“Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman just stepped out of his time capsule and penned an op-ed on his nostalgic trip to 2003:
I’ve just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Apparently, Lieberman never got the memo that said Iraq no longer has anything to do with 9/11 or the war on terror or exporting democracy or making Iran quake in its boots. No matter. Lieberman goes on to say that the crisis there is the result of a “conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran” to throw the country into “full-scale civil war.” Never mind the whole al-Qaeda=Sunni, Iran=Shiite thing; apparently opposing extremists agree on the shared goal of total chaos. The only answer, of course, is to send in more troops. Which brings us back to 2003, back when more U.S. boots on the ground could have secured Baghdad and the rest of the country, possibly averting the mess we’re in 3 years later. Lieberman seems to get this. He writes, “In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission.” However, that just means that now is the time for a big do-over: “The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.” Clearly defined mission? You mean like linking Iraq to 9/11? Fire up the Wayback Machine…
