WaPo: One Choice in Iraq (Lieberman--Barf!)

[TwilightGardener]

Joe wants us to stay there FOREVAH! And slams Reid in the process:

--snip--

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.

Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.
--snip--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502410.html

Compare/contrast with Hagel's WaPo--different conclusions regarding the role/importance of Al Qaeda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042002007.html

[NastyRiffraff]

1. Joe apparently knows nothing about...

the Sunnis and Shiites and their ancient animosity. He puts quotes around "civil war" but that's indeed what it is. This thing erupted because of Bush's invasion. Before that, al-Quaeda had a very weak presence in Iraq.

Oh, God, I can't stand Lieberman. I think he knows all this, but he still bangs the war drums.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I agree, how many public figures except the last diehards of this

administration refuse to call it a civil war in Iraq? To Joe, that's apparently a big farce--it's all Al Qaeda stirring up the poop, and we are going to have to stay, EVEN IF Sunnis/Shia get along, because of Al Qaeda. I re-posted Hagel's article from this past weekend because he says the opposite--it's mostly a sectarian civil war, and while there is an Al Qaeda presence causing problems, it's not the primary reason for the chaos there. So, one of them is lying--which one?