24 November Links Round-Up

David Colley writes in the NYT (h/t Scott L.) that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower missed an opportunity to end WWII early.

What he doesn't point out is that if Allied armies had pushed further, faster, into Germany and other Nazi occupied parts, they might have changed the course of the Cold War too.

Meanwhile in this week's Global View, Bret Stephens makes some scary comparisons between President Obama and Jimmy Carter. We should be so fortunate to have a one & done from Obama.

The WSJ's Review & Outlook editorial examines the revealing emails written by climate scientist-hacks in England and other parts and draws the obvious conclusions--that scientists are not a-political and they have an agenda.

And finally, William McGurn writes about my favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman stood tall on Iraq, and won re-election in 2006 against a Democrat & a Republican as an Independent. And now he's standing tall against Obamacare--specifically the public option.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Happy Victory In Iraq Day

Congratulations and thank you to our men and women in uniform.

Two years ago this fall, things looked pretty bad. Iraq was falling apart, our troops were playing whack-a-mole with the insurgents, Sunnis and Shiites were resuming their blood feud. For a reminded of how bad it was, read my post from two years ago. You'll note that Joe Lieberman figures prominently.

Though the hard fighting may be done, Iraq still needs our support. A hasty withdrawal, or cessation of Iraqi troop-training--pretty much anything that ignores the advice of GI Joe General Petraeus--could endanger hard-won gains in that country.

I guess that's why this is my biggest Hope for Obama: That he listens to and takes the advice of good generals like Petraeus & Odierno.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

What More Can We Say About Joe Lieberman?

Longtime readers know we are a big fan of Sen. Lieberman. He has taken strong, principled, and controversial stands on Iraq and other foreign policy issues. It was his position on Iraq that led to a Democratic primary loss to lightweight Ned Lamont (we had to look up his name in wikipedia.org). But that same position led to a general election win.

We have written about Lieberman numerous times:

Saving Lieberman
Lieberman: Making Us Proud
Can't Get Enough Lieberman
Joe Lieberman Is A Terrific American
The Choice On Iraq
Independent Joe Liberman: Still Awesome

In a speech given at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine, he called his (former) party on the carpet. Democrats, pay attention. One particular excerpt (h/t: WSJ) bears reproducing here, as a summary simply will not do.

***

Democrats and Our Enemies
By Joseph Lieberman

How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.

This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense.

By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Independent Joe Lieberman: Still Awesome

It's been awhile since we wrote about Joe Lieberman--too long, in fact.

Last night as we were scanning the news channels, we happened across Sean Hannity's interview with OL&L favorite, Senator Joe Lieberman (I), Connecticut.

***

Hannity: The big question is, how are Democrats reacting to you supporting Senator McCain?

Lieberman: Well, not unexpectedly, generally they're not happy. one of the most noticeable, ridiculous things that has happened in response to my endorsement of John McCain is that the headquarters of the connecticut Democratic party in Hartford, they've taken my picture off the wall. That sounds a little bit like the Soviet Union, when a member of the Politburo didn't do well. Generally speaking, I think the people in Connecticut, who re-elected me, God bless 'em, know that I'm doing what I think is right for the country and that's more important than party loyalty. I feel good about it.

Hannity: It sounds a little like Alan Colmes. He took my picture down off his wall as well. You're in good company. Let me ask you: you were also a super-delegate and I understand that status has been stripped from you as well. Don't the Democrats realize that if they lose your support, that they potentially lose power?

Lieberman: Well, that's their call. You know, I wouldn't go to the Democratic National Convention this year as a super-delegate which I was entitled to do because obviously I'm not going to support the nominee of the Democratic convention. My appeal to Democrats has been to essentially come home, come back to the proud tradition of the Democratic party--Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson--you can be progressive on domestic policy, but you better be strong and tough and principled on foreign policy. Until we do that, as Democrats, I don't know that the American people are going to trust a Democrat to run this country, to be the president.

Hannity: We've got this big primary, "Super Tuesday 2," taking place: those that think that Hillary is out of this, do you think that she has any chance to catch up here?

Lieberman: The momentum is clearly with Senator Obama and against Senator Clinton. At this moment he's touched by magic dust. I'd never count Hillary Clinton out. She's able. She's a tough fighter. But I'd say the momentum is going against here right now.

Hannity: I don't know if you've had this experience, I've never had anybody faint at a Sean Hannity speech. We have these instances we've been showing our audience on a fairly regular basis. What do you make of Barack Obama? What do you make of Obama-mania--the fact that people are reacting to him this way? It seems that people know very little about him. When I ask people if they know anything specific about him, they don't. What do you make of his popular support?

Lieberman: There's no question that he evokes a feeling of hopefulness and change. All of us feel good about the fact that in this country an African-American, for the first time, is a credible candidate for President. But after you go beyond the broad expressions of hopefulness and change, the programs and policies he's recommending are not programs of change. And if he's talking about change, it's in the wrong direction: to pull our troops out of Iraq, just when they're succeeding against the al-Qaeda enemy; to try to be a protectionist again. In fact, I think John McCain is going to emerge in this campaign as the real reformer. This is a guy who says what he believes, is restless for change. Look, some people don't like John McCain because he says what he believes. There's not a single group within the Democratic party that Barack Obama has taken on. I think as time goes on, the American public are going to ask themselves, "is this very gifted young man really ready to be the President we need at this time in our history?"

Hannity: I'm very concerned about his association with from the weather underground, William Ayers, a guy that admitted to bombing the Pentagon, police headquarters in New York,. His spokesman said that they have a friendly relationship, that he's gotten friendly contributions from. In light of this being your overriding issue and mine for this campaign, do you think that's going to be trouble for him as we move forward?

Lieberman: It may be. He's got to deal with those kinds of associations. Anybody in public life knows that anything about your life--public and maybe private--can become public in an instant. It's true that none of these radicals are running for President, Barack Obama is. But he's got to make clear to the voters why he has these associations and make clear that he doesn't share their point of view, because that's not the point of view that the overwhelming majority of Americans have.

Hannity: Senator, just to make it fair, the next time you give a speech, I'm going to make sure that there are people in the crowd who will faint.

Lieberman: God bless you.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

How we got here

With our Seahawks down big, we figured we'd focus our energy elsewhere. Back to the blog.

Earlier this week we posted that we had been included in a blog competition. Starting this week, our blog will be evaluated by a panel of judges through the first week of April. We've told a number of our friends about this honor and they've been universally perplexed about how were fortunate enough to be considered.

Just before Christmas break, while working on an essay for one of our grad seminars, we were surfing the infernet and happened to come across the America's Future website. On the website we discovered a blog competition and decided to give it a try. Among other things, the application asked us to submit our 3 best posts. The first two were obvious--we felt passionately about the topic and they invited passionate response. But the last one took a little bit of thought.

To give it a little context, we'll post links to those posts here so you can evaluate for yourself whether or not our writing merited consideration.

The first post we submitted was one written in Feburary 2006. At the time, many BYU students, including many of our friends, got caught up in a ponzi scheme called 12daily Pro.

• 12daily Pro Exposed

In March 2006, BYUSA (the BYU student leadership/representative organization) concluded something like their 4th consecutive election with a winner by default. A well-meaning BYUSA employee wrote to the student newspaper, the Daily Universe, regarding a few changes that could be made to avoid similar problems in the future, and was subsequently terminated. This prompted another post.

• If You Can't Beat 'em (or shut them up)

Our third submission should have been 2 or 3 for one. First, consider one long-running theme of this blog: our love of Senator Joe Lieberman. We disagree with most of his politics, but have long admired his unpopular support of the War on Terror. In the midst of a primary fight against the Angry-Left candidate, Ned Lamont, we blogged in support of Lieberman.

• Saving Lieberman

Posted on this blog and in the BYU political publication, BYU Political Review, in October 2006, we blogged in favor of voting Republican even when it was clear the tide was turning in favor of the Democrats. Follow-up: The Dems were all-talk and never did follow through on their threat to pull out of Iraq. And The Surge? It worked. General Petraeus? Your Man Of The Year.

• Why You Should Vote Republican
  

Finally, in July 2007, we channelled our inner Peggy Noonan (style, not quality) and wrote about being an American grad student in London. This one was picked up by our hometown paper, the Tri-City Herald.

• Lybberty in Print

Tell your friends and family. Link to us in your blog. And visit OL&L early and often. The competition is stiff and we'll need all the help we can get. Thank you, dear reader, for your continued support.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Few Good Democrats

Never say we don't give credit where credit is due.

On Monday, an Op-Ed by two long-time Democratic critics of the war in Iraq was published in the New York Times. It bears repeating that Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are neither neoconservatives nor Republicans. They are Democrats. Add them to the short list of Democrats* who recognize the importance of winning in Iraq and see the progress made by Gen. Petraeus' surge strategy--the positive results of which we noted yesterday.

Their Op-Ed is worth the read. We also suggest reading a review of their article by a number of writers over at National Review Online.

Among the best responses to the article was one written by Senator John McCain, Republican Presidential candidate. We quote in full:

Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have uncovered a truth that seems to escape congressional Democrats: General Petraeus’s new strategy has shown remarkable progress. Earlier this month, on my sixth trip to Iraq, it was evident that our military is making dramatic achievements throughout the country.

Despite this progress, Democrats today advocate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. They are wrong, and their approach portends catastrophe for both Iraq and the United States. To fail in Iraq risks creating a sanctuary for al Qaeda, sparking a full scale civil war, genocide, and violence that could spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. To leave prematurely is to ensure just one thing: that we will be back, in more dangerous and difficult circumstances. We cannot and must not lose this war.

We must prevail. General Petraeus and his troops have asked Congress for just two things: the time and support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, however much the congressional Democrats seek to withhold them. That is why I will keep fighting to ensure that our commanders have what they need to win this war.

I cannot guarantee success. But I do guarantee that, should Congress fail to sustain the effort, and should it pay no heed to the lessons drawn by Mr. Pollack and Mr. O’Hanlon, then America will face a historic and terrible defeat. Such a defeat, with its enormous human and strategic costs, will unfold unless we do all in our power to prevent it. I, for one, will continue to do just that.

If even some Democrats are willing to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq, we are left to conclude that the surge must be working.


*Isn't Senator Lieberman great?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Iraq: The Bottom Line

And then there's the latest from Iraq. Breitbart informs us that the death total of American soldiers for the month of July was the lowest in 8 months.

This is significant for a number of reasons:

• there are more American forces deployed in Iraq now than at any time in the last two years. Logically, one would assume that larger numbers of soldiers in Iraq would result in higher losses.

• the new surge strategy has moved the military from large bases into far greater contact with Iraqis and insurgents. Logically, one would assume increased American presence on the streets would result in higher losses.

• insurgents are aware of American public opinion, Democrats'* desire to withdraw immediately, and negative press coverage. They are also aware that General Petraeus will report on progress in September. Logically, one would assume they have every incentive to step up attacks and kill more American soldiers.

In each instance, the truth is opposite of the superfically logical assumption which leaves us with only one possible conclusion:


THE SURGE IS WORKING.


*Call him the exception to the Democrat rule. Joe Lieberman continues to be awesome.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Nordlinger, Goldberg, and the Loony Left

Since our London bedtime is quite a bit earlier than the start time for last night's debate, we've spent the morning reading up on last night's debate.

First we surfed on over to the Daily Kos. The angry wing of the democratic party never ceases to prove just how angry they are by their constant use of expletives. They're like the Red Sox fanbase before winning the World Series--you know, smug, sarcastic, bitter/jaded, frequent use of four-letter words. The whole bit. We'd provide a link, but this is a family friendly blog, after all.

Looking for less emotion and more reason, we turned our sights to National Review. Lot's of interesting stuff, but two things stood out.

First, Jonah Goldberg on why the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic party isn't just angry, but also loony:

I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here’s how the research firm put it: “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.”

So, one in three Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.

The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it’s so stupid. It’s like trying to explain to a four-year-old why Superman isn’t real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn’t work that way. Or you can just say, “It’s make-believe.”

Similarly, why try to explain that it’s implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he’s such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

And, if Bush — whom Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to green-light one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMDs?

Not that any of this really comes as a surprise. Though it has diminished, we still field emails from our friends who insist that two planes full of jet fuel couldn't have caused the WTC to come crashing down. And before you ask, yes, we've seen the conspiracy docudrama. And Fahrenheit 9/11, and An Inconvenient Truth. What does all of this prove? You know, besides the fact that the loony left has the corner on the "documentary" market?

What's really entertaining is the constant state of ticked-offedness of the loony left brought on by Fox News. The loony left just cannot stand Fox's "Fair and balanced," Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity (they probably don't like Neil Cavuto either). Consider this for a minute. Now that the shoe, apparently, is on the other foot. For years the Big Three of mainstream media, plus most newspapers, plus the supposedly "non-partisan" NPR have been echoing the liberal establishment line. Now, Fox News appears on the scene, with its appealing populist politics and absolutely obliterates all other news channels. "Jealousy and envy..." how does that 2Pac line go, Morgan?

But Fox News isn't conservative, that's just the way the world is.

Gosh, you have no idea how long we've wanted to repeat that oft-repeated liberal line about the liberal media.

Then there's this, from Jay Nordlinger:

The Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate in a debate sponsored by Fox News. (It was scheduled for Nevada, as you recall.) But the Republican presidential candidates had their first debate on MSNBC — moderated by Chris Matthews. (If a word that contains “moderate” can be used about Chris!) That tells us a lot about our political and media culture. We conservatives and Republicans can’t afford to have a pariah; but the Democrats certainly can — they write off one TV network, they got scads of others.

Of course, Democrats would say, “But Fox News is a partisan network, and MSNBC is nonpartisan, neutral, and objective.” Uh-huh.

The above matter reminded me of something: I was talking to a Muslim friend once. I said, “Saudi Arabia outlaws all churches. Yet there’s a mosque on every street corner in America. Saudi Arabia outlaws the Bible. The penalty for possessing it is expulsion from the country — if you’re a foreigner. If you’re a Saudi, the penalty is death by beheading. Yet, in America, Korans are as plentiful as comic books.

“Aren’t Saudis, particularly those in the United States — such as students — ever embarrassed by this imbalance, this disparity? Don’t they ever think, ‘Hmm, how odd: They let us do our thing, but we don’t let them do theirs’?”

And my friend answered, “No: They regard this situation as perfectly normal and proper.” I will never forget the definiteness of his answer.

As I said, I couldn’t help thinking about this, when pondering Fox News, MSNBC, and presidential debates: The Republicans are happy to go on liberal networks, knowing that this is life; the Democrats, as I have stated, can afford to have a pariah. Networks are simply supposed to be liberal, or at least liberal-leaning; everything else is a freakish, hateful blight.

Hey libs, how's Air America doing?

*Update: The distinguished Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman, speaks on Iraq: Time for Choosing.

**Update: Fred Thompson calls out Michael Moore.

***Update: More from the Church of the Holy Environment: an ark. You can't make this stuff up.

****Update: Global warming "consensus" fractures like the Greenland ice shelf.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Choice on Iraq

As our father commented to us yesterday, this article by our favorite Independent Senator, Joe Lieberman, is "a must read." And further, "when a patriot writes, we should read."

We hope his senatorial colleagues--both Democratic and Republican--will heed the words of Senator Lieberman, and support General Petraeus and our troops in Iraq. As our father pointed out, if they weren't going to give Gen. Petraeus the time necessary to win, they shouldn't have unanimously approved his appointment.

There should be no deadline for freedom and liberty. You cannot "re-deploy" democracy.

_____

The Choice on Iraq
(subscription required)
By Senator Joe Lieberman

Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.

The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.

At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad--the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in--and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.

_____

We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.

But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.

Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

_____

Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Senator from Connecticut.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Joe Lieberman is a Terrific American

Unbowed
By Kimberley A. Strassel

WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq brings to Joe Lieberman's mind an old Mark Twain story. "When a cat jumps on a hot stove, the cat never jumps on the stove again because the cat always assumes the stove is hot," says the senator from Connecticut. "But we are smarter than that. OK, so Vietnam didn't work out. But there are times when you've got to use force, to protect your security and to protect your principles."

Try telling that to the nuisance of congressional felines now prowling around the Iraq debate, eyeing it like a cooker on high boil. Next week will witness a Senate vote on a resolution condemning President Bush's new plan to quell growing sectarian violence and terrorism in Iraq by increasing the number of troops. While that vote may be largely symbolic, it comes amid far more ominous congressional calls to cut off war funding, to leave the Iraqis to settle their differences, to bring the troops home.

If ever the Iraq political debate was at a crossroads, it's now.

At the center of this fray is Sen. Lieberman, a sort of Horatio at the congressional bridge -- spiritedly trying to hold back a bipartisan stampede out of Iraq that he believes will result in devastating consequences for that country, the region, and, most importantly, U.S. national security.

"Iraq is the central part of a larger and ultimately longer-term conflict in the Middle East between moderates and extremists, between democrats and dictators, between Iran- and Iraq-sponsored terrorism and the rest of the Middle East . . . Are we going to surrender to them, surrender that country to them, and encourage people like them to be in authority and power all over the Middle East and in a better position to strike us again?" asks Mr. Lieberman. If only Livy had his quill today.

These are blunt words, and quite a few more flow from Mr. Lieberman throughout a lively interview in his office this past week. A born gentleman, he refrains from lobbing any pot shots at opponents. But he made clear that he felt Washington had been ducking an honest debate about the war and the consequences of abandoning it, hiding instead behind "cosmetic" resolutions and rhetoric. Four years into the conflict, Mr. Lieberman thinks there is value in remembering again why it is we're in Iraq.

This is well-trod ground for a man who supported not just the first Gulf War, but sponsored the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act that aimed to topple the regime. In 2003 "we did something that was right and courageous, which was to overthrow Saddam Hussein," says Mr. Lieberman. "He was a genocidal dictator, he tried to assassinate a former American president, he used chemical weapons [on his] . . . own people . . . He was a hater of the United States." Saddam was a danger, not to mention a barrier to creating a democratic Middle East that ceases to be a threat to the U.S.

This is why the senator remains unmoved today by those colleagues who have abandoned the cause, lamenting that they were "deceived" about the existence of WMD or that they have "lost confidence in the leadership of the president." Says Mr. Lieberman: "If you still think, not only that the original purpose of going in was right, but that how it ends will have a significant effect on American security for a generation or more to come, then you don't back away." And that, he says, counts even in the face of faltering public opinion. "I think we are elected to lead. . . . Americans are understandably responding to the carnage they see on TV every night, and what we have to urge them is not to surrender to the people who are causing that carnage."

Mr. Lieberman, who returned from his latest visit to Iraq in December, freely acknowledges what he believes were "the series of mistakes that were made after Saddam Hussein was overthrown," from the disbanding of the Iraqi army to our reluctance to send more troops (something he has advocated since the fall of 2003). Still, "we were getting to a point where we were making some significant progress -- and it is important not to overlook this. There were three elections held. Those were a powerful demonstration of what no one is able to deny, even those who now want to turn away and give up on Iraq. Which is that the majority of the Iraqi people want a better life for themselves and their families. The majority is not involved in sectarian violence and clearly not involved in terrorism."

There are still hopeful signs, he says. His recent trip included a stop in Ramadi in Anbar province -- an area thick with terrorist operatives -- where the senator saw evidence that "we've turned the tribal leaders to our side, against al Qaeda." Mr. Lieberman also felt from his discussions around the country that there were strong signs a "moderate, multiethnic coalition" was coming together among political leaders who would support Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a renewed push to restore order. "This thing is still winnable," says Mr. Lieberman. "And it is critical that we take advantage of this opportunity to win."

Which gets to President Bush's proposal for more troops, a plan Mr. Lieberman enthusiastically endorses. "The people in Congress, and the public, were quite right in saying the president's got to come up with a different approach. And he did. It's better than any other plan I've seen because it holds the hope of success. Most of the other plans are effectively just giving up and walking away."

Are 21,500 additional troops really enough? "I wish it was more, truthfully," he answers, throwing his own wish of 35,000 or even 40,000. "But I believe it is adequate. What I hope is that it is implemented quickly." The troops will be vital to quelling what Mr. Lieberman sees as several very different conflicts currently raging in Iraq. In Baghdad, more U.S. soldiers will bolster more Iraqi forces who aim to hold neighborhoods wracked by violence between local Shiites and Sunnis. In Anbar, they will hunt down al Qaeda. More troops, says Mr. Lieberman, will also provide the opportunity "to change the dynamic" in the wider war on terrorism, by sending a message to Iran and others that the U.S. will not abandon the region's moderates who are struggling to create a new democratic order.

And what of those Americans looking for some guarantee this will succeed? "None of us can be certain [the president's plan] is going to work; all the choices we have in Iraq right now are difficult. But by far, the one that is the worst, and would have disastrous consequences, is to pick up and leave, in small steps or in one large step, for all the reasons we know," he replies, emphatically. He also wants to speak beyond the proposal itself, to its author. "I have admiration for the president, because I believe he gets it. He understands the challenge of our time, which is from Islamic extremism . . . And he knows what he's doing is not popular. But he's doing it because he thinks it is right for the country."


So what does that say about Mr. Lieberman's Senate brethren, those who now want to turn tail for Rome, abandoning Horatio and his damned bridge to the enemy? What, I ask, accounts for the growing numbers of senators -- including Republicans such as Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, Maine's Olympia Snowe, Oregon's Gordon Smith -- who could well provide the decisive votes to undermine their own president in a time of war?

Mr. Lieberman offers a few half-hearted (dare I say, gentlemanly) explanations for the Senate's frigid feet. Some feel let down because the WMDs were never found; others are "affected in a political context by the loss of public support." But he ends up back at a baser truth, conceding that "some people, I just think have been partisan about this -- and that, to me, is the worst reason."

Mr. Lieberman is also frustrated that those supporting the resolution are dodging the tough questions. "The resolution that is being talked about, in one sense I'd say it is offensive, because it is only cosmetic . . . It won't affect the implementation of a new plan to succeed, to win in Iraq. But at the same time it will send a mixed message to those who are fighting for us in Iraq, and those who are fighting against us in Iraq. It will be a very graphic example . . . that we are divided."

But what can Mr. Lieberman, President Bush and others do to stave off such a capitulation? For starters, he responds, his side needs to make sure the naysayers aren't allowed to just criticize. "Part of the case would be, look, if you are really against the war and you are really against what the president is proposing, have the nerve to do what Congress under the Constitution is authorized to do: Move to cut off the funding and then let's have a real head-to-head debate."

Critics of the president's approach might also be made to put forward an alternative, and justify their proposals -- beyond some vague notion that this must all be solved by the Iraqi parliament, which Mr. Lieberman explains isn't so much a solution as wish-fulfillment. "There is an attempt by some of my colleagues here to say that it is wrong to think a military victory is possible, and in the end this requires a political solution among Iraqis. Well, of course it does. But as President Bush said, and as I believe, you can't have a political solution, you can't have economic growth . . . unless you first have security. That's key. Security's basic."

The other alternative, of course, is to simply admit defeat. Some in Congress are working up the courage to say as much, and to further suggest that abandoning Iraq wouldn't be all that bad. "People say this is just like Vietnam, we could leave, and that would be that. That won't be that. We're in a war which has it origins in this part of the world, in the Middle East, in the conflict within Islam. If we pull out and essentially surrender to the extremists and terrorists, they are naturally going to follow us right back to our shores.

"If we leave the place collapses. And it's more than civil war, it's ethnic cleansing. The Iranians come in and dominate a good chunk of the country. Al Qaeda takes over a good part and uses it as a base. The Kurds [can sustain themselves] but it gets very ominous. . . . And then the same group of people who attacked us on 9/11, they achieve a victory, and they will use that victory to strike at us again."

Speaking of the threat posed by Iran, Mr. Lieberman has been equally unimpressed by the U.S.'s lack of resolve. "I'm troubled by this reflex reaction to talk with Iran. We're a strong enough country, when it seems productive we shouldn't hesitate to talk to anybody. But we ought to talk when it is in our interest, not theirs. And right now it is only in Iran's interest."

He says he's been encouraged by the administration's tougher stance in recent weeks, and in particular President Bush's decision to move another carrier battle group to the Gulf region -- "which sends a message to Iran."

Mr. Lieberman also notes that, "We know that some of our American soldiers are being killed by sophisticated IEDs from Iran. The evidence is just closed, clear, compelling. . . . I can't believe the concern expressed by some of my colleagues here about whether we have a right to take prisoner Iranians who we conclude are either supplying weapons to Iraqis who are using them to kill American troops, or training them to kill American troops." As for the rest of the world community, "they're in denial."

What is remarkable, I think toward the end of our conversation, is how spry and feisty the senator looks. He did, after all, just come off a draining year fighting a bitter battle -- against his own party -- for his political life. Mr. Lieberman is now officially an "independent," yet he takes care to describe himself as an "independent Democrat." Why identify with a party that is so uniformly opposed to him on an issue so dear to his heart? He admits he frets that foreign policy is the "Achilles heel" of his political side, and that "unless the Democratic Party can prove to the people that as a party it is not either pacifist or isolationist, but is willing to stand up and protect the security of the American people, then we're going to have trouble electing a president."

His own Democratic heroes are Truman and Kennedy. "The Kennedy inaugural was the single . . . speech that brought me into public life. Those famous words 'Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.' That's what it has meant to me to be a Democrat." Horatio's challenge now is to convince his party -- and more than a few Republicans -- to also remember just who they are.

Ms. Strassel is a member of the Journal's editorial board, based in Washington.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Can't Get Enough Lieberman

While researching for yesterday's post, we came across an Op-Ed piece on Iraq written by Senator Joe Lieberman almost a year ago. Reviewing its contents, its amazing how prescient Senator Lieberman was in identifying some of the key issues. It should be clear from some of these quotes why we feel such a strong kinship with Senator Lieberman, despite our political differences.

On the importance of winning in Iraq:

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

A year later, and these primary issues have not changed. We continue to be on the side of 27 million Iraqis. Loss in Iraq will embolden terrorists and turn Iraq into the equivalent of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Whatever opinion polls you may read about the mindset of the Iraqi people, when the vote matters, they vote overwhelmingly for democracy.

Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them.

Iraqi leaders are fearful that the latest election signaled a change in American commitment to success in the Middle East. Their worst fears are founded in the aftermath of Desert Storm when President Bush Sr. encouraged the Shiite majority attempted to overthrow Saddam and then ordered Schwarzkopf to stand down. The result: Saddam slaughtered the leaders of the uprising and then tortured and killed their families. We must not once again abandon Iraq to a similar fate.

American polls are notoriously difficult to interpret. Does the decline in President Bush's approval rating mean Americans want to get out of Iraq or that they simply believe that the current strategy needs to be changed? We've argued ad nauseum that most Americans support the war, but are frustrated with the current state of affairs. This last election--notably Senator Lieberman's re-election--seem to support this conclusion. There's not much question where Iraqi's stand, again, from Senator Lieberman:

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

We know these poll numbers are almost a year old, but the recent numbers, while showing some decline, still indicate Iraqis feel better off now and are optimistic about the future.

As when Senator Lieberman visited Iraq, the Kurdish North remains free from violence as does the Shiite South. The attacks we read about are in the Sunni triangle--a relatively limited, but important, piece of land stretching from Baghdad to Tikrit to Ramadi. It may well be that the current strategies have failed there and new ideas are needed.

Or, it may be as we suspect, that terrorists and insurgents hope to exploit a weakening in American will and are stepping up violence as they did in the month leading up to the election. Either way, withdrawal before the Iraqi military and police are able to maintain security will not improve the situation. Even if you believe that Iraq was not the right fight, pulling out now will not make right your perceived wrong.

Senator Lieberman predicted that the situation in Iraq could be negatively affected by pressures of the now-passed election.

I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Most Republicans were "brought down" by corruption while Democrats ran on a platform that was light on constructive recommendation and heavy on "we're not Republicans." These attitudes wont be enough.

Democrats must now heed Senator Lieberman's recommendation and avoid making the next two years one large bully pulpit of criticism. We know they hate Bush and blame him and his cadre for all the worlds problems. Of course, we also remember that they too voted for the war. It's time now for them to face up to the responsibility that vote should have entailed and partner with Republicans to find a solution--one that leaves Iraq secure and America safe.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Lieberman: Making Us Proud

An article today from the Associated Press (hat tip: James Taranto) addressed the idea of Senator Lieberman switching parties.

Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say--and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut--nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that." (emphasis added)

Senator Lieberman recognizes, as this blog has pointed out numerous times (here, here, here, and here), that he was elected over Lamont because of his ongoing support for the war in Iraq. People in Connecticut were given a choice between two candidates who are about equally liberal with the only discerning disagreement between the two being the war. Connecticut is a liberal state that was won by John Kerry. And they voted for a Senator who supports the war. We repeat again because some of you aren't listening: last week's election was not a call to bring the troops home. It was a justified reaction to corruption and perhaps mismanagement in Iraq. But it was not a call for immediate withdrawal.

If, as voters left their local polling places in Connecticut, they told interviewers that the most important issue driving their vote was Iraq and they voted for Lamont, we would be discouraged. This would have signaled that voters were electing people they thought would bring our troops home immediately.

But that wasn't what happened. They left their polling places, and told exit poll workers that the most important issue was corruption. Iraq was a close second. So, Republicans lose because of corruption and mismanagement. Liberal, pro-war Democrats like Lieberman beat liberal anti-war Democrats like Lamont and signal to us and everyone else that Americans want a change in Congress, but they recognize the importance of winning in Iraq.

And we hope that now Democrats will engage the war in a constructive way rather than the critical posture they adopted once things started looking bad. With any luck, dems follow the example of Joe Lieberman, rather than opportunists like John Murtha.

It's unfortunate that good men like Senators Santorum (a particularly outspoken leader in the War on Terror) and Talent and Senate hopeful Michael Steele lost, but we are relieved that it wasn't because Americans want to leave Iraq ASAP.

Even then, the numbers weren't that much of a landslide, as Time magazine blogger Mike Allen pointed out on the 10th of November (hat tip: Taranto, again):

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate.

But you wont find us shrieking for a recount a la Angry Left circa 2000, 2004, et al.

It's enough to know that the election wasn't the tsunamitidalwavemassiveshift of a vote as sold by the spinmeisters in the MSM.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Let the Freak Show Begin!

As we begin to take stock of the recent election, our native optimism and cheery disposition is beginning to return.

And we can't help but point out the difference in response between the losing conservatives of this election and the losing Angy Left of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Where the leftists filled blogs with expletives and run on screams about election stealing, conservatives and conservative candidates recognize close elections notwithstanding, the election was lost fair and square. After all, that's democracy, right?

Conservatives must just be more optimistic than liberals.

We're especially pleased to note that, well, Bush is still President. Some headlines seem to think that Democratic control of the House and Senate meant the President would roll over and play dead, allowing liberals to completely reverse course on everything from Iraq, to lower taxes and conservative Supreme Court nominees.

As we pointed out yesterday, this election was not a rejection of the war in Iraq. More voters listed corruption and scandal as affecting their vote than Iraq. And that's fair. In many cases we supported Republican candidates despite the corruption and scandal but because of their support for the war in Iraq. That preference doesn't mean we weren't frustrated and disgusted with the Abramoff and Foley scandals.

The Lieberman win over Lamont is proof positive that the Angry Left's opposition to the war in Iraq is not a majority position. If they couldn't win with a liberal anti-war candidate in one of the most liberal states in the Union, it wont win anywhere. The win of moderate Democrats like Heath Shuler (hat tip: Morgan) further evinces this position. Hopefully Democratic control of the House and the Senate will invest Democrats in the war in a way that has not yet happened; hopefully they will take some ownership of it.

In fact, this election gives us hope that perhaps the Democratic party isn't trending as far left as Lamont's primary win over Lieberman seemed to indicate. We hope that the influx of good, moderate Democrats like Mr. Shuler helps to keep Democrats more centrist.

Again, the key will be how the large number of moderate Democratic freshmen interact with their stridently liberal committee chairmen. Speaker Pelosi may have been elected by the angryleftwingnuts in her San Francisco district, but she's Speaker because of independent voters in places like Iowa and North Carolina.

And finally, a high priority for liberals--maybe now the world will like us better!--that's what we're all shooting for, right?


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.