"It is wrong for some on the right to imply that some Democrats don't care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the president's policies on the war on terrorism emboldens our enemies. (AP)
He's right, of course. But this is actually something of a new position for him. In fact, it's really a new position. The Courant article notes that last year, he said this:
"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." (AP)
He also said of Lamont in August:
"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it 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."
And has he yet said anything at all about Dick Cheney's assertion that a Lamont victory encourages "al Queda types"? That's bad, too, right?
Not quite. What Lieberman said is that we should have the debate. However, only his side is correct, and it's perfectly fine to say that if we elect people like Lamont, terrorists will kill you, your family, your cat, and everyone you know.
We need to have a serious debate about national security and Iraq. But if the response to any deviation from what is obviously a failed strategy is "terrorists will be emboldened," then we can't have that debate. We can only hurl accusations back and forth.
Sen. Lieberman's statement is heartening. I hope he follows this line of thinking, and actually engages in this vital debate without trying to whip up as much fear as he can.
Lieberman criticizes Republicans who assail war critics." Associated Press 15 September, 2006.