower, until it was "a state that doesn't have a civil war and isn't insane".
|11.18.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"Would you care to type that up and mail it to every dead
Iraqi's family. And use resume paper, for God's sake. This shit is
important."
sure and you write the 100s of thousands of families of the people
Saddam murdered because we didn't do anything in 1991 and also the
families of the 100s of thousands that died because of the UN
sanctions that would still be in place today had there never been
an invastion.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Not to mention, the original reason was WMDs. We'd sure like to forget that and pretend the war started in 2006, right John?
|11.18.08 @ 4:56PM|#
BDB is correct. The justification for the war was not establishing an Iraqi democracy - it was considered a preemptive war. The fear was that Saddam would use WMDs against us and that he was providing aid to Al Quaida, both of which were false. I come from a military family and I can't tell you the number of people in my extended family who actually go around still thinking that there was some conspiracy that we know that we found the WMDs in question and links to Al Quaida, but the liberal media just doesn't want to publish it, or that we are privvy to confidential information that other Americans are not.
|11.18.08 @ 4:56PM|#
"No fluffy of sucess is a stable Iraq and a defeated insurgency.
What is yours? Making Iraq into the 51st State?"
Really? I don't remember hearing anything about that when the
"Mission Accomplished" banner was unfurled, nor at any point before
then. In fact, I seem to remember Iraq being a stable country with
no insurgency before we invaded. Like BDB said, it was about WMDs
that, oops, never existed.
|11.18.08 @ 4:57PM|#
A stable country that doesn't murder its citizens or invade
its neighbors is a really good thing especially when compared to
its neighbors or what it was under Saddam. Further, the 1000s of
dead jihadists and the ill will Al Quada created in the Muslim
world by killing so many other Muslims is not a bad thing
either.
Doesn't that mean we succeeded at this war's goals under the
Clinton administration with Operation Desert Fox? And weren't those
jihadists created and recruited because of the war? Isn't that like
complaining that you're not properly appreciated for mopping the
floor when you were the one that tracked in the mud?
|11.18.08 @ 4:57PM|#
"I don't know about you, John, but a lot on the right (go back
and read the NRO archives) were trumpeting how Iraq would turn into
Belgium, how the Arab Spring would blossom throughout the region,
etc, and when that failed to happen they kept lower the goals
lower, and lower, and lower, until it was "a state that doesn't
have a civil war and isn't insane"."
That is because they had never seen the place and didn't know much
about the people who live there. They are not us. We shouldn't want
them to be like us. That said, it is a good thing to have an Arab
government that actually elects its leaders. It does make the
leaders of other Arab countries look bad. Is it a perfect
democracy? Hell no. It is corrupt as hell. But so is Mexico and I
don't see anyone saying they are that bad.
How about this, rather than re-fighting the arguments of 2004,
everyone admit that the place isn't so bad now and start thinking
about what the hell that means for the future? Certainly, anyone
right or left who claims that wars are easy, can and should now be
told bullshit. Wars are hard, unpredictable and difficult.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:58PM|#
"And weren't those jihadists created and recruited because of
the war? Isn't that like complaining that you're not properly
appreciated for mopping the floor when you were the one that
tracked in the mud?"
It is like saying "Sure, I was wrong about thinking the dog
wouldn't piss on the rug if we left it alone for 12 hours, but at
least I got the right product to get the piss stains out of the
rug!"
Fluffy|11.18.08 @ 4:58PM|#
No fluffy of sucess is a stable Iraq and a defeated
insurgency. What is yours? Making Iraq into the 51st
State?
Wrong.
Success is achieving an enhancement of the security of the United
States that is worth:
1. 4200 dead servicemen
2. Tens of thousands of wounded servicemen
3. More than a trillion dollars
4. The decade of effort it will take to rebuild the junior officer
and NCO corps of the armed services
5. The diplomatic damage of Bush and Powell's embarrassment
6. The diplomatic damage of all the chips we spent to get "the
coalition of the willing" to show up
7. The diplomatic damage of the images from Abu Ghraib
I'm sure I can think of more costs if I set my mind to it.
To make the war a success, you have to describe how the national
security of the United States has been enhanced in ways that add up
to those costs.
A stable Iraq and a defeated insurgency are nice, but they don't
add up to those costs.
Iraq's stability is marginal, and it is entirely likely that if the
Iraqi state survives our ultimate withdrawal, it will move into
Iran's orbit. And since it's unlikely that we will have a
rapprochement with Iran at any time in the near future [even though
it's the right strategic move] that means that for all of our
costs, we will have achieved nothing more than creating a client
state for one of our enemies.
And that's if we don't even consider the opportunity cost. Are
there other ways we could have spent a trillion bucks and
4200 men that would have enhanced our security more? If so, by the
opportunity cost measure the war was not a success either.
You may think this isn't a fair way to look at the question,
because it means that once the costs in Iraq had escalated past a
certain point, there was no way to recoup them and no matter what
we did the war would be a failure. But that's the entire
fucking point.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 4:58PM|#
"Certainly, anyone right or left who claims that wars are easy,
can and should now be told bullshit. Wars are hard, unpredictable
and difficult."
On that we can agree. Hopefully no one will be under the illusion
that it is a big Nintendo game anymore. I got that vibe from a lot
of people in 2003.
|11.18.08 @ 5:00PM|#
"In fact, I seem to remember Iraq being a stable country with no
insurgency before we invaded."
No it wasn't stable at all. It didn't control its northern third.
It was run by a lunatic. It was subject to UN sanctions that made
life nearly impossible for the civil population. Its leaders were a
menace to both the population and the country's neighbors. There
was nothing "stable" about pre-war Iraq.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 5:01PM|#
":Its leaders were a menace to both the population and the
country's neighbors. "
The latter claim is bullshit. Its army was a joke in 2003. How is
that a "threat to its neighbors"?
BDB|11.18.08 @ 5:02PM|#
See, Iraq was so weak it couldn't control the northern third of its country. But it was a HUGE threat to its neighbors. Right.
Fluffy|11.18.08 @ 5:05PM|#
How about this, rather than re-fighting the arguments of
2004, everyone admit that the place isn't so bad now and start
thinking about what the hell that means for the future?
Because we need a general admission than the Iraq war's benefits
weren't worth its costs in order to avoid making similar mistakes
with other foreign policy initiatives in the future.
One of the reasons John McCain was a dangerous fool was because he
could not bring himself to make this admission. And that made it
possible that he would, for example, invade Iran without stopping
to consider the likely benefits and costs. If it's worth 4200 men
and a trillion bucks to achieve the handful of sand we've got in
Iraq, McCain might have decided to spend another 4200 men and
another trillion bucks to achieve even less in Iran.
|11.18.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Fluffy,
In World War II we lost 250,000 people and spent a lot more money
and ended up with a divided Germany and a cold war with the
Russians. By your logic, that war may not have been worth it.
Further, you can't judge what the opportunity costs are because you
don't know what would have happened had we not gone to war. We were
spending billions containing Saddam. What happened when the
sanctions finally broke down which they were in the process of
doing?
Lastly, you think Iraq will fall into orbit around Iraq, but that
is your guess. I think you are dead wrong. The Iraqis hate the
Iranians. The Iranians tried every way in the world to get the
Iraqis to not agree to let US forces remain in the country past the
first of the year and they failed. Just because they are Shia
doesn't mean they love the Iranians. That is a myth and wishful
thinking by people who didn't agree with the war. You can't judge
the full success of the war until years down the line. Maybe
everything will end in diaster and the Iranians will make Iraq a
client state and use it to make war on us. I don't know. But until
that happens or we know what happens you can't judge the legacy of
the war one way or another.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 5:07PM|#
"In World War II we lost 250,000 people and spent a lot more
money and ended up with a divided Germany and a cold war with the
Russians. By your logic, that war may not have been worth
it."
Germany and Japan declared war on us, so it doesn't really
matter. They attacked and we responded by totally defeating
them.
|11.18.08 @ 5:07PM|#
How about this, rather than re-fighting the arguments of
2004, everyone admit that the place isn't so bad now and start
thinking about what the hell that means for the future? Certainly,
anyone right or left who claims that wars are easy, can and should
now be told bullshit. Wars are hard, unpredictable and
difficult.
Shorter John: instead of looking at the actual cost of the war and
relevant facts that, let's look at the stuff that makes me look
good.
Also, in football games we should ignore all scores in the first
three quarters and only look at points scored in the 4th
quarter.
|11.18.08 @ 5:12PM|#
On the question of the war, I have to admit once as a nation we
pick a fight, we win it. Its like poker, and war is all-in with
your chips.
You don't decide before the river card drops that you want your
chips back - you can't.
Since you fight a war as a nation, we are stuck with it whether we
wanted it or not in the beginning. The lesson that should be
learned here I think is we need to constrain the war-making power
of the President, which at this point means constraining the power
of Congress to give the president military cart-blanche without
actually declaring war.
I don't believe for instance that the President should be able to
mobilize the National Guard or Reserve units for combat unless a
Declaration of War is in effect. The War Powers Act is a joke, this
Authorization Bill of 2003 was Tonkin Gulf 2.0. And the wimps in
the Senate voted for "Yea" for the same reason: They didn't want to
look "soft" on the boogeyman of the day because that could impact
their presidential aspirations that every Senator has and isn't
honest about.
But as we saw in Vietnam, having the political will to start a war
yet lacking the will to win one is an incredible weakness of this
nation, and encourages the worst from the worst actors on the world
stage. The Cambodian slaughter of 3 million citizens in the Killing
Fields is somewhat traceable to our folding the tent in Vietnam.
The horrible settling of scores that took place in the former South
Vietnam after the war is also traceable to us essentially throwing
those people under the bus.
In Iraq, if we had pulled out in let's say, 2004 or 2005, I imagine
we would be looking at perhaps several hundred thousand more
corpses littering that god-for-saken sandbox than are there now,
and Iran would be bigger. Everyone in the region would now have a
slow-smoldering nuclear program in the cards as a hedge against
Iranian ambitions, and God knows what those jerks would be up to in
Lebanon at this point.
Now, as a libertarian I am of the opinion to let those bass-ackward
chumps murder away and settle their scores, just means more for me.
But as an American it is hard to countenance my nation being a
creator of that chaos and then a quitter because we didn't have the
stomach for it. There is some truth to Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn
Dictum," i.e. "You break it, you own it." Collectively as a nation,
we broke it, and we own it until we fix it whether we put it back
on the shelf and walk away or not.
Then we clean up our own house in so much as the destroying the
dark return of the Imperial Presidency this stupid war and the
wider war on terror has created yet again.
DannyK|11.18.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Well, any illusions I had about the Democrats growing a spine have been shattered. I don't like the guy, but I believe he's sincere about the Iraq War -- he's for it, and he wants to stay there a long long time. I fully expect the Senate Dems to regret this in six months, when Joe uses his chairmanship to embarass the administration and spread Republican talking points, just like he did before the election.
|11.18.08 @ 5:14PM|#
The Iraqis hate the Iranians.
Which is why Bush has to fly in
under a cover of night and Ahmadinejad
flew in in broad daylight and was received positively? Iraq will
likely never be a client state of Iran, but it was the Sunni and
Sunni leadership of Iraq that had the major beef with Iran. That
leadership is gone and the Sunni are now a relatively weak
minority.
In WWII, we got attacked on our own territory. Iraq never attacked
us again.
Adam Bohm|11.18.08 @ 5:16PM|#
"On that we can agree. Hopefully no one will be under the
illusion that it is a big Nintendo game anymore"
I could be. If we had the balls.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Only a jackass would think I was omitting the people on the other end when I said "war isn't a video game".
Tingle|11.18.08 @ 5:20PM|#
"Because we need a general admission than the Iraq war's
benefits weren't worth its costs in order to avoid making similar
mistakes with other foreign policy initiatives in the
future."
Uday and Qusay are dead. And they represented dacades of problems
for the West.
BTW, I still smile when I think how they looked stretched out on
the coroner's slab.
Priceless.
Think Kim Jong Il.
Warmongering Lunatic|11.18.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Apparently, Mr. Weigel, the Senate Democrats can count.
In order to defeat a filibuster, the Democrats will have
to have sixty votes. Punish Lieberman, and he has every
incentive to punish the Democrats right back. Liberal Republicans
like Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe, having a personal incentive
to discourage parties from punishing dissenters, would at least
threaten to back Lieberman's play.
If the Democrats had 65 votes, punishing Lieberman would be fine;
the character of bills passed wouldn't have to be changed. If the
Democrats had 55 votes, which would mean any bill would need a
bunch of Republicans anyway, punishing Lieberman would be fine; the
character of bills passed wouldn't have to be changed.
On the edge of 60, where Lieberman-Specter-Snowe hold the balance
of power for enacting solidly liberal bills and nominees through?
Leaving Lieberman alone means having to make fewer ideological
compromises.
Lefiti|11.18.08 @ 6:20PM|#
C'mon, the way things are going is so fucked up from a libertarian perspective that whether Joe lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus or not just doesn't matter. Banks are being nationalized for fuck's sake!
|11.18.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Lieberman is a complete tool, but the lack of Dem action on
him is, I think, more of a symptom of the growing chasm between the
political class and the rest of us proles.
I think it's more like, with him the Dems have 57 seats and a shot
at the 3 more they need for a flibuster-proof majority. And even if
they fall short, he's one more vote closer to getting to 60 once
they bribe a few wavering Rs with pork.
If they were at 55 or so Dem plus "independent" senators, Lieberman
would be more nearly irrelevant -- not needed to get to 51% to pass
stuff, too far away from 60 to shut down filibusters.
|11.18.08 @ 7:34PM|#
John says In World War II we lost 250,000 people and spent a
lot more money and ended up with a divided Germany and a cold war
with the Russians. By your logic, that war may not have been worth
it.
Dragging out WWII again, the last refuge of the Iraq dead-enders.
WWI is a better comparison. I think the American neocon right would
be well served to acquaint itself a little better with WWI or other
farces like the Spanish-American war and the American occupation of
the Phillipines. The law of unintended consequences used to be
conservative dogma - a lesson not to get too excited about pushing
radical change - but today's Republicans seem to have lost sight of
that.
|11.18.08 @ 7:36PM|#
He's a full-scale nanny stater
Weigel promotes Obama for months, then criticizes Lieberman as a
nanny stater? How is Obama less of a nanny stater than
Lieberman?
NotThatDavid|11.18.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Because the alternative to Lieberman as a member of the majority party, with the power and influence that allows, is Lieberman as a member of a minority (either as a republican or as a party of one), with diminished power. That is an unadulterated good. The alternative to Obama was John McCain, who is also a nanny-stater.
Abdul|11.18.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Fluffy,
Sorry for responding so late. I do stuff other than the
internetz.
But, the "front page" thing was figurative speech. Lieberman,
whatever his faults, stood tall on an unpopular issue, even though
that cost him. A generation ago, that would have been called a
profile in courage. Obama had to project some of the same sort of
courage to oppose the war when it was popular in the beginnng
(albeit, not as much as Joe because he was only a state rep with no
foreign policy powers) Now, Weigel calls Joe's courageous stand a
"scrub."
In the end, the surge kind of proved him right--if we were all as
committed as Joe was in the beginning, we might not have had such a
bloody middle.
MattXIV|11.18.08 @ 8:30PM|#
Dave,
The problem with your interpretation of the numbers is that Obama's
overall popular vote was 4.4% higher than Kerry's, while the
differences in their performance for the groups in question are 3%,
4%, 6%, and 4%, so McCain held his ground slightly better among
these groups overall than the population as a whole. Endorsements
are generally only signficant when they sharply deviate from
expectations and it's not like Lieberman supporting McCain was a
shock. Lieberman's not so wildly popular that his support would
significantly sway these groups towards a candidate, but when has
he ever been?
Also, Lieberman certainly fits the bipartisan independent mold -
he's never hesitated to work across the aisle in service of nanny
statism and sending troops to the Middle East, even when it
involves bucking his party's leadership. The issue here is the
inexplicable hard-on the press has for politicians who have their
own particular combination of the same old bad ideas rather than
one of the two standard sets.
|11.18.08 @ 8:46PM|#
It's not about Lieberman. I suspect the Democrats in Washington
know just how far past his expiration date Joe Lieberman is.
It's about the number 60. The Senate leadership definitely has a
path to 60 votes in the next Congress. They're not going to eff
that up for anything.
Too bad they're probably still going to end up with 59.
|11.18.08 @ 8:58PM|#
Remember that time we went to war so there would be an
insurgency we could kinda sorta get to lie low for a while?
Gentlemen, to victory!
BDB|11.18.08 @ 9:14PM|#
Many comments, but not one single war supporter addresses the WMD issue. Amazing.
BDB|11.18.08 @ 9:14PM|#
The "Arab Spring" stuff never happened, either. We may get something along the lines of Lebanon in Iraq. For a while. That's about as good as it will get.
economist|11.18.08 @ 9:56PM|#
Actually, all the Democrats need to beat a filibuster is 50
votes plus Biden,because that's all they need to change the Senate
rules. And I have about as much confidence that they will let an
old Senate custom stand in the way of their legislative agenda as I
do that I will suddenly grow wings and fly to the moon.
"Too bad they're probably still going to end up with 59."
I love partisan trollery.
economist|11.18.08 @ 9:59PM|#
"Collectively as a nation, we broke it, and we own it until we
fix it whether we put it back on the shelf and walk away or
not."
I beg your pardon? I never supported the war in Iraq. I always
thought it was a really bad idea. I don't remember "collectively"
supporting it. Indeed, the only people who *really* OKed it were
Bush and the members of Congress who voted for it.
economist|11.18.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Granted of course that it probably could have gotten majority
support in a referendum, if such a thing were practiced by the
federal government. But since it's not I place blame solely on the
president and those members of Congress who supported the
war.
Crap, I almost forgot his administration cronies who helped sell
the war. Yeah, they also get some of the blame.
|11.18.08 @ 10:40PM|#
All the vitriol about an Independent US Senator endorsing the
Republican candidate for President makes me remember that I'm still
waiting to see how the Republican caucus penalizes Ron Paul for
endorsing the Constitution Party candidate.
Still waiting...
|11.19.08 @ 8:17AM|#
BDB | November 18, 2008, 9:14pm | #
The "Arab Spring" stuff never happened, either.
You ought to read the old threads from late January 05 through
about mid-summer.
Talk about your crow-eating dumbasses.
|11.19.08 @ 10:33AM|#
The lesson that should be learned here I think is we need to
constrain the war-making power of the President, which at this
point means constraining the power of Congress to give the
president military cart-blanche without actually declaring
war.
True that, although I don't know how you do that without a
Constitutional amendment.
In Iraq, if we had pulled out in let's say, 2004 or 2005, I
imagine we would be looking at perhaps several hundred thousand
more corpses littering that god-for-saken sandbox than are there
now, and Iran would be bigger.
Also likely. For that matter, if we had pulled out on Obama's
schedule, it would have been way premature and we would likely be
looking at something approaching a full-scale civil war right
now.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245