He's going the head-in-the-sand route--sort of:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., plans to vote against both Democratic amendments calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.
...
Votes are expected Thursday. One resolution would call on the White House to begin phased redeployment of troops from Iraq this year, and to submit a plan to Congress by the end of the year for "continued phased redeployment."
The other measure, which is expected to gain little support even among Democrats, would have President Bush pull all troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Lieberman is expected to say he believes the U. S. cannot stay indefinitely in Iraq, and cannot write a blank check for its support. But, he plans to say, withdrawal of troops must be based on conditions on the ground, not fixed dates. (Lightman)
Much as I hate to admit it, he's actually right. As plans go, these are lousy ones. We could endlessly debate the pros and cons of a fixed date for withdrawal, but that sort of timeline won't help Iraq or, in the long run, the United States. The best the Democrats could come up with, I suppose.
Lieberman is sticking to his guns, sort of, despite the obvious backpedaling away from the Bush Administration and his earlier stances. If he really wanted to be the independent-minded statesman he so desperately desires to be, he could take a leadership role on the whole Iraq debate, and come up with some bold new directions besides just "stay the course" or "get us out of here now!"
Like, for example, doubling the number of troops, investing heavily in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and economy (a Marshall Plan for Iraq), and re-assuming some of the functions of Iraq's obviously inept central government until they can get back on their feet.
These ideas may not work. But they're a better direction than the two major parties are offering us. Positive action--any positive action--is better than either changing nothing or pulling up stakes and leaving a broken country to its fate.
Senator, they're yours for free. Take them and build on them. Lead, if you're capable of it. Put all that bipartisan capital you've supposedly been building up to work, for once! Get the moderate Gang of 14 who can still control the Senate behind you, and accomplish something history will remember you for. Show us why you ran for President.
Unless you can't. Maybe you're too wrapped up in saving your own butt here at home to risk the shreds of power you have left on helping to resolve a nasty overseas mess that you helped to create. Maybe you've been in Washington too long to act in anything but your own self-interest. Or maybe you really do think that things are going fine in Iraq. I don't know.
All just a fantasy, of course. No one is going to propose a better plan for Iraq. We won't pull out, the Democrats will get smeared as cut-and-run wussies, and in the end nothing will actually change. Maybe someday we'll have real leaders again. I can dream.
Source
Lightman, David. "Lieberman To Vote Vs. Troop Withdrawal." Hartford Courant 21 June, 2006.
11 comments:
Nah. All hat, no cattle. The guy talks big, but never takes responsibility for his actions.
Chris MC said... " he can't stand GWB."
Most anti-semites, morons, etc. can't; just surf over to davidduke.com and see for yourself.
Not too surprising.
Angelina: Need I say more than Harriett Myers. What was he thinking when he did that?
Chris MC: we've had several quarters of strong GDP growth and low unemployment and low inflation. I think the tax cuts have largely worked, and we're now collecting more revenue than ever. During the late 1990s, revenues were up significantly due to the dotcom boom. (Individual taxes still are below 2000 levels, but corporate taxes are higher).
What Bush hasn't done is control spending. Congress ultimately controls spending of course, but Bush could have used more political capital to try to stop spending so much.
I don't think that Bush is unprincipled. But the great communicator he isn't. He's not great at selling his strategy.
As far as the pursuit of oil is concerned, what do Democrats want? High prices or low prices? There's a lot of demand for oil by the general populace for cars, heating oil, etc. Republicans tend to be in favor of more drilling, expanding supply. What are the Democrats for? They seem upset about high prices, but they don't seem to like opening up new sources of supply.
Real Democrat: you say that the Iraqis may never be able to maintain order. Does this mean that you think Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves? If so, then shouldn't we install some ruthless dictator and pull out, lest they eventually install another ruthless dictator who isn't in our pocket? Or is it simply a question of the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds not being able to live with each other, and therefore we should split Iraq? If this is the case, then is it true that multiculturalism doesn't really work?
What I would like to know from those who advocate an immediate withdraw or a total withdraw by some date, what happens to Iraq then? What happens to the US? Does the rest of the world just figure that we don't have what it takes to stay until the end?
disgruntled_republican,
You've hit on the main problem I have with both of the last two presidents: they were polarizing figures. Bush is more polarizing than Clinton, and I don't think Clinton was ever as deliberate a polarizer as Bush, but the fact remains that both inspired a very significant group of people who absolutely despised them, and saw them as somehow illegitimate.
Unity '08 is starting to look good after 16 years of partisan stalemate.
BRubenstein said...
ACR..you really think Chris or kevin phillips is an anti-semite?
Visit David Dukes website and see for yourself.
Certainly if I found myself on the same page as that bigot I'd change the page.
If it walks like a duck........
When someone make snide cracks regarding Bush's faith (but would never dare to the same regarding Lieberman (What! and admit to their own prejudice?)) Opposes the war in Iraq (thus, the defense of Israel) they are probably a bigot - they are certainly a fool.
Chris MC said... "
He is an intellectual lightweight"
Odd, he had a higher grade average at Yale than Kerry.
Chris MC said... " Stop calling me names I don't deserve."
Stop aligning yourself with David Duke.
The deficit did indeed increase under both Reagan and Bush. However, contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't because tax cuts caused tax revenues to be lower. Rather, the problem was with spending. Revenues went up, but spending went up more.
While Republicans like to claim that Democrats spend spend spend, Republicans have proven to be good spenders as well.
In 1980, the US government collected $244.1 billion in taxes from individuals and $64.6 billion in taxes from corporations. In 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, the US collected $445.7 billion in individual taxes and $103.3 billion in corporate taxes.
In 2000, when people were still collecting large salaries and option payouts from dotcom companies, the US collected $1.004 trillion in individual taxes and $207.3 billion in corporate taxes. After the Bush tax cuts, in 2005, the US collected $927.2 billion in individual taxes and $278.3 billion in corporate taxes. Now, individual taxes are down, but 2000 was an anomaly. 1999 was $879.5 billion, 1998 was $828.6 billion.
The problem is that the Republicans have spent spent spent. Between 1980 and 1989, the Democrat-controlled congress and Reagan increased defense spending from $134.6 billion to $304.0 billion, and between 2000 and 2005, defense spending increased from $295.0 billion to $493.6 billion.
Yes, China and the pacific rim countries have higher growth rates. That's because they're much smaller per capita, so they've got a lot of room to grow. Just like the corner Deli can double sales from year to year while Walmart can't.
Yes, we have lost some manufacturing jobs, mainly the more labor intensive manufacturing that is much cheaper to do elsewhere. Market economies are filled with this Creative Destruction to use a term coined by Joseph Schumpeter.
However, overall, the economy is growing, tax receipts are up, inflation is low and unemployment is low. In our knowledge-based economy, there's a significant amount of creative destruction going on, but that makes new opportunities and trying to stop innovation would be disastrous.
We need to slow down spending, stop building bridges to nowhere and silliness like that (I know the bridge wasn't the reason for our deficit, but it's a symbol that many Republicans are experts at wasting money, and that's not something that just Democrats can do).
An aside: Joe Lieberman advertisement is on TV now during Leno (am watching channel 30, cannot stand the local news on channel 4 out of NYC).
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
Has anyone heard from Miriam Masullo?
Don't we deserve to hear from her regarding her views on Iraq???
Is anyone EVEN aware there is a Congressional Primary in the 1st Congressional District on August 8?
Disgruntled:
FY2000 had a surplus. The budget surplus was $86.4 billion; Social security contributed an additional $151.8 billion surplus. 2001, the last Clinton budget, had a budget deficit of $32.4 billion.
2000, and to some extent 1999 and 1998, were anomolies due to the dotcom boom. There was no way that was sustainable. It did, however, contribute significant incomes to the treasury due to options being exercised.
I haven't seen any studies to this effect, but I imagine the dotcom boom is still having a negative impact on tax receipts. When you're a business, or a venture capitalist, and you lose money, you can apply those losses to offset future profits. So if I am a venture capitalist, and invested in a dotcom company in 2000, the people at the dotcom company got wealthy by cashing out their options. I lost money. But if I'm making money now, I'm not paying any taxes, because I'm using the losses accumulated back then to offset the profits now. Of course, many "NOL Carryforwards" would have died with the bankrupt companies, but I'd be interested to know how much there still is in investor and corporate NOLS out there.
BRubenstein said... "
could you tell us where they align themselves on the David Duke .."
The entire site is "get out of Iraq" with a variety of slaps at Bush.
Pretty much the same tripe we read constantly from the Lamont people.
It's pretty clear to me, seeing as Saddam was funding Hamas suicide bombers to the tune of $50K a pop that a primary objective for intervention was and is to protect Israel.
I have no problem with that as if Israel were to defend themselves they probably would have been forced to use a nuclear option. I wouldn't have blamed them either.
Pulling out prior to stabilization of the region could very well re-open the door to that option which would be messy.
Post a Comment