Hot Air notes part of Joseph Lieberman’s speech:
My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues–where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary–in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?
This is similar to something I’ve brought up many times in conversation with a few particular critics. These folks believe very strongly that A) we used too few troops during the invasion, B) we used too few troops during the post-victory occupation, and C) because we have so many troops in Iraq it’s stirring up violence. I’ve asked a few times for those points to be reconciled, but I’ve never got anything approaching a coherent answer.
For the record, I don’t really think Reid and Pelosi want to pull out troops because it will be good for America in any way, shape, or form. They don’t want to withdraw because they think that’s the best strategy for the US, for Iraq, or for any of our allies in the world. They don’t want to withdraw because they’ve got some plan to prosecute the war in a way that they believe is better.
And, regardless of anyone’s personal aims or strategies, isn’t it just a bit unsettling that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Moqtada al Sadr are all demanding the same thing?
Doesn’t that make anyone pause? I mean, is anyone suggesting that Sadr is taking the stand he’s taking because he thinks it’s best for America and will advance the cause of liberty and justice in the world?
I hope the President is planning on making a prime time speech to talk about the veto.
Remember that I’ve already written one for him. Looking back on it now, three weeks after I originally wrote it, there are of course a few things I’d tweak. And I’d certainly have a good paragraph or two about Harry Reid’s jackassery over “the war is lost” and intentionally misrepresenting what General Petraeus said. But I’m fairly happy with it as is.
UPDATE: Here’s the audio version of Murdoc’s speech for President Bush, read by yours truly.