The ultra-lefty blog, Think Progress, posts the transcript and video of this morning’s Fox News Sunday. Lieberman argues that the Hagel/Biden resolution effectively encourages and emboldens the enemy in Iraq. Brownback said that they’re already emboldened right now.
LIEBERMAN: I fear that while this resolution is non-binding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we’re asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don’t want your enemy to be given any hope.
[snip]
BROWNBACK: I don’t I don’t see this enemy as needing any more emboldening or getting it from any resolution. They’re emboldened now. I was there two weeks ago in Iraq. I was in Baghdad. I was in northern Iraq. This is a very aggressive situation. You have sectarian violence of Sunni and Shia. I was in the Kurdish area. They were talking about we have to get the Sunni and Shia together. I talked with the head of the Kurdish group. He said he wouldn’t vote for more troops because you have to first force the Sunni and Shia to sit down and talk about a political accommodation and that’s not happening.
I doubt this will help Brownback’s quest for the Republican nomination, but at least he’s getting some publicity and name recognition.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I’m not going to fault any Republican for voting for the resolution, but I do find it interesting that the Iraq war is no longer a GOP/Dem issue, or even a conservative/liberal issue. It will be interesting to see how the parties’ positions on the GWOT pan out in a post-Iraq world.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Brownback would make an excellent VEEP.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Ugh…a Brownback Vice Presidency would frighten me…and I’m anti-Iraq.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
(war, not country)
January 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Dave,
I do find it interesting that the Iraq war is no longer a GOP/Dem issue, or even a conservative/liberal issue.
Yeah. It seems that if current trends continue, a lot of other conservatives will begin to come out of the woodwork. Already, 33% of the GOP oppose the war. They might be more inclined to support Brownback, since no other candidate represents their views. I’ve long thought that Brownback will end up being more of a force in the primaries then people give him credit for.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
LJ,
I can’t kick the feeling that there’s a sleeper candidate somewhere in the field. I’m just not sure who. The reason I feel this way is that Newt, who’s the classic conservative candidate, is able to consolidate a lot of first-choice supporters. But Gingrich expects to be drafted into the race in the fall, and that just seems like one step away from basically not running. If Newt doesn’t run, who gets his 10-30! percent that he’s received in many polls? Duncan Hunter seems to show unusual strength in that recent bloggers poll, as well as in an AZ straw poll, in which he recently finished first. Tanc, B-Back, and Huckabee all seem a bit too “niche” to fill the red-state void. If anything, Huckster and B-Back divide the strong so-con/liberal on everything else vote, and Tanc takes the Buchananites.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I hope Brownback will be less of a force in the primaries than people give him credit for. I would almost(not quite, but almost) dub myself anti-Brownback. I think he is one of the least generally electable choices we have so far. He would get crushed in the general election, even if the Dems put up Al Sharptin or David Duke
(That’s obviously a bit of a hyperbole). Not to mention, Brownback adds very little to a ticket in the VEEP slot. Tim Pawntly, Rick Perry, or even Leiberman or Richardson would be a MUCH better choice.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
There are people either risking or actually giving up their lives on a daily basis to kill American troops. Whether you`re for or against the President`s plan, I don`t see how much more emboldened they can be. Pointing that out should not hurt the Senator.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
[...] post by LJ and software by Elliott [...]
January 29th, 2007 at 9:51 am
What a strange world we live in now where, in a debate between a conservative and a liberal, and with a headline like this article has, it is the GOP candidate that is anti-war and the Democrat candidate that is pro-war.
We live in strange times, indeed…
January 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I find it discouraging the Sen. Brownback does not understand this simple principle. If you are in a fight to the death with an enemy, you don’t want to show weakness or division. By voting on a resolution condemning your own countries tactics and strategy, you are basically encouraging the enemy to press on. What a sentiment to send your soldier into a battle with, “Hey guys, this is a bad idea. We think you are losing and this plan will only make the situation worse. You should know that we can’t win militarily. But, uh, go get ‘em. We support you!”
So very simply, I don’t care whether you support the surge or not, I am not exactly sure whether it is the best option myself. But, either vote on a measure that will actually stop the surge, or don’t vote at all. Voicing displeasure over a surge that is going to happen whether you support it or not is irresponsible.
Just imagine if during WWII a non-binding resolution condemning the fighting in Africa was passed.