Glenn Greenwald Is Mad At Joe Lieberman Because David Petraeus Told The Truth.

24 Jan, 2007 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

Joe Lieberman had the audacity to ask Gen. David Petraeus, “if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy “would give the enemy some comfort.” Then Petraeus answered honestly and lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald got all upset. Here’s part of his commentary:

But yesterday, Lieberman reached what might be a new low. During the confirmation hearings of Gen. David Petraeus, Lieberman provoked this truly reprehensible exchange with Gen. Petraeus, as summarized by The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy “would give the enemy some comfort.”

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, “That’s correct, sir.”

Using the terms to” give comfort” and the “enemy” in the same phrase has no conceivable objective other than to invoke accusations of treason. The Constitution’s definition of “treason” is exactly that — giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy. For Lieberman to purposely track the Constitution’s treason language when describing opponents of the “surge” plan — and to invite the new Iraq War Commander to agree with his accusation — reveals so inescapably what Lieberman is. That’s just the basest and most despicable smear one can imagine.

How hypocritical. Of course, a resolution against the surge is boosting the terrorists. Of course, the mainstream media and anti-war movement’s attempt to undercut the war have helped Al-Qaeda. How could it be any other way?

What does Al-Qaeda want in Iraq? They want us to tuck our tails between our legs and run. Then they can crow about how they defeated America and more importantly, they can try to create a state within a state in Iraq or, with a little luck, create another pre-9/11 Afghanistan there. As long as the US military is in Iraq, that can’t happen. Moreover, if Bush’s plan works in Iraq, that can’t happen.

So, what does the anti-war movement want? What do the senators who oppose a surge want? They want us to tuck our tails between our legs and run, just like Al-Qaeda does. How could that not encourage the terrorists to hang in there just a little longer? The terrorists can never defeat the US military, but they understand that they don’t have to defeat them. All they have to do is break our will here at home, then we’ll give up, and they’ll have a chance to defeat us by default.

With that in mind, what is a non-binding resolution against the surge? It’s a message to the terrorists in Iraq that says, “If you can keep it all going just a little longer, we’ll give you what you want. So resist, murder more innocent people, kill more of our troops and it will pay off in the end!”

What message do people like Glenn Greenwald imagine our enemies will take from our wavering and losing our will to fight? “Gee, I think they’re going to give up, so maybe we should give up, too?”

Give me a break.