It's not exactly surprising that the Washington Post is marking the day the Senate votes on a withdrawal resolution by publishing a Joe Lieberman op-ed accusing Democrats of "a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there." But it is telling. You might think they'd invite Harry Reid onto the editorial page, or Carl Levin, or one of the many leading Democrats who is pushing for the resolution and could explain its relevance and rationale to the Post's readers. Instead, it's Lieberman, singing his increasingly anachronistic tune.
"In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable," he writes. It sounds a lot like what he wrote in the New York Post a few weeks ago, before the massive attacks that killed hundreds, when he said, "Amazingly, however, just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat. Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip him of the troops he says he needs and sabotage his strategy."
It's remarkable that the newspapers don't demand a bit more in the way of originality. Back in 2005, Lieberman took to The Wall Street Journal to write, "More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood -- unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn." In fact, it sounds a lot like what he wrote back in July of 2004, when he said, "The successful handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi people last month offers fresh hope for stability and democracy in their country, but it could also mark a turning of the tide in the world war against terrorism."
