Letter From Ned Lamont To Sen. Lieberman:

Issues Issues Issues (4.00 / 2)

Ned Lamont again is talking about issues. 

I'm sure the Lieberman camp will call this a negative attack.

Joe Lieberman and George Bush believe that our govt should cut and run on capturing Osama Bin Laden so that Bush and the neocons could invade Iraq. Despite no Wmds and no links to 9/11, Lieberman supports that decision.

---

by: bigdavefromqueens @ Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 00:35:38 AM UTC

This is the prelude to the next debate... (4.00 / 1)

Ned Lamont, Democrat from the State of Connecticut.

vs.

Joe Lieberman, Rubberstamp from the State of Denial.

---

by: notcho @ Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:58:28 AM UTC

Once again reality has a liberal bias (4.00 / 2)

While the campaign's focus is rightly on the impact of the current NIE, Ned does a great job of tying it back to the pre-war intelligence which was simply steamrolled in the rush to war. 

The consensus view of the intelligence agencies even BEFORE the war was that the most probable long-term result of an invasion of Iraq was a destabilized or broken up Iraq, with a full scale civil war a strong possibility. Whenever someone talked about this the Bush Lieberman response was that Saddam was such a threat with his WMD and close ties to Al Qaeda that it had to be done.

I think that the invasion of Iraq was the worst strategic blunder made by an American administration since Hoover's response to the stock market crash of 1929. If a people won't hold those who make a mistake of this magnitude responsible, what is the point of democracy?

It's Morning in America. Too bad Reagan's not here to see it. - Me

---

by: roguetrader2000 @ Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 12:46:16 PM UTC

Sounds like the intelligence on Suni/Shia/Kurd conflict obvious (0.00 / 0)

Yes, RT, I think it's great to tie the pre-war intelligence to the present.  I'd love to actually see the intelligence report on the Sunni/Shia/Kurd ethnic tensions.  I can't believe that it could be too subtle, based on my current reading (but like I said, I'd like to read it, too.)

It's taken me this long to do any reading that clarifies further to me exactly the nature of the oft-heard pre-War mention of the Sunni/Shia/Kurd tensions in Iraq and how they would split the country if we went to war.  Now I'm reading Paul Rieckhoff's boots-on-the-ground book, Ghost Chasers, about his time in Iraq as a National Guard platoon leader.  His description of the attitude of the Sunnis towards the Shias?  He compares it to the mid-1800's in this country and the attitude of former slave owners toward freed slaves.  He cites examples of tremendous Sunni arrogance toward the Shias (and toward "mere soldiers" like him), and his comment was that if we in the USA can't get it together to overcome historical racial inequality in this country in about 150 years, why do we think Iraq is going to do it in a few months or years?  It would be great if they could, but it is stunning to me that something that is immediately, blatantly, starkly obvious within the first few days of being on the ground in Iraq could be ignored.  Did Chalabi et al broadbrush it as a solvable problem? 

Who in their right mind would read intelligence that I assume clearly stated the nature of the tensions and think we could go in and say  "Hey, you're FREE now!  Aren't you excited?  Go forth with love as brothers and sisters!"  And if it wasn't clear in the intelligence reports, then it wasn't intelligence.

.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:47:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

history repeats itself (0.00 / 0)

I have talked with some Iraqi-American Shias and Sunnis and they have told me that the sectarian infighting in Iraq is based on political and not religious reasons. It just so happens that the political fractures in Iraq fall along sectarian lines.  They believe the US occupation is creating this war with the US pitting Shia against Sunni in a classic divide and conquer strategy. Elements of this strategy include:

1)creating or at least not preventing petty feuds among smaller players. Such feuds drain resources and prevent alliances that could challenge the overlords.
2) aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the overlords, often by giving them the lands and wealth of rebellious local rulers.
3) fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
4) encouraging expenditures on personal frivolities (e.g., showy palaces) that leave little money for political manoeuvering and warfare.

This is very similar to the strategy employed by the British when they invaded and colonized India two hundred years ago. Prior to that, Hindus and Muslims had been living in relative peace for the previous 500 yrs but the British were able to use this strategy to divide them, flanning the flames of any existing rivalries. Well, naturally, after India gained its independence, without the British to keep the lid on the rivalries they exacerbated, India split into three countries, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

I think that this might ultimately happen to Iraq--it will split into three countries...Sunni, Shia and Kurdish...but I also think that, like the split of India, it didn't have to happen.

Prior to colonization, both Muslims and Hindus in India have a very rich history of living together in peace as do Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. Also note that many Iraqis are of mixed Shia-Sunni heritage.  In the 1940s, remember, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shias united to kick out the British. If they unite now, they could kick us out as well. 

In the United States, you will notice that there is a lot of intermingling between Iraqi-American Shia's and Sunnis...and there is also a lot of intermingling between Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans. Here, you will see them attending each other's cultural events and religious holidays--because the ties of language and culture often are greater than religious ties.

This just illustrates my theory that when people live under a situation of political equality, they do not fight over religion or race.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 14:22:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]