CNN recently asked it's viewers to send in their emails indicating what they thought would constituted or defined “Victory in Iraq”. One viewer responded that victory would be achieved when there was a Starbucks on every corner in Baghdad. As silly as this statement may seem it is more definitive than the rhetoric that we’ve been getting from the likes of McCain and Lieberman even as recently as yesterday.
In the face of the recent national elections results that overwhelmingly repudiated the Iraq war and these types of knuckleheads. We continue to hear this rhetoric about our need to leave Iraq only when “victory” is achieved. Yesterday on Meet the Press John McCain and Joe “I’m really a republican now” Lieberman repeatedly called for some sort of “victory” in Iraq before the US should get out. More or less swapping an old rhetoric smoke and mirrors trick from the Vietnam War era, then called the “domino theory”, for the new “heaven for terrorists” rhetoric of the supporters of this current American imperialistic super power blunder. I thought of Ex-Senator Conrad Burns, the defeated republican incumbent from Montana, offering the discredited National Strategy for Victory in Iraq pamphlet as his plan for victory in Iraq when put on the spot in a pre-election debate. The American people deserve some answers! Not this tried rehtoric from Lieberman McCain or the likes of Burns.
Lieberman, somewhat full of himself, has now creating his own reality based world by getting elected as a independent from Connecticut after being defeated running as a democrat in the primary. The primary defeat, of course, was due to his rightwing stand on the war and blind support of Bush’s incompetent policies. He can credit being elected as an independent directly to 70% of the republicans in Connecticut who decided to ignore their own republican candidate and instead voting for him backed up by the fully implied support of Cheney and Bush. Without republican voters and politicians who recognized he was really on their side he’d probably of been toast. Two out of three democrats voted against Lieberman in the election.
Meanwhile McCain waxed on about sending even more troops to Iraq. Tim Russert, the shows moderator, failed to ask McCain where these troops would be coming from or if that meant we be considering reinstituting a military draft. Nor did Russert ask either McCain or Lieberman to define exactly what victory in Iraq meant or would look like. Letting them get away with the old tired crap that we’ve heard from the proponents of this failed policy from day one. McCain even equating the current situtation in Iraq somehow to similar setbacks we experienced during WWII. This goes behond reaching.
McCain, most likely to be a republican presidential front-runner for 2008, continues to get it wrong. On Meet the Press Sunday McCain again claimed this is a “critical time” in Iraq and that “we’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.” In March of 2003 he claimed, “I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.” June of 2004 “The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.” December 8, 2005, McCain said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.” In October 2006, “I think that, first of all, things are very serious there. And to say otherwise I don’t think would be an accurate depiction of events, and this is a very critical time.” McCain admitted he has “proven not to be correct” on past predictions. This is the same person, who also cut a commercial supporting the anti gay marriage initiative in Arizona, which the people, of that usually conservative state, surprisingly rejected last Tuesday.
McCain and Lieberman need to clearly define what “victory in Iraq” would mean. Even the Iraq Study Group has abandoned this victory rhetoric. Russert did not help matters by letting them continue the babble without challenging them on the specifics.