Iraq Rumblings

Josh Marshall pointed out yesterday that George W. Bush does actually have a plan for Iraq and it's stay the course until it becomes someone else's problem. This brings us to the Democrats in DC. I made it clear the other day that I have little use for most of the Democratic Politicians in DC. With that in mind Steve Soto has some advice for the Democrats on ways they can re-frame the Iraq debate but of course it will fall on deaf ears. The DLC/Lieberman wing of the party remains in charge. As an example our favorite DLCer, Marshall Wittmann is using the death by torture of two American soldiers as a justification for continued US involvement in Iraq. Yes I know, the logic escapes me as well. On the other side libertarian Llewellyn H. Rockwell discusses the administrations reaction to the 2,500th death of an American soldier.

The only real moral issue that strikes the Bush administration – which is directly responsible for every one of these lost lives – is annoyance that anyone would be upset. The fodder knew what they were getting into when they signed up. It's dangerous work. In any case, it is a noble cause, or so they are told.

We are told that the cause is the democratic reconstruction of Iraq, but the invasion has so far resulted in a society ruled by martial law, a people imprisoned under a conquering regime, and a puppet state that swears to uphold Islamic law.

What has Iraq gained? What has America gained? Even if you believe there have been gains, are the deaths worth it?

Steve Soto also has a rundown on the reviews of the reviews of Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine.” Nothing we really didn't know already but lots of inside information.

Of course when we talk about Iraq and the Democrats we have to talk about Joe Lieberman. Harold Meyerson has a good commentary on Joe Lieberman's disregard for the Democratic base and the real Democratic party.

In a remarkable interview he recently gave to The Post's David S. Broder [op-ed, June 18], the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee sounded appalled that his fellow Democrats might, in his state's upcoming August primary, reject his reelection bid because he doesn't think his party should criticize the president on the conduct of the Iraq war. (By most indications, his primary opponent, businessman Ned Lamont, is mounting a strong challenge.)

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman told Broder, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

That's a rather stunning assertion. If parties were based on the acceptance of diversity of opinion on the most important issues of the day, they would lack the definition to be parties at all. And the conduct and duration of our involvement in Iraq is, by the measure of every single poll, the No. 1 issue in the minds of the American people -- a majority of whom believe that the Bush administration has botched the war about as badly as a war can be botched.