PDA

View Full Version : Lieberman escalates attack on Iraq critics


Vegas
07-31-2007, 02:12 PM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-escalates-attack-on-iraq-critics-2007-07-31.html

Ever since Connecticut Democrats refused to back him for a fourth term in Congress, Joe Lieberman has been burnishing his independent credentials in the narrowly divided Senate while becoming increasingly critical of the Democratic Party on the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee, insists he is not actively considering joining the Republican Party. But he is keeping that possibility wide open as his disenchantment grows with Democratic leaders. The main sticking points are their attempts to end the war in Iraq and their hesitation to take a harder line against Iran.

“I think either [Democrats] are, in my opinion, respectfully, naïve in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they’re simply hesitant to use American power, including military power,” Lieberman said in a wide-ranging interview with The Hill.

“There is a very strong group within the party that I think doesn’t take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough.”

Lieberman says he is annoyed by the mudslinging on Capitol Hill and Democrats’ unwillingness to work with President Bush. But his critics say he has contributed to that polarization by his rhetoric and refusal to compel Bush to find a new way forward in Iraq.

As Lieberman sees it, however, the Democratic Party has slipped away from its “most important and successful times” of the middle of last century, where it was tough on Communism and progressive on domestic policy.

“I fear that some people take this position also because anything President Bush is for, they’ll be against, and that’s wrong,” said Lieberman, a staunch advocate of the war. “There’s a great tradition in our history of partisanship generally receding when it comes to foreign policy. But for the moment we’ve lost that.”

Even though he did not reclaim his Senate seat as a Democrat, Lieberman has been instrumental in two bills this Congress central to the 2006 Democratic campaign platform: an ethics and lobbying overhaul bill and a measure to implement recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 bill cleared Congress last week, and the ethics bill could win final approval this week before lawmakers adjourn for August recess.

But if Lieberman seems blunt about the direction of the Democratic Party, it may stem from his loss last August in the primaries to businessman Ned Lamont, who wooed Democratic voters with his anti-war platform. Lieberman calls his ensuing victory in the general election as an independent “inspiring.” And remaining an independent has freed him to repeatedly buck the Democratic leadership on foreign policy and other legislative issues.

“Now that he knows he can win as an independent, he doesn’t need the Democrats at all,” said Kenneth Dautrich, a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut. “I think it’s absolutely emboldened him.”

Lieberman was the only non-Republican in June to vote against Democratic efforts to pass a resolution expressing no confidence on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He has no plans to endorse a Democrat for president, including the senior senator from his home state, Christopher Dodd, and is open to backing a Republican candidate for president. Lieberman also startled Democrats when he lent his support to the re-election bid of Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a top target of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

During this month’s Iraq debate, Lieberman was working behind the scenes strategizing with Republicans and was front-and-center in several GOP press conferences denouncing Democratic tactics to push for an end to the war.

Lieberman was the lone non-Republican to vote against Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) efforts to shut down debate on an amendment to bring troops home by next April. (Reid voted against the cloture motion to file a similar motion at a later time.) Lieberman was also alone when he joined 40 Republicans in voting to kill an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to extend the time between troop deployments in Iraq.

“I’m disappointed that I am in so small a minority among Senate Democrats in taking the position that I have,” Lieberman said.

But even as he has played a key role on some of their top domestic initiatives, Democrats have at times kept their distance from Lieberman. Last week, for instance, Reid held a press conference with several Democrats to tout their efforts to pass the 9/11 Commission bill and a homeland-security spending plan. Lieberman, the lead Senate negotiator on the measure and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was conspicuously absent.

Reid said it was not intentional to leave Lieberman out of the press conference, but Lieberman said not being invited was “surprising.”

The distance that Democratic leaders appear to be keeping from Lieberman could result from the animosity that the Democrats’ anti-war base has directed toward him. That criticism intensified even more last month, when he suggested military intervention against the Iranian government.

“He used to have a heart and soul, and he used to care about people,” said Leslie Angeline, an activist with the anti-war group Code Pink, who held a 24-day hunger strike until she could meet with Lieberman about his position on Iran.
Angeline is facing an unlawful entry charge after she refused to leave Lieberman’s office during her strike.

Even though Lieberman has become a lightning rod on the left, his prominent chairmanship and influence within the Democratic caucus is safe, for now, given the Democrats’ razor-thin majority. Analysts say if Democrats increase their Senate majority from the 2008 elections, Lieberman’s influence and role could be marginalized within the caucus.

Still, Lieberman is unfazed and says he has no intention of formally rejoining the Democratic Party.

“For now, I find being an independent more fun,” Lieberman said. “The partisanship in this place is out of control. As an independent I’ve got the opportunity to speak out against that.”

IBC
07-31-2007, 02:17 PM
The one good thing about Gore losing in 2000, no Lieberman as VP. Although if he was VP we would have an actual democrat in congress in his place. This guy sucks.

Vegas
07-31-2007, 02:21 PM
The one good thing about Gore losing in 2000, no Lieberman as VP. Although if he was VP we would have an actual democrat in congress in his place. This guy sucks.

If he had won the Democratic nomination in 2004, I would have voted for him for president.

IBC
07-31-2007, 02:37 PM
If he had won the Democratic nomination in 2004, I would have voted for him for president.

Exactly. :) :D :)

Vegas
08-01-2007, 07:22 PM
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=270772775476581

A Democratic senator and congressman, on opposing sides of the war on terror, each hit the nail on the head as to why their party is ill-equipped to fight the enemy. Blame naivete and political opportunism.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut may officially be an independent after losing his party's nomination to a well-financed anti-war challenger last year, but there's no doubting his heart belongs to the Democratic Party.

In an interview with Washington's Hill magazine this week, Lieberman lamented that after the party's "most important and successful times" of fighting Nazism and communism last century, there is now "a very strong group within the party that I think doesn't take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough."
Some Democrats in Congress, he noted, oppose a strong stance against the Islamofascists "because anything President Bush is for, they'll be against, and that's wrong."

Just how wrong was illustrated by James Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democrats' chief vote counter in the House. In a Washington Post interview Monday, he envisioned it being "a real big problem for us" if the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, presents Congress with a positive report of progress in September, which seems increasingly likely as sectarian violence drops. House Democrats could be fractured, making it harder to mandate a pullout, Clyburn repined.

When your country's winning a war is "a real big problem" for you, it's time to take stock of exactly what your party stands for.

Lieberman called Democratic leaders "naive in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they're simply hesitant to use American power, including military power."

Echoing the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, Lieberman pointed to the "great tradition in our history of partisanship generally receding when it comes to foreign policy. But for the moment we've lost that."

Jackson, a legendary figure from a Democratic Party that is no more, liked to say that on national security, "the best politics is no politics." He was chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was considered for running mate by JFK in 1960 and ran for his party's presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976.

His prescience on the war on terror was, in retrospect, nothing short of astonishing. Before 1980, Jackson was warning, "I believe that the ultimate but seldom-stated goal of these terrorists is to destroy the very fabric of democracy. I believe that it is both wrong and foolhardy for any democratic state to consider international terrorism to be someone else's problem."

Like Lieberman today, Jackson became an outcast in his own party. But just as history has vindicated Jackson's uncompromising stance against the Soviet Union, it will prove Lieberman right and his party colleagues misguided on the war on terror.

All the signs are that we have a chance to win in Iraq and prevent large-scale genocide. Yet rather than going all-out to win there, most Democrats in Congress are going all-out to win in Washington against Bush; they're dying to see him blamed for a failed war. And instead of recognizing the historic threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, they pretend that talk can be used as an effective weapon against an Islamofascist madman.

The sadness that Lieberman feels for his beloved party gone awry would surely be shared by Scoop Jackson, not to mention Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman — just as it is by the millions of patriotic Democrats all across this land.