[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that Lieberman is saying ungrounded critism at the EXPENSE of the commander-in-chief is detremental to the country during war time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he referring to "ungrounded" criticism or criticism in general? And who decides whether a criticism is ungrounded or not? Alot of very smart and well-meaning people think that in terms of both fiscal and foreign policy, the Bush administration has been a complete disaster and that we are headed for some very bad times on both accounts. Should those people keep quiet?

I am also waiting with baited breath for somebody to answer my other question in the thread, about what hard evidence exists that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no hard evidence that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq, and obviously the idea that it will is comical. Would the insurgency give up if they read in the papers that Democrats and Republicans were united in this war? No, of course not.

There is a reasonable argument that once America pulls out of Iraq, the insurgency will have the opportunity to capitalize on the lack of a military presence and become empowered. I think this is very plausible, and one reason that continued military presence in Iraq is necessary.

Basically, it was a poor strategic decision to invade Iraq (in my opinion). One consequence of the poor strategic decision is that our military is tied to Iraq for the foreseeable future in order to prevent an insurgency from taking hold there. The insurgency, of course, only became a strongly organized and powerful entity after we invaded Iraq (though obviously many of the leaders of the insurgency were attempting to form networks designed to promote and spread their radical agenda prior to the war -- they were just much less successful before our strategic decision gave them a rallying point around which to exponentially increase their strength and numbers).