Joe is proposing something smart now does not mean he wasn't and isn't a GOP shill. He sure knows how to play both sides, no?

Are you joking? Heck no Democrats aren't going to support a proposal that raises taxes so that we can spend more money fighting the Iraq War. We don't just support all tax increases on general principle, regardless of what the taxes are for.

James Kirchick writes:

Lieberman calls for a progressive tax increase to support the efforts of international liberalism.

No. Lieberman is calling for a tax increase, the progressivity of which is irrelevant, to pay for a disastrous war for which he has been a major advocate. The war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with international liberalism and everything to do with imperial hubris.

The real shortage the US faces in this misadventure is not money but men. James Kirchick could do his part by volunteering for the US Army rather than shilling for Joe Lieberman.

Supply creates demand. What use are more weapons and more troops if we can't use them, right? Increased funding will only increase the military power disparity and thus lower the military marginal cost of going to war. More money, more war. His proposal is unconscionable. We spend quite enough on the military, thank you. Starve the beast!

Are you f*cking joking: Panzer divisions, Red China, Stalin? We are talking about a minority of sadistic terrorists. Any extra money would be better spent on literacy and poverty reduction programs in the poorest African and ME sh*t holes, where the social pathology of the Jihadists takes hold. $523 Billion should be enough to fight, what is essentially, an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL OPERATION. It is not WW3. Where will the money go? More research on nuclear tipped bunker busters? Intercontinental cruise missiles? Space based weapons? Does anyone seriously think this is targeted towards terrorists in caves? This is insane. Wars of choice lead to increases in defence budgets and give a stage for dangerous narcissists like Lieberman and the Bletchley Park 2 crew. These fevered egos who crave their "greatest generation" moment should be ignored. Have the last 4 years taught us nothing?

Sorry. I just had to bang my head on the keyboard a couple of times. Is Kirchick genuinely this obtuse? Does he genuinely think that Democrats support tax increases for their own sake? Could it be that they support tax increases only for ends that they otherwise support in their own right? What possible reason would Democrats have for increasing taxes to support a war they want to end? This is one of the daftest things I have ever read.

Go to your bedroom Kirchick. That's right, up you go. And don't come down 'til you've learned your lesson. Tax increases for more weapons to fight more wars, which will create more terrorists who will have to be defeated by more tax increases for more weapons to... Don't you give me any of that lip boy. Don't make me get my belt Kirchick!

This is Joe's last "fuck you" to the Democrats. Now the Repubs will have two talking points to use: 1) See how the Democrats (ie Joe) just want to raise you taxes? And, when the Democrats don't go for Joe's trap (which is about a subtle as one of Wile E Coyote weaker plans (I'm talking rocket powered rollerskates)), 2) The Democrats don't support the troops. Let's pick up enough seats in the Senate in 2008 to make this guy caucus all by his lonesome.

Since when does the right tax policy trump the wrong foreign policy? Putting the question another way, what does it profit a man's soul to pay his taxes but make war on a nation that never attacked us, had no intention of attacking us, had no ability to attack us, and was not in league with other people who did attack us? In short, the right economics cannot excuse an immoral, unwise, futile and self-destructive war. Get it, James? Neil

Respect what he has to say when he call for the return of the Draft. That would make a statement.

"Who is this guy?" Kirchick? He's Martin Peretz's Mini-me. The "...multi-pronged war on Islamism..." is vintage Peretz.

I don't think it's a good idea, but I wouldn't mind the chance to hear a few Republicans go on record as saying that, although we need to sacrifice civil liberties and the blood of our young men and women to fight this existential threat from which retreat is impossible, it's not so bad that we'd have to actually raise *taxes* or anything.

I think we've reached a consensus here in the Talkback zone: Mr. Kirchick's post is a profoundly stupid, illogical, and shameless attempt to spin Mr. Lieberman as shrewd and Democrats as wishy-washy. Good thing it was posted last thing in the afternoon. Thankfully it'll move on down the list tomorrow morning (walk the Plank? nah.) and be forgotten.

Sadly, in our progressive country James Kirchick would not be permitted to serve in the U.S. military. Too bad he doesn't live in a country like Israel, where people of various backgrounds are assured partner benefits. Of course, this is the same Israel that the "progressive" ndmackenzie loves to hate. I wonder how the Arab armies treat sexual minorities? Probably would make the U.S. military look like a rainbow flag.

The "consensus" is that of blinkered ideologues. You guys whine about the war costing too much, then whine when someone proposes raising the money to pay for it. Democrats often DO support tax increases "for their own sake". Some of them also want to lynch any sensible member of the party as a "shill" if they don't toe the fashionable anti-American line.

I'll give JL some credit for this, although I still don't like him much. We're going to have to stay in Iraq, in some fashion or other, for some time. At least JL is facing that to some extent. I sympathize with anti-war sentiment -- hell, I was against the war too -- but finger-pointing and I-told-you-sos don't help anything. Whether you were for or against the war at the beginning is irrelevant; the essential point is that the war happened and now we have to deal with the consequences. Pulling up and leaving would be catastrophic, both for the whole Middle East and most especially for the Iraqi people. If you ask me, we should partition the country now; it's the least bad option. But no matter what we do, we're going to be spending money on Iraq -- a lot of money. Maybe some of that money should come from wealthy Americans and not, say, Chinese banks.

"You guys whine about the war costing too much, then whine when someone proposes raising the money to pay for it." Why do you think it's inconsistent to argue that this war is not worth the expense AND we don't want to pay for it? That's not "blinkered" at all, and it's not anti-American. It's just cost-benefit analysis.

'Democrats often DO support tax increases "for their own sake". ' Malarky.

The one thing that the Bushies like more than starting wars is keeping the tax burden on the wealthy at a minimum. That is the whole point of the Bush tax cuts - to remove the very wealthy from the tax roles and moving the tax burden to the broad middle class.

We're getting out of Iraq. Either, by cutting off the funding - or under the leadership of a new President. No way America is going to continue to fund the self-destruction of the Iraqi people. Having said that, I agree we need to raise taxes and begin to address some pressing needs at home. Such needs include port security and other counter-terrorism measures, improved public health facilities and emergency response capabilities, rebuilding our military, and deficit reduction. Our purpose should be to end our Iraq spending, not to find better ways to fund it. Neil

Right - "supposed". I also like this sentence: "Lieberman calls for a progressive tax increase to support the efforts of international liberalism" International liberalism. Defined I suppose as the invasion and occupation of countries who were not even a threat to you, the establishment of detention centers as vehicles for the torture of their citizens, and the use of deception and contrived "intelligence" to support such crimes against humanity. Lovely -- let's raise taxes and do more of this. It feels so right deep down in your bones, don't it, James? Neil

Used to be a war against terror. Now it's a war against "Islamism" Islamism almost sounds like Islam, no? Whatever happened to "Political Islam"? And to "Islamofascism"? Is that outdated now among the chickenhawks and their media allies? Are we deliberately morphing towards the point when we will simply be at war with "Islam"? Is that the intention? James?

Nobody with any sense believes this country is going to stay in Iraq. No president, Democrat or Republican, is going to destroy his/her presidency for George Bush's War. [Or Joe Lieberman's War, if you prefer.] The next prez, from whatever party, is getting us out of Iraq as quickly as possible.

Speak to on of the central complaints of we critics of the Iraqi war: We are fighting this vast, Tolkienesque, existential struggle, on a par with that waged against Facism- But we are doing it with one hand tied behind our backs and with the change in our pockets. How can both statements be true? We could, secondarily, address the isue of whether this war is winnable as long as Bush is in charge.

Why should the Dems stick their necks out politically for this one? Let's see Holy Joe try and sell this to a president whose idea of "shared sacrifice" ends at watching war footage on the evening news.

but if we're going to fight one, and we are, doesn't it make sense to pay for it honestly? Sorry, drdan, my life tells me that some liberal Dems raise taxes "for their own sake" when they can, because they think that the government can spend the money more effectively than the people can. Not all Dems, of course. Neil and Fairfax - we're not leaving Iraq. Not until 2009, and not after. We'll draw down and be less obtrusive. Look, if Americans were not getting killed, would you be screaming about this? Well, we're still in Korea 50 years on. If the Iraqis can come to some political modus vivendi, we'll be there for decades.

I disagree with Marty on many issues, but at least you can generally see the underlying logic in his analyses. This post is literally the worst I've seen on the Plank - it lacks any semblance of reason, coherence, or, more generally, thought itself. A significant majority of the public does not support the current iteration of "international liberalism." Democrats do not support it either. Ipso facto, it stands to reason that taxing a public for a war that neither you nor they want to fight doesn't make too much sense, does it James?

If you can cite examples of liberal Democrats raising taxes simply for the sake of raising them, then I will put a cork in it. It has been my experience that even the most liberal Democrats generally have something they want to fund with the money. And one wonders if James has ever heard of the sunk costs fallacy.

I agree that the libs want to fund something with the tax money. But for many of us that looks an awful lot like taxing for the sake of taxing, because the "something" be it midnight basketball or the CETA program, or AFDC, isn't worth the money. To us, anyway. It's the whole attitude wherein it doesn't matter what the question is, the answer is to raise taxes. And I'm sure you will now note that for the GOP, it's the opposite. Point taken.

I will be honest, though thoroughly ridiculed, for saying I agree with what Joe said. I kind of wish Kirchick had run that quote saying Obama said it, and then seen the reactions here. This is a democracy, the President people chose got us in this war (agree with it or not) the least we can do is to pay for it. Is that such a terrible thought crime?

I will concede that the tendency (or, at least, the stereotype) has been for Democrats to toss money at problems with the belief that it will solve them. Rather than get into a lengthy exegesis on the subject, complete with counterpoints, I will concede the general impression, at least. But the whole premise (if one can dignify this inane post by assuming it has one) of Kirchick's argument is that Democrats just looooove to raise taxes simply because they love to raise taxes. And they would rather raise taxes than oppose the war, because they looooooove to raise taxes. Dumb.

Blackie, sems to me that with all the screaming about no one being asked to sacrifice for the war, that raising taxes would be just the thing. Apparently not.

Yes, we do hate the war. Not only, but why should the Democrats take the laboring oar in calling for a tax increase, knowing full well that the Republicans will only use it as a cudgel against them at election time? Let Lieberman take his tax proposal to his soulmates in the Republican leadership and get them to sign on. It's their war. Sad to say, but in this day and age "bipartisanship" is for suckers.

Why can't the Democrats use the fact that the Republicans are financing this war by borrowing from the Chinese! Simply demand the Republicans pay for this war since they got us into it and make the Republicans say how they will do so.

I got your point about Kirchick, but I don't really think Kirchick is the issue as much as what Lieberman said. I kind of glossed over his snark, but I do see how he kind of shot Lieberman in the foot with it.

American troops certainly do need to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. You're long past gaining any honour from being there, of course: now it's simply a matter of the shills who began the war, and the fools who supported them, dealing with the fact that they broke the country, and now they've bought the civil war they started. A struggle against 'Islamism' (whatever that is - and I'm wondering as well when this progressive shortening of terms leaves America just at war with Islam) is, on the other hand, nonsense.

There should be tax increases for the good of the country, and most Democrats want to be fiscal hawks like Clinton anyway. Raising taxes to pay for what we have already done is exactly right, and need not compromise efforts to end the war in Iraq. And remember, Afghanistan is different. We may well need to be there for a while, and sovereignty or no, we have special claim there because they committed an act of war against us. It also happens to be a real source of terrorist activity. This may be Lieberman's finest hour, in which he can serve the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party simultaneously.

yes, he was wrong, everyone knows it. Let us focus on Lieberman. James, please, in the future when you quote someone let the quote speak for itself. Instead the issue is now about you instead of what Joe has said.

Two points: 1. If the President will not withdraw the troops voluntarily, the people's representatives will have to use the power of the purse to end the war -- this is a tradition that goes back a long way and was embraced by our founding fathers. Therefore, your argument that "...the President people chose got us in this war (agree with it or not) the least we can do is to pay for it" is detached fatally from the intended working of our Constitutional system of checks and balances. 2. I would agree to raise taxes to reduce the deficit already created in part by the war, so long as no part of that tax went to funding the furtherance of that war. I understand Lieberman's proposal to have the intention of enabling Bush to continue this war indefinitely. This is not going to happen. Neil

I agree that theoretically the Dems control the purse, but you and I know they will not cut off funding while troops are on the ground in Iraq. Not if they ever want to win another election. We have no choice but to run out the clock (668 days and counting down). In the meantime we can use rhetoric to beat the Republicans over the head, and thereby be in a better position to win the election. You have very strongly held positions, and they might even be right (and about the checks and balances you are right), but being right doesn't win elections. I don't see why you would want to be right and proceed to attempt to do actions which will only throw the WH to a Guiliani or McCain, thereby prolonging the war much longer. Call me cynical if you will but I will be so if that is what it takes to win

I can't help but recall what it felt like as a young person so many years ago. I was in high school as the war in Vietnam was drawing to its slow, tortured, and ignominious end. I remember feeling frustrated and angry that I might be drafted and get killed in a war that never had sufficient support of the American people to permit an actual declaration of war, and that had lost most of whatever support it had originally been able to claim. It seemed to me then to be terribly immoral for a nation to send men to risk their lives in a fight that most Americans no longer thought we should have started. The war was a mistake, and everyone knew it. Four years ago, I saw us repeating the same scenario. An unwise and unjust war. Afghanistan I understood, but Iraq made no sense. It seemed like another Vietnam in tha making. As the WMD lies and the 9/11 connection lies were revealed, and the incompetence of our military leaders became apparent, the analogy grew sharper. As time passed, it was no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that we were in the same terrible place we had been when I was 17. I was lucky. The draft ended. Then the war ended. I didn't have to go to Vietnam. But I think of those who did, and I wonder how many we let die there because it would have been a bad move politically to end the war sooner. That's the question we face today. How many of these soldiers and marines - who trust that we will respect the sacrifice we are asking them to make - are going to die or suffer terrible injuries so that we can avoid doing something that might cost us a few votes? How can we do that to these brave men and women? It makes me angry - and I wonder why everyone else is not. Late in 1864, as the election approached, President Lincoln called for 300,000 more troops to be drafted if necessary to replace the many soldiers whose enlistments had run out. His decision raised an uproar among his fellow Republicans, who feared that it would cost them the election. His response was that he would rather do what was necessary to win the war even if it cost him the election. That kind of political courage is what is needed today. If the war is truly a mistake, then let us bring it to an end. We do not need a surge - we need an exit plan. This President is unwilling or incapable of providing one, so it is up to Congress to set a date when funding will no longer be provided. I believe that date should allow enough time for our military to execute a safe exit from Iraq, or redployment to Kurdistan (as some have suggested). By the end of this year, the surge will have fallen flat, and the military will be even more strained that it already is. The American people will be completely disgusted and they will blame Congress for not acting sooner to end this thing. It may be risky politically to cut off funding, but staying the course is not risk free. Bottom line: we should do the right thing by our troops and let Iraqis deal with Iraq. If we can't win an election based on that position, too bad. Neil

and passionate response. But I think you provided the answer "It makes me angry - and I wonder why everyone else is not." I will repeat it again because it does carry the essence of your dilemma. "It makes me angry - and I wonder why everyone else is not." It is a numbers game, and right now (right or wrong) you don't have the numbers. Even though I don't agree with you (about somethings) I still admire how you fight the good fight.

I am always surprised to find so many apparently bright and well-educated people so oblivious to the plain facts about Iraq, which is not by any stretch of the imagination anything like Vietnam. It is a simple and obvious fact that we went to war in Iraq in 1991 subsequent to the invasion, rape, and annexation of our ally, Kuwait. That war was never resolved, as the trail of violated ceasefire terms and Chapter VII Resolutions made legally clear, and the genocidal sanctions regime which devastated the country and killed perhaps a million of its most vulnerable citizens made morally clear. Any one of the tens of thousands of Americans who were deployed to the region after 1991, their families, and the steady majority of voters who approved "the use of US troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power" between 1991-2003 recognized this fact. How it could continue to completely escape some posting here is astonishing. Further delaying resolution of the war in Iraq became untenable after 9/11, not because anyone said Saddam attacked us as evidenced by the "Afghanistan first" strategy, but because it was clear we couldn't any longer afford to have an overt enemy state sitting on the key spot in the region producing most of the oil and most of the terrorism. We didn't have any particular interests in Korea or in Vietnam, but we fought wars in those places that probably killed six million people, including almost a hundred thousand Americans. We still have over 20,000 combat troops in South Korea in spite of the fact that they have an excellent army, and no oil. With all due respect to those legitimately appalled by the realities of war in Iraq which, unlike before 9/11, is now being reported extensively, the idea of arranging a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq is a total non-starter with the majority of Americans and their elected representatives in Congress. This is not what those polls in which you take such comfort are saying. At the point that we don't depend on Persian Gulf petroleum to have a world economy, we'll probably get out of Iraq.

I see you're still fighting the good fight on the whole "Iraq War was a good idea" front. I didn't realize that we went into Iraq to polish off the 1991 War, or for some high-minded humanitarian mission. I could've sworn there was something about some weapons...but I haven't heard much about them lately so I can't really remember. I am also interested to hear about how pre-war Iraq was producing "most of the terrorism." Could you flesh that out a bit for us? And how exactly are we now arranging a "self-inflicted defeat?" Are you sure the defeat wasn't self-inflicted when this incompetent administration decided to invade Iraq without doing any actual planning for what happens once we get there?

what that whole 1998 Senate resolution authorizing "regime change" in Iraq was about then? You know, the one put through by Majority Leader Daschle, with the approval of the Clinton White House. Were they kidding? Jes' joshin'? I think not, but the amount of amnesia on these thread is jaw-dropping. Yes, I know that we found no WMD. Did you know that before 2003? Me, neither. Pre-war Iraq, circa 1998, was a year away from developing nukes and other nasty stuff. So said the inspectors when they shut down the Iraqi WMD program. Do you truly believe that, after the sanctions regime ended, which France and Russia would see to, that SH was somehow incapable and unwilling to restart it? So, it's either "the war was a good idea" as Bob says, even though badly executed post-overthrow, or "I'd rather see SH still in power, with no sanctions, and free rein to develop WMD." I choose the former.

I can't accept the 1991 story - that we have been engaged in one continuous war (and somehow didn't know it). Without 9/11 (and repeated suggestions that Saddam had a hand in it) and some WMD mushroom cloud stories (that subsequently went up in smoke), there is no way we invade Iraq four years ago. In any case, if it was all one war, why did Bush ask Congress for an authorization to use force? Neil

We could indeed use more money for the military. However, federal revenues are at an all-time high in absolute terms. We spend nearly 3 trillion dollars a year; only about 600 billion goes to the military. Non-defense federal spending has been rising at 7% a year, more than 2.5 times the rate of inflation. We should obviously divert more of this to the defense budget.

SH is gone and that is good. The cost of taking him out was too great, and on balance, we are less secure than we would have been if SH were still in power. Perhaps, if we had not screwed it up, and if we were out of Iraq by now, almost everybody would be okay with this war. But we played right into the hands of Al Qaeda and have hurt ourselves very badly to remove a tyrant whose regime had no capability to hurt us. I am in the camp that says the war was bad from the start. I agree with you about the sanctions - they would have been relaxed. As for WMD, as we have seen in Iran and North Korea, we do not yet know how to prevent nations getting such weapons, but the Iraq war appears not to be a model we should follow in our non-proliferation strategy. Neil

I'll summarize. Perhaps my previous response will appear from the ozone... Neil- With all due respect, your inability to accept "the 1991 story" doesn't change the facts. We got combat pay and campaign medals for the period in question. Look at the budget. Check with the families of those tens of thousands deployed, including the survivors of those lost at Khobar Towers, on the Cole, and in many less-publicized events. The steady majority which between 1991 and 2003 supported "the use of US troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power" recognized the fact. You may be sure that Iraqis knew we were at war, given how many of them we killed with sanctions. You really should review the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which is easy to do and answers a lot of questions about "Bush lies" and the best judgement of bipartisan government during the relevant period. I'm not qualified to answer questions about "why did Bush...". My guess is that it was for much the same reason he spent so much Cabinet-level time and energy at the UN compared to Clinton, and filled the airwaves with countless "justification" remarks. One of the tenants of the Powell Doctrine that the Administration did adhere to was confirming the support of Congress and the people for the use of force. I think they largely already had it, and would have been much better off keeping it simple, but that's a political judgement I didn't get to make.

were Saddam Hussein? I thought Iran and Al Qaeda were to blame... Neil

The personnel in Khobar Towers and on the USS Cole were enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq pursuant to the invasion of Kuwait. The attacks of 9/11 were said by their authors to have been in response to American presence on Holy Ground, which was also predicated on enforcing the sanctions. You will find that all the relevant Security Council meetings on Iraq were opened by the chair as "Concerning the Matter of Iraq and Kuwait". It's seamless.

I think the fact that Saddam did not attack the Cole, did not attack the Khobar Towers, and did not attack us on 9/11 makes for a seam the size of the Grand Canyon. How can you ignore these facts? You can argue that the two wars with Iraq are so closely related that they are in some respects one continuous war -- I disagree with that view, but I can see your point. Personally, I think that point is not terribly relevant, because we would not have invaded Iraq in 2003 except for the events of 9/11, and the strong suggestion by the Bush administration that Iraq had a hand in the attacks of that terrible day. Despite your concerns about the 1991 angle, without 9/11 there is no invasion -- and you know it. And as we all know now -- Saddam and Iraq were not involved in Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks. Another very big seam, Mr Powell. Neil

have been elected if he had made this proposal last November?

have been elected if he had made this proposal last November?

...but I hope not. As one of that standing majority of Americans who thought we should have removed Saddam in 1991, you may imagine that I am not impressed by arguments that Bush talked me into the idea after 9/11. Similarly, as one who feels great shame at our complicity in the brutal and counterproductive sanctions scheme, and found Clinton's action of blowing up the cleaning staff at Iraq's military intelligence HQ by sending cruises missles in the middle of the night, well, inadequate, that we needed a different policy. Most of Congress and the American people agreed at the time, and I don't think it's because they were all hypnotized by Bush's dulcet tones. But one can never rule out the power of procrastination and avoidance when faced with a thorny dilemma. We were then, and remain so. In my view, Bucephalus, the answer is yes. Smokin' Joe was not a pig in a poke.

Senator L is correct. If we are going to fight a war, it has to be with the active participation of everyone and not just the troops and their families. And if taxes must be raised to fight, so be it.

Oh goodie! Report: Wars cost average U.S. family $20,000 Laurence Kotlikoff's latest article in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review has instigated a flurry of commentary on the state of domestic policies. Kotlikoff poses the question, "Is...