Lieberman Endorses Escalation In Iraq, Surprised Rumsfeld Didn’t Suggest It In Memo
Lieberman Endorses Escalation In Iraq, Surprised Rumsfeld Didn’t Suggest It In Memo
Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said it was “surprising” that “the one thing [Donald Rumsfeld’s memo] doesn’t raise as a possibility is to increase the number of our troops.” Lieberman claimed the failure to send more Americans “may well be a critical part of the problems that we’ve been having lately.” He also endorsed embedding more Americans in the Iraqi security forces and sending more troops to the borders of Iran and Syria, both of which he claimed “require more personnel on the ground in Iraq.” Watch it:
Less than a month ago, Lieberman was significantly less committed to escalation in Iraq, saying only that “I think we have to be open to that as a way to succeed.”
In October, while campaigning for his Senate seat, Lieberman said, “No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do.”
Full transcript:
LIEBERMAN: The Rumsfeld memo itself is in many ways surprising. He raises possibilities of doing things such as redeploying our troops which he has always said that he was against. I must say, Bob, that the one thing he doesn’t raise as a possibility is to increase the number of our troops there even though there’s very broad criticism of Rumsfeld for having had too few American troops in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. That may well be a critical part of the problems that we’ve been having lately. Incidentally, finally he makes a few suggestions such as embedding more Americans in Iraqi security forces which most people now think is a good idea and having more Americans on the border with Iran and Syria to stop the terrorists from coming in. You know, our military has been asking for that for years. They didn’t get it. Both of those require more personnel on the ground in Iraq.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
56 Responses to “Lieberman Endorses Escalation In Iraq, Surprised Rumsfeld Didn’t Suggest It In Memo”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well thank you dumb voters of CT for keeping old Joe in the Senate. Traitor Joe Lieberman will be a thorn for another 6 years, unless he is forced to resign!
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 amLieberman no doubt would like to lead the march to Tehran. He is probably mouthing off now because he didn’t get Rumsfeld’s job.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:36 amJust call yourself a Republican Lieberman - it’s clear that you already are one.
I imagine his voting record next year will reflect that.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 amWe need more Lieber-divisions to stop the handfull of dead-enders! Go Joe! Hold a Lieber-rally, martial the Lieber-troops. Launch a new Lieber-krieg! Then we will rule the middle east for a thousand Lieber-years.
What a war mongering Lieber-douche. I heard that Bush claimed Libermans’s lips tasted like vinegar after he kissed him.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:38 amLieberman is such a sack of shit.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:38 amI can’t wait until 08 when the Democratic party wins more U.S. Senate seats and that diaper stain from CT can be ignored.
GSD > Bush kissed Joe to get some Bourbon Whiskey drops in his throat > lol.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 amI’m all for hearing where idiots like Leiberman plan to find the troops necessary for this escalation. This guy is just jockeying for position like everyone else…staking out his flag. Guy needs to read some Bacevich…
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 amLieberman for Swineherder / 08
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 amHey Lieberman, Joe baby, somebody else already got Rummy’s job — give it up.
F*cking twit.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 amCan the dumb Democrats kick Lieberman out now?
Lieberman needs to be yanked.
YESTERDAY
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:49 amQuestion for the day: Why does the press give news coverage to old Joe?
Off to plant daffodils before the cold hits Georgia > bye all and take care.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 amJoe represents the state of Israel. It was his first stop after losing in the primary, to raise money and sell his soul, what little there was of it.
He’s a good reason for there to be term limits.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 ami happened to switch to MTP a couple times during commercial breaks into cbs sunday morning… here are a couple of amazing quotes from warner:
dubya is “listening, learning and open to take a change of course”…
uh huh…
and he needs to “share with them [the new congress] the fruit of his thinking“…
AH HAHAHAHAHAHA Ahhh haaaaa… whew… rich, huh…
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 am.
Hey Joe - I’m sure you have some relatives and family members of close friends that you can send off to Iraq.
“Impeach the cheerleader, save the world”
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 amJoe Lieberman - the Democrats replacement for dumbf*&k Santorum.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 pmI hope his wife gets ovarian cancer and he gets bone cancer and his children get leukemia.
hes total freaking scum.
hes just a stupid lekud jew who wants to protect israel with american troops.
sorry joe, you and the other jew idiot neocons just put israel in the middle of a total mideast regional war.
iran is more powerful because of YOUR ACTIONS.
nice going.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 pmCost of this war whether in lives to all parties involved,the permenant and lifetime injuries,the billions of dollars spent weekly on this war seem to mean nothing to Joe…he wants this to continue after US has been in it more than World War II…he probably wants more wars to spread to Syria and Iran based on the NeoCon & Natanyahu doctrine. Since the cost is not touching him,his kid,his family..and his check book…why not go for it to help Neocons’ agenda where his loyaly seems to be.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 pm#16.
No need for the anti-Semite Krameresque comments. Please migrate to Redstate of Free Republican if you insist.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmand he needs to “share with them [the new congress] the fruit of his thinking“…
katy - that’s too funny. Didn’t realize that the frat boy cheerleader was capable of thinking. It’s a scary thought.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:10 pmYou all might not like my Joe,but he has some sweet kosher nuggets.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmLeiberman gets aroused over the thought of more death and destruction. He wants those dirty Mulims to pay for what they have done to his bretheren.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pm#17, tarazan: Cost of this war whether in lives to all parties involved,the permenant and lifetime injuries,the billions of dollars spent weekly on this war seem to mean nothing to Joe
Exactly!
Lieberman should stop being a field marshall from leather chairs in DC.
Lieberman should don a helmet and flak jacket and start being a field marshall in Iraq.
Lieberman should get to the ME and try to solve the Palestian-Israeli issue(s).
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pmJoe is so predictable–he said what he thought the people of Connecticut wanted to hear (knowing if reelected he would have a 6 year term) that he could safely say and do what HE thinks is best, not what the voters of his state wanted. I saw this coming in October–he is duplicitous and a sneaky, egotistical bastard.
Joe, just slide across the aisle, you opportunistic phony.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pmAh yes, here we are again….Good Morning all…..I think joe is traitor #7 against america….Cheney, bush,rove, rummy rice and wolfawitless are ahead of him in evil deeds, but give him time….He will back Israel above america every chance he get’s. Who know’s the people of CT may even demand a recall and dump his butt…Blessings all
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmSure, Connecticut elected LIEBerman, but he might as well have been elected by the people of Israel. Ever notice that the only two high profile Democrats in the country who support the war in Iraq are this guy and Ed Koch. What a coincidence.
It really has to make you wonder about the majority of voters in Connecticut. I lived most of my life in CT and am ashamed of that state. 65 to 70 percent of Nutmeggers do not support this war but then go on to re-elect this man to the Knesset. I mean Senate.
Didn’t put your money where your mouth is, eh Connecticut? You voted for Gore. You voted for Kerry. Then you return LIEberman to DC? How schitzo can you get?
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmHe does raise the issue in the memo. It is one of the options listed as “Below the Line”, that is, a “less attractive” option.
Rusmsfeld actually seems to make more sense than Leiberman.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 pmRural America Suffering Higher Death Toll in Iraq, Afghanistan
by Aaron Glantz
SAN FRANCISCO - Rural communities are experiencing a disproportionate amount of U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new study by the Carsey Institute, a think tank at the University of New Hampshire.
“The mortality rate for soldiers from rural America is about 60 percent higher than the mortality rate for soldiers from metropolitan areas,” the Institute’s William O’Hare told OneWorld.
According to the study, 825 of the first 3,095 Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan–or 27 percent–came from rural America, even though rural areas account for only 19 percent of the U.S. population.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1129-01.htm
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 pmHow can you trust a man who went to run against his own party when he lost his election’s primary,the party that put him in the senate to begin with?.He won by the help of Republicans and their money..who voted for him to defeat his Democratic opponet. Joe cares for Joe.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pmTurtle Man, Turtle Man can’t you see, that Iraq is lost no matter how much you plead. Our soldier’s have fought bravely but what you and Bush don’t realize is that when shot they bleed. They shouldn’t have to continue to pay the price, for what more and more looks like a roll of the dice. Our freedom doesn’t depend on the outcome in Iraq, the real problem is that we are being lead by a quack. I’d like to think it was just a bad dream, but you and idiots like you who are afraid to fight just sit around and continue to scream. “More Troops, More Troops!” My question to you is clear: When to we get the hell out of there?
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:28 pmLieberman Endorses Escalation in Iraq
So do the Saudis:
Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:51pm GMT 02/12/2006
The gulf’s two military powers, Sunni-Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, are lining up behind their warring religious brethren in Iraq in a potentially explosive showdown, as expectations grow in both countries that America is preparing a pull-out of its troops.
A pool of blood and a damaged vehicle after a bomb blast in Baghdad
The Saudis are understood to be considering providing Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms, as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq.
The strategy — outlined in an article last week by Nawaf Obaid, a senior security adviser to the kingdom’s government — risks spiralling into a proxy war between Saudi and Iranian-backed factions in the next development in Iraq’s vicious sectarian conflict.
Saudi Arabia, America’s closest ally in the Arab world, is considering backing anti-US insurgents because it is so alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq will be left to their fate — military and political — at the hands of the Shia majority.
However, a Saudi government spokesman said yesterday that Mr Obaid’s view “does not reflect the kingdom’s policy, which uphold the security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects.”
advertisementPresident George Bush sent vice-president Dick Cheney to Riyadh last weekend after the Saudis demanded high-level talks about their concerns. They told him Iran was trying to establish itself as the dominant regional power through its influence in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
Saudi fears were strengthened as it emerged that some senior US intelligence officials are urging the Bush administration to abandon stalled attempts to reach a compromise with Sunni dissidents and adopt a controversial “pick a winner” strategy instead, giving priority to Shia and Kurd political factions.
The proposal is also known as the “80 per cent solution” since the Sunnis, who ruled the country under Saddam Hussein, comprise just 20 per cent of Iraq’s 26 million population. It has been put forward as part of a crash White House review of Iraq strategy. Its backers claim that ambitious attempts to woo anti-US Sunni insurgents have failed, and now risk alienating Shia leaders as well, leaving the US without strong political allies in Iraq.
As the frenzy of diplomatic activity intensifies, the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of foreign policy experts, this week plans to recommend the US withdraws nearly all of combat troops by early 2008.
Although President Bush continues to insist he will not tie US policy to timetables for withdrawal, the panel’s recommendations will fuel the belief that a major US pull-out will be under way soon.
The issue was at the fore yesterday when 40 people were killed and more than 80 wounded after three car bombs exploded in Baghdad. The attacks came after US and Iraqi forces raided insurgent strongholds in the city of Baquba.
In Teheran, Iranian leaders have made clear that they believe they are the big winners from America’s involvement in Iraq. “The kind of service that the Americans, with all their hatred, have done us — no superpower has ever done anything similar,” Mohsen Rezai, secretary-general of the powerful Expediency Council that advises the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, boasted on state television recently.
“America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein… The Americans got so stuck in the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan that if they manage to drag themselves back to Washington in one piece, they should thank God. America presents us with an opportunity rather than a threat — not because it intended to, but because it miscalculated. They made many mistakes”.
Iran also watched with pleasure as America, Britain, France and Germany failed to persuade Russia and China to sign up to a package of sanctions against Iran in a draft United Nations Security Council resolution. The West wanted to punish Tehran for pushing ahead with banned uranium enrichment for its nuclear programme. The US is now drawing up plans for a diplomatic “coalition of the willing” to pursue sanctions outside UN auspices.
The Iraq Study Group is also expected to recommend opening dialogue with Iran and Syria over Iraq, a move being resisted by hardliners who rule out talks with two regimes that are fomenting violence. However, in a break with previous policy, Mr Bush will meet tomorrow in Washington with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a party closely tied to Iran.
The talks are part of US efforts to strengthen links with Shia politicians and to undercut the influence of Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric and militia leader on whose support the prime minister Nuri al-Maliki depends.
The meeting will fuel Sunni fears they are being sidelined even though the White House also announced plans for future talks with the country’s Sunni deputy prime-minister.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:29 pmLieberman caucasing with the Democrats means nothing.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pmHe’ll back Bush for the next two years, giving Cheney control of the Senate.
Rot in whatever hell you believe in Joe.
Does he have any relatives over there? Why aren’t they signing up?
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmIt’s not the voters of CT ’s fault … or any of our faults.
You can’t elect a decent politician today - because one doesn’t exist.
It does not matter if your Democrat or Republican these guys are all on one side… and it’s not yours.
84% of the American people want out of Iraq
90% of Americans oppose open borders
88% want Bush impeached
93% want the military commissions and Patriot acts abolished
and we will get none of it …
They are not doing the American peoples will for WHOM THEY TOOK AN OATH TO FAITHFULLY REPRESENT … this is taxation without representation to the hilt!
Who is working for who?
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmJoe Lieberman the Kosher Chickenhawk
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pmLieberman=Kosher Chickenhawk
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:02 pmif there was ever any doubt (and there wasn’t) that mccain’s assinine call to burn more troops in bush’s trash heap of Iraq was the wrong policy, it is now officially certified as such [wrong] by lieberman’s endorsement.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm.
It really does not matter McCain talking point the Kosher Pork Barrel is parroting today. He’ll be saying something drastically different next month, as will McCain.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pmThey should reinstitute the draft for Connecticut and ship out to Iraq all those who voted for Lierberman to achieve the escalation numbers he wants.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm“They are not doing the American peoples will for WHOM THEY TOOK AN OATH TO FAITHFULLY REPRESENT … this is taxation without representation to the hilt!”
there problem is in a system in which the voters are forced to hold their nose and vote for the least worst of only 2 choices or not participate, the victor is allowed by the media, by conventional wisdom, etc. to interpret their win as an endorsement. In reality it is nothing of the sort. The win almost always means only that the voters hated the opponent more than they hated the pol they voted for. Pretty F’d-up.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 pm.
Politicians should not be rewarded for breaking the party rules and running AGAIN under a different affiliation after losing in that same election. Change the rules in CT and make it like other states to prevent this kind of monstrosity. Second, the media has to flush out liars like Joe, who say one thing to get elected (he got democratic support) and then the opposite once he’s back in Washington. How anyone bought his garbage to begin with is beyond me, but it’s the media’s responsibility to at least have them provide straight answers before any election.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 pmJust wondering?
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmIsn’t there at least one freakin Republican Senator who sees the way the wind is blowing for 08? You know, one who’d change parties to maintain their sense of power by being in the majority party? Maybe the Sen from NB? That would render Joe impotent, as he’d no longer be able to hold the deciding anything. Would serve him right, as the Dems would most certainly kick his ass out of the party if that were to happen.
Lieberman is just parroting the McCain line du jour. When McCain shifts position, Joe will swing around with him.
It’s all about McCain wanting to be president and Liiberman sucking up to him in hopes of riding in on maverick coattails.
Joe is the Ultimate Bipartisan. If this all works out, he’ll have been a VP candidate for both major parties.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pmJoe Lieberman should be the first to volunteer to go to Iraq and take care of the ‘insurgents’. And all his children should be stepping up to the plate of military service.
The neocons and all their children, nieces and nephews and grandchildren should set an example and volunteer for duty in the U.S. Army. Rush Limbaugh can lead the brigrade with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter bringing up the rear.
Why are the people who are for ’staying the course’ all CHICKENHAWKS? They want you and your children to fight, but they themselves seem to find ‘other priorities’.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 pmI doubt anyone on this site who lives in CT voted for Joe. He got millions of Republican campaign dollars and got most of the CT Republican votes. Jeff, the Democrats did dump him - he won as an independant.
In fact, a “fierce antiwar critic” of Lieberman, a brave man named John Orman, has taken steps to take over the party that was created for Joe’s campaign, “Connecticut for Lieberman”.
Orman ‘went to the town hall in his home town of Trumbull last month and changed his voter registration from Democrat to Connecticut For Lieberman. Since the party had no other registered members — the senator himself has always been a registered Democrat — Orman promptly returned home to vote himself party chairman. His first act in office, unsurprisingly, was to issue a blistering news release denouncing Lieberman for “turning his back on our party†— and for rejoining the Senate Democratic Caucus “even though he was not the nominee from the Democratic Party.‒
The only person I know that voted for Joe is a woman in her late 60’s in poor health who wouldn’t do us much good in Iraq. She was worried that Lamont was a one issue (anti-war) candidate, which is how all that Republican money portrayed him.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 pmbroad criticism of Rumsfeld for having had too few American troops in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was overthrown
This is just precious…what a specious line of crap. We had more than enough troops in Iraq, enough to insure that every single piece of infrastructure was destroyed, down to the toolbox at the local garage. The US never once intended to subdue Iraq…it was “destabilization” from the strart, and it ain’t over yet. If you don’t get that, then ask yourself what Death Squad Negro-ponte was doing in Iraq.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:40 pmJoe should be recalled by CT. I would be totally amazed if he doesn’t switch to the Republican party fairly soon after the start of the 110th Congress in January, because despite his “liberal” voting record on the environment, and social issues, protecting Israel is his number one priority.
As per the article posted by Barfly (#30), we all should have seen this coming for awhile. And no matter what the Saudis say, it’s not the protection of their fellow Sunnis that they ‘d either directly or indirectly get embroiled in that war for. It’s for the protection of their oil, which gives them power. (Remember the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War in 1991?) And it’s interesting that the only middle-eastern country that the U.S. has not been aligned with is the ONE country that wants to have regional power…Iran. And regional power, in that oil-rich part of the world, means one thing. Economic dominance. And the end of the American Empire. Frankly, my real fear is not a regional war, which I think could be limited and would burn itself out after a few years…but China and Russia coming in on Iran’s side. Europe would then come in to protect their own interests as well…not sure who they would ultimately align with. Wouldn’t guarantee that it would be with the U.S. So, anyway, I’m talking about another world war, and perhaps the end game, considering the nuclear weapons that are available to so many countries now.
The Armegeddon that so many far-right Christians are rabidly excited about right now could well happen. But for those same people, I would like to remind you that Christ told us to “love our enemies as we love ourselves,” and to “turn the other cheek.” Your belief in the Rapture (based on one statement from Paul about “being transformed in the twinkling of an eye”) could apply just as well to those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were vaporized by the atom bombs that were dropped in their cities. You people missed Christ’s main message: Blessed are the peace makers and that the meek (enduring injury with patience and without resentment; not violent) would inherit the earth.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 pmRegarding Barfly’s post quoting the Sunday Telegraph article, there’s a serious flaw in that story which casts a bit of doubt on its accuracy.
The proposal is also known as the “80 per cent solution†since the Sunnis, who ruled the country under Saddam Hussein, comprise just 20 per cent of Iraq’s 26 million population. It has been put forward as part of a crash White House review of Iraq strategy. Its backers claim that ambitious attempts to woo anti-US Sunni insurgents have failed, and now risk alienating Shia leaders as well, leaving the US without strong political allies in Iraq.
The Sunnis make up between 35% and 40% of Iraq’s population. They may *perhaps* make up only 20% IF the Kurdish population is excluded (the Kurds, one should note, are also Muslims, and largely Sunni Muslim–not Shi’a). From LexicOrient.com’s article on Iraq’s people and religion:
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pmIslam: 23,000,000 (Shi’i 14,000,000; Sunni 9,000,000)
Christianity: 1,300,000
Other:
I don’t buy the Saudi Military as being able to do that-A great air force yes but, boots on the ground? However, they have the money to hire mercenaries.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pmThe perfidious Lieberman. He lies to win votes for reelection. He lies that he will be a Democrat though he is an “independent” of his own definition. He lies when he says he wants to end the war as he advocates expanding the war.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:54 pmHe is a self-serving, self-centered whiner, who lies to get what he wants. Why did anyone vote for him?
Sen. Lieberman is just a stooge of the Israeli lobby. These Zionists welcome chaos. President Carter’s new book exposes the lies of Israel. But for more on the lies of the Zionist Judenstaat read what true Torah Jews have to say about Der Judenstaat of Israel—the world’s troublemaker.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 pmDoes Connecticut permit recall elections?
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:06 pmJoe is a total nutmeg!!
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:23 pmThe re election of Lieberman was Karl Rove’s one lone success in the last election.
Comment by CaptainVideo — December 3, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
Captian, the re-election of Liebermand was Karl Rove’s last success in any election. It’s over for traitor Rover.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:12 pmLieberman is a senator with zero party affiliation.He panders to his own self interest.Whatever is good for Joe goes.He sways to popular opinion too much which makes it abundantly obvious he represents no one but himself.He is a BushCo troll.
Don`t look for him to be around for his next term election.He will fail miserably.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:38 pmLieberman proves that truth is the first causality in war. Lieberman completely lacks moral principles.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:03 pm[…] Last month, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he was “open” to increasing troop levels in Iraq, and a few weeks ago he wondered why Donald Rumsfeld had not included the possibility of escalation in his outgoing memo. Today, Lieberman voiced his strong support for pouring tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq: President Bush may not be certain he wants more troops in Iraq, but Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is. […]
December 21st, 2006 at 3:19 pm