Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Go Joe Lieberman

As promised, President Bush vetoed the Congress's surrender plan. Now that they have scored their political points, they will probably pass some form of funding for the war.

Senator Joseph Lieberman had this to say:

The Iraq war is not 'lost' - but if this supplemental had become law, it would have been.

General Petraeus warned us last week that, 'Iraq is, in fact, the central front of Al Qaeda's global campaign' against us.

The big question before us, then, is whether we respond to Al Qaeda's terrorism by turning away, as it hopes we do - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for the terrible atrocities we see in Iraq - or whether we stand and fight.

Rather than undermining General Petraeus and handing Al Qaeda a victory, Congress should take swift and responsible action to get General Petraeus and our troops in the field the support that they need to prevail.

And last week, Senator Lieberman gave this response to Senator Reid

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

The emphasis is mine. He makes me proud to hail from Connecticut.

I am again struck by the odd position of the Democrats in supporting ethnic cleansing in Iraq while calling for action to stop ethnic cleansing in Darfur.