It's one thing to stump for McCain. But he's essentially calling Obama a liar at this point, since Obama has repeatedly said he'd listen to top military officials when consulting his strategy on Iraq. Joe is simply in contradiction mode.

Perhaps Joe (or TNR?) didn't bother listening to Baracks FP speech this morning - a speech that makes Joe look even more lame and dishonest than usual, which is saying alot.

Listen to his eyes?  

When McCain doesn't pick him as his running mate, he's going to feel so USED.

jafabermit, if Lieberman can talk out of his ass, then I can understand how he can think Obama can listen to his eyes.

"listen to his eyes?"

yeah, reminds me of the old Groucho line... "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

I am irate at McCain's (& Lieberman's) argument that Obama should not have a position before taking this trip.  It is as if they would disqualify Obama (and about 299 million other Americans) from participating in the debate over the Iraq question.   This level of discourse is juvenile and insulting.  I do not see how it could ever influence anybody but those already committed to the McCain position.  McCain has sunk so very far in my estimation.  

Lieberman "can be so sure" because Obama already made his policy statements on Iraq before actually going there.  

What the hell kind of new, thoughtful, and highly intelligent approach is that?

McCain and his fellow lapdog's Lieberman and Graham's new line of attack against Obama essentially argues that Obama is wed to an ideological stance not consistent with factors on the ground, and he should only develop a policy once he sees what's happening first hand. This is very stupid. McCain and Lieberman fail to see the difference between "ideology" and developing a coherent strategy. I'm no military expert, but doesn't Lieberman have the order of national security policy totally mixed-up? To me, it seems that government should first develop a strategy, and then allow the military to implement the appropriate tactics to properly execute that strategy. Lieberman and McCain however, are arguing that Obama should develop no clear strategy whatsoever, witness the glories of the surge, and say, wow, now that I know the military is competent enough to implement a tactic with no clear objective, I can now develop a grand strategy for the region; and what will that strategy be? Of course, to continue the tactic! (namely, the surge).

In reality, of course Obama should set a clear objective from the outset, and of course, should the current tactics--the surge--need to still be implemented to carry out Obama's clear strategy, then so be it! But as it stands now, he is being attacked for setting objectives, something the current administration and John McCain have not done, for fear perhaps, if the objectives are indeed met, we one day might have to leave Iraq. (All of the last Petreaus-Crocker hearing seemed to be about was attempting to figure out just what our objectives, and "end-point," as Obama put it, were in Iraq.)

That November 2005 comment really is an unfair one to consider.  Obviously he couldn't foresee the vicious and unprecedented bombing of the holy Shiite site in Samarra.  That bombing had a cataclysmic effect on fomenting a Shiite-Sunni civil war.  It's disingenuous not to see that as a crucial event that changed everything.

As to the other point about whether Obama will change his mind after going to Iraq, we'll just have to see.

And it is naive to not expect our terrorist enemy to execute some "vicious and unprecedented" attack with a "cataclysmic effect" that "changes everything".  That is one of the neglected considerations in the initiation of this war, as our President and Pentagon simply planned on all Iraqi factions just falling into line.  Just how can we ever know within the next 100, or so, years that such an attack is no longer a possibility.  

If Obama doesn't change his mind, does that prove that his position is inflexible?  Is McCain confident that Obama will find outdoor markets operating just like the Farmer's Market in his Hyde Park neighborhood?   Seeing for oneself cannot be dispositive, Hell it clearly is not even that reliable, and it certainly will not obviate all other forms of information gathering.

And if Obama proves Joe wrong by listening to the commanders and adjusting his plans accordingly, then Joe will slam him for being a flip-flopper.  Neat trick, accusing someone of both ideological rigidity and lack of firm convictions at the same time, on the same issue.  It's actually a brilliant, albeit a bit revolting, political play.  There is literally no position that Obama could take that would please guys like Lieberman, which implies that this had nothing to do with his position in the first place.

Bigm, the bombing of the Samarra mosque was a catalyzing event, but it was only different in degree, not type, to the preceeding year.  The Sunni-Shi'ite civil war had been brewing- no, more than brewing- prior to that.  There was already a lot of sectarian violence.   Maybe the massive bloodshed could have been avoided if Samarra didn't happen, but it didn't come from a void, and Lieberman would have to have been blind to have not seen it coming.  Or, possible, would have to have gone to Iraq only to confrim what he already believed.  

Speaking of listening to the commanders, recall that Petraeus appeared before Congress nearly _a year ago_ and delivered hard evidence that the surge was succeeding. Nonetheless, Candidate Obama insisted repeatedly throughout the primaries that the surge was failing and could not succeed. Now, witht he nomination in the bag, Obama's professing a different view. Talk about gaming the issue for personal advantage.

But hey, it's Lieberman who deserves our scorn. Right.

tep, you're starting to sound hysterical. And not in the "you're very funny" way.

Lieberman is a joke. Like McCain would alter course on Iraq if the situation changed. HIs view on Iraq is pretty much as religiously held as the traditional GOP view on capital gains taxes. In a recession? The only solution is to lower taxes on the wealthy. Doing well financially? Well, we'd better lower taxes on the wealthy. etc.