Writing in the Wall Street Journal this morning, Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham celebrate the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq while waxing indignant over Iran’s alleged role in the continuing violence:

Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.

Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.

First, you know who also has American blood on their hands? The former Sunni insurgents now on the U.S. payroll because they have promised to stop attacking Americans. Many of these former Al Qaeda fighters are personally responsible for the deaths of our men and women in uniform. But, apparently, agreeing to cooperate–at least for the moment– with America’s foreign policy goals wipes away a lot of American blood.

Second, while containing Iran’s growing influence in the region is an important goal, as is eradicating Al Qaeda in Iraq, it’s necessary to recognize that Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq and Iran’s rising power are both themselves consequences of the Iraq invasion. By smashing the Iraqi state, the U.S. invasion, created an opportunity for Al Qaeda to foment sectarian hatred and violence in Iraq. By removing Iran’s greatest enemy Saddam Hussein, and creating a government dominated by Iran’s proxies, the U.S. invasion has strengthened Iran. It’s unclear why Lieberman and Graham should feel entitled to crow about solving problems that they helped cause in the first place.

Think Progress has more on the selective accounting of Lieberman and Graham’s op-ed.

A story yesterday in Britain’s Sunday Times suggested that General David Petraeus “is expected to tell Congress [that] Iranian forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra” when he testifies before Congress this week.

Right, but the question Congress should ask is: On which side?

In the Weekly Standard last week, Fred and Kimberly Kagan, two of the architects of the surge, described the Basra battle as a security operation launched by “the legitimate Government of Iraq and its legally-constituted security forces [against] illegal, foreign-backed, insurgent and criminal militias serving leaders who openly call for the defeat and humiliation of the United States and its allies in Iraq and throughout the region.” By the latter, the Kagans presumably mean Muqtada al-Sadr, whom the Kagans consistently have sought to present as a tool of Iran. In doing this, the Kagans and other conservative pundits have seriously misunderstood and misrepresented the relationships between Iran and the various Shia factions in Iraq.

There is little actual doubt about who is Iran’s primary proxy in Iraq: The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), formerly the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI was founded in the early 1980s by exiled Iraqi clerical activists in Iran, with the blessing and support of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) created and trained SCIRI’s armed wing, the Badr Corps (now known as the Badr Organization), for the express purpose of eventually serving as an arm of Iran’s Quds Force in Iraq. SCIRI was among the Iraqi exile parties with whom the U.S. worked in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, but maintained close ties to Iran. ISCI continues to receive Iranian funds, and many members of the Badr militia reportedly still receive pensions from the IRGC. Thousands of these Iranian-trained and indoctrinated militiamen have been incorporated into the Iraqi police and army.

Sadr, on the other hand, is seen by the Iranians as an annoyance. This does not mean, however, that Iran has not sought to build ties to his movement. Though initially surprised by the strength of Sadr’s movement, (which they rightly regarded as a hindrance to their quick, easy, SCIRI-facilitated dominance of Iraq), Iran quickly grasped — unlike the U.S. — that Sadr’s political appeal was genuine, and has sought to manage it, rather than simply deny or suppress it, as the U.S. has done.

In reality, Iran maintains ties with all of the major Shia actors in Iraq, and, as the main beneficiary of the Iraq invasion, stands to gain however the current political struggle is resolved. Because of ISCI’s acceptance (for the moment) of U.S. goals in Iraq, credulous American analysts have ignored overwhelming evidence of ISCI’s continuing ties to Iran in order to portray them as friendly to U.S. interests. Senators should beware ideologically-motivated attempts to portray the current power struggle in Iraq as simply “the Iraqi government versus Iranian-supported bad guys.”

Today, Sen. John McCain spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, MO. He spoke at length about the sacrifice paid by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, acknowledging “how little has been asked of others compared to their service” and declaring that the nation owes veterans “a debt that we can never fully repay.”

He also said that veterans should have access to “the highest quality health…care in the world” upon returning:

As President, I will do everything in my power to ensure that those who serve today and those who have served in the past have access to the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care in the world. The disgrace of Walter Reed must not be forgotten. … Whatever our commitments to veterans cost, we will keep them, as you have kept every commitment to us. The honor of a great nation is at stake.

Watch it:

Not only has he refused to support the 21st Century GI Bill, which the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed last June, he has consistently voted against increasing funding for the Veterans’ Administration, which oversees all medical care for veterans:

– Voted AGAINST an amendment providing $20 billion to the VA’s medical facilities. [5/4/06]

– Voted AGAINST providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care “and treatment for veterans,” one of only 13 senators to do so. [4/26/06]

– Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes. [3/14/06]

– Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.8 billion by ending “abusive tax loopholes.” [3/10/04]

– Voted AGAINST FOR a $650 million increase in veterans’ medical care funding. [8/1/01]

Though McCain has derided progressive universal health care plans as “a government takeover,” he is mum on the success of the VA, a government-run, integrated approach that, as Paul Krugman put it, is “one of the few clear American success stories in the struggle to contain health care costs.”

McCain’s zero-regulation, every-man-for-himself approach to health insurance would in effect “dismantle” the VA — what Krugman calls “a completely wrongheaded approach to health care.”

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, making the case for the “unmistakable progress” in Iraq.

A telling moment in his remarks came when he was arguing why President Bush’s surge “dramatically turned around the situation in Iraq.” Just as he reached this point in his speech, MSNBC cut away to report on escalating violence in Iraq:

McCAIN: Faced with the prospect of defeat, we had two fundamental choices. We could retreat from Iraq and accept the horrible consequences of our defeat. Or we could change strategies and try to turn things around. It was, I believe, a critical moment in our nation’s history, and a time of testing for our nation’s political leadership.

In the year that has passed, our nation showed its strength –

MSNBC: And speaking of Iraq, we do have breaking news out of Iraq, where at least four mortars have been fired into the heavily-fortified Green Zone today. It’s unclear at this time if there are casualties or any major damage. Now the news comes just a day after five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. Two, again, inside that Green Zone.

Watch it:

Yesterday’s death toll was “one of the worst daily tolls for the American military in the most heavily protected part of Baghdad.” The New York Times notes that the attacks “were, symbolically at least, a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq.”

Digg It!