12.11.07

Lieberman hits out at ‘paranoid’ Democrats

Joe Lieberman, CT Senator, has this much to say about the state of affairs in his former party:

The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a “hyper-partisan, politically paranoid” liberal base that could endanger the final nominee’s chances of winning next year’s presidential election.

He argued that George W. Bush and the Republican presidential candidates remained truer than the Democratic party to its tradition of a “moral, internationalist, liberal and hawkish” foreign policy that was established by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

“The Democratic party I grew up in was unafraid to make moral judgements about the world beyond our borders.”

“[Today’s Democrats] are inclined to see international problems as a result of America’s engagement with the world and are viscerally opposed to the use of force – the polar opposite to the self-confident and idealistic nationalism of the party I grew up in.”

“Even as the evidence has mounted that General David Petraeus is succeeding in Iraq, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat.”

“The Democrats’ guiding principle is distrust and disdain for Republicans in general and for Mr Bush in particular.”

Mr Lieberman, would prefer Ms Clinton to become the Democratic nominee.

2 comments:

Official Statement said...

“Thank you so much, Bob, for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be here this morning at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.



SAIS bears the name of a great American statesman and strategist. Paul Nitze served in six presidential administrations, from the outbreak of World War II through the twilight of the Cold War. As the principal author of NSC-68, he quite literally wrote the road map that guided America to victory in our long struggle against the Soviet Union.



Nitze is a figure of particular resonance for me, and his career provides an ideal starting place for the subject of my talk today—the politics of national security.



As many of you know, Paul Nitze was a Democrat, but he worked for Republican presidents as well as Democratic ones. He did so because he understood that, whatever domestic political differences divide us, they must never blind us to the far more profound national security challenges we face together from abroad.



Throughout his long career, Nitze put country before party, policy before politics. Although he was a Democrat, he did not look to the Democratic Party to tell him how or what to think about foreign policy.



The foreign policy convictions that animated Nitze, it so happened, were also the convictions that animated the Democratic Party from the 1940s through the early 1960s. Confronted by the totalitarian threats first of fascism and then of communism, Democrats under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy forged a foreign policy that was simultaneously principled, internationalist, and tough-minded.



This was the Democratic Party I grew up in—a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders, to draw a clear line between what Nitze in NSC-68 called “the free world” of the West and the “slave society” behind the Iron Curtain. It was a party that grasped the inextricable link between the survival of freedom abroad and the survival of freedom at home—that recognized, as Nitze wrote, that “the idea of freedom is the most contagious idea in the world.” And it was also a party that understood that a progressive society must be ready and willing to use its military power in defense of its progressive ideals, in order to ensure that those progressive ideals survived.



This was the worldview captured by President Kennedy, when he pledged in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”



That Democratic foreign policy tradition—the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy—collapsed just a few years later, in the trauma of Vietnam. And in its place, a very different worldview took root in the Democratic Party.



Reflexively skeptical about America’s authority to make moral judgments about the rest of the world, inclined to see the planet’s leading problems as more often the result of American involvement than American disengagement, and viscerally opposed to the use of military force, this rival worldview was in many respects the polar opposite of the self-confident and idealistic internationalism that had, just a few years earlier, animated the Democratic Party under President Kennedy.



Nitze was among those who courageously fought against this turn in the Democratic Party. He was a critic of the anti-war, isolationist candidacy of George McGovern in 1972 and later broke with Jimmy Carter over his arms control policy, which Nitze felt was weak and misguided. With Eugene Rostow, Nitze reestablished the Committee on the Present Danger, to keep alive the principled, internationalist, and muscular foreign policy tradition that had once lay at the heart of the Democratic Party.



Throughout this period, although Nitze remained a Democrat, he did not hesitate to challenge Democrats with whom he disagreed, or to work with Republicans with whom he agreed. One of the Republicans that Nitze came to support, in fact, was Ronald Reagan, himself a former Democrat, who welcomed Nitze to his foreign policy team after winning the presidency in 1980.



Reagan was the last president Nitze would serve, but in the proud legacy he has left, Nitze offers us important lessons for our own time about the politics of national security.



I arrived in Washington, D.C., as a first-term Senator in January 1989, just as Paul Nitze was departing government to return to his office here at SAIS. As I began to make foreign policy decisions in the Senate, I found myself drawn to the Democratic tradition of my youth—the morally self-confident, internationalist, and muscular tradition of Truman and Kennedy, whose inaugural address had inspired me to be a Democrat in the first place.



By the late 1980s, that tradition had been out of fashion in Democratic circles for twenty years. But then, Democrats had also been out of power for most of those twenty years—something that struck me and many others as more than coincidental. Simply put, the American people didn’t trust Democrats to keep them safe, and the McGovernite legacy was a big reason why.



By 1989, historic changes were taking place in the world that made the strong, self-confident foreign policy that linked Democrats like Truman and Kennedy to Republicans like Reagan look increasingly justified. Although too many Democrats had grown accustomed to criticizing Reagan’s approach to the Cold War as simplistic and dangerous, now the Soviet Union was imploding—economically and ideologically.



The collapse of communism emboldened those of us who felt that the McGovernite legacy had been a disastrous detour for the Democratic Party, and that it was time to reclaim our own lost tradition of strength abroad.



Then in 1991, America’s stunning victory in the first Gulf War presented anti-war Democrats with graphic proof of why their reflexive opposition to the use of military force was substantively wrong and probably politically wrong too.



It was not until the Clinton-Gore administration, however, that a tectonic shift really began inside the Democratic Party about foreign policy. In particular in the Balkans, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic—Democratic attitudes about the use of military power began to change.



Ironically, just as Democrats in the White House were growing more comfortable with the idea of an interventionist foreign policy, Republicans in Congress were moving in the opposite direction. In the absence of the Soviet Union, Republicans in the 1990s too often defined their own foreign policy vision as instinctive opposition to whatever President Clinton was doing in the world.



It is worth remembering, however, that some Republicans rose above this partisan reflex. Senator John McCain and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole courageously championed our intervention in the Balkans, without regard to domestic politics. But many others didn’t—and by the time of the 2000 presidential contest, it was the Democratic Party that was the more hawkish and internationalist, not the Republicans.



And in the 2000 campaign, it was Vice President Gore, who championed a values-based foreign policy, confident of America’s moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He promised $50 billion more in new defense spending than his Republican opponent—and, to the dismay of the party’s left, made sure that the Democratic Party’s platform that year endorsed a national missile defense.



Incidentally, he also chose a hawkish Democratic senator from Connecticut as his running mate.



Governor Bush, by contrast, campaigned for the presidency promising a “humble foreign policy,” criticizing the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. He signaled his intention to appoint as his secretary of state a retired general, who had counseled against military intervention both in Iraq and in Bosnia. One of his top foreign policy advisers warned that “America’s armed forces are not a global police force”—a line that another prominent Republican noted was “closer to the spirit of George McGovern than Ronald Reagan.”



In the politics of national security, it seemed, Democrats and Republicans had traded places.



Certainly no one listening to George W. Bush in the fall of 2000 could have imagined that, scarcely four years later, this same man would stand on the west front of the Capitol building and pledge, in his second inaugural address, that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.”



Indeed, as Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has written, it is easy to imagine these words being spoken by Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. But it was George W. Bush, who—in the aftermath of September 11—responded to the attacks with a national security strategy not of isolationism or realpolitik—but by drawing on the same morally self-confident, internationalist, and muscular foreign policy tradition he had once scorned.



In particular, President Bush defined the nature of this new conflict in quintessentially liberal terms—as a struggle for freedom against tyranny. Like the Cold War, he described the war on terror as ultimately “between two fundamentally different visions of humanity.” On the one side of this struggle are the Islamist extremists who “promise paradise, but deliver a life of public beheadings and repression of women and suicide bombings.” And on the other side, “are huge numbers of moderate men and women…” in the Muslim world, who believe that “every life has dignity and value that no power on Earth can take away.”



That is why, to defeat radical Islam, President Bush has repeatedly argued that we must simultaneously fight—and fight hard—to uproot their networks, while offering our own, more powerful vision of the future, based on the universal values of freedom and justice and opportunity.



In this regard, the Bush administration’s post-9/11 ideological conversion confronted Democrats with an awkward choice. Should we welcome the President’s foreign policy flip-flop? Or should Democrats match it with a flip-flop of our own?



Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party over just how to answer this question—a battle I was part of.



I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework that the President articulated for the war on terror as our own—because it was our own. It was our legacy from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton.



We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.



But that was not the choice most Democrats made. Instead, they flip-flopped.



It did not happen all at once. In the weeks and months after September 11, Democrats and Republicans put aside our partisan divisions and stood united as Americans. As late as October 2002, a Democratic-controlled Senate voted by a wide bipartisan margin to authorize President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein.



As the Iraq war became bogged down in a long and costly insurgency, however, and as President Bush’s approval ratings slipped, Democrats moved in a very different direction—first in the presidential campaign of 2004, where antiwar forces played a decisive role in the Democratic primaries. As you may recall, they also prevailed in Connecticut’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary last year.



Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.



Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.



Part of the explanation for this, I think, comes back to ideology. For all of our efforts in the 1990s to rehabilitate a strong Democratic foreign policy tradition, anti-war sentiment remains the dominant galvanizing force among a significant segment of the Democratic base.



But another reason for the Democratic flip-flop on foreign policy over the past few years is less substantive. For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism—it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.



In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s – even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest.



To illustrate my point, I want to talk about a controversy in the current Democratic presidential primaries, in which I have played an unintended part.



I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.



The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran—and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary—has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers.



This charge had been corroborated by other sources, including the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the independent assessment of the Iraqi Security Forces led by General Jim Jones, as well as the on-the-ground reports of our division commanders in Iraq.



It was also consistent with nearly three decades of experience with the IRGC, which has been implicated in a range of terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies—long before the invasion of Iraq.



In light of this evidence, Senator Kyl and I thought that calling for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization was a no brainer. Rather than punishing Iranians indiscriminately, it would apply a set of targeted economic sanctions against the part of the Iranian regime that was responsible for the murder of our troops in Iraq.



One big reason Kyl and I thought that calling for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization would be politically uncontroversial was because a bipartisan group of 68 senators, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, had already signed onto a piece of legislation introduced earlier in the year that asked for the IRGC’s designation along exactly the same lines as our amendment. Whatever the differences or disagreements on foreign policy or even on Iran, I assumed that tougher, targeted economic sanctions against the IRGC were something that we could all agree on.



I was wrong.



What happened instead is a case study in the distrust and partisan polarization that now poisons our body politic on even the most sensitive issues of national security.



First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.



These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.



On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.



Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories started to spread. Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it—and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.



The problem with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment of course had little to do with its substance, and a lot to do with politics.



I asked some of my Senate colleagues who voted against our amendment: “Do you believe the evidence the military has given us about the IRGC sponsoring these attacks on our troops?” Yes, they invariably said.



“Don’t you support tougher economic sanctions against Iran?” I asked. Again, yes—no question.



So what’s the problem, I asked.



“It’s simple,” they said. “We don’t trust Bush. He’ll use this resolution as an excuse for war against Iran.”



I understand that President Bush is a divisive figure. I recognize the distrust that many Americans feel toward his administration. I recognize the anger and outrage that exists out there about the war in Iraq.



But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.



There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.



For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.



That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party—but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.



I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles, which were at the heart of our party as recently as 2000. But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.



Some of you in this room are students at the beginning of what will be long and distinguished careers in public policy and public service. Chances are, you already have formed some strong convictions about American foreign policy, and for that reason, identify more with one party than the other.



But as you consider your future, I ask you to reflect for a moment on the past, and the dramatic shifts that I have described in the foreign policy orthodoxy of Democrats and Republicans alike over the past sixty years.



These shifts are almost certain to continue to occur. Just as the foreign policy convictions of the Democratic Party of 2008 are very different from those of the Democratic Party of 2000, so too will the Democratic Party of 2016 and 2028 look very different from the Democratic Party of today.



I ask that as future practitioners of foreign policy, you do not become so wedded to a party that you are unwilling to diverge from it, when your convictions diverge from it. Let your views about national security determine your politics, rather than the other way around.



If you choose to identify as a Democrat or a Republican, in other words, I encourage each of you to be independent Democrats and independent Republicans.



It may mean that you belong to a smaller and, at times, lonelier caucus. You may even find yourself on the losing end of an election or two. But far more important, you will not lose your convictions about what you believe is best for the security of our great country—and that, as Paul Nitze understood, is what matters most.



Thank you so much.”

Anonymous said...

*
1.
November 9th,
2007
11:45 am

There is nothing new in this blog that we have not known about Lieberman.

He is past tense in the progressives’ mind. We do not admire someone who is more regressive than the regressives.

— Posted by Leticia P. Carlos
*
2.
November 9th,
2007
11:55 am

Lieberman is pure and simple an agent for the nation of Israel, which is the only country popping champaign corks at our wallowing in Iraq. Lieberman pushed for the Department of Homeland Security, which is a harbinger for an American
Gestapo, as we steadily sacrifice civil liberties on the alter of “terror”. Lieberman is a statist and no defender of true American interests. When the Democrats gain a clear majority in the Senate after the next election, I am hopeful they will dump Lieberman and stick him in the back row where he belongs.

— Posted by roger millere
*
3.
November 9th,
2007
12:04 pm

Joe is a traitor to the party, to the voting American people, and to tomorrow’s children. His personal ambition has far outweighed his fortitude and moral character, and his commitment to what is right. Was switching parties to win an election not a clear enough display of his selfish egomania. It’s ironic that he would call the democratic party paranoid given disloyalty. Ultimately I ask, at what point in the past 8 years would the citizenry have been wrong to be suspicious and distrustful of the leaders of this government. When have our suspicions of their dishonesty been proven to be overblown? We’ve been far to timid and slow in our accusations and the conviction to reverse the trend of corruption as far as I’m concerned.

ALM

— Posted by A. L. Mays
*
4.
November 9th,
2007
12:11 pm

question to Lieberman: did the war against Iraq made israel any safer? Israel is surrounded by a wall of angry Arabs or cold hard concrete, Americans are more and more asking themselves who we fought the war for, because evidently a pity dictator is Iraq did not pose a mortal threat to the USA, allot of good will was wasted on the desert sands of Arabia. Just be the oxymoron that you are a liberal-warmonger.

— Posted by jama
*
5.
November 9th,
2007
12:14 pm

Senator Lieberman isn’t as concerned with America’s place in the world as he is his own place in history. I’m proud that America’s religious leaders have spoken out against the failed war in Iraq. Only blind leaders like Lieberman and Bush support a policy that has cost so much and set back the cause of peace. It is Lieberman and his policies that are making the world unsafe.

Rev. Chuck Currie
www.chuckcurrie.com

— Posted by Rev. Chuck Currie
*
6.
November 9th,
2007
12:22 pm

Joe — the problem with your argument is that it assumes that the Democratic base is insincere. A LOT of people’s main concern regarding US foreign policy is to get out of Iraq — right or wrong — based on what has occurred there since the invasion. It’s an intellectually honest argument even though it also coincides with disdain for Bush — which again, is felt by a lot of people. Note that nobody is calling Joe a war monger for consistently supporting the invasion and occupation — or suggesting his POV is the result of mental incapacity.
In other words, Joe, pipe down on the rhetoric — it’s garbage.

— Posted by Jonathan K.
*
7.
November 9th,
2007
12:23 pm

Ah, Joe…the man who did so little to help Al Gore in 2000 (can any of us forget how fawning, how deferential–how–oh my aren’t we of like minds he was in his debate with Darth Cheney)–and less than nothing to help John Kerry in 2004.

And, now comes Joe, to tell America that the Democrats are wrong…nay…a MAJORITY of Americans are wrong.

His attempts to claim the mantle of FDR and JFK makes me absolutely ill.

FDR never lost sight of the enemy.

Never believed that any dictator was a good dictator so long as he said he was on our side.

Never believed that we should impose on other peoples a ruling system that we would find repugnant to have imposed on our nation.

Never believed that in order to defeat the Nazis–who represented a far, far, far greater threat to this nation than the rabble that follows that orders of Bin Laden ever will–that we had to behave like Nazis.

Never.

Which may well be why–under FDR’s leadership–the Allies managed to win a truly global war–in less time than it has taken the current administration to get us totally bogged down in Iraq.

As for Joe–well, my one suggestion to him would be to look behind himself–past his little coterie of paid followers.

And if there’s no one there?

Well, Joe, then you might want to consider the possibility that what you’re demonstrating may not be leadership–but lunacy.

— Posted by Doug Johnston
*
8.
November 9th,
2007
12:24 pm

What do you call an independent Democrat? A Liebertarian?

Where do the independent Democrats hold their convention?

— Posted by gadfly
*
9.
November 9th,
2007
12:26 pm

I think what he’s trying to say is that the surge has some real, ah, what’s that word again? Oh yeah, “Joementum.”

— Posted by EAC
*
10.
November 9th,
2007
12:29 pm

Mr. Leiberman is absolutely, positively correct. The modern Democratic party is a joke; a bunch of pandering people with no spine, prattling about ‘new strategies.’ Since when has retreat been a ’strategy’? The Democrats have lost all touch with reality, in their drive to scrape up every single vote they can; whereas principled men like John McCain have the courage to stand up to the opinion polls, the Democrats change their positions every time a new survey comes out. The Democrat-led congress has been a colossal failure in every respect, and it’s time for some new blood in Washington. God knows we need it…

— Posted by Nathan
*
11.
November 9th,
2007
12:32 pm

The Senator should register as a lobbyist representing foreign interests; he sure as hell doesn’t represent American interests. Self-righteous
and self-centered, he should be roundly defeated next time by the citizens of Connecticut.

— Posted by Bill O'Neil
*
12.
November 9th,
2007
12:32 pm

If you want to locate the paranoid Democrats Lieberman is talking about, you can be sure to find them all here.

— Posted by David
*
13.
November 9th,
2007
12:33 pm

I doubt Lieberman cares about anything more than his only constituents, the people of Israel. Unfortunately, it is considered anti semitic to say this!

It is plain for all who wish to see it that some legislators, commentators, so-called neo conservatives have divided loyalties, of not a single one: Using young US boys and girls as mercenaries to support and maintain Israel’s folly in the Middle East.

Here we are, as a nation marginalizin ghe second largest and second most populous continent (Africa), while kowtowing to a tiny country that uses our weapons, our blood and treasure as its insurance policy while engaging in massive war crimes and human rights abuses, in the name of security. That is Lieberman’s and many other legislators’ aim in the US Legislature.

Do we truly believe that supporting Israel’s follies are more strategic to the US’s survival than having a realistic policy toward a while continent.

If thye COngressional Black Caucus were as brazen in its one-sidedness as the Israeli legislators in the US COngress, they’d be branded racists and unpatriotic.

Lieberman speaks only to his affinity for people who share his religion and his predilection for neofascism. If there are islamofascists, there are also Israelofascists.

I do not expect the so-called moderator to publish this piece, as being part of the amen corner, he or she will find it offensive to his flock.

I apologize for nothing! It’s timem the good patriotic Americans say no to Lieberman,e tal, the cries of antisemitism notwithstanding! The survival of our nation is more important than any vacuous label!

— Posted by PAL
*
14.
November 9th,
2007
12:33 pm

Lieberman blindly supports the President. Even if he believes what he says about making Iraq a better and more secure democracy, he has never tried to force the war and rebuilding to be effectively completed.

Oddest of all, however, is that when he lost fair and square to Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in 2006, so called liberal lioness Barbara Boxer saw fit to campaign on his behalf. Says a lot about the Dems.

— Posted by Jack Quack
*
15.
November 9th,
2007
12:36 pm

#4 may have a point. Does Lieberman want us to remain in Iraq, (and, apparently, to invade Iran) in order to serve as a bodyguard for Israel? Maybe they need a bodyguard. They must be very weak seeing as, according to my handy 2003 list of “the coalition of the willing,” Israel never signed on. Micronesia and Palau did, but not Israel.

— Posted by gadfly
*
16.
November 9th,
2007
12:39 pm

If possible the voters in CONN.
Should RECALL LIEBERMAN

— Posted by PHIL
*
17.
November 9th,
2007
12:41 pm

Lieberman needs to switch to the Republican party or move to Israel. Those seem to be his biggest interests, not what is best for the country. I’m sick of him being a rubber stamp for king george.

— Posted by Caroline Wood
*
18.
November 9th,
2007
12:45 pm

Lieberman is an embarrassment and an outrage. Let’s get enough Democrats elected next year so the party can say “So long, Joe”. For Dems to be dependent on such a war-monger is a sorry state, indeed.

— Posted by scott
*
19.
November 9th,
2007
12:46 pm

A majority of Americans - Democrats AND Republicans - are now opposed to the appalling military adventurism of the Iraq War. Senator Lieberman, if the people have lost your confidence, why don’t you simply dissolve them, and elect another?

— Posted by pro-Israel AND pro-peace
*
20.
November 9th,
2007
12:46 pm

What a curious man. The U.S. invades a country that shares a border with Iran, shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner down with a U.S. Navy missle, threatens to bomb Iran, and acts like an enemy. Lieberman is an enemy of our freedom, and thinks U.S. blood should be spilled for his objectives. If Democrats run on his ideas, they will be defeated, again.

— Posted by william
*
21.
November 9th,
2007
12:48 pm

Comments like this are a perfect reason why Harry Reid should have stripped Joe Lieberman of his seniority and committee assignments when Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate as an “independent” Democrat (talk about having your cake and eating it too!).

— Posted by corinne
*
22.
November 9th,
2007
12:48 pm

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Those of us who distrust everything this administration says or does, including its sorry conduct in Iraq, are not acting out of irrational fear, but on the basis of a virtual tsunami of evidence proving that the administration never should have been and cannot now be trusted. We’re in the midst of a horrible mess that will take years to clean up, and Joe Independent is part of the problem, not the solution.

— Posted by chicago bear
*
23.
November 9th,
2007
12:49 pm

Lieberman is right. There is something profoundly wrong when we are more worried about how our own government will mismanage a crisis than we are about the crisis itself. But what is wrong is not the worrying, it is the government.

The Bush Administration, with Joe’s help, have bungled our foreign policy so badly that we would have been far better off doing nothing at all for eight years than doing what we did. So of course people worry what they will screw up next. Take a dislike of Saddam Hussein and make it into a death sentence for thousands of our soldiers. Then when Iran doesn’t play along, threaten WWIII and start a war with them too.

The Bush Administration, and its supporters, very much including Joe Lieberman, are the greatest danger facing America. They can take any problem and make it into a major disaster.

— Posted by Dan Quixote
*
24.
November 9th,
2007
12:50 pm

I’m happy the surge is working and I think General Petreus is a great Military man. I’m very proud of his patritic service. But the reality is the war was a fool’s errand and has not helped US interests. Is he a democrat or a Neocon Republican? He was wrong about Iraq and he’s wrong about Iran.

— Posted by fj
*
25.
November 9th,
2007
12:50 pm

Lieberman is a TRAITOR….and this is not HIS party. Go away from the democractic party. You are supposed to be in the JOE LIEBERMAN PARTY.

— Posted by Ana
*
26.
November 9th,
2007
12:50 pm

And Steve Colbert was not fit to get on a ballot?

After eight years of Bush and company, their shenanigans and the graft which covered it all like flies, it is a wonder we are only “paranoid” and not “homicidal revolutionaries”.

Lieberman is so out of touch he should be declared unfit to serve.

Cheers,

— Posted by Romulo
*
27.
November 9th,
2007
12:51 pm

“But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.”

Profound statement. Most Libs and Dems care more about humiliating Bush than confronting Iran about the US soldiers dying at the hands of Iranian made IEDs and Iranian trained terrorists. They believe its more politically expedient to take Bush to task than Iran.

What a cop out.

— Posted by alexis
*
28.
November 9th,
2007
12:52 pm

Didn’t the original post-9/11 resolutions give the president broad authority to conduct the war against terror? Thus, if a group is branded a “terrorist group” by Congress, might the Bush/Cheney team take that as a sign to start the bombing? I’m not saying there was some huge conspiracy, but to call such an idea “delusion or deception,” is naive at best given all that has happened over the last few years.

— Posted by Bill
*
29.
November 9th,
2007
12:52 pm

Of course Lieberman is going to bad mouth Democrats. Should the Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, his power vanishes — POOF — just like his principles have.

Who knows? Cold-blooded invertebrate Harry “Faith Based” Reid might even sprout a pair of cojones and finally strip him of his committee assignments and put real Democrats in his place.

I’m not holding my breath, but maybe.

— Posted by trippin
*
30.
November 9th,
2007
12:53 pm

Why are you giving so much ink to Lieberman?

— Posted by Bill
*
31.
November 9th,
2007
12:54 pm

Joe Lieberman may get buckets wrong, but as to the democratic base he’s dead-on. Lefty Lites in Lockstep. What a sad lot. First three posters simply prove the man’s point.

Sick to death of all their genteel aniti-semitism masquerading as pacifism. Israelis popping champagne corks.

As if.

— Posted by joel
*
32.
November 9th,
2007
12:54 pm

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for democratic candidates…” Yes, they are in fact an opposition party and the Iraq war is emblematic of the failures of the current administration. Regardless of how well the surge works or doesnt work, lets not loose sight of the fact that if even a remote degree of competence was exhibited at any point it should never have been necessary. and at some point in the near future, logistics will require us to “draw down” anyway, regardless of “success” or whether the mission is “accomplished”. Pardon them for being realistic and fiscally responsible.

While it is not realistic that military action against Iran will be taken, it is not because this a far fetched conspiracy theory. This is, again, a genuine logistical issue. It is complete and utter folly to open a third front when we cannot even staff two properly. This does not mean there are not people who are pushing hard for this - there certainly are. Fortunately, their credibility is completely destroyed at this point and (unfortuantely) they’ve already squandered our resources to the point that further wars are not within the realm of reality. Lets hope we dont actually need the army for anything any time soon.

And finally, Uncle Joe, if you’re really going to make a stand on your principles and individuality from the pack, go the full nine and call yourself just plain independent, as i do. “Independent Democrat”? fair enough, if you mean that you are starting a new party. i would have immense respect for that and support you even though i dont agree with a thing you said. More than anything else, america needs a true third party so that people will have to actually start agreeing with each other instead of just shooting for that storied 51%, each side talking past the other. But to me “independent democrat” just sounds like a wishy-washy attempt to not alienate too many fund raisers.

— Posted by KM
*
33.
November 9th,
2007
12:54 pm

This man has the gall to call the American public paranoid (despite his rhetorical efforts to consign such anger solely to the Democratic “base”) and suggest that widespread anger over deception, incompetence, and murderousness is wrong-headed. I’ll tell you what’s “profoundly wrong,” Joe; guys like you encouraging perpetual warfare to the detriment, indeed the destruction, of the United States and achieving that while simultaneously slaughtering God knows how many more people.

— Posted by Timothy3
*
34.
November 9th,
2007
12:55 pm

Thank you for the reminder that every cloud has a silver lining. It was a disaster for the country when the election was stolen from Gore in 2000. But at least it prevented Lieberman from becoming Vice President.

— Posted by lydgate
*
35.
November 9th,
2007
12:56 pm

If we leave Iraq the oil wells come back online. The world’s oil market is suddenly flooded with cheap, available, and plentiful Iraqi oil. The price of a barrel drops to $32 and the profit margins of Shell, BP, and Exxon drop like a Blackhawk over Kabul.
Does anyone still believe this is about Democracy? Does anyone believe we’d allow an anti-Israeli party to win in Baghdad? If so, you’d better be nice because if you’re naughty Joe’s guys will tap your phone and tell Santa.

— Posted by osisbs
*
36.
November 9th,
2007
12:58 pm

In full agreement with # 2.–Lieberman best represents Israel. American sacrifices in Iraq are meaningless to him. As long as Israel’s atomic arsenal is protected and America’s evergrowing commitment underwriting Israel’s war machine continues, he is satisfied. He is Bush’s most loyal ally .

— Posted by Bud
*
37.
November 9th,
2007
12:59 pm

What party? We in the Democratic base do not recognize this man. I think he is a member of the Bush Neocon party, but he’s not one of us. Can’t he just go away?

— Posted by Paul Wilsbach
*
38.
November 9th,
2007
1:01 pm

While I despise the Bush Administration for much of what it’s done, I am equally dismayed at the fact that the Democratic Party is picking up exactly where the Republicans left off in the 90s…. policy & decision-making solely for the purpose of opposing Bush. Remember when we all complained that the only thing the Republicans wanted to do was “Get Clinton??” Despite the fact that our policy desires, including getting out of Iraq, are dead on, the methods the “Democratic Party Faithfuls” are using will only serve to kill us in November and further divide the country. It’s time for everyone to start debating policy not people. I’m still a Democrat and will do everything I can to oppose Bush’s policies, but won’t go pandering & call everyone who might disagree a traitor… & just like I’ve described in this comment, now everyone can sit back and watch the same folks I’m talking about call me a traitor, compromiser of principles, “not a real Democrat” and everything else they can think of. Let’s start working the problem people. Otherwise we will never turn this country around from the dangerous and reckless path we’re on right now.

— Posted by MH
*
39.
November 9th,
2007
1:01 pm

I’m no fan of Lieberman who appears much too conservative in many of his opinions to suit me. But I cannot dismiss his arguments as reported in this article. Everyone should be willing to reassess their positions as new facts emerge … the Democrats and Republicans alike. Would the world and the Middle East be more secure were Iraq a functioning democracy? I certainly think it would. Is the “surge” going to produce that democracy? I doubt it. What should motivate the policies of the post-Bush regime … immediate withdrawl from Iraq regardless of the results or new policies to promote stability and allow a true democracy to develop? Whatever that new regime does, I hope it is well thought out with a long term view and not a policy born of domestic political expediency.

— Posted by Martin Edelson
*
40.
November 9th,
2007
1:01 pm

This is a good piece and we’re glad to see it covered.

Lieberman says those of us who oppose K-L suffer ‘delusion or deception’ and are into ‘conspiracy’. What he fails to realize is the degree to which these things are used to manipulate public opinion. I can accept his reading there and still say he is wrong.

Put something up there that advocates rejoining the vast majority of Iranians — who are moderate and who were led by a moderate president before Bush put them in the ‘Axis of Evil’ — back together with a moderate regime. That would demonstrate the courage and prescience Lieberman accuses the Democrats of missing.

We now have an unstable situation in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only Democrats who can be remotely held responsible for this mess are those who voted with Lieberman on the AUMF back in 2002. Iraq was completely the wrong thing to do then.

Mr. Lieberman, please do not come forth now with something along the same lines and cast stones at those who want nothing to do with you or your way of thinking.

— Posted by bcdavis
*
41.
November 9th,
2007
1:03 pm

This speech reeks of Republican talking points dressed up in forced ‘oh, how far my beloved party has drifted!’ rhetoric. Every single one of Joe’s criticisms here — Democrats are weak on foreign policy, leaving Iraq is tantamount to an victory for al-Qaeda and Iran, Petraeus’ “surge” is succeeding, Republicans are principled while Democrats are prone to flip-flop, left wing blogs are liars, Kyl-Lieberman is a call for stepped-up diplomacy, etc. etc. — could have come out of the mouth of any right wing surrogate. Joe might be a liberal in many respects, but on the issue of the day he’s locked in with the worst of the neoconservatives, and that’s the singular reason why the Dem base has booted him out of the party.

— Posted by Dan
*
42.
November 9th,
2007
1:03 pm

Can we get rid of this guy already? Anybody in Connecticut feeling guilty right about now?

— Posted by Evan
*
43.
November 9th,
2007
1:05 pm

Ah the anti-Semites are raising their ugly head. And the MoveOn and other ignoramuses are starting their chant of defeat. Will they ever learn? I doubt it. Tragically their amis in the media keep the chant going. Yes, the Times does, on occasion, tell a different story, yet, in the main, the trio–The Times, The LA Times and the Washington Post, continue to tell the lies. Even former Marine General Tony Zinni, not a friend of George W. Bush, gives a number of reasons(valid ones)why we had to stop Saddam. The left wants to tear down Sen. Clinton for her strong stand on these issues. Oh she has to spout a few things about pulling the troops out. My paty, the Democrat party of FDR, HST and JFK, doesn’t exist anymore. And Sen. Liberman is right on target. The ignorant, arrogant, self-centered left of the party will put another GOP in the White House. How tragic and near-sighted.

— Posted by Dr.R.D.B.(Ben)Laime
*
44.
November 9th,
2007
1:07 pm

What a jerk! He calls himself an “Independent Democrat” and maybe he likes how that sounds, but he is the one who strayed, not the rest of the party. He is a traitor to his party, and a traitor to the nation by pushing for an even greater entrenchment in a failed foreign policy that weakens us militarily and diplomatically.

— Posted by Jim Tanner-Uicker
*
45.
November 9th,
2007
1:08 pm

Lieberman should become a Republican, he’s just kidding himself by staying independent and defrauding the voters of Connecticut. His blind support for the war shows how out of touch with reality he is.

— Posted by James D
*
46.
November 9th,
2007
1:09 pm

If only Lieberman had spoken out against “partisanship” when the Republicans had control of Congress and were locking Democrats out of committee meetings or forcing them to hold hearings in the basement.

For 6 years, Democratic Senators and Representatives were treated with the utmost contempt by their colleagues.

Not a peep out Holy Joe then. All his indignation is reserved for anyone who opposes the Bush-Cheney agenda. It goes beyond hypocrisy. The man is a disgrace.

— Posted by Sybil March
*
47.
November 9th,
2007
1:10 pm

Just look at the number of elected representatives in the house as well as the senate that serve as agents for the Israel government. No wonder we can not get a rational policy on the Middle East and we are so hated around the world as a result of it. Answer: vote them out and see what happens then. Their interest is not the United States but… We are fighting a no-win war in Irag that will continue to lead to an economic distress in this country.

— Posted by J. W.W
*
48.
November 9th,
2007
1:14 pm

Given the existing posts, I am glad to see that open-mindedness still characterizes the Democratic party. Late ’90s Republicans had a knee-jerk hatred of the Dems… now the tables are turned a decade later. Yet, a handful of people like Senator Lieberman (1) have the wherewithal to note such psychological obstacles to progress and (2) accordingly have proferred internal criticism of the party. His actions likely undermine his existing political capital and further jeopardize his future campaigns–two effects that I would categorize as risks that are personal to the Senator. And the best that each of you can muster is “liberal-warmonger,” “traitor to America,” “agent of Israel,” and “more regressive than the regressives?” How amusing! I am pleased that the possibility of internal criticism and the ability to be persuaded still exists–the latter generally being recognized as a prerequisite to meaningful debate. Having read each of your posts, I too now feel comfortable engaging in Joe-bashing: you “regressive, Israeli covert, anti-American, pro-baby killing, warmonger-the-size-of-Hitler-times-a-billion-for-good-l uck-and-catchy-taglines fascist.”

Best of luck, Senator Lieberman. It appears you are going to keep needing it.

— Posted by Philip
*
49.
November 9th,
2007
1:15 pm

Senator Lieberman: thank you for your considered and well-articulated comments. How I do wish that more of our elected leaders were more like you and less like those who pander to the lowest common denominators in their efforts to gain and/or sustain their political power. Your running as an independent Democrat was truly an act of political courage. No doubt you knew that in doing so that you would reap opprobrium such as that displayed by some of the previous posters to this blog. Please continue to be the true leader that you are.

— Posted by PA Man
*
50.
November 9th,
2007
1:19 pm

All these pesky flower people objecting to torture and aggression. It’s really cutting into my fundraising efforts!

— Posted by Chris
*
51.
November 9th,
2007
1:22 pm

I’m sure there are many in the Democratic Party who are dreaming of the getting enough Senate seats in the next election to let this dinosaur go. he might as well just cross the floor to his war-mongering Republican counterparts.

— Posted by SD
*
52.
November 9th,
2007
1:22 pm

There is a way past the divisiveness that Senator Lieberman talks about:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

— Posted by David E.
*
53.
November 9th,
2007
1:22 pm

What a shame that the democrats can’t take a moment to consider the possibility that what Senator Lieberman is saying might be right. Why do the democrats display their patriotism by working so hard for the defeat of our country and the elevation of our enemy’s position in the Middle East? Stop and consider where we will all be if your solution for the islamic facists comes to pass. Do you really think they will just leave us alone if we turn tail and run away from the fight. Get serious! Their world view MUST BE DEFEATED!

— Posted by Bill Donlan
*
54.
November 9th,
2007
1:23 pm

It is always difficult to determine whether Joe is merely a petainist or a sonderkommando.

It is shocking that he can be counted on to support the myriad crimes of the Bush Reich in every single instance.

When the book Profiles in Shame is written Tail-gunner Joe should figure prominently.

— Posted by Maui Yankee
*
55.
November 9th,
2007
1:24 pm

Maybe Joe should consider whether he’s in the wrong party. Or the wrong country.

— Posted by tom
*
56.
November 9th,
2007
1:27 pm

Lieberman is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Hopefully, we’ll elect enough Democrats next year so the party can say, “So long, Joe. We don’t want or need you.” For the Dems to feel dependent on such a warmongering blowhard is a sorry state, indeed.

— Posted by scott
*
57.
November 9th,
2007
1:27 pm

TO THE MODERATOR:

Why does it take forever (hours) for the NYTimes Blog message boards to update with new comments. The Washington Post website hosts many more forums and blogs and new messages appear almost instantaneously.

What gives?

— Posted by alexis
*
58.
November 9th,
2007
1:28 pm

I have to ask the question, WHO cares what Lieberman thinks? Lieberman lost connection with reality, years ago - buying into the lies / propaganda that keeps SURGING from the Whitehouse.

— Posted by Allan Krueger
*
59.
November 9th,
2007
1:29 pm

Lieberman actually makes a couple of good points in this argument, that some Democrats seem more concerned with making political points then in coming up with rational policy on Iraq. There are probably few people who had the objections I did to the Iraq war, but when some democrats become a mirror of Rovian politics, where no matter the cost they look to gain political advantage (I could make a pretty strong case that the Iraq war was just another exmaple of Rovian politics, that one of the reasons the GOP was so hell bent for war was they figured it would be a cakewalk and would prove how great the GOP is compared to those wimpy democrats…and bury the fact that Bush and co are basically running around in circles in trying to find Bin Laden and such).

And he can claim it is paranoia, but is it paranoid after having your house catches fire to be afraid of another accident? Bush was given the green light to do what he saw fit in Iraq, and instead of taking that burden heavily he went into a war like it was a Sunday afternoon touch football game, with the results we all see. What is they say about once burned twice shy?

As far as Lierberman’s support of the iraq war that often goes beyond even the raving neo cons, and his seeming eagerness to hit Iran (without bothering to think about 150 buck a barrel oil that would result) that is no big surprise.Like others who have posted on here, I think a lot of it is Lierberman’s seeming belief that Israel is the 51st state and therefore that a seeming threat to Israel is the US’s burden above all reason (and I cannot blame the Israelis for this one, when Wolfowitz and Perle tried presenting this to the IDF, they looked at them both like they had frogs on their head or something, the idea of ‘knocking Saddam out’, and the IDF basically told them why they were on drugs) so I doubt the Israelis glorify in our being in the mire. It is lieberman and people like him who are paranoid, who think somehow they are going to ‘convert’ the middle east with a goal of protecting Israel, and it isn’t going to happen. Threats and risks have to be done on a rational basis, and Israel should only be one of many factors.

And the same holds for the Bush administration, besides the Israeli lobby he was out to please the evangelicals, who see Israel as the coming harken of the end of days so a ‘battle to protect israel’ went over big there, too.

It is sad, because Lieberman generally is not that crazy, but on this one he is way out in right field, literally, and I think he was blinded by personal interest or belief rather then looking at the objective truth of things. We could put 100 divisions in Iraq (if we had that many) and it wouldn’t make a country out of it, any more then you can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

— Posted by wdef
*
60.
November 9th,
2007
1:29 pm

Lieberman has some nerve being critical about the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. He might as well join the GOP for all the good he does as a Democratic caucus participant in the US Senate. Too bad for the State of Connecticut - they don’t get to have two Senators like everyone else - they have one US Sentaor and one Senator from the State of Israel.

Lieberman’s judgement is so biased in support of anything the Israeli government instructs him to do that he ought to be required to register as an agent of a foreign government!

— Posted by Joe Lane
*
61.
November 9th,
2007
1:29 pm

Lieberman has proven those who worked against him in the primary were very prescient. He has done nothing but beat the drums for more Middle-east involvement since his re-election. And this against the backdrop of a military worn to the breaking point after four years of non-stop combat.

I hope the people of Connecticut are happy. Lieberman remains responsible, in large part, for the continuing mess that Bush and Cheney created. He takes up the lie of anti-terrorism just as loudly as any Republican, and uses it for his own selfish purposes.

— Posted by PJinChi
*
62.
November 9th,
2007
1:30 pm

Lieberman is shocked, “how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman….ect.” Joe, how far have you strayed from the party of Roosevelt? At long last, have you no sense of decency?

— Posted by Joe
*
63.
November 9th,
2007
1:31 pm

Lieberman wants war with Iran. Although regime change in Iran is certainly desirable, invading Iran or bombing its nucear facilities is foolish. In time, regime change will occur in Iran, but change needs to occur only by the sole will of the Iranian people and not through force of arms. The close election in 2000 was lost by the Democrats because Gore ran a very poor campaign and possibly his biggest mistake was in his choosing Lieberman for his running mate. Lieberman may well have cost Gore the election.

— Posted by William O'Connor
*
64.
November 9th,
2007
1:32 pm

Lieberman is a couratious man. Betrayed by his party for not marching lockstep to their liberal agenda, his words are to the point in defining an enemy. The response above give credence to his comments and comfort to murderers in the name of religion.

— Posted by F.S.AIA
*
65.
November 9th,
2007
1:33 pm

Joe is trying to stabilize the Democrats. At this point, they need it.

— Posted by Richard
*
66.
November 9th,
2007
1:33 pm

As an American Jew, I have sentimental and religious ties to Israel. At one point when Israel seemed to be in danger, I considered emigrating there and joining the IDF.

However, I believe that American policy should be based on American interests. Senator Lieberman does not seem to represent those interests; nor does he represent most American Jews, who oppose Mr. Bush’s catastrophic “war on Terra” by a large majority. Senator Lieberman seems to represent only the small but influential fringe groups in the US and Israel that see miltary aggression as the best solution to international problems. Well, so did the Wehrmacht.

Does Senator Lieberman honestly believe what he says? I don’t know. I suppose it’s possible.

— Posted by Miles
*
67.
November 9th,
2007
1:33 pm

Don’t you love it when some transference-projecter of the “There’s a terrorist under every rock” school calls you “paranoid” like this?

— Posted by Steve Bolger
*
68.
November 9th,
2007
1:34 pm

Yeah, far too late the Democrats came to disdain and distrust Bush. Way too late. So, Lieberman wants the Democrats to fall for the same trick again . . . to give Bush military authorization so that he can push on the diplomatic front? Yeah, even the slowest thinkers among the Democrats figured out that’s a lie with Bush and always will be a lie. He can’t be trusted with even a tiny bit of power because he’ll abuse it to the hilt.

Oh, and flip flopping? Please, this is the man who has gone back on every promise he made during that last election his little ego so could not stand to lose. He promised he was going to vote to bring the troops home. He promised he would vote to hold Bush accountable. He’s nothing but a liar too.

I can’t wait until 2008 when the Dems he keeps trying to sink can finally pull this loser’s committee assignments.

— Posted by Emms
*
69.
November 9th,
2007
1:35 pm

By his own words Lieberman shall be condemned. He is a worm, and a slave to worms. He is an idolator of strange gods.

I pray that he will REPENT/RETURN, and receive the merciful grace of the God of Jacob-Israel, the One God of the Covenant.

God bless The New York Times for this platform for free speech, encouraging participatory democracy.

— Posted by DrNova
*
70.
November 9th,
2007
1:36 pm

He is a traitor to his party, he does not serve the needs of his constituents, and he was a terrible choice as a running mate in 2000. He is loyal to Israel above all else. Israel has the US doing grotesque dirty work throughout the middle east and elected officials like Joe Lieberman help make this happen.

— Posted by N. Matthew
*
71.
November 9th,
2007
1:38 pm

I suggest Senator Lieberman read “The Israel Lobby and United States Foreign Policy”. Not an easy one, but one which clearly points out why Israel’s lobbying tactics in the U.S. and U.S. strategy (what strategy?) throughout the Middle East can only lead to the continuing frustration of the peoples of both countries and of their neighbors.
Meanwhile, does Senator Lieberman really believe himself to be a Democrat representing Connecticut? Take a poll of your home state, Senator!

— Posted by marc devos of Kent, CT
*
72.
November 9th,
2007
1:39 pm

Why does Liberman have to be loyal to a party? Why does anyone? Does having personal ambition automatically negate a person’s opinion or position? The comments above imposes all kinds of rules that I am not aware of nor am I compliant. Does that make me a traitor and selfish too?

— Posted by Thomas Short
*
73.
November 9th,
2007
1:41 pm

If Diogenes were still searching for an honest man, he would find him in the unlikeliest of all places, the U.S. Senate. Joe Lieberman is right. The Democrats’ effort to insure defeat in Iraq in order to tarnish President Bush is a shameful political maneuver. When politicians hate their opponents more than they love their own country, they disgrace themselves and their supporters.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
74.
November 9th,
2007
1:42 pm

If anyone who has watched the Star Wars Prequels - isn’t it a bit too obvious that Senator Palpatine (The Emperor - Darth Sidious) looks a lot like Senator Lieberman?

Why doesn’t he just come clean and get out of the closet and become the GOP he wants to be?
Lieberman is already way deep in the “Dark Side”.

I found these statements as a joke -

“For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.”

When he was Al Gore’s running mate, he not only campaigned to be the Vice President - he also campaigned to still be senator of Connecticut; he practically did not give full effort on getting Gore elected in 2000 and possibly confused the message in 2000, as to how a Vice-Presidential candidate viewed how the electable the Presidential candidate is.

To my knowledge, I don’t know how the people of Connecticut could elect such a weasel.
I just hope the statements he made will help end his career as a senator after this term is over.

— Posted by Ned
*
75.
November 9th,
2007
1:43 pm

Only Joe can talk about our “Democracy Promotion Efforts in the Middle East” with a straight face. Or tout our recent wave of military success against the terrorists in Iraq.

Lieberman is a fool, embarrassing really, and the scary thought is that had Gore been elected and died prematurely, President Lieberman would have turned the whole Middle East into a garrison state.

— Posted by Mike Roddy
*
76.
November 9th,
2007
1:44 pm

I can’t believe Lieberman was Gore’s running mate. I love Gore but WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

— Posted by Helen NYC
*
77.
November 9th,
2007
1:45 pm

Well, no “politically paranoid, hyper-partisan” liberals on THIS forum!

My favorite comment: Joe is past tense in liberals–er, progressives, minds.

That kind of thinking about a current US Senator–and a former Democrat–says much about the clouded mindset that guarantees regular defeat to his former party.

— Posted by John
*
78.
November 9th,
2007
1:46 pm

Surely you jest, It’s Lieberman who is a joke. Get this joker out of Congress and send him to some right wing think tank along with Bolten, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

— Posted by Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers
*
79.
November 9th,
2007
1:47 pm

Wow - where to begin? Joe thinks our priority should be to strengthen our “democracy promotion efforts” in the Mideast. That’s euphemism if ever I heard one. How’s it going? Well, obviously not well. We have Karzai asking us to stop carpet bombing in Afghanistan and the government of Iraq demanding justice for the terror we imported in the form of Blackwater operatives. And, what should we do, Joe? Keep at it? Is it working? If I had any notion of what “victory” would look like, I might be able to debate the worthiness of our efforts, but at every turn this administration has lied, covered up, misdirected, and used a very heavy hand to force acceptance of their doomed foreign AND domestic policies. We are led by a petulant child and a sadistic dad. I hope we make it to ‘08 without an acceleration of military action, but with avid supporters like Lieberman, Bush loves swimming against the tide.

— Posted by kathryn
*
80.
November 9th,
2007
1:47 pm

Mr. Lieberman, like the neocon segment of the Republican party, is more interested in protecting the state of Israel than representing the interests of his state or this country.

— Posted by Joseph
*
81.
November 9th,
2007
1:48 pm

Joe Lieberman still ties himself to a failed policy, a failed president and a failed war, because he has no interest in saying mea culpa. Indeed, he has a lot of mea culpas to give, considering he was instrumental in losing the electoral college when he was the VP on the Gore ticket. Joe Lieberman and his pandering are OLD news.

— Posted by Sarah
*
82.
November 9th,
2007
1:49 pm

It’s telling that the arguments of many Democrats now seem to share three traits: They never take responsibility for their anti-war stance by talking about how much better a place the world would be if, for example, Saddam and the Taliban were still in power. They invariably lay personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with them. And they read hidden motives into every decision they disapprove of.

Too bad those who have a visceral disapproval of the war or the Republicans can’t muster the discipline to argue substantively and respectfully. You never get the feeling they thing the Republicans have the right to share the planet with them, much less that their opponents’ arguments might come from honest conviction. And they never stoop to explaining how we can end our involvement in Iraq responsibly — leaving moderate Democrats and Republicans to sort that out amidst the catcalls and stridency. It’s no wonder anti-war, anti-Bush Democrats still don’t have a place at the decision-making table; they’re unwilling to earn it.

— Posted by Bill
*
83.
November 9th,
2007
1:54 pm

Bolting Joe, a.k.a. Zell Liebermann, has a lot of nerve. All he had to do is come to Florida one time in 2000 and get 528 Jewish people in West Palm Beach to vote for the Kerry/Liebermann ticket and not Buchanan and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. He is a spineless politician who, as a lot of so-called Americans, care more about Israel then America. I am sure he will be more comfortable with the kinder, gentler, neo cons that plan to bring the troops out of Iraq and into Iran.

— Posted by Ben
*
84.
November 9th,
2007
1:55 pm

When will Lieberman stop pretending to be a Democrat? He has been as ardent of a Bush supporter as the most conservative Republicans in Congress. And excuse me that I am paranoid that this administration has given terrorism power by degrading our constitution and civil rights. Lieberman should be ashamed.

— Posted by Sean
*
85.
November 9th,
2007
1:55 pm

What I would like to suggest to Senator Lieberman is, unfortunately, anatomically impossible. The major problem is not with the Democratic base, but rather the Commander in Chief, the administration and the apologists such as Senator Lieberman, who have consistently screwed things up and give us no indication the capability to not screw things up even worse in the future.

— Posted by H. Wyn
*
86.
November 9th,
2007
1:58 pm

When Mr. Lieberman pines for those that have traditionally ‘animated’ the Democratic Party, he fails to mention their military interventions and diplomatic failures. In addition, he fails to acknowledge the blatant and covert support for the establishement of a global economic and military hegemony that some have come to refer to as empire.

Truman gave us the bomb and Korea, Kennedy gave us Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs and near nuclear war with the Soviet Union, Johnson gave us the Gulf of Tonkin lie and the escalation of death in Vietnam, Carter gave us support for the Shah and the subsequent Iran hostage crisis and the blowback from the Afghanistan jihadists and Clinton saved us from terrorism by bombing a pharmaceutical plant. They all failed in the Middle East to establish a fair and just resolution to the Palestinian crisis.

All of their ‘animated’ policies have favored an expansion of US military and economic dominance in the world at the cost to social justice.

When Hillary says that she will govern from ‘within the system’, I believe she intends to continue the policies of the ‘animated Democrats’ that Joe is so nostalgic for. The policies of support for Milton Friedman’s unregulated global capitialism and right wing military dictatorships has reduced the US to be viewed by most of the world as a carnivorus state that has devoured viable governments and has produced decades of war, torture, civil unrest, covert coups, assinations, extensive povertry and labor exploitation- all within a context of keeping us safe and promoting the interests of the ‘Free World’.

It is about time for all of us to wake up and repudiate these policies and to adopt new global programs that promote foreign aid without strings attached, self determination for all nations, social institutions that buffer the raw edges of capitalism and real freedom and liberty from the repressive policies of the IMF and World Bank.

It is an absurd position on Joe’s part that his policies and those of the ‘animated Democrats’ were successful in bringing peace and justice to the world. It is obvious that they have contributed to a state of pure war that keeps our Hummers humming. There should be no wondering as to why many in the world hates us… all we have to do is look through the animated illusions of our media and see what’s really happening in the world based on our past and present actions.

It’s time to get rid of cartoon Democrats like Joe and Hillary and elect people that can see the suffering that our very real expansionist and hegemonic policies have wrought. It’s high time we elect real leaders that are visionary and fearless and who can work for global economic justice and true peace.

— Posted by D. Duck
*
87.
November 9th,
2007
2:02 pm

Lieberman is a Neo-Conservative and the neo cons have proven that it is NOT an oxymoron to be a liberal and a war monger.

The founds of neo conservatism were LIBERAL intellectuals from the Univ of Chicago - Strauss, Kristol, and Podhoretz. These men switched to the right only to push their foreign policy of imperalism and “democracy”

These men are modern leftists who seek to spread perpetual revolution and control of financial markest/resources via US power.

Lieberman is one of their ranks….along with Democrats Schumer and Feinstein. In fact, there are as many neo conservative Democrats as Republicans.

Want real change? Vote Ron Paul….

— Posted by BrettK
*
88.
November 9th,
2007
2:02 pm

Lieberman should do the honorable thing-change his party affiliation. It would give him a momentary appearance of honesty.

— Posted by Keith Gumowitz
*
89.
November 9th,
2007
2:04 pm

Lieberman is nothing more than an opportunist … and a shallow one at that. Support the war on terror? When it’s nothing more than a myth, this military adventurism? 9/11 should’ve been prosecuted as the crime it was, and we’d be done wih it. Ol’ Joe has fallen for the myth hook line and sinker. Nothing new there, either.

— Posted by Sally
*
90.
November 9th,
2007
2:05 pm

God Bless Joe Lieberman for speaking the truth on the actions of the current Democratic party. It takes a democrat to point this out. They have invested heavily into our failure in Iraq. It is a sad day when our current success there is bad news for a significant part of our elected officials. Our only hope is that we can continue to succeed and prove them all wrong.

— Posted by Faldo
*
91.
November 9th,
2007
2:06 pm

It is sad to see the response of so many people who end up simply confirming Joe’s point. Rather than debate the issues, they
launch a personal attack against him. Very counter-productive.

— Posted by Lar
*
92.
November 9th,
2007
2:08 pm

“The Bush Administration, and its supporters, very much including Joe Lieberman, are the greatest danger facing America. They can take any problem and make it into a major disaster.”
— Posted by Dan Quixote

Well said, Quixote. Lieberman is a token GOP patsy, and I do hope the good people of Connecticutt will have the good sense to throw him out of office in 2012 — if they don’t recall him before that.
Lieberman is also a major hypcrite when he accuses of the Democratic Party of “pandering” to an extreme base. After all, that aptly describes the GOP catering the radical so-called Christian right’s every whim, does it not?

— Posted by vegasgirl
*
93.
November 9th,
2007
2:13 pm

I agree with the statements that Lieberman makes here. Thanks Joe for articulating them.

A lot of the responses on this blog exemplify the same reflexive paranoia that Lieberman has described. This tenor of the responses serves as compelling evidence for his claims.

I believe that the Democratic leadership would do well to shape their policies to attract Independent voters. Hyper-partisanship is like a mental delusion and Independent inputs are good meds.

— Posted by corinne
*
94.
November 9th,
2007
2:15 pm

I doubt that Lieberman will vote for one of the Democratic candidates anyway, so he can stop being concerned that they might lose the White House.

— Posted by Patricia Barry
*
95.
November 9th,
2007
2:16 pm

Paranoid? Sure, like the talk of WWIII from his “real” pary’s leader? Bah. Joe’s a joke. Bye Joe.

— Posted by Martin
*
96.
November 9th,
2007
2:17 pm

Senator Lieberman characterizes himself as an “Independent Democrat” but his words and actions indicate that he is actually a war-mongering, “paranoid”, right-wing Republican. His objectivity and sense of balance in assessing U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the middle east are essentially non-existent. Call youself what you like, Senator, but to many of us: “if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck”.

— Posted by JoAnne
*
97.
November 9th,
2007
2:18 pm

#73: If Diogenes were still searching for an honest man, he would find him in the unlikeliest of all places, the U.S. Senate. Joe Lieberman is right.
— Posted by E. O’Neal

If there were ever a definition of wide-eyed naivete, it’s posts like O’Neal’s. Lieberman is a political hack and a disgrace.

— Posted by vegasgirl
*
98.
November 9th,
2007
2:18 pm

We DID recall Lieberman in 2006. Connecticut Republicans reelected him, as well they should have, since he hasn’t been a Democrat for years now. Thoroughly anti-democratic (small d- and capital D), self-centered, addicted to privilege, completely dismissing the will of the voters, Lieberman has shown himself to be Bush’s lapdog.

Pander? He is the very personification of the word.

— Posted by Thoroughly Disgusted
*
99.
November 9th,
2007
2:18 pm

It is ironic at best for people like Lieberman to paint Iran as evil for “murdering” our soldiers in Iraq, when we did exactly the same thing by funding and arming the Mujahidin against the Russians in Afghanistan. Even our own State Dept acknowledges that support, although they deny any went directly to OBL: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-31876 0.html

So by Lieberman’s logic, Russia should have bombed *us* for helping the Mujahidin?

It is all insanity. We should support our troops by removing them from a disastrous and unethical war, as the Russians should have removed theirs from Afghanistan.

— Posted by Tartuffo
*
100.
November 9th,
2007
2:19 pm

Nathan (#8) is essentially correct, but for the wrong reasons.

The Democratic Party is spineless for not sticking to their principles. Politicians in general will do or say anything to get elected. Waffeling on issues is a proven strategy for gaining or not losing votes, but it is hardly the moral high ground. And John McCain is a man of conviction who sticks by his guns better than most. Of course, that doesn’t mean he is necessarily correct in his convictions, either.

On the other hand, you ask since when is retreat a strategy? The answer is since the beginning of war. When you have an untenable position (and our position in Iraq is untenable over the long run even if some strategies work in some locations short term), then retreat is a very sensible strategy to employ. In my opinion, we are engaged in an immoral war that has not only led to huge death tolls for an innocent civilian population but also needlessly wasted American lives. It has also seriously harmed our international reputation and served to greatly augment the power of terrorist forces around the world. The only patriotic thing left to do is retreat.

Secondly, there are Democrats who have been quite steadfast in their views about Iraq and the “war on terror.” McCain isn’t the only principled man in the field, and the Republicans also have their waffelers. Neither party has distinguished itself in this way, and that is one of the basic problems with the way we elect our government. Frankly, I blame the media for a lot of that. Media reps look for the soundbite instead of the meat and then don’t hold people to the fire for changing positions and, more importantly, don’t insist on real answers to questions.

So I agree with you, Nathan - lets throw the whole pack of scoundrels in Congress out and start over. I just don’t agree with you in your analysis of the people in volved.

— Posted by Tom Rowe
*
101.
November 9th,
2007
2:20 pm

While i thing Iraq was a mistake, Joe is right that the Democratic party has not articulated a coherent foreign policy vision, beyond sitting down to tea with the mullahs. Besides pulling out of Iraq, can anyone in this blog tell me what Obama, Clinton and Edwards believe to be the most pressing foreign policy issue that this country faces? And what are the differences between them? I may not agree with Bush, but I know where he stands.

— Posted by Dave
*
102.
November 9th,
2007
2:21 pm

We will never achieve a thrid party by kniting and lebeling with another dominant party. Though, with only one representivie in congress, we are widespreaded silently. Give us a chance, a minute voice is better than no voice. Joe’s calling is essentially what defines the word independent: that is, “free from the influnce–or afilliated with or loyal to no one political party.”

— Posted by James Forside
*
103.
November 9th,
2007
2:21 pm

Say it ain’t so, Joe.
But if it is, does that mean that AIPAC has no further use for me?

— Posted by Jiggs Kincaid
*
104.
November 9th,
2007
2:22 pm

Being criticized by Lieberman should only be taken as a compliment.

What a disgrace to the human race. What a pity I ever voted for him. NEVER AGAIN.

— Posted by MJ
*
105.
November 9th,
2007
2:27 pm

I’m disgusted (if not surprised) by the vast majority of these comments. How does it contribute to public discourse for the New York Times to afford every semi-educated crackpot an opportunity to post his hysterical rantings for millions of others to read?

The rise of the lunatic netroots in the Democratic party — and elsewhere — can be traced to internet bulletin boards. I wish the Times wouldn’t enable the process.

— Posted by Dan
*
106.
November 9th,
2007
2:27 pm

Why don’t you tell us what Britney Spears thinks of the “Democratic base”? At this point we value her opinion much more than Joe Lieberman’s.

— Posted by synykyl
*
107.
November 9th,
2007
2:29 pm

You have to admire Joe Lieberman for speaking truth to power. Today’s Democrats passionately want us to lose in Iraq no matter what the horrific consequences for America and for innocent Iraqis. For them, the astonishing success of the surge is awful news which they are still pretending hasn’t happened. But with even the NYT reporting yesterday that al Qaeda has been driven out of Baghdad, their denial of reality is becoming more and more untenable. The poor dears!

— Posted by Jim R.
*
108.
November 9th,
2007
2:30 pm

Fact: the overwhelming majority of Americans, not some fringe group, want the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end. (No thanks to Kate Phillips of the NYT for pointing out that obvious fact in her article.) Most Americans also want to avoid creating a brand new bloody fiasco in Iran. Leiberman is lying when he blames some mythical fringe–and he knows it.

Leiberman left the Democratic party, because it’s HIS views that represent the fringe and the voters called him on it. Now he’s being a cry-baby about it. Well, boo-hoo Joe, it’s called a democracy and the people have spoken: we want your disaster in Iraq to be over, ASAP. The sooner you accept that, the better off we’ll all be.

— Posted by Paul
*
109.
November 9th,
2007
2:31 pm

There’s a wee nugget of truth buried in Lieberman’s statements. He’s transformed into an angry neocon whose views I abhor, but he’s right about one thing:

Our Congressional Democratic leaders have become hyper-partisan. Their every word seems more calculated to score political points than to secure progress.

Let’s bring the troops home, repair our alliances, and fix our numerous domestic policies that need fixing. I’m just a little tired of hearing Pelosi’s posturing, that’s all.

Aren’t you?

— Posted by Roxy
*
110.
November 9th,
2007
2:31 pm

Joe for President!

— Posted by Greg
*
111.
November 9th,
2007
2:39 pm

Too bad the State of Connecticut doesn’t have a recall provision.

— Posted by Lisa
*
112.
November 9th,
2007
2:40 pm

Senator Lieberman is absolutely right…

“the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism—it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.”

…my sentiments exactly. Thank you Mr. Senator for articulating my position so succinctly.

— Posted by chris johnson
*
113.
November 9th,
2007
2:40 pm

As a stauch Republican I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over all the current candidates Democrats or Republicans. He understands NATIONAL SECURITY and believes (and lives) strongly in Judeo-Christian morals, principals, and values. Keep up the ‘good fight’ Sen Lieberman — we’re with you.

— Posted by Bruno
*
114.
November 9th,
2007
2:41 pm

One aspect of the Iraq war that people often overlook are the million or so dead and 5 million or so displaced Iraqi civilians. While much of this is a result of the civil war, all of it is a result of the invasion of a country that respresented no threat to us, a war of choice rooted in lies, deception and propoganda. and many are dead and displaced directly as a result of American actions (”collateral damage”, deplorable sanitary conditions, destroyed medical facilities.. ) The invasion was not only was not in our national security interest, but quite the contrary it went against our security interests (removing a rival of Iran on the one side and Osama/the Taliban on the other, etc.) That, by all definitions is a war crime. To rant against such crimes and the accompanyting human rights abuses is hardly paranoid. Lieberman of all people should know that not doing do is morally depraved. Yet Lieberman is not just content to remain silent in the face of a massive human rights crisis, the dismissal of our constitution and lesser laws, the destruction of American values, breaktaking corruption, mind boggling incompetance, and the general twisting of reality itself… he not only accepts all that, but he is one of its biggest cheerleaders. He and anyone who supports him should be more ashamed than self righteous.

— Posted by david manning
*
115.
November 9th,
2007
2:47 pm

He is a bitter, has-been, wannabe Republican. Joe do us a favor, change teams already

— Posted by Z-girl
*
116.
November 9th,
2007
2:47 pm

Like many liberals, I disagree with Sen. Lieberman’s position on the Iraq war–however, unlike many liberals, I respect him and believe him to be undeserving of the sputtering rage directed against him by the progressive Democrats.

For those who call him a traitor to the Democratic party, let me remind you of the following inconvenient fact: after the Democrats abandoned him and he won reelection as an independent, he still chose to caucus with the Democrats in a split Senate–thereby giving the Democrats control of the Senate, and the power to subpoena and publicly interrogate the Bush administration. Without Lieberman’s act of fealty to his old party, we would not have had any of the investigations that have contributed to Bush’s decline in the last couple of years, from the attorney general scandal on down.

I would also like to express my concern at the number of comments that accuse Lieberman, explicitly or implicitly, of being an agent of Israel. Presumably for these people, supporting Israel and being Jewish together are sufficient conditions for being some kind of patsy of Israel. This is paranoid, ridiculous, and there is more than a whiff of Antisemitism about it, similar to the anti-Catholic bigotry directed against John Kennedy when it was worried that he would be “taking orders from the Pope” while in office.

I would not vote for Joe Lieberman; but even I can see that he is being demonized and attacked out of all proportion to the wrongs he has done to the progressive cause.

— Posted by David Morris
*
117.
November 9th,
2007
2:49 pm

We should never forget the contributions over the past seven years from people of Joe Lieberman’s ilk. For instance, had it not been for their cool-headed and thoughtful deliberations during these troubled times we may never have found a way to order our string potatoes fried in tallow without having to say the word “French.” That contribution alone saved our butts I don’t know how many times!

— Posted by gadfly
*
118.
November 9th,
2007
2:50 pm

He’s a neocon now, and every day he sounds more like Norman Podhoretz. Any minute now, he’ll call for pre-emptive bombing of Iran “as soon as logistically possible.” I hate it when these former Democrats go on calling themselves Democrats long after they’ve become Republicans. It’s nothing but a bid for cheap credibility (”he’s telling home truths to his own side”) when they denounce fellow Democrats. Phil Gramm not only pretended to be a Democrat, he actually was a Republican spy in the Democratic caucus. Jean Kirkpatrick called herself a “Democrat for Reagan” long after everybody had ceased to be fooled. Add to Lieberman’s Republican sympathies and his personal fondness for Bush a heavy load of personal bitterness. He crashed in the Democratic presidential primaries 7 years ago, and he blames Democrats for that. Then Democratic primary voters turned on him in his Senate race. All he’s about right now is knocking down the Democratic edifice from within. Not battering the walls from outside, but ripping out the load-bearing walls inside (that “paranoid” base) till the whole thing collapses. Clinging to a policy the vast majority of Americans now oppose isn’t going to help Lieberman save the Democratic Party from the dire consequences of embracing policies the vast majority of Americans now support. And how dare he use the word “paranoid” to describe Bush’s opponents, and not to describe his friends? It’s not the Democrats who tapped every internet-wired computer in America without a warrant. It’s not the Democrats who revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative to the press to punish her husband for exposing a deception. It’s not the Democrats who advocate a “full toolkit” including torture for anybody, even an American citizen, Bush designates an “enemy combatant.”

— Posted by ducdebrabant
*
119.
November 9th,
2007
2:50 pm

This term, “Anti-war” is ridiculous. Not that im a big fan of liberals or democrats, they are anti-Iraq-war. They had no problem with afghanistan. Its pretty ridiculous for Lieberman to say something especially since im pretty sure his own constitituents would fit his “anti-war” label.

— Posted by Don H.
*
120.
November 9th,
2007
2:52 pm

A part of me is almost glad the Kerry-Lieberman ticket failed. Who needs another far right ideologue for VP? It’s so sad to watch this true- to-his-own ambitions liberal turn into a quasi-lobbyist for the IAPAC. The Israeli lobby and its chums, including Sens. Clinton and Schumer, badly skew our foreign policy, and is about as guilty in leading us to the Iraq tragedy as Saudi Arabia. As far as I’m concerned, Lieberman ought to go now to join his Republican friends. I don’t see the advantage of keeping Lieberman in the party when he’s so Democrat-not. As a Democrat he hasn’t helped the Senate majority, in fact, he’s helped his Republican pals to show the new majority how best to play sore loser.

As to the Johns Hopkins AIS speech, it could have been written by a Karl Rove minioin. Poor Joe, nobody loves a loser, not even God.

— Posted by Dana Mooring
*
121.
November 9th,
2007
2:54 pm

The smug architects of the imperial rose petal Iraq invasion know they have more money and staying power than other Americans. They’ll wait out those who want justice to death.

— Posted by Steve Bolger
*
122.
November 9th,
2007
2:59 pm

The trouble with a lot of public figures these days is that their irony detectors are out of order.

Otherwise, Lieberman, during the Bush/Cheney administration, would have trouble calling his own party “paranoid” and “partisan” with a straight face.

— Posted by Howard
*
123.
November 9th,
2007
3:00 pm

Perhaps I am paranoid, certainly one has reason to be given recent history, but I have a hard time believing that Lieberman sponsered the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as an alternative to going to war with Iran. I rather suspect that the aim here is to provide a rationale for the bombing of Iran down the road. The series of aricles by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker provides a great many reasons to feel this way. The retoric that was deployed in the run up to the Iraq war by Cheney and Bush is very similiar to the retoric being used now to drum beat the danger of Iran. I would like to point out that many of the charges against Iran are not proven. It may seem like common sense to assume that they are true - it seemed like common sense to assume that Iraq had WMD ready to deploy - the only problem is that is wasn’t true. One needs not to be a fan of the Iranian leadership to argue that it would be against our best interests to go to war with Iran (I believe it would be against Israel’s best interests as well). Most likely Lieberman considers his position to be in defense of both the United States and Israel - it is the standard neocon world view - it is a coherent viewpoint - I see no reason for calling Lieberman names (nor is he entitled to call his distractors ones either) - however I think that the neocons have had their arguments discredited by recent history and by extention their arguments for attacking Iran should be view an being invalid.

— Posted by Klaus Boschen
*
124.
November 9th,
2007
3:02 pm

“These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.”
Does Joe really think 75% of Americans are delusional? Let’s see, the amendment claimed part of Iran’s army is a terrorist group. Bush already has authority to preemptively strike any terrorist group. Gee whiz Joe, that sure is some tough logic to wrap your mind around. Why don’t you and Hillary just switch your parties to Republican and save us the charade?

— Posted by Mike McNally
*
125.
November 9th,
2007
3:03 pm

I think Lieberman sees things differently than the mainstream of the democrat party. However, he is correct in asserting that some of the candidates, especially Hillary, are doing far too much pandering. What it does is weaken the confidence structure of our Congress. Notice how fearfully they have become of passing legislation? They seem to be in constant watch of what the media says or what the polls show. They react to it instantly. If there was such a thing as a no confidence vote, they would receive one from the people.

— Posted by cliff jones
*
126.
November 9th,
2007
3:05 pm

“I’m” the paranoid one? Yeah, because even the thought of bombing Iran is a completely rational thought, Joe!!??? No wonder why you were asked, do you wanna be a lawyer or a politician all those years ago…

— Posted by Billy the kid
*
127.
November 9th,
2007
3:08 pm

O’Neal #73 would like to avoid many fair questions and just address anti-Lieberman sentiment with a brush of seeking failure in Iraq only to tarnish Bush. This is pure Rovian technique.

Iraq is a failure. It should’ve not been undertaken when it was and the way it was. It was done by Bush with a Republican Congress and yes, with 23 Dem senators — who should be defeated in 2008 along with their counterparts in the House, along with their Republican counterparts in both chambers.

I call for that with no idea of what to do now Iraq. I do not call for a hasty retreat. I do not claim to have an answer for this disaster. But I do understand accountability and I know who got us there. And we should be looking to those who knew better to begin with. Unfortunately, they are few and far between and rightfully so disgusted that they too probably have no good answers at this point.

Regardless, a lack of good answers at this point does not the case for Lieberman and Bush make.

— Posted by bcdavis
*
128.
November 9th,
2007
3:09 pm

What a breath of fresh air!! Finally, I bit of sanity umongst the wacko hate-filled liberal dems. Keep up the good work Joe!!

— Posted by Dan Sharp
*
129.
November 9th,
2007
3:19 pm

Its amazing the amount vitriol that Joe has engendered with his comments, along with the typical ad hominem attacks from the left. Obviously his comments have struck a nerve. I wish all of our politicians had this ability to stand up for what they believe in, polls be damned.

— Posted by Faldo
*
130.
November 9th,
2007
3:22 pm

Doug Johnston #7:

Before making such sweeping statements, it would be instructive to be a little more knowledgeable of FDR’s actions during WWII. Namely, (1) FDR did befriend a dictator (possibly the most murderous dictator in history), Josef Stalin, who purged and/or was responsible for the death of millions of his own people during his dictatorial reign; (2) FDR interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans (CITIZENS!) during WWII; and (3) FDR approved of the firebombing of the city of Dresden in Germany resulting in over a hundred thousand civilian deaths (mainly woman and children). Now I bring these points up, not as you would: just to demonize our then-current administration, but to point out that the Bush administration’s actions pale in comparison and to give you some badly needed perspective. I don’t blame FDR for his actions (other than the internment of the Japanese-Americans, which still seems ludicrous and criminal) because those were wartime decisions that were made in what were thought to be the best interests of the country as a whole. I believe you should step back a little from the overheated hyperbole that seems to get thrown around whenever anyone on this site (or Lieberman) has the courage to show their support for Bush and the difficult decisions that must be made in order to reach a successful conclusion in Iraq for all involved.

— Posted by David NYC
*
131.
November 9th,
2007
3:25 pm

“But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.”

A prior blogger called the above profound.

First of all the statement by Lieberman is a classic false choice that no one is making.

Second, both the blogger (seemingly unintentionally)and Lieberman (no doubt intentionally) miss making the point that this adminsitration has proven that it can be more dangerous to the well being of American troops, and Americans in general, than anyone in Iran could be.

— Posted by Roger S.
*
132.
November 9th,
2007
3:26 pm

“Iran’s murder of our troops”? Is the guy on speed? Iran has never invaded any neighboring country, A or B,no C? And as far as Ahmajedinad, is it not American who has a nut claiming there is no such thing as global warming?

— Posted by terry
*
133.
November 9th,
2007
3:26 pm

Thank God for Joe Lieberman. He is one of the few who can see the second and third order effects of failure in Iraq and Afganistan. The democratic party lacks the strategic thinkers, and the ability to articulate coherent options. It is simply the Republicans fault, Bush’s mess, bring the troops home — great plan. As screwed up as the reasons for invading Iraq might have been, lets take advantage. A democrat will take the Whitehouse — let them do something good with this. Let them give the people of the southwest Asia a chance to shed their medieval yokes.

— Posted by Mike H in KS
*
134.
November 9th,
2007
3:29 pm

The problem with Lieberman’s comments are not ideological at all. What they fail to recognize, what Lieberman fails to recognize, is that Bush’s entire Middle East policy is irrational and unimplementable.

It isn’t that it was a failure, that would imply there was something there that could have succeeded. The only success this policy could have had from the start was in Bush and Cheney’s minds.

Is not the lesson of the Iraqi elections proof enough? Was not the Palestinian elections more than enough? Well then, just wait until the Pakistani elections!

When the United States forces democracy on a people who are inimical to our national interests, all we do is give legitimacy to our enemies. That is the fault of the Lieberman/Bush/Cheney doctrine, and the Democratic party is smart enough to say no, that is not what the foreign policy of the United States should be.

— Posted by Ethan Quern
*
135.
November 9th,
2007
3:29 pm

By the way, a couple different people named “corinne” are posting here. One of us (me) is #93, and #21 is someone else. It’s a pretty common name.

— Posted by corinne
*
136.
November 9th,
2007
3:31 pm

Judging from a full 25% of the comments in this section, Joe Lieberman erred in leaving out the fact that the antiwar section of the Democratic Party is also heavily populated by the kinds of yowling anti-semitic lunatics who led the opposition to FDR’s “warmongering” in the 1930s. No wonder Joe Lieberman can’t stomach the Democratic Party anymore. “Agent of Israel”? “Israel has the US doing grotesque dirty work throughout the Middle East”? “Loyal to Israel above all else”? The US Congress is controlled by agents of Israel? It’s always wonderful to see the elite, erudite readership of the New York Times saluting Der Fuhrer. Speak out, wackos! Now is the chance to let your voices be heard!

As a lifelong liberal Democrat, and an opponent of the Iraq War, I am not exactly eager to find myself in the same camp as Joe Lieberman, but perhaps that is where I belong after all.

For those of you whose brains haven’t entirely rotted away, the canard that the Iraq War was fought in support of Israel is about as reliable as the idea that Saddam had a nuclear bomb. The Israelis have been consistent in opposing President Bush’s so-called “democracy agenda” in the Middle East in the cold-hearted belief that democracy favors the kinds of radical regimes that are least likely to cut deals and maintain the regional status quo. Ariel Sharon was always openly skeptical about the Iraq invasion, and Colin Powell’s chief of staff - Lawrence Wilkinson — has spoken publicly about how a parade of top Israeli officials came to Washington in the months before the Iraq invasion to try to convince Cheney and company that it was a very bad idea. The enemy for Israel over the last 15 years has always been Iran - which funds Hezbollah - not Iraq, which was militarily neutered after the First Gulf War.

While the Israeli preference for Arab dictators over our (failing) attempt to “promote democracy” may be morally dubious, the idea that the Israelis somehow enticed or forced George Bush to invade Iraq is absurd. What many of the commentators here seem to mean by Israeli is “Jew” — despite the fact that Joe Lieberman was a Democrat, and that none of the top officials of the Bush administration — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, you name ‘em — was Jewish.

But don’t let the facts stop you, wackos. In your heart of hearts, you know that the Jews are to blame.

— Posted by The Beam in Your Eye
*
137.
November 9th,
2007
3:31 pm

He is a public figure. This is America, we can say whatever the hell we want. We can call him whatever names we want. Especially when he directly insults us. I say he’s a complete @$$.

— Posted by Fractal
*
138.
November 9th,
2007
3:31 pm

Ah AIPAC is using the anti-semite card yet again. We aren’t buying it anymore. Look at Joe’s funding for his last election and tell me he’s not in their pocket. How did liberal Joe turn into the warmonger of today? National interests unfortunately not ours. Joe’s calling anyone to task is laughable. The dems should make him a back bencher. He and the other neocons have put us into a mess that my children will be paying for the entire lives.

— Posted by Petra
*
139.
November 9th,
2007
3:33 pm

Joe had better enjoy the next year — that’s all he has left in relevance — once the Democrats expand their Senate majority in ‘08 they should strip him of his committee chairmanship and invite him to join his fellow Republicans in the wilderness of the minority.

— Posted by Drew Wong
*
140.
November 9th,
2007
3:39 pm

Lieberman accurately stated why the democrats will blow their advantage and fail to regain the whitehouse in 2008. The candidates’ pandering to the ultra left will make it much more difficult for them to move closer to the center for the general election, which they must do to succeed.

— Posted by george
*
141.
November 9th,
2007
3:39 pm

Bruno, #113: Since when does war count as a true Christian moral? It seems that folks who call themselves Christian (or Jewish, in Joe’s case) and support any act of violence really need to read the New Testament and Ten Commandments again. They appear to have forgotten that their savior was a pacifist or that their prophet forbade killing. Sorry guys, Jesus gives no equivocation on that point, and “thou shalt not kill” also seems pretty straightforward.

It’s truly sad and ironic that Muslim extremists do much the same thing: they bend or selectively highlight a few elements of their religion in order to justify acts of violence. Nothing in the teachings of Christ endorses violence.

— Posted by William J.
*
142.
November 9th,
2007
3:40 pm

Lieberman was elected with republicans votes. He love the power and is able to sale anithing to keep it. But my question is: Why the New York times take notes of this kind of persons? Is a shame for america that profiters can use the newspepers to inflamate hates. The only thing he deserves is that his name be erase for the list of humans beens.

— Posted by Alberto Burgos
*
143.
November 9th,
2007
3:42 pm

The time has come for a recall.
Lieberman should rename his “independent” status the WILTING NEOCON
Party.
If he wants to be a spokesman for Bush and his cronies, at least he should be honest enough to say he wants a job in the Republican Party.

— Posted by Lionel
*
144.
November 9th,
2007
3:44 pm

Senator Lieberman loves his country.
To bad he doesn’t feel the same way about the United States.

— Posted by Bruce Stasiuk
*
145.
November 9th,
2007
3:49 pm

Mike Mcnally,

Joe was talking about YOU. And YOU responded in paranoid fashion to prove him right.

— Posted by got lost looking for wall street journal
*
146.
November 9th,
2007
3:53 pm

Senator Lieberman should just keep his mouth shut.
He is not a Democrat. I don’t think he understands that the party did not nominate him. Someone should wake him up. He should criticize his own party, the Republicans.

— Posted by John Coltrane
*
147.
November 9th,
2007
3:57 pm

This is not the first time that Joe Lieberman has been on the worng side of facts. In early nineties, he was so wrong, that I am surprised reporters and his constituents did not take him to task. The incident I am talking about is his over-the-top support for not recording stock options as an expense. He was vehemntly opposed to a move by Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB), a non-profit organization that sets accounting standards and rules in USA. This was during the peak of Dot.Com euphoria of mid to late 1990s. FASB wanted companies to record options granted to executives as an expense, and corrcetly so. However, some politicians, including Lieberman, opposed it on flimsy grounds, threatening to pass a law that would undermine a professional body like FASB. Lieberman was leading the attack on FASB. At that time FASB caved to the pressure, passing a rule (SFAS 123) that was basically ineffective and did not serve the original intent of FASB at all.

Crash of the Dot.Com economy a few years later confirmed that FASB was right, its decision was correct, and finally it ammended the rule by passing a modification to the standard (SFAS 123R). Lieberman’s position was proved to be completetly wrong.

Lieberman’s interference and his use of political infleunce to subvert a professional deliberation by an organization like FASB is an indication of his character, like that of George W Bush. No wonder he and Bush are so cozy nowadays.

Atul Rai

— Posted by atul rai
*
148.
November 9th,
2007
3:57 pm

“politically paranoid, hyper-partisan” liberal base of the Democratic party,”

Lieberman’s being nice when describing them. They aren’t that sane.

— Posted by BKH
*
149.
November 9th,
2007
3:58 pm

We have already lost in Iraq. As the saying goes, it is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and confirm it. Please analogize in the use of force.

The world no longer fears our military. The longer we stay bogged down in Iraq, the more our military is exposed as incompetent and our ability to generate peace with mere threats is compromised. Trillions of dollars worth of technology, yet we cannot stop insurgents with homemade explosives. Of course, some of us learned this lesson from Vietnam, but I digress.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we hand our great-great-great grandchildrens’ future to their Chinese debt masters. The longer the world sees our once feared military as incompetent, the dimmer our light on the world stage becomes.

This is not Bush’s defeat, this is America’s defeat and the only way to prevent it is to withdraw now. Lieberman is clueless.

— Posted by J.C.
*
150.
November 9th,
2007
4:04 pm

Joe Lieberman is right about the Democrats’ commitment to defeat. If anything, he understates the depth of their treachery. Now that the tide has finally turned in Iraq and we are able to begin drawing down our forces, all patriotic Americans are pleased. It’s only the Democrats who see a defeat for al Qaeda — reported by the NYT — as a defeat for themselves. Well, they’ve made their bed and they’ll have to lie in it next November. Once you get away from the two coasts, most Americans hate traitors.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
151.
November 9th,
2007
4:05 pm

The good news is Joe Lieberman speaks only for himself. Perhaps the point he misses is that democrats don’t want bush to lose the war at all - we wish he knew how to win it years ago; we can’t even write the failures off to incompetence when so many of them were intentional, because the administration didn’t have the interests of the iraqi people, the american soldiers, or the american public in mind - only to pad the wallets of it’s grafting contractors and pump the egos of the neocons.

Lieberman doesn’t realize we want to bring the troops home because we care about the lives of our troops and don’t want them wasted because our president’s ego is to large to admit a mistake and ask for substantial help in righting the boat and bringing real stability. I myself believe in the fight in Afghanistan, and wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to win there (and keep a watchful eye on the chaos in Pakistan) if we weren’t fighting an unnecessary and illegal war in iraq?

How many civilians have we killed in iraq?

How many iraqi children have lost their parents?

How many have become refugees?

To insist that we have in any way at all helped the iraqi people is disingenuous at this point - saddam was a terror, but it’s hard to argue that the total dissolution of the government, the economy, the reasonable expectation of safety from your neighbors is an improvement.

We need to pressure bush as much as possible to fix whatever isn’t permanently broken in iraq as fast as possible. Claiming that Petraeus’s strategy is working, when in fact it was the sunni sheiks who single-handedly lowered the level of violence - and paid for it with their deaths - is a blatant lie. Now the shiites are getting tired of the thugs in Al Sadr’s militias - is that evidence of another “success”? Hardly.

Democrats are the ones protesting as bush circumvents the laws that lieberman passes.

Democrats are the ones protesting as the government throws civil liberties out the window, and as the attorney general scandal shows, once the government starts ignoring the law, political strongarm tactics are soon to follow.

Republicans and moderate democrats alike should THANK the democratic base for their efforts to protect the rule of law in this country, and their successes in preventing the ascension of the republican machine to lawlessness. If anything, most in the “base” believe democrats haven’t done enough, and are trying to correct it. We were naive to believe that our government would function as reliably and ethically as in previous administrations, and won’t make that mistake again.

Lieberman stop pretending you have anything in common anymore with your former colleagues - you are a prime example of the way that power corrupts, and your pandering to those who have been corrupted absolutely stinks.

— Posted by illiam
*
152.
November 9th,
2007
4:11 pm

I think Joe Lieberman is acting with great courage and integrity. The democratic party that I used to know has by and large ceased to exist.

You do not have to agree with him on everything, but it is very sad to see the blatant anti-semitism that exists in many of these posts.

— Posted by Chris
*
153.
November 9th,
2007
4:16 pm

There is a very small little bit of sense to what Lieberman says: yes, a lot of Democratic/liberal opposition to the war has coalesced into knee-jerk anti-Bushism. But pointing out and criticizing this is not the same as making a coherent argument for sustaining the war in Iraq or for sounding the drums of war against Iran, as much as Mr. Lieberman may want it to sound that way. Mr. Lieberman, we should recall, pointed to the escalation of violence at the beginning of the latest “surge” tactic as evidence that the surge was working — apparently a decline in violence would have been evidence that the surge was failing. In short, Mr. Lieberman is no longer bothered by facts, evidence, or reason; he only wants people to buy into his vision of what must be done, even if the sale is based on pure lies. In this regard, it is no surprise that he breaks bread with the Bush Administration.

Of more concern is the prevalence of comments on Mr. Lieberman serving the interests of the State of Israel in preference to the interests of the State of Connecticut. While I tend to think that there is probably not a small amount of truth to this, the comments here suggest to me very strongly that the interests of the State of Israel are not being served by the fiasco in Iraq.

I was very concerned, immediately after the September 11 attacks, when we were moving large numbers of troops through the Middle East en route to Afghanistan, that among certain Israeli political circles who happened to be in power at the time, having the US military directly engaged in a nasty and protracted conflict with Israel’s Arab opponents would be seen as a very desirable thing, and that they might not be too upset if, for example, an all-out Israeli invasion of the West Bank begot terrorist attacks on US troops moving through Qatar or Saudi Arabia. Little did I imagine we would be stupid enough to (mostly) consciously elect to enter such a conflict.

But the presumed benefits to Israel of the US military being pinned down in the Middle East have not materialized: Americans have not adopted the Likudnik “us against them” worldview; if anything, we are becoming more sympathetic to the Iraqis whose lives we have made unbearable for no clear reason. And probably the biggest change is that now the “Israel has too much influence on US foreign policy” mantra, whether true or false, has taken on new resonance, while the description of this mantra as being baseless anti-Semitism rings more hollow.

What I fear is that this trend may morph into dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semitism as opposed to mere anti-Israelism; it might serve general Jewish interests more to highlight the distinction between anti-Semitism and opposition to actions of the State of Israel rather than pretending that there is little or no difference between the two.

— Posted by Basho
*
154.
November 9th,
2007
4:17 pm

Amazing. Will Joe, and people of like ideas ever realize that this Iraq war made us much more unsafe? Will they realize what damage this war has done - and is doing - to America’s interests? Will they ever understand that the only morally acceptable thing for GW and cohorts to do would be to resign and ask for apologies from the American people, The UN, and most of all the Iraqi people. Living in comfort and pomp Joe could never understant what this war did to tens of thousands of Americans (the almost 4000 dead and the 30,000 gravely injured young soldiers; to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives. and the millions in Iraq who have lost everything. This “offensive” war simply has no chance of ever succeeding. Victory is not possible, the great majority of Iraqis hate us and wish Americans bad for what we’ve done to their country.
As much as anyone, Joe Lieberman shares responsibility for our murderous war. Resign and disappear.

— Posted by Angry American
*
155.
November 9th,
2007
4:27 pm

BTW, the text of Kyl-Lieberman SO IS a ticket to war with Iran. It’s not directly authorizing force, but it’s going to be in the list of things the administration can list as their reasons for invading when they do try to use force.

— Posted by Billiard
*
156.
November 9th,
2007
4:29 pm

What I have yet to hear from Senator Lieberman, or any other apologist for the Bush administration, is a rational explanation for the whole WMD debacle. Either the administration deliberately tweeked the intelligence in order fulfill a hidden agenda, or their interpretation was so grossly incompetent that it consituted criminal negligence.

As far as I am concerned, until I hear a reasonable alternative to this interpretation (and I don’t think one exists,) no person or organization which is capable of supporting the Bush administration has any credibility whatsoever on Middle Eastern issues.

— Posted by Brian McCormack
*
157.
November 9th,
2007
4:29 pm

I worked in CT for Joe in the primary and general election and basically agree with his remarks. I beleive Ned Lamont won because of Senator Joe’s perceived support of the President ( who deserves only condemnation for the bungling of the Iraq war execution - Rumsfled doctrine “Enough to Lose”}. I do not beleive that even the majority of Democrats do not want the USA to abandon our strategic interest in the MidEast. I joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971 but regarding Iraq it is not the so-called Coalition that is deliberately targeting civilians. I would go farther than Joe and say that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should be voted out as Majority leaders since they are playing politics with national security.

— Posted by Bill Becker
*
158.
November 9th,
2007
4:30 pm

Senator Lieberman is the Winston Churchill of our time ….. he is beholdin to no one!

— Posted by Mike K
*
159.
November 9th,
2007
4:41 pm

It appears that Mr. Lieberman is out of touch with the majority of Americans and he feels better about himself when he blames our foreign policy blunders on the “liberal” base of the democratic party. Mr. Lieberman is stuck in the boomer generational battles where he feels most comfortable. This is EXACTLY the kind of politics that we DESPERATELY need to say goodbye to! I think that is something that both Republicans and Democrats agree on.

— Posted by Brian
*
160.
November 9th,
2007
4:46 pm

It is a red-herring for Lieberman to say that because Democrats are concerned about being deceived again by Bush that we are not concerned about casualties that result from Iranian meddling in Iraq - we are. However, the American people and the Democrats in Congress have justifiable reasons to be concerned about the Bush administration’s plans for Iran.

No one seems to remember that in 2003 when Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, they didn’t tell him to go to war. Up until the resolution the Bushies kept assuring us that thier preferred course was diplomacy but they need the threat of war in their back pocket to negotiate from strength. Well the Bushies went to war a week later. So much for trust.

Democrats have every reason to keep the Bush administration on a short leash concerning Iran, particularly with the W’s recent WWIII talk. All we have to do is remember that we were snookered into a stupid, unecessary war the first time around. No matter what Lieberman says it isn’t un-patriotic, nor have Democrats lost their moorings, to prevent it from happening a second time. He should be ashamed for parroting that tired old dog of a Republican smear.

— Posted by C. Reaves
*
161.
November 9th,
2007
5:05 pm

Mr. Lieberman needs to spend more time listening to his constituents and gathering factual information instead of parroting right-wing propaganda. Claims by the Pentagon, and other war profiteers, that the U.S. is succeeding in Iraq don’t erase the headlines of more suicide bombings and more U.S. soldiers killed. Because of U.S. aggression, there is chaos throughout the Middle East. Poll after poll show that the American people have a better comprehension of the Iraq war than this self-serving senator.

Lieberman is the biggest mistake Al Gore ever made.

— Posted by Barbara M Campbell
*
162.
November 9th,
2007
5:07 pm

If Al Qaeda is beaten in Iraq doesn’t it make sense that their Jehad is all for naught, If they can not inspire their own Sunni Arabs brothers, what purpose has their Jehad? Why bother the rest of the world, to what end?

— Posted by Alan
*
163.
November 9th,
2007
5:26 pm

As the Senator from Tel Aviv, Leiberman has strong loyalties and a thousand hates.
To frown on his unquestioning love of any old war that comes along (nourished by his failure to bear American arms at any time since Korea)is to draw his outrage and its tone of a born paficist playing solddier.
He’s never been a fighter to fear; his below-the-mistletoe debates with Cheney showed as much in 2000 and showed, too, that he’s not even a good talker. He’s a mumbler, unliked and petty, imagining criticism as past injustice and always wanting to get even with somebody for something that happened somewhere. someday, sometime.

— Posted by Waldo Lydecker
*
164.
November 9th,
2007
5:57 pm

To David NYC at #130:

Actually, I would have to dispute your citation–as historical fact–that FDR “befriended” Stalin.

The Soviets were locked in war with the Germans–a war that Hitler started–in his ill-conceived decision to open a second front in the war.

There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that FDR did not trust Stalin any farther than he could walk, unassisted, carrying a grand piano on his back.

Joe Stalin was no friend of FDR’s.

My point about FDR–in that regard–is that he did not confuse the fact that Stalin’s forces were fighting against a common enemy as some sort of indication that there was a commonality of purpose beyond that.

I believe any serious historian of the period would agree that the A-bomb was dropped on Japan–not to force their surrender–but to show the Soviets that we had it–and it worked–and was carried out by a Democratic administration that carried forward the belief of FDR that the destruction of one dictator (Hitler) would leave another one in a position to threaten the world.

President Bubbleboy would be looking Stalin in the eye and announcing that he had looked into Joe’s soul and could work with him–as friends.

As for the firebombing of Dresden?

That one–I’ll have to check–but my understanding of the order of battle was not that FDR insisted on approving every bombing run.

On your specific point about overheated hyperbole whenever anyone shows support for Bush on this site?

Actually, I think there are more than a few people posting to the Caucus who support W. and his wrongheaded and epically incompetent execution of this alleged war “on terror” and the distraction that is Iraq.

Are they met with hyperbole?

Based on my observations–the reaction seems to have been–more often than not bemusement.

But really, friend–what would you call it when they choose to call Democrats “Defeatocrats” and toss out all sorts of utter nonsense–accusing the Democrats of taking positions no one in the party has ever advocated?

Is that hyperbole?

Or just justified outrage at what you and your fellow travelers belief is the treason of progressives in expressing dissent?

— Posted by Doug Johnston
*
165.
November 9th,
2007
6:31 pm

The anti-Semitism of those of you who accuse Lieberman of representing Israel instead of the U.S. is truly disgusting. Would you make that same accusation if he were not Jewish? Of course not. He would just be one of the majority of senators who supports Israel’s right to exist. You single him out because he’s Jewish.

You anti-Semites want to see an American surrender in Iraq. Either you’re too stupid to understand what’s at stake, or you hate America. Too bad for you that we’re finally winning. America’s victory will be your defeat.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
166.
November 9th,
2007
6:37 pm

Good for you Lieberman more people like you and less of Clinton.

— Posted by scheiderer
*
167.
November 9th,
2007
6:42 pm

Lieberman is as pathetic as Bush! I agree with the super majority that the Democrats will win a year from now, banish this pathetic Senator to the back benches of the Senate where he belongs! Or perhaps, we can exile him to Crawford, Texas to be Bush’s lapdog forever!

— Posted by Mark
*
168.
November 9th,
2007
6:51 pm

Anti-semitism? Nope.

The fact of the matter is that Neo-Conservatism is a Jewish intellectual movement that has ties to the old left.

The neo con founders were liberal intellectuals from Univ. of Chicago - Strauss, Kristol and Podhoretz. All just happen to be jewish.

The same goes for the high level officials that pushed the wars were students of the above founders: Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith.

Let us not forget the pundits and think-tankers like Kristol’s son William, or Friedman, or Krauthenhammer, or Hitchens, or Satfire, or Brooks, or Cohen….

Neo Con = liberal hawk and many of the most influential just happen to be jewish.

Interesting to compare the Neo Con movement with the Bolsheviks 100 years earlier.

— Posted by BrettK
*
169.
November 9th,
2007
6:51 pm

Oh, yes. Anybody who dares utter a word against zionists attempting to hijack U.S. foreign policy is automatically branded an anti-Semite.

— Posted by gadfly
*
170.
November 9th,
2007
7:17 pm

One gets called an antisemite simply by disrespecting the sanctimonious Senator Lieberman.

— Posted by Steve Bolger
*
171.
November 9th,
2007
7:35 pm

gadfly, #169, you say people who speak of “zionists attempting to hijack U.S. foreign policy” are “automatically branded” anti-Semites. That’s because they ARE anti-Semites. Belief in a Jewish conspiracy against one’s nation is the defining feature of the anti-Semite in all times and places. Today’s anti-Zionists are reminiscent of the slanderers against Jews in Germany before the Holocaust, in Russia before the pogroms, and today in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.Is that the company you want to keep?

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
172.
November 9th,
2007
7:36 pm

Anyone who still thinks Iraq was a good decision should not be giving any advice or opinions.

Lieberman and the rest of the chicken hawk neo-cons are what is wrong with this country, not the far left.

Given the poll numbers on Iraq, it is safe to say that the Iraq cheerleaders are out of touch with the people of this democracy.

— Posted by JR
*
173.
November 9th,
2007
7:40 pm

Judging by many comments above anti-semitism is alive and well.Prejudice does not help clear judgment however. Ray Boni

— Posted by raymond boni
*
174.
November 9th,
2007
7:53 pm

See if you can spot Joe in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l5bSxpCKEI&NR=1

— Posted by gadfly
*
175.
November 9th,
2007
9:50 pm

I don’t equate Judaism with Zionism, E., #171. Are you saying Zionism doesn’t exist?

— Posted by gadfly
*
176.
November 9th,
2007
10:25 pm

Does Leiberman not understand that Iraq is a disaster and has seriously harmed American foreign policy? Those of us out here in the real world are truly baffled about the waste of blood and treasure and the long-term implications of this waste.

— Posted by Oregon Outback
*
177.
November 9th,
2007
10:26 pm

Why was Lieberman allowed to keep his Seniority after he stabbed the Party in the back? This traitor has managed to single handedly sandbag democratic efforts rein in Bush’s tyranny. Lieberman should be seated right behind the most junior Republican Senator on the Brussel Sprouts and Cabbage Committee.

— Posted by Lenny Pone
*
178.
November 9th,
2007
10:28 pm

Bernard Kerik and Joe Liberman have a lot in common. They both are only interested in their own narrow self interest and both carry water for the corporation/insurance industry that has brought us into a corporateocracy as bad as communism or fascism that feeds off middle class Americans through one government bail out after another.

— Posted by Charles Anonymous
*
179.
November 9th,
2007
10:54 pm

There isn’t much to add. Lieberman remains Bush’s and Israel’s flunky. He remains a person who can not be trusted to work for the good of this country.

— Posted by lukespack
*
180.
November 9th,
2007
11:27 pm

gadfly, #175, of course Zionism exists. Zionism was the movement to establish a Jewish homeland in the biblical land of Israel. Anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist or who claims Zionists control American foreign policy is an anti-Semite. It’s not complicated.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
181.
November 10th,
2007
12:24 am

At the risk of getting on the National Security watch list, I am publically proclaiming my my profound apologies for having voted for a ticket with him on it in 2000 and for my Connecticut sister voting for him in his last senatorial race over my protestatiosn and warnings to her about what he would really support. I hope his mother gives him regular tongue lashings for leaving his party and becoming a defacto Republican

— Posted by GeoLee
*
182.
November 10th,
2007
1:33 am

Post No 168: Esactly right. Think USS Liberty whenever you have a mental block.

— Posted by Clifford Decker
*
183.
November 10th,
2007
2:06 am

Many thanks to the sage voters of Connecticut for forcing us to have to listen to this man for 5 more years. Would Ned Lamont really have been THAT bad???

— Posted by Jonathan
*
184.
November 10th,
2007
2:36 am

Dr.R.D.B.(Ben)Laime @ post 43

I suggest you change your party affiliation, as you must be very confused. Based on your comments you are obviously a Neo-con.

See ya!

— Posted by Romulo
*
185.
November 10th,
2007
2:43 am

gadfly @ 175

If you study history and observe where all the ‘isms’ have led to, you will agree that the only relevant ‘ism’ is ‘Humanism’. ALL the others are flawed doctrines which should be confined to the refuse heap of failed ideas.

The day we start to see each other as human beings instead of Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc, we just might start to solve the problems of this world with a view to provide for ALL humanity.

Or is that too inclusive for you?

Cheers,

— Posted by Romulo
*
186.
November 10th,
2007
2:47 am

The Democrats are in a conspiracy-theory mindset over an Iranian war?

“Some in this administration are serious about that possibility'’ of military action in Iran…said by that most liberal of Democrats, Chuck Hagel.

‘Nuff said.

— Posted by Thomas
*
187.
November 10th,
2007
2:54 am

Dan #105 asks: “How does it contribute to public discourse for the New York Times to afford every semi-educated crackpot an opportunity to post his hysterical rantings for millions of others to read?

“The rise of the lunatic netroots in the Democratic party …”

Dan, I think the NYT has no choice, every newspaper is doing it to stay relevant.

Remember what they said @ the internet bringing death to every dictator? It seems to be affecting the news business first. Now we can hear things that were “unmentionable” previously, due to self-censorship in news.

Don’t be prejudiced. Not all crackpots are “semi-educated”, and that’s not synonymous with being dumb either.

We can now sound off @ things and people that bug us.

I do believe that Lieberman’s first concern is Israel, not the US. New York’s Schumer also. Almost all in Congress toe Aipac’s line where the ME is concerned. Even HillarY Clinton. They all have to run scared.

President Carter has been tagged an anti-semite, for writing the book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.

Remember how powerful & established Senators, Charles Percy and William Fullbright, were brought down for criticizing Israel? Newspapers reported that money was coming from across the country to bring down Congresswoman C. McKinley a few years back, for daring to criticize Israel again?

The US and Israel are often held up as exemplars of democracy, even as they have been the cause of so much death and destruction. See the slow strangulation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, brought to you by those two.

Those two are seen by our staunchest allies, Western Europe, as representing the biggest threats to world peace. How do you figure that?

Steve Bolger, #121, says it so well. It’s hard slogging trying to change things.

I support post #138 Petra’s views about Lieberman.

W&M couldn’t publish their papers in the US. Only after the London Review of Books took on the task did the NYTimes write about them subsequently.

— Posted by Anna
*
188.
November 10th,
2007
3:39 am

About Democrats, neocons and what have you.

One thing I have against Hillary Clinton, her failure to stand up for her party’s candidates.

She kept her distance from Ned Lamont when he ran against Joe Liberman. The Nyt mentioned a list of tri-state candidates Hillary hoped to see elected that time, and the paper wondered why Lamont’s name was not on it.

Then, when Democrat Ferrer and Republican Bloomberg contested the Nyc mayoral race, Hillary played the cool as well, while the Ny daily news snapped pictures of Bill Clinton just happening to bump into Republican Bloomberg.

— Posted by Angel
*
189.
November 10th,
2007
6:15 am

I wish Lieberman was the President - he looks beyond both parties’ obsession with, well, parties. He is more of a hawk than I would want, but he is obviously not being held in place by the fear of fringe elements of his former party.

— Posted by Jamieson
*
190.
November 10th,
2007
6:43 am

Did Gore intend to blow the 2000 election by selecting this twerp as his vice presidential running mate?

— Posted by Steve Bolger
*
191.
November 10th,
2007
7:32 am

Why would anyone, especially a democrat, take advice on how to become president from Joe Lieberman?

— Posted by Joe
*
192.
November 10th,
2007
10:45 am

Even to mention Bush’s “freedom agenda” or “democracy agenda” or (as Lieberman does) “democracy promotion” by the MSM is nothing short of Orwellian double-speak.

The very mention and publication of such terms is the height of 21st century guileful fascist propaganda, and must be denied to the global corporate Empire behind this facade of ‘Vichy America’.

To allow the corporatist Empire’s ‘Vichy’ press, and ‘Vichy’ two-party politicians to even seed such numbing propaganda lies into Americans’ sight, hearing, and minds is itself the ultimate insult to any concept of freedom and democracy.

To allow these words of the Empire’s phony president and Goebbelsian press to enter one’s eyes, ears, and mind without outrage is the equivalent of accepting such assaults on our humanity as hearing, reading, and mentally absorbing the equally dehumanizing lies of ‘war is peace’, and ‘love is hate’.

Wake up people.

We have already lost our democracy to the global corporate fascist Empire guilefully hiding behind this facade of ‘Vichy America’ — but we may be able to recapture it.

However, if we allow our minds to be stolen also, with the insanity of terms like ‘freedom agenda’ and ‘democracy agenda’ put forth by this global fascist Empire, then we will have no chance of recapturing anything —- including our humanity.

Yes, count me as one of Lieberman’s “politically paranoid, hyper-partisan” liberal base for democracy.

And count me as one of Pelosi’s “radical left-wing, anti-war base” for democracy.

The global corporate Empire of ‘Vichy America’ and it’s supposedly liberal political pawns and media are now trying to play the final Orwellian mind games to convince, with double-speak terms, even committed progressives for democracy that ‘black is white’, and that they are insane —- instead of this insane Empire.

— Posted by Alan MacDonald
*
193.
November 10th,
2007
11:10 am

The posters on this blog hate Lieberman because they hate America and they hate Israel. They’re furious because he described their motives so perfectly in his speech. They are also bitterly disappointed that the Sunnis have turned against al Qaeda and the sectarian violence has waned. It eats at them that American and Iraqi casualties are just a fraction of what they were a few months ago. The prospect of a stable and somewhat functional Iraq horrifies them, because what they really want is to see their nation and their political opponents humiliated. Too bad. What could be more repugnant than the Democrat base that’s turned on its own country?

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
194.
November 10th,
2007
11:22 am

No, E., that’s what Zionism meant in 1945. It means something a bit more chauvinistic in 2007 and it includes the expansion and colonization of areas outside of Israel’s borders as is taking place as we speak. Maybe it’s a misuse of the term, but that’s the way it is. Lots of terms have been given meanings other than their original meanings these days. Look at the words liberal and conservative. If there’s a better term, give it to me, I’ll use it.

Romulo, nope. That’s not too inclusive for me at all. It’s my ideal. Too bad more people don’t share it.

— Posted by gadfly
*
195.
November 10th,
2007
11:27 am

It amazes me that the above democrats do not allow anyone who identifies themselves as a liberal as Joe Lieberman does.I guess the above Democrats want everyone to be like sheep and just follow along and have no independent ideals or thought.

— Posted by anthony grimm
*
196.
November 10th,
2007
12:08 pm

Joe Lieberman says I’m paranoid. Well here’s how I see it so correct me as necessary.

Recent events in Pakistan throw cold water on this ‘democratic’ Middle East myth. Bhutto is barricaded in her own home.

Back in the 1980’s we made Saddam and then after Gulf War I betrayed the Shia and let Saddam slaughter thousands.

Saudi Arabia is not democratic; they are our strongest ally after Israel.

Iranians mourned 9/11 the day after it happened and there was a reformist president who helped us significantly with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. That was a successful campaign and got us within radio reach of bin Laden in late 2001. At the State of the Union in January 2002, within weeks of our success in Afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban, Bush turned around put Iran in the ‘Axis of Evil’. This offended those who had just helped us and energized the radicals who took power from the reformists.

But weeks before Bush made that speech the guys on the ground in Afghanistan wanted 800 Special Forces. With the help of the Northern Alliance, again, they had gotten within radio range of bin Laden. Tommy Franks said ‘no’. A year later, March 20, 2003 he was leading the charge into Iraq which we were told had WMD, a nuke program and ties to 9/11 — none of which proved true. On December 14, 2004 Tommy Franks, Paul Bremmer and George Tenet were awarded the Medal of Freedom at the WH.

Paul Bremmer who summarily disbanded the Iraqi army which was questioned at the time and in retrospect a mistake.

George Tenet who dismissed career level intelligence at CIA claims that ‘Curveball’ was just that – unworthy and unreliable and instead made the case on his testimony and gave that testimony verbatim to Colin Powell who sold this nation and world on the Iraqi invasion on that verbatim testimony.

Now bear in mind Powell had set forth a war doctrine of deliberation, alliances, national and international support, predefined exit strategy, overwhelming force; i.e. the hard lessons of Vietnam he learned there. But given the false information from Tenet he superseded his doctrine and ushered in the Bush doctrine so-called ‘pre-emption’.

In Iraq the reality of pre-emption is, pick an oil rich country headed by thug of our own making who we have hemmed in with a no-fly zone; fabricate pretexts of yellowcake, WMD and 9/11 connection; dismiss career military who say 200-300,000 troops –- which you know America won’t buy; and invade. For Colin Powell to be the harbinger of this is sad, but he was effective now was he not?

Now we have direct problems in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan and not much progress on the Israel / Palestinian issue. Israel is intransigent on the West Bank.

Going into Iraq the way we did, when we did was the wrong thing to do. Remember Shinseki? No Medal of Freedom for him. Shinseki they fired.

Snubbing the reformists in Iran was wrong.

Failing to get bin Laden was just that a failure.

Some say the tide is turning in Iraq. I suppose it may be if you ignore the dead, wounded, homeless and displaced — the shambles that is that country, our dead and wounded and the $800 billion above normal defense budget that we have spent there and in Afghanistan in 4+ years. Yes, with 162,000 GI’s and who knows how many American contractors in Iraq, it has quieted a bit. But what happens when we leave?

Well don’t worry about that because we aren’t going anywhere. Sure we’ll draw some down — we might even get to 100,000 GI’s but the contractor count won’t diminish and it will probably increase.

But then we still have the issue of the radicals running Iran and their nuclear program.

Then we nuclear Pakistan and our guy Musharraf who we support despite his distaste for democracy; along with a radical element there that they fear may topple him and gain control of the nukes.

Then we have Afghanistan where who knows what is going on.

Then we have bin Laden who is still at large with a reconstituted Al Qaeda.

Our military is in much worse shape than it was in 2001.

Oil is $96 a barrel.

The national debt is $9 trillion, $8 trillion of that since January 1981 or the start of Reagan with the largest contributor to debt GWB and Republican Congress between January 2001 and January 2007.

The dollar weakens daily.

No, Joe Lieberman, I am not paranoid – you, Bush and Cheney have done a poor job. Your policies are reckless, ill-conceived and dishonest. You are unwilling to apply a fair standard to Israel and you have damaged our nation in ways we have yet to come to term with. And at this point who even knows if your intent is anything other than to make a worse mess for the people you surely know will succeed you.

Connecticut, do not re-elect this man.

— Posted by bcdavis
*
197.
November 10th,
2007
1:18 pm

E. O’Neill wrote:

“Anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist or who claims Zionists control American foreign policy is an anti-Semite. It’s not complicated.”

Except that nations do not have rights; only people do. Only fascists think otherwise. The relevant question among non-fascists is, did the people who created Israel have the right to do so, and did they have the right to do the things that they did in order to secure their state? The answer that any honest, non-racist consideration of at least the second part of this question will yield is, “No.”

— Posted by Basho
*
198.
November 10th,
2007
1:20 pm

P-s-s-s-t, Joe.
I’m being followed.

— Posted by Jack Conway
*
199.
November 10th,
2007
2:24 pm

Actually, the arms and oil industry have more influence in U.S policies in the Mid East than the Zionist Lobby in Washington.

By the way, to those who believe that the “Bush Surge” is working, then why is the body count still rising among U.S troops and Iraqi civilians ? and why is Iraq still undergoing a refugee crisis not seen since the 1948 war Arab-Israeli war, including the fact that a large segment of the population has been forcibly displaced within Iraq - not to mention no improvement whatsoever on the political front ?

— Posted by Aaron
*
200.
November 10th,
2007
2:34 pm

I agree with bcdavis’s comments because it illustrates the incoherence and the double standards related to this so-called “war on terror”, which explains why the Bush administration–let alone–the United States of America right now has absolutely no credibility on the world stage.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) exemplifies that harsh reality.

— Posted by Aaron
*
201.
November 10th,
2007
2:36 pm

Basho, #197, you say, “…nations do not have rights; only people do”. What an interesting legal concept! So, a nation that is a member of the UN and recognized by most of the other nations of the world, a signatory of numerous treaties, has no right to exist in your mind but its people do? Maybe the humanitarians in Iran can figure out a way to wipe Israel off the map without, you know, infringing the individual rights of the humans who live there.

Isn’t it a rich historical irony that the people who want to see Israel destroyed call her defenders “fascists”? Lieberman was way too kind in describing you people.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
202.
November 10th,
2007
3:00 pm

The question of our relationship with Israel deserves discussion without the speaker being accused of being anti semitic. The historical truth is that Harry Truman made it possible to establish Israel in the first place, explaining to Clark Clifford that Israel was promised a homeland in the Bible.

The problem ever since has been that it was established on Palistanian lands, and the basis for Irab resentment of the U. S. has stemmed from that fact. Now, 60 years later, and after pouring billions of $ into it, we are stuck with the seemingly intractable result.

Israel has the bomb. There shouldn’t be any doubt why the neighbors want the bomb too.

Israel keeps grabbing Palistinian lands as “settlements”. Show me any people in history with any pride whatever that wants an occupier.

Israel keeps bullying its neighbors: viz the last Lebanon war.

Israel is patently racist, refusing basic civil rights to any Palistinian who lives within its “borders”.

The Americans have zero credibility in the Arab world because of 60 years of unflinching support for the above. We need an American government with the guts to tell the Israelis to knock it off. Hacks like Lieberman will support the U. S. endless commitment to “support” Israel, regardless of the ocnsequences or the cost. All of these comments have no basis whatever in “anti-semitism”, they are based on the reality of American interests vis a vis the rest of the world.

— Posted by roger miller
*
203.
November 10th,
2007
4:00 pm

Okay, so I’ll come up with another term for Zionism in its current usage. How’s “Israelicentric militarism”? Hey, it’s as good a term as Islamofascism (a word that for some strange reason makes me sort of blush when I hear it.)

— Posted by gadfly
*
204.
November 10th,
2007
4:30 pm

roger miller, #202, if you don’t want to be called “anti-Semitic”, you shouldn’t parrot tired slanders against Israel. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that Israel has made many efforts to resolve its differences with its neighbors. In the cases of Egypt and Jordan, they succeeded. With the PA, they brought back Arafat and his terrorists after Oslo but soon learned they were anything but a “peace partner”.

Now, they’re trying again with Abbas. As before, the stumbling block will be that the Palestinians will never accept Israel’s right to exist. In this they have much in common with the anti-Semites of the left. If the shoe fits…

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
205.
November 10th,
2007
6:27 pm

Joe Lieberman is an independent because he was voted out of running as a Democrat in the primary. He didn’t choose to be independent for any other reason except to sneak back on the ticket with the help of Republicans voting for him.

— Posted by JoAnn
*
206.
November 10th,
2007
11:55 pm

Nothing could better illustrate what a little quisling Joe Lieberman has become than the spectacle of all the Republicans here dutifully praising him (tit for tat) and accusing anybody who’s onto his act of being “close-minded.” However, until very recently, if any Republican dared so much as hint that Bush’s policies are disastrous, they called him a Republican In Name Only. Lieberman is a joke to Democrats. It’s not just the “liberal base” that despises him now. Even the Democrats who wanted him re-elected, seeing how he’s acted since, are through with him.

— Posted by ducdebrabant
*
207.
November 10th,
2007
11:58 pm

Joe Lieberman is a classic example of why the Pro-Israel lobby — AIPAC — no longer gets my support. The evaluate every candidate (no matter how atavistic) in terms of what AIPAC thinks will produce votes supporting AIPAC’s ideas of what is good for Israel, usually military aid. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are classic examples of senators who outstayed their validity and their usefulness to their constituents because of the heavy hand of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Joe Lieberman is just another in a long line of AIPAC anachronisms, an irrelevant footnote on the hindquarters of history who has overstayed his visit to the halls of power.

— Posted by Gene Sidore
*
208.
November 11th,
2007
12:57 am

Let’s see if I have this straight. Senator Lieberman says that if any Democratic candidate for President were to come out in favor of the war in Iraq, her or his “campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006.” Presumably he is referring to his loss in the Democratic primary, and not his Republican powered victory in the general election. Well, that might be good for Senator Lieberman, as it would mean another Republican administration, possibly Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Defense, the continuation of torture and the elimination of further civil rights of our citizens. But it would not be good news for those of us who believe in the Constitution, who believe that we should be adhering to the Constitution rather than abandoning it in the name of “security.” When we give up our freedoms to the neo-cons in Washington, and to fear, we have already lost to the terrorists.

Yes, the Democratic controlled Senate voted in 2002 to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq. They succumbed to fear, and to the lies of the administration about WMD and the purported (but nonexistent) linkage of Iraq to the attacks of September 11. Since then the Administration has repeatedly lied to Congress and the public about the war; has engaged in torture, has kidnapped innocent people and subjected them to torture, and then denied them judicial relief on the grounds of national security. Shame on any politician who continues to give any credence to anything that this administration says. They lie, their political nominees lie, and still some in Congress continue to accept the administration’s lies as truths.

Senator Lieberman asserts that Iranians are “murdering” American troops. While the United States is the largest supplier of military weapons to foreign nations around the world, some of which turn out to be used against Americans. I will not defend what the Iranians may or may not be doing, but is it conceivable that if a foreign power were fighting against the government of Canada or Mexico that we would not be arming those countries?

Yes, politicians should have independent views, and should not always adhere strictly to party lines. Unfortunately, it is typically only the Democrats who cross party lines, which is why Bush is still getting almost everything he wants even with a Democratic controlled Congress.

It is time to recognize that the most dangerous enemy of the United States is not Al Quaeda, or Islamic terrorists, but the Bush administration itself. And that the most important job for any member of Congress should be to oppose the Bush administration’s war plans, and to focus on helping the least fortunate in our own society.

— Posted by wonderdog
*
209.
November 11th,
2007
1:36 am

It no longer surprises me that Vice President Gore withdrew his support for Senator Lieberman during the last Presidential Campaign. Indeed, the Vice President is proving a visionary on many counts.

— Posted by Peter M.
*
210.
November 11th,
2007
2:03 am

Those who say they hope the citizens of CT are happy with their senator should remember that he was soundly defeated in the Democratic primary.

The Republicans had a weak candidate, so weak in fact that he lacked significant support even among CT Republicans. When Joe lost the Democratic primary the Republican party rallied around him and abandoned their own man.

CT is hardly a shoo-in Democratic state. We have a Republican governor and strong Republicans in our congressional delegation, including our own representative Chris Shays. So how hard was it for Joe to win with all of the Republican vote and his 1/3 fraction of Democrats. Not very. His election here was a walk in the park.

Don’t blame CT Democrats; they were the ones that threw Joe out. The CT Republicans are indeed proud of their senator and well they might be.

— Posted by Leonard J. Waks
*
211.
November 11th,
2007
2:10 am

What I find hardest to take in Lieberman is the preaching tone coming from someone who is a moral bankrupt. (As I recall, he’s got no objection to torture, at least not when Americans are doing the torturing.)

— Posted by rb
*
212.
November 11th,
2007
2:16 am

Mr. Lieberman thinks that we are wrong to disdain and distrust President Bush. Does he believe that we should respect and trust President Bush? If so, why? What has Mr. Bush done to deserve our respect? What has he done to earn our trust?

— Posted by terrified
*
213.
November 11th,
2007
3:16 am

I’ve been angry for ages about what the occupation has done to the Palestinians, and I’m not even one of them! They exist in a living hell. I can imagine people turning to terrorism as an alternative. Why linger in agonies and wait for the bomb to finally drop. Just because I can’t afford a similar bomb?

Egypt’s Mubarak has said, if you solved the I/P problem, three quarters of the incitement to terrorism would disappear.

The UN gave half of Palestine to the jews. Fine. I support that. But you’ld also expect a fight from those living there at the time the decision was handed down – and that has been the excuse for Israel/US/Blair to support the dismantling of a Palestinian homeland on the remaining territory, and the inhuman treatment meted out to the inhabitants not yet turned into refugees.

Israel is the only country that has the gall to establish a colony in these postwar years.

Osama fought alongside the Yanks against the Soviets in Afghanistan. I understand that he’s ticked off by the establishment of US bases in gulf states propping up the ruling Sheiks - dashing the hope for democracy there.

Bringing democracy to the ME? A bald face lie. That’s the last thing the US wants. It has entered into a faustian bargain with the compliant Sheiks, all because of its immoral obsession to control the oil.

China is wheeling and dealing around the globe for its oil. Just like our great democracy here, it has to deal with some dictators as well, and it’s not going to let go of the oil by walking out of Burma/Sudan. More starving Chinese, 1.3bn?

At least China does not send in the army and devastate other countries and people.

Lots of insecurity? Sure. You deal with it. War is never the answer. President Kennedy might have said: Life’s full of insecurities!

— Posted by Niall
*
214.
November 11th,
2007
7:11 am

E.O’Neal, #204: “As before, the stumbling block will be that the Palestinians will never accept Israel’s right to exist.”

I think you’re parroting the propaganda that the US media has fed us for the past 50 years.

I saw an interview by NBC Tim Russert with the late ABC anchor Peter Jennings.

Russert: But Hamas wants to destroy Israel!

Jennings: “That’s a canard.” There are just as many Israelis wanting to destroy the Palestinians as the other way around.

Make peace. Both sides will then live in normal countries and people will be able to get on with their lives.

— Posted by ;angel
*
215.
November 11th,
2007
10:11 am

Joe Lieberman is a turncoat, traitor and a disgrace to the American people who once supported him for vice-president of the United States. His character and personality are very similiar to past traitors who worked against democracy and spied against the United States. He infiltrated the democratic party only to spy for the Republican party. People think he changed because of his loss of the Democratic nomination in his home state.
He has become so reckless in his ideals and principles that if asked what he believes, he would have a hard time knowing who he really is and what he stands for. History will show his flaws in lack of intelligence and leadership as the man he continues to support, George W. Bush.

— Posted by Harold dominguez
*
216.
November 11th,
2007
11:56 am

Lieberman is nothing but a neocon shill. He has betrayed not just the Democratic party, but the American people. Mike Gravel is correct when he says that he is simply “sick.”
I know it is probably a waste of time to try to convince anyone that Israel can be and indeed is often in the wrong. Their treatment of the people of Palestine is horrific and disgusting. I have nothing against the citizens of that country, but I do have a great deal against its government. Its behavior is frequently just as bad if not worse than so called “terrorists.”

— Posted by Paul Andersen
*
217.
November 11th,
2007
1:45 pm

angel, #214, you say, “Make peace. Both sides will then live in normal countries and people will be able to get on with their lives.” That nice little platitude was the premise of the Oslo agreement. Unfortunately, the Palestinians will never accept half a loaf, and in all the negotiations so far, they are yet to make their first substantive concession. Negotiations to them are merely tactical moves toward the destruction of Israel.

You may not have noticed, but the jihadist camp led by Hamas and sponsored by Iran is in the ascendancy. Gaza is their prototype of a Palestinian state, and can there be any doubt that Israel will have to go back in soon? Peace results from defeating your enemies, not in appeasing them and hoping that they will lose interest in slaughtering you.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
218.
November 11th,
2007
1:55 pm

Doug Johnston #164: I believe you are making my point for me. In war time, it is sometimes necessary to make such alliances for the greater good. “Befriending” is probably not the best term to use, but I was using your phrase to demonstrate that these types of situations are not uncommon throughout history. The old saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my ally” is as true today as it was when FDR worked with Stalin to defeat Hitler. It seems as if the so-called progressives have a curiously short memory when it comes to their icons, and hold Bush to a much different standard.

As for the fire bombing of Dresden, you can search any history book you would like. FDR, as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, is where the buck stops. Again, I am not blaming FDR for his actions which may have been justified, just pointing out that all Presidents in war time are responsible for making such terrible choices. Bush, is not exempt from this and should not be held to a different standard than FDR.

Finally, it is instructive that you did not comment on FDR’s decision to intern tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans citizens. If there ever was an unconstitutional action perpetrated by a sitting US President, it was this wholesale incarceration of US citizens merely on the basis of race.

I obviously disagree with your viewpoint of the war and the current administration, but I don’t think you are unpatriotic. I believe that this notion of being “unpatriotic’ is just a popular canard used by the so-called progressives to undercut reasoned arguments made by opponents to their views.

— Posted by David NYC
*
219.
November 11th,
2007
2:02 pm

BC Davis #196: The only thing the Iranians mourned after 9/11 was that the fourth plane did not reach the capital and kill more US citizens. It is definitely alarming how anti-semetic many of these comments appear to be. I have yet to see any Israeli citizens massing outside one of our embassies and shouting “Death to America,” as is sadly commonplace in Iran and many other countries in the mideast. We should remember who are friends are.

— Posted by David NYC
*
220.
November 11th,
2007
5:23 pm

Lieberman sounds totally delusional. Is he halluncinating on the same narcotics as Bush?

— Posted by Mike
*
221.
November 11th,
2007
5:50 pm

#193 - “The posters on this blog hate Lieberman because they hate America and they hate Israel”
Hitler and his henchmen told Germany that the Jews hated Germany and we all know what that type of venom produced.
Why do people like #193 on this blog have to resort to such Nazi type tactics? Surely if you have an argument to make you can make it and forego impugning people.

— Posted by Mike
*
222.
November 11th,
2007
6:40 pm

Mike, #221, I wrote the quotation you cite after reading the comments on this blog and getting madder and madder. I wasn’t referring to all the posters on this blog, just the great many who do manifestly hate America and Israel.

I used to give the left credit for being patriotic and well-intentioned. But when I see the politicians and the Democrat base, as Lieberman points out, tenaciously clinging to their fixed idea that we have lost in Iraq, even as the evidence to the contrary becomes undeniable, I can’t help but infer that they truly want to see America defeated and humiliated. Especially when they make puerile Nazi analogies and parrot the mindless slanders that we’re in Iraq to steal their oil and that Bush somehow fabricated a decade’s worth of intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. Granted, some are merely stupid, but others, especially the leaders, are malevolent.

As for hating Israel, anti-Semitism was once the specialty of fringe groups on the right. Now it is becoming mainstream opinion on the left. This new common cause between the left and the jihadists is horrifying and disgusting. Like its cousin racism, it should never go unchallenged.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
223.
November 12th,
2007
12:41 am

O’Neal @ 222
“…clinging to their fixed idea that we have lost in Iraq …”
Newsflash … the US won the military campaign in Iraq 3-weeks into the invasion; however, the US has definitely already lost in Iraq:
–Iraq won’t be our personal oil piggy bank ( Wolfowitz and the neocons were wrong … again )

–We have set in motion a regional destabilization that the consequences which the US will suffer over the next 2 decades

–We have provided ample propaganda opportunity for Islamic extremists to gain recruits worldwide

–We have marginally broken the US Army (this according to the US Army, not me ) and it will take some time to get it straightened out

–We have 15000 severely wounded ( so far ) whose lives will not be “normal”

–We have a 600 000 000 000 Off-the-books of additional debt with nothing to show for it ( no WMD, no shining example of western-style democracy … no nothing )

“As for hating Israel, anti-Semitism …”
This crass marriage of anti-Semitism with vehement disagreement on some US and-or Israeli policies is tiresome. You can wrap yourself in the red-white-and-blue and the star of David all you want, if the dog don’t hunt, the dog don’t hunt.

And as far as the rise of national socialism in Germany and its parallels with current American “reactions” to the terrorist threat … the truth is ugly but obvious; the US is one or two terrorist attacks away from an inflection of moving toward its worst visceral tendencies or moving toward the best, effective practices of its ideals.

It is OK to be optimistic; but good old-fashioned American pragmatism has got to play a part of the equation sooner or later and this has been completely amiss in the neocon, administration and your agenda for the Nation.

— Posted by northrhombus
*
224.
November 12th,
2007
12:52 am

O’Neal @ 222
A couple more retorts:

“…Especially when they make puerile Nazi analogies and parrot the mindless slanders that we’re in Iraq to steal their oil and that Bush somehow fabricated a decade’s worth of intelligence that Saddam had WMDs.”

There are direct quotes from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Iraqi oil paying for the US effort in Iraq … I can post them or you can easily find them

There were UN inspectors in Iraq with full access to Iraq who had to quickly leave because the administration was hellbent on invasion. These inspectors, along with David Kay after the invasion, were saying there is no WMD in Iraq. The lack of reaction from Israel was a dead give-away there were no WMD in Iraq.

The administration massaged, manipulated, and hand-picked data while they played the fears of the American people to achieve their end-goal. Richard Clark and Paul O’Neill both indicated that talks about an Iraq invasion were at obsessive levels on Sept 12.

75% of America gets this now, ONeal, you and a few others are the last holdouts against the obvious.

— Posted by northrhombus
*
225.
November 12th,
2007
11:59 am

“reflexive, blind opposition”
That nails it- 99% of the posts above prove it.

Being so “invested in the narrative of defeat”, bashing Bush, etc etc I ask: What do you expect to happen if Democrats win in 2008? Our military efforts have been undermined, our enemies emboldened, and Iran and others will still be pursuing nuclear weapons development.
Do you think withdrawal makes us friends with radical Islamists (just like we presumably were prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq?)
America has lost its bearings due to the nasty, divisive, brainwashing rhetoric that has been non-stop in recent years. If we don’t get on the same page and concentrate our energies on defeating our enemies who make no effort to disguise their intentions, WE WILL ALL LOSE.

— Posted by laurason0
*
226.
November 12th,
2007
1:27 pm

northrhombus, you missed my point. I’m not arguing that Bush, Hillary, Kerry ,Reid, Edwards, et al., made the right decision five years ago to invade Iraq. There are two reasonable sides to that argument. I’m saying that those, like Reid and Pelosi, who are clinging despite all recent evidence to the notion that we have lost in Iraq display wishful thinking, not objective analysis.

To refute your argument point-by-point:

No one is declaring victory in Iraq yet, primarily because political issues remain. But the military conflict is nearly resolved in favor of the Iraqi government. Al Qaeda is being eradicated. They are no longer a force in Anbar or Baghdad and hold no territory anywhere in Iraq. Due to the Sunni awakening and the surge, they are everywhere hunted and on the run. The rogue Shiite militias linked to Iran are also being decisively defeated. There are signs of a nascent Shia awakening, as they don’t like armed thugs controlling their neighborhoods either.

We’re still rounding up terrorists while incurring few casualties. Our fatalities the past six weeks are running slightly more than one per day, almost all from IEDs, and the Iraqi forces are losing about two per day. As we continue to capture terrorists and their caches due to improved intelligence from Iraqi citizens, these fatality rates should drop further.

As Maliki announced today, the level of violence is way down all over the country. Anyone who predicted all this six months ago would have seemed as delusional as the defeatists seem today.

You mention the old canard about Iraq being “our personal oil piggy bank”. What Wolfowitz was saying was that Iraqi oil revenues would offset some of the costs of the war and re-construction, not that we would steal their resources. Admittedly, the costs were higher than anticipated, but at $90+/barrel for oil, Iraq will be a reasonably well-off country once they achieve security.

It remains to be seen whether the jihadist propaganda gains, largely from inaccurate and sensationalist press coverage, will ultimately be more than offset by al Qaeda’s crushing defeat in Iraq. I expect the answer is “yes”.

The Army is performing magnificently in Iraq under Petraeus. It is stretched but hardly “broken”.

As far as the cost in lives, injuries and dollars, I don’t know how you ever decide any war is worth it. Every human live is priceless and irreplaceable, particularly our brave young men and women in Iraq. Is Iraq worth more than 4,000 American lives? Was Iwo Jima worth more than 7,000 American lives? Was the Civil War worth over 600,000 American dead, or should Lincoln have allowed the South to secede? I can’t answer. What would have been the price of leaving Saddam in power? We’ll never know.

I’m not “wrapping myself in the Star of David” when I call those who deny Israel’s right to exist “anti-Semitic”. I’m not sure how you can wipe Israel off the map without killing a lot of Jews. If the Arabs can have more than twenty nations, I don’t see anything unreasonable about the Jews having just one. Islamists can never accept a Jewish state in the heart of their ummah, but why can’t the left?

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
227.
November 12th,
2007
3:52 pm

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised, or wasting energy. Joe Lieberman has always been a conservative Democrat. Why is this news? Because someone decided to create an issue. Don’t bite, friends.

— Posted by Robert
*
228.
November 12th,
2007
5:18 pm

#219, Iran helped us in Afghanistan and without that helped we’d have not gotten rid of the Taliban as quickly as we did. The USG does not dispute this. The same Iranian regime also reached out to the US — after the Axis of Evil — by way of Swiss envoy and put everything on the table you now want to bomb them for.

Iran is diverse. Certainly the radical element of Iran is like bin Laden and not predisposed to helping the US. In fact, we know some of them welcome war with the US, though they could come to regret that later.

But painting all of Iran with inflammatory rhetoric based on myth doesn’t help anything. Sad that much of our foreign policy is built on exactly this technique.

— Posted by bcdavis
*
229.
November 12th,
2007
5:46 pm

Joe Lieberman is not now nor, despite his selection as Democratic Veep (which illuminates how conservatives can now appear to be liberal), has he ever been a Democrat.

— Posted by alprufrock
*
230.
November 12th,
2007
5:55 pm

Joe is not a Democrat, and there is no reason for real Democrats to listen to his lunatic ravings. Joe is out of the Party, period. Ned Lamont was our nominee from CT. Ned Lamont represented the Democratic Party, not Joe concern troll Lieberman. Joe can give advice to the Republican Party now, or to the Connecticut For Lieberman Party which he refuses to participate in after creating it. Joe has some gall, but that is what he is about, to wrap himself in the mantle of great Democrats FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton, for his ideas have no relationship to them. They were about diplomacy first and competency when using force last while Joe is on board to the PNAC plan of Empire, pre-emptive wars and war first, diplomacy last. Joe is no longer qualified to speak of anything related to the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party has no need for any Neocons like Joe that have no relationship to its philosophy. None of these are paranoid statements, they are reality based observations, Joe.

— Posted by Andrew M.
*
231.
November 12th,
2007
6:30 pm

Democrat L.B.Johnson really escallated the Vietnam war. Democrats F.D. Roosevelt and H. S. Truman won WWII. Republican A. Lincoln escallated the Civil War. All of these wars have been much more costly in terms of human lives than the current war in Iraq. But, it is the Iraq war that has the current “I’m Afraid of War” Democrats buying influence in Congress, hounding elected representatives to stop funding, vote against anything President Bush wants to do. I say, let the Commander-in-Chief get with it and win the war. Get a carpet bombing commander like General Curtis LeMay, and get Osama bin Laden, and get the job overwith, and bring our troops home victorious. The world will respect the will to win through sheer power. We have it; use it. Stop pussyfooting around!

— Posted by ArmyVet
*
232.
November 12th,
2007
6:38 pm

prufrock, if the Dems don’t want Americans like Lieberman who take the war against jihadist terror seriously and who actually want America to succeed in Iraq, there’s another party that will accept them. Go ahead, read them out of your party.

— Posted by E. O'Neal
*
233.
November 12th,
2007
6:55 pm

The only good thing that came out of the 2000 national election was that it prevented Joe Lieberman from becoming the vice-president. Joe never mentions that WMDs were never found in Iraq. You know, the REAL reason Bush said we went to war. Since then that fantasy has been exposed and we know that oil and defense of Israel were behind the plot to invade Iraq. And look what we got: Israel is in greater danger than before and the cost of oil is soaring through the roof. When it costs more to heat your house than the mortgage of many people, we begin to understand what the Bush/Lieberman foreign policy is all about.

— Posted by C. Price
*
234.
November 12th,
2007
7:25 pm

11-12-2007

A few other points to keep in mind: FDR gave us the intellectual lightweight HST who, with his background gave rise to what IKE referred to as the military-industrial complex. What we wound up doing is selling our souls to defeat Adolf Hitler. HST also gave us the Korean standoff which exists to this day (55+ years) and the ultimate terror weapon, the atomic bomb, dropped on defenseless civilians. FDR also gave us the Saudi royal family and allowed Prescott Bush to become obscenely rich. Prescott is George W Bush’s grandfather, and engaged in a bit of money laundering for Herr Hitler in addition to forming the Saudi-based Carlyle group. The Bush family has been entwined in suspicious armaments deals ever since. Through the secretive Carlyle group they have also been involved in nation- building a la Milton Friedman (Chile, all of Latin America, Poland, South Africa, Russia, etc.). Remember George H. W. Bush (George W Bush’s father) was the director of the CIA and was appointed by Reagan. Indeed George W Bush’s “higher father” is Milton Friedman, not Jesus Christ. This is very similar to Sayyid Qutb being the intellectual force behind Osama bin Laden.

Now to the case of Joe Lieberman. He first entered my consciousness when he condemned Clinton’s behavior on the senate floor with Strohm Thurmond looking on approvingly in the Monica Lewinsky brouhaha as being morally wrong. Talk about casting the first stone or the pot calling the kettle black or judge not lest ye be judged. The next time Senator Lieberman called attention to himself was when he gave such a distinguished performance in his “debate” with Dick Cheney. This worthy has not (to my knowledge) produced any intellectual arguments worthy of a true neocon and
does not rise to the level of neocon-unlike Podhoretz, Kristols ( pere et fils), Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. He is simply on the take and is a GOP apparatchik. He has no principles or loyalties, unless you count fidelity to Mammon as a principle. As to why he caucuses with the Democrats, there are at least 2 reasons I can think of. He could not possibly get equivalent seniority postings with the GOP, and he is ideally placed as Dick Cheney’s mole. He probably gets a cut from Cheney every time Halliburton lands another no-bid contract. He also is in an ideal spot to oversee the entire contractor rape of the American taxpayer with his seniority. As to whether he is influenced in any way by AIPAC, I simply do not know. If any money is involved, I would have to say Mammon uber alles, for this is Joe Lieberman’s prime mover.

In no way can my comments be construed as anti-semitic; I am merely relating my view of history as I see it. I have Condemned Christians, Jews, Moslems, and non-theists in equal measure, reserving special attention to Joe Lieberman.

— Posted by jehovah
*
235.
November 12th,
2007
7:33 pm

Mr. E O’Neal..
Of course, Mr. Lieberman is no longer in the Democratic Party. He won his reelection as an Independent with primarily Republican support after losing the Democratic primary. He is the one who wishes to keep the tagline of Independent Democrat. And if you mean ask Joe to caucus with the Republicans and surrender the slim majority in the Senate, that is up to Joe. It would not be unlike him to go against what he promised to get reelected (caucus with the Democrats)and in a year he would be back in the minority anyway. As to success in Iraq, I believe the Democrats support success for the Iraqis (and an aggressive stance on the threat of terror as long as the police cannot enter my house without probable cause). It is the pretense of success we disapprove of. Squandering the lives of American service men and women should demand much more clarity of purpose than vague fantasies of a democratic Iraq with undying (no pun intended) allegiance to the U.S.

— Posted by alprufrock
*
236.
November 12th,
2007
7:43 pm

I think most of my thoughts above have been summarized pretty well, but my one comment is that I feel hope that a wave of change is comging in the country. We can’t be afraid to debate and question everything even if it’s hard. Lieberman has been given a really long leash and I’m happy to see that many people are waking up and judging him and his ideas on their merit. My personal feeling is that it’s a very low grade, but that is just a personal opinion. What is obvious is that we can hopefully start having some honest discussions now about human rights, when military involvement is actually needed, etc. without being labelled or slandered. I favor true peace in the Middle East and we can only get there without allowing very narrow minded individuals like Joe to control the debate.

— Posted by Jim C

Blog Archive