A Continued Embarrassment Thanks to His Amateurish Performance

April 25, 2007

That would be David Broder, who fatuously compares Alberto Gonzales and Harry Reid in his Thursday column. Gonzales, you might recall, is embroiled in a scandal over politicizing the Justice Department, gave an awful performance testifying before Congress last week, and has faced widespread calls for his resignation. Reid, on the other hand, has said some things about Iraq that Broder disagrees with. As you can see, they are so similar — not.

Broder has stiff competition for the title of worst op-ed in the Thursday Washington Post from Joe Lieberman, who submits his quarterly “do what I say about Iraq” column (here is the previous one). I especially enjoyed Lieberman’s statement that Al Qaeda’s “aim in Iraq isn’t to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table.” Blow up the table!

Lieberman’s response to recent violence in Iraq is like a Rorschach test result:

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States — to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

Rather than seeing the bombings as obscuring recent gains, I see them as evidence that we have made no gains in Iraq. I define gains as an absence of the horrific violence that Iraq continues to experience every day. Lieberman’s willful exercise of reverse psychology is astounding.

The illogical senator continues:

When politicians here declare that Iraq is “lost” in reaction to al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

How, pray tell, does Lieberman know this? Isn’t it plausible that Al Qaeda hopes that the US military remains stretched thin with the commitment in Iraq and unable to pursue terrorists elsewhere? Where does Lieberman get this omniscent knowledge of the enemy mindset?


Politico Still Living in the Past

March 15, 2007

Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat any more. Did they not get the memo on this one?

A Democratic attempt to set a March 2008 goal to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq failed to win majority support in the Senate this afternoon as three Democrats – Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn,), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) – crossed the aisle and voted with Republicans.

Lieberman, of course, lost the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary last year, only to come back to win the general election as an independent. It was in the papers, I’m pretty sure.

I tried commenting over there, but they don’t seem to want to accept a comment from me, hence my complaining over here.

ADDENDUM: Here’s how to recap the 50-48 vote properly.

Only one Republican, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted in favor of the measure. Two Democrats, Senator Mark Pryor or Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against it, as did Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut. Senators Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota who is ill, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is in Iowa, did not vote.

Don’t McCain’s people realize how bad this looks? That his absence on Iraq votes will be used by opponents to attack him?

UPDATE: Politico changed the text but it’s still not right. It now reads, “three Democrats – Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn,), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).” ID is not a party designation; it is part of Lieberman’s campaign rhetoric that he is a so-called “Independent Democrat.” In reality, his political party is called Connecticut for Lieberman. Anyway, the man is an independent, if we define that as anything other than an R or D, and not a Democrat.