Lieberman Creates New Imaginary Foe: Al Qaeda in Iran

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



Lieberman Creates New Imaginary Foe: Al Qaeda in Iran

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 11:09 AM on April 3, 2008.

It’s hard not to chuckle a bit hearing Lieberman criticize Barack Obama’s “credibility” on Iraq.



We’ve seen more than a few instances of late in which John McCain has made comments about foreign policy that didn’t make any sense, only to have Joe Lieberman intervene, whisper in his ear, and walk the Republican presidential candidate back a bit. It’s easy to get the sense that while McCain is confused about current events, Lieberman is at least vaguely aware of reality. His judgment is clearly wrong, but there’s still some attachment to reality.

But maybe this assumption is off-base, too. Consider Lieberman’s criticisms of Barack Obama on (where else?) Fox News yesterday. (Jane Hamsher has the video.)

“Let me say generally that Sen. Obama doesn’t come to this debate with a lot of credibility. Basically on the question of Iraq, John McCain has had the guts to stand out on his own arguing for what he thought was right. And it turned out that he was right about the surge working to improve conditions in Iraq.

“If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.

“On the specific question of the 100 years, I think that’s an unfortunate example of the way Sen. Obama has used it, of playing political gotcha with a national security question.

“If you look at what Sen. McCain said, in that exchange, in a town-hall meeting I believe it was in New Hampshire, he wasn’t talking about a long war. He’d like to see our troops — as many of them as possible — come home as soon as possible from Iraq.

“But the fact is we’re going to need, as we have after every conflict we’ve been in — World War II, Korea, etc., we’re going want to leave troops there to secure the peace that our soldiers have won. It’s clear that’s what he meant.”

It’s hard not to chuckle a bit hearing Lieberman criticize Barack Obama’s “credibility” on Iraq. Not only was Obama right about the war, but nearly everything Lieberman said after the criticism was utterly ridiculous.

First, Lieberman’s take on history is simply mistaken. Second, his argument that the surge has worked is transparently silly.

But the real gem here is Lieberman’s argument that if we had left Iraq a year ago, “al Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today.”

I realize the Senate’s Three Stooges — McCain, Lieberman, and Graham — have been embarrassingly confused about the basics in the Middle East lately, but I’d hoped that Lieberman would be aware of the fact that there’s no such thing as “al Qaeda in Iran.” Iran is Shiite, al Qaeda is Sunni. Lieberman creating a new terrorist group — while attacking the credibility of a colleague who’s been right all along — isn’t exactly reassuring.

It’s possible that Lieberman knows this, and simply misspoke. Maybe he meant to say “al Qaeda in Iraq” and it came out “al Qaeda in Iran.” During a television interview, it’s easy to make a mistake like this. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/81232 /

[GodlessBiker]

1. I hope the voters in Connecticut are happy.

[sutz12]

2. There probably is "al Qaeda in Iran"

But they are maintaining a very low profile. :)

Their social viability would be less there than in America. Here, at least, they could "hide" behind our societal freedoms, not so much in Iran. They would have about as much political power as Charles Manson has here.

[DCKit]

3. If LIEberman doesn't get his schtick ironed out soon...

his Israeli handlers are going to dump his sorry ass and take their funding to someone who can read a prepared script.

[rndmprsn]

4. K&R