Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) echoed Vice President Cheney last week by arguing that a timeline for Iraq redeployment (backed by 57 percent of Americans) “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded to Lieberman’s remarks. “Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it,” Feingold said. Watch it:

Full transcript: Read more

Conservatives have “seized on the arrests of terrorism suspects in Britain yesterday to bolster a White House campaign to turn national security issues to their advantage.”

But as White House officials have admitted — and news reports have verified — the Bush administration apparently had little to do with foiling the potential “second September 11.”

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff:

Well, we think the British succeeded in disrupting the plot. And there’s no question the focal point of the operational activity was in Britain. “¦ Now we really took a lot of our cue from them because they had the boots on ground. They had the firsthand knowledge. [8/10/06]

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

Today’s announcement is a true testament to the hundreds of hours of patient work by British authorities. [Gonzales, 8/10/06]

Congressional Quarterly:

[Conservative lawmakers] largely praised the administration’s response, although it appeared British authorities had thwarted the plot with minimal involvement by the United States. [8/10/06]

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux:

[W]e have learned that President Bush first learned about this developing terrorist plot on Sunday. That is when he had a video conference call with Prime Minister Blair. [8/10/06]

The actual White House record is nothing to brag about. The former 9/11 Commission gave the administration “dismal” grades on homeland security in its latest report card, including an “F” for failures to improve aviation security. Commissioner James Thompson, the former governor of Illinois, “warned in particular of the failure to protect against terrorists smuggling a bomb onboard a plane.”

This morning on CNN, former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer argued that the recent terror plot in Britain illustrated why we need to direct resources from Iraq to the global terrorist threat. Roemer said, “It’s very important that we don’t put all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq and take our eye off the ball in other places in the world.”

He also emphasized that “it’s very important that we capture Osama Bin Laden” because Bin Laden is producing “CNN quality tapes” and “communicating with hundreds of millions of potential jihadist and trying to get them to sign up.” Watch it:

It’s been four years, ten months and twenty-five days since President Bush pledged to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.”

Digg It!

Full transcript: Read more

Just now on Fox News, criminally indicted ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) said that liberals “don’t want to fight this war on terrorism.” DeLay described the liberal world view as “Can’t we all get along?” and said that liberals’ reaction to a terrorist attack is, “You can’t go after these wonderful people that just killed a bunch of Americans.” Watch it:

This is a classic Rovian tactic. An overwhelming majority (84%) of national security experts — liberal and conservative — believe America is losing the war on terror under the guidance of the Bush administration. Instead of addressing the failure of their approach, Delay and other White House surrogates attack their opponents on the same issue.

It may or may not be a successful political strategy but it definitely doesn’t make the country safer.

Full transcript: Read more

In an interview with ABC News, Gen George Casey — the top U.S. commander in Iraq — said a civil war in Iraq “certainly is possible.” He described a potential civil war as “the most significant threat right now” in Iraq.

Casey adds his voice to a chorus of top generals — including CentCom commander John Abizaid and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace — who warn that Iraq is in danger of sliding into civil war. Watch it:

Yesterday, President Bush dismissed the concerns expressed by Casey and other Generals. Bush said “You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.”

Read the full transcript of ABC’s interview with Casey.

Appearing today on CBS Face the Nation, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) described Iraq as “a hopeless, winless situation.” He harshly criticized the Bush administration’s recent decision to increase troop levels calling it “very wrong” and “irresponsible.”

Hagel said Iraq was “headed” toward a civil war. He was adamant that “we cannot put American troops, and ask them to do the things that we’re asking them to do in the middle of a civil war.” Hagel added, “I hope this administration has got a way out of this.” Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

Conservative Cybercast News published an article today titled “Data Contradicts Notion of Widespread Iraqi Civil War.” It argues that critics are wrong that Iraq has devolved into a civil war since, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week, high levels of violence are concentrated in “Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents.” From Cybercast:

A vast majority of Americans say they expect the current sectarian violence in Iraq to become a full-scale civil war, but U.S. military data compiled in Iraq indicates that over a two-month period ending on July 21, most of the violence happened in just four of Iraq’s 18 provinces.

The U.S. military figures cited by Cybercast show the four provinces with the highest levels of violence are Baghdad, Al Anbar, Salah ad Din, and Diyala. Those four provinces are precisely where one would expect violence if a Sunni-Shiite civil war were taking place, since they are the provinces where the vast bulk of Iraq’s Sunnis (who make up just 1/3 of the population) are located.

Baghdad has several large Sunni-dominated neighborhoods from which Shiites have fled in a wave of violent “ethnic cleansing.” Al Anbar, Salah ad Din, and Diyala are the only three Iraqi provinces in which Sunnis are the dominant majority.

Cybercast News has demonstrated the exact opposite of what it intended: the current trends of violence in Iraq all point to civil war.

Before the Iraq war, Bush officials repeatedly heralded the transformative effect that a liberated Iraq would have both for the U.S. and the Middle East:

BUSH: Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. “¦ A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. [2/26/03]

CHENEY: Should all [Saddam's] ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world. [8/26/02]

WOLFOWITZ: The stakes of building a peaceful, prosperous Iraq that treats its own people decently and is at peace with its neighbors, the stakes are enormous. “¦ That kind of an Iraq, I think, could be a real force for peace and prosperity and progress throughout the Middle East. [12/4/02]

Your new Iraq:

Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” marched through the streets of Baghdad’s biggest Shiite district Friday in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
“¦
“Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one. Let them confront us if they dare,” the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.
“¦
Protesters set fire to American and Israeli flags, as well as effigies of President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, showing the men with Dracula teeth. “Saddam and Bush, Two Faces of One Coin” was scrawled on Bush’s effigy.

In June, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted against the Levin amendment, a “nonbinding proposal [that] did not set a withdrawal deadline, but urged President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq this year.” At the time, Hagel explained his vote:

We should not limit the Commander in Chief’s options in Iraq. That is why I will vote against the Levin amendment.

Just two months later, Hagel’s views have shifted considerably. His position now appears consistent with the Levin amendment. From the Lincoln Journal Star:

The United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now.

With Iraq exploding in sectarian violence and “moving closer and closer to a straight-out civil war,” Hagel said, the Bush administration’s decision to transfer nearly 5,000 additional U.S. troops into Baghdad is “only going to make it worse for us.”

In the end, he said, “feed(ing) more American troop fodder into the fight” could result in “even a worse defeat.”

A diverse group of 12 Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush expressing their support for the principles of the Levin amendment. Hagel should think about backing up his words with actions and signing on to this effort.

During today’s hearing, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) said that Congress may have to pass a new resolution authorizing the continuing use of U.S. military force in Iraq if a civil war breaks out in that country:

I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if we’re faced with an all-out civil war, and whether we have to come back to the Congress to get further indication of support.

Watch it:

Congressional Quarterly (sub. req’d) adds, “If a civil war erupts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, he said, U.S. forces may be ill-trained to handle it and Congress might have to reconsider and potentially approve a new mission for the U.S. military.”

Full transcript: Read more

Today, Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraq may be on the brink of a civil war, noting that the violence in Baghdad was worse than at any point since he assumed command in July 2003. Watch it.

LEVIN: The British ambassador made the following assessment. According to USA Today, the British ambassador to Iraq — it’s Mr. Patey I believe — P-A-T-E-Y — has warned that Iraq is descending towards civil war and he said it is likely to split along ethnic lines and he has reported as predicting that Iraq’s security situation could remain volatile for the next 10 years. Do you agree, General, with the ambassador from Britain to Iraq, that Iraq is sliding toward civil war?

ABIZAID: I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.

Just four months ago, Abizaid was asked a similar question by Sen. Levin, and he responded that that Iraq remained “a long way from civil war.”

LEVIN: [Ambassador Khalilzad] said that “Iraq is in a crisis, the country is bleeding and moving toward civil war. “I’m wondering if you agree with those sentiments.

ABIZAID: Senator Levin, I’m not going to comment on anything that Ambassador Khalilzad said. I’ll give you my impression about where we stand with regard to moving toward civil war. I think that Iraq remains a long way from civil war. [Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, 3/16/06]

Accepting Abizaid’s evolving statements, Iraq has descended “a long way” into more and more chaotic violence in just the last four months. “Stay the course” has gotten us into this problem, it’s not going to get us out.