There is something profoundly right about Joe Lieberman
Paul Mirengoff

Here's part of what Sen. Lieberman said in his speech yesterday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:

There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran. And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies. Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex reaction is to say "no." That is unacceptable.

Lieberman concluded his speech with the following words: ...

See previous: 2007.03.12 Surrenderpolitik update; Updated, bumped: ...

***

Et tu, al-WaPo? Then die, Slow Bleed:

WaPo: Pelosi Plan A Murtha Trick 
Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post excoriates the Democratic leadership for exploiting the appropriations process on war funding to pander for votes in a scorching editorial this morning. Calling Cut and Run/Slow Bleed 3.0 nothing more than a "trick" meant to impose an impossible timeline on a troop withdrawal, the Post blasts the Democrats for thinking about nothing more than their electoral prospects in 2008:

The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone. ...

The Democrats have tied themselves in knots attempting to appease the anti-war wing of their party, which demands an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They have tried to compare Iraq with Viet Nam for the last four years, but the Democratic leadership has started to see that one Viet Nam comparison appears true -- that the Democrats want to force a surrender and defeat through domestic politics without regard to the consequences of such a collapse. Even Ted Koppel has started to talk openly about the catastrophe that would follow an American withdrawal.

Do the Democrats have a plan if this catastrophe comes to pass? Viet Nam may have had strategic significance only in a Cold War world, but the Middle East has tremendous economic and political significance for the US. If Iraq collapses and starts a regional war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, oil shipments will likely stop and millions of people in Southwest Asia could get killed. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already stated that they will likely enter Iraq to protect the Sunnis if we withdraw, which would bring Iran in to protect the Shi'ites, with Syria joining as Iran's military ally. ...

***

Pelosi War Plan Guards Against Risk of Victory 
Scott Ott

(2007-03-13) — The Democrat timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is designed to protect the United States against what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “the threat and consequences of victory.”

The California lawmaker told reporters today that while Republicans focus on how the Democrat proposal undermines the troops and leads inevitably to defeat, “few have paused to consider the risk of victory.”

“A major triumph in the war on terror in Iraq would cause immeasurable political upheaval in the United States,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Unemployment would increase, especially among career politicians who opposed the president’s strategy. Countless millions of dollars would be wasted on doomed political campaigns.”

The Speaker noted that Democrats would be hardest hit by “the unfair distribution of misery” in the wake of a victory in Iraq ...

***

Anti-War UnPlan
Jules Crittenden

UPDATE: Support the troops! What happened last time a war got unfunded.

WaPo edit bd nails it … or oak stakes it, in you prefer:

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq: It makes perfect sense, if your goal is winning votes in the United States.

I’d modify that to “in Congress,” because I think the American people are going to lose patience with this.      

[...]

Bad timing, when you think about it.  They should have gone for January 2009 as their exit date, or March.  Don’t want the shit coming out of the bag on the home stretch.  Americans might wise up and vote for the other guy.

[...]

A fundamental flaw with this abandonment thing.  The more likely Iraq is to fail, the faster we bail.  Flashing neon billboard to the world: Who needs enemies when you can have allies like us? Memo to self: Don’t worry, be happy! ...

***

The Plan 
By Greyhawk

Washington Post editors are decidedly unimpressed with the Democrats' latest plan for Iraq. They put their bottom line up front: "It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States."

Says the Post:

In order to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings... there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

Which sounds fine, I suppose. But the full list of non-military "enticements" crammed into the bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't fit in a brief editorial. Dollar-wise, the total (as of last weekend) cost of add-ons was 20 billion:

All told, farmers would get $4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.

The drought disaster aid package has been scaled back, in part to make room for $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop. And Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., is pressing for $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak.

Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million. ...

All of which certainly makes an interesting "Iraq Plan".

Now back to the Washington Post for what's not in the plan: ...

***

Chickens Come Home to Roost
By Smash  

I doubt that Nancy Pelosi ever expected this:

Using a tactic usually trained on the home turf of President Bush, a group of protesters from Code Pink, a women’s antiwar group, have camped in front of the home of Speaker Nancy Pelosi here, bringing their message — and mattresses — to the doorstep of the nation’s highest-ranking Democrat.

I don't approve -- at all -- of protesting outside a private residence. Indeed, in many municipalities, this practice has been outlawed (usually in response to activists staking out the homes of abortion doctors).

But this tactic has become de riguer amongst the radical left in recent years. A recent example of such a protest (and amusing counter-protest) occured last May outside the home of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kristinn Taylor of Free Republic tells the story:

[...]

So I do feel a little bit sorry for Speaker Pelosi. But my sympathy for her is tempered by the knowledge that she brought this upon herself by aligning with the radical wing of her party, and then abandoning them when they became politically inconvenient.  ...  Lie down with dogs, and wake up with fleas.