Poor Joementum. He’s lost his primary and he’s starting to lose any semblence of sanity. He’s still claiming that he really IS a democrat, and that he’s been critical of the Iraq War. His defense?

Lieberman reiterated his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign due to setbacks in Iraq and said that despite his own support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, he thinks Bush has mishandled Iraq policy after the invasion.

“I’ve been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004 about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country,” he said.

This is pretty damn flawed. First off, the democrats aren’t saying Bush mishandled Iraq AFTER the invasion, they’re saying the invasion itself with a mistake. This is what Holy Joe doesn’t get. The democrats as a whole are against him because he still won’t acknowledge that the invasion itself was a mistake.

Secondly, as an extension of the first, the only reason the left criticizes the lack of troops is because we’re saying “all right, if you’re going to do something that shouldn’t be done, at least do it right”. Joe starts with the premise that we should have invaded Iraq and his “criticisms” stem from not doing it right.

And that’s where Joe’s problems start. The left isn’t unhappy that Bush didn’t invade Iraq correctly, we’re mad that Bush invaded Iraq at all. It shouldn’t have happened, and to suggest that the problem is Bush mishandled it is a flawed premise. It’s saying that if the invasion was managed better, it would mean everything is okay. Obviously, this is not the case.

Furthermore, let’s look at this:

“The position that my opponent and others take to set a deadline by which we will get out is the surest way to get to a civil war, which would be dangerous for our troops, a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East and for the United States of America.”

He said the president and Congress may need to consider a troop withdrawal in the event of “all-out” civil war in Iraq.

Try and logic your way through that one. Removing the troops will result in a civil war, but if a civil war happens we should remove the troops. It gives me a headache just reading it. And it’s not just because he’s saying A will lead to B, but if B happens we should do A.

The big problem with that statement is that he’s claiming that a civil war in Iraq is a nearly global disaster. We can’t pull out of Iraq because it would lead to this huge problem that would be bad for not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East and the United States. Now, what should we do if this big disaster happens? According to Joe, we should cut and run.

And that encapsulates the problem between Joe and the Democrats. The democrats are saying this is all a mistake and we need to get out of there before we make things worse. Joe is saying this ISN’T a mistake, but we didn’t do it right and if things get bad we need to leave. Joe is the cut-and-runner, not the democrats. Period.

[tags]joe lieberman, democrats, republicans, iraq[/tags]

Poor Joementum. He’s lost his primary and he’s starting to lose any semblence of sanity. He’s still claiming that he really IS a democrat, and that he’s been critical of the Iraq War. His defense?

Lieberman reiterated his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign due to setbacks in Iraq and said that despite his own support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, he thinks Bush has mishandled Iraq policy after the invasion.

“I’ve been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004 about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country,” he said.

This is pretty damn flawed. First off, the democrats aren’t saying Bush mishandled Iraq AFTER the invasion, they’re saying the invasion itself with a mistake. This is what Holy Joe doesn’t get. The democrats as a whole are against him because he still won’t acknowledge that the invasion itself was a mistake.

Secondly, as an extension of the first, the only reason the left criticizes the lack of troops is because we’re saying “all right, if you’re going to do something that shouldn’t be done, at least do it right”. Joe starts with the premise that we should have invaded Iraq and his “criticisms” stem from not doing it right.

And that’s where Joe’s problems start. The left isn’t unhappy that Bush didn’t invade Iraq correctly, we’re mad that Bush invaded Iraq at all. It shouldn’t have happened, and to suggest that the problem is Bush mishandled it is a flawed premise. It’s saying that if the invasion was managed better, it would mean everything is okay. Obviously, this is not the case.

Furthermore, let’s look at this:

“The position that my opponent and others take to set a deadline by which we will get out is the surest way to get to a civil war, which would be dangerous for our troops, a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East and for the United States of America.”

He said the president and Congress may need to consider a troop withdrawal in the event of “all-out” civil war in Iraq.

Try and logic your way through that one. Removing the troops will result in a civil war, but if a civil war happens we should remove the troops. It gives me a headache just reading it. And it’s not just because he’s saying A will lead to B, but if B happens we should do A.

The big problem with that statement is that he’s claiming that a civil war in Iraq is a nearly global disaster. We can’t pull out of Iraq because it would lead to this huge problem that would be bad for not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East and the United States. Now, what should we do if this big disaster happens? According to Joe, we should cut and run.

And that encapsulates the problem between Joe and the Democrats. The democrats are saying this is all a mistake and we need to get out of there before we make things worse. Joe is saying this ISN’T a mistake, but we didn’t do it right and if things get bad we need to leave. Joe is the cut-and-runner, not the democrats. Period.

[tags]joe lieberman, democrats, republicans, iraq[/tags]