Friday, August 04, 2006

We Predicted "Zell" Lieberman's Downfall Eight Months Ago. Lamont's 13 pt Lead is a Wake-Up Call to Democrats

It's time to break out the bugle and play Taps for Joe "Zell" Lieberman's political career, which is about to come to a startling end with Tuesday's Connecticut primary. With a new Quinnipiac poll out this week showing challenger Ned Lamont ahead 54%-41%, Lieberman will need a miracle to stay alive. While he has vowed to run as an Independent if he loses the primary election, he will no doubt face monumental pressure from his party to back out of the race for fear he could split the Democratic ticket and allow a Republican to pick up the seat. Dead man walking.

It's amazing that Lieberman would velcro himself to Bush's insane foreign policy coattails in the first place. It's even more incredible that he's maintained his stand on the war even after the Bushit hit the fan. In that instance, he's just like his war hero Bush; both are resolute to the point that, if they're committed to the car, they stay behind the wheel even as it soars over the cliff.

But we saw this coming on like a Mack truck, and predicted Lieberman's demise way back in December. Here's an excerpt:

...Lieberman's "unyielding public support of the Iraq war coupled with his Bush-like morphing of Al Qaeda, terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency, has aroused the ire of key Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV). He's quickly becoming an outcast in his own party over these radical views.

"As for whether or not he's alienating himself from the voters back home in Connecticut, it's probably unwise for any Democrat to think that an endorsement from Bush, Cheney and Rummy, especially when it comes to the war, will score them any points at the polls. Why Lieberman fails to recognize this shows just how out of touch he is with reality. He's at the Roulette wheel, alright. The Russian kind."

(Click here to read the full December 12 text).

The war in Iraq is a colossal disaster, and voters, in Connecticut at least (for now), have spoken. By Tuesday night, it's likely these voices will have forever changed politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle should take note: the war is ugly, unpopular and most likely will be the catalyst for record voter turnout this November. And never, ever, underestimate the power of the Blogosphere again. Hillary, are you listening?


Anonymous said...

Not that the other Democrats score much better on war issues... Please see article below.

Congressional Democrats on Iraq: New tactics, more war

By Patrick Martin

5 August 2006

In a letter to President Bush issued July 30, the top congressional leaders of the Democratic Party have pledged their support for an American victory in Iraq, while criticizing the administration’s tactics and methods and calling for the “phased redeployment of US forces” to deal with other crises facing American imperialism around the world.

The letter was signed by the Senate and House minority leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, by their deputies, Richard Durbin and Steny Hoyer, and by the senior Democrats on the Senate and House committees with responsibility for the Pentagon, foreign policy, intelligence and the military appropriations. The 12 signatures make the document the most broadly based and definitive statement of Democratic Party policy on the war in Iraq.

The basic policy outlined in the letter is identical to that proposed by Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island in a resolution that was defeated in the Senate in June. The resolution called for the withdrawal of an unspecified number of US troops from Iraq to bases nearby, such as Kuwait, with the first withdrawal by the end of the year. No deadline was set for when or even if the bulk of US forces would leave Iraq, and the withdrawals were predicated on keeping US troops near at hand for a return to Iraq if security collapsed and an anti-US regime seemed about to come to power in Baghdad.

The American media has treated this letter as an effort by the Democrats to make an election-year appeal to antiwar sentiment, and as a shift away from all-out support of the Bush war policy on the part of such notably pro-war Democrats as Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri, senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Tom Lantos of California, ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, and Senator Joseph Biden, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

While there certainly is a large measure of political posturing and opportunism involved in the issuance of the letter, only three months before the November elections, any serious examination of its text demonstrates that if the letter is an appeal to antiwar sentiment, it is conducted entirely on false pretenses. The Democrats want the votes of Americans opposed to the war, while the party as a whole remains committed to a military victory of US imperialism in Iraq. The Democrats criticize Bush, but if they were in charge, would carry out a foreign policy along similar lines, based on maintaining US world hegemony through the use of military force.

The main criticism voiced of the Bush administration is that its policy in Iraq is leading to a US defeat, one which the congressional Democrats hope to forestall through a change in tactics. Thus the letter tells Bush that, “your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory.” Noting the collapse in security in Baghdad which has compelled the administration to send 5,000 more US troops into the Iraqi capital, the letter states: “Far from implementing a comprehensive ‘Strategy for Victory’ as you promised months ago, your Administration’s strategy seems to be one of trying to avoid defeat.”

The second major criticism from the Democrats is that the war in Iraq has drastically undermined the ability of the United States to intervene militarily in other crises. The letter observes, “The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges.” It points to declining readiness levels in the Army. It calls for a reduction of the commitment to Iraq because this will “allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.”

What these other “contingencies” are the letter does not spell out, but the conclusion is clear: the congressional Democrats foresee the need for American military intervention in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, North Korea and other potential battlefields, and believe that Iraq has become an unacceptable drain on the Pentagon’s resources.

The letter accepts as given that the Bush administration began the war in Iraq in good faith, and that its goal in Iraq is a praiseworthy one of establishing a genuine democracy. There is no suggestion that Bush lied to the American people in the run-up to the war, that he cynically used the terrorist atrocity of September 11, 2001 as a pretext to justify war against a country that had nothing to do with those attacks, or that a major purpose in the conquest of Iraq was to seize control of its oil reserves. The word oil does not even appear in the letter.

Nor is there any suggestion that those signing the letter regret any of the atrocities committed by American forces in Iraq, or the massive bloodletting that this war has visited on the Iraqi people. The call for a limited US withdrawal—with no numbers of troops or deadlines specified—is couched entirely in terms of what is best for the United States, not the Iraqi people who are the main victims of the Bush administration’s program of aggression and conquest. The letter declares: “In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.”

Rather than express any sympathy for the mass suffering in Iraq, the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the physical destruction of so much of that country, the Democrats’ letter reveals a resentful and even petulant attitude toward the Iraqis. It criticizes Bush for not demanding enough of the leaders of the stooge regime in Baghdad installed by the US occupation. “Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited,” the Democrats complain. “We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit.”

A sizeable group of Democratic legislators boycotted Maliki’s address to a joint session of Congress after he denounced the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and refused to condemn the Hezbollah guerrillas who are fighting the Israeli invasion of their country. Twenty House Democrats sent a letter to the Republican leadership urging them to rescind the invitation to Maliki to speak, writing, “We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor.”

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and erstwhile “antiwar” presidential candidate in 2004, attacked Maliki for “anti-Semitism” because of his criticism of Israel. He told a business conference in Florida, “We don’t need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion dollars bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah.”

The letter concludes by rejecting Bush’s policy of “staying the course in Iraq” on the grounds that it is “not working” and “not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see.” In this way, the signatories to the letter solidarize themselves with Bush, the greatest criminal of this new century, regretting not his crimes, but the failure to reap the rewards which the Democrats as well as the Republicans hoped to gain from the rape of Iraq.

While Republican campaign spokesmen like Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, predictably denounced the Democratic letter as a proposal “to cut and run from the central front in the war on terror,” the reality is that the Democratic Party, like the Republicans, is fully committed to the predatory interests of American imperialism. Its differences with Bush are purely tactical.

Anonymous said...

And God help us if Hillary is our presidential candidate. All the Dems who represent us are conniving but she would be a sure loss. She is a Lieberman-Lite.

Joe Smoe: American Citizen said...

Yep, it's time for all those that supportED or in anyway collaborated with this evil REgime to be made to pay! Also, it is time for the oppossing party to stand up grow a spine and some balls and be counted as opposed to the GOP and their thinly veiled Furhrer.

At this piont any and all forms of evil Rovian dirty pool is justified as you can guarentee that these Sons of Bitches ie the GOP will pull any and all shenanigans to stay in power.

Have no fear, if the Dems take back the congress and the investigations begin in earnest into what the Chimp and Associates have been up to for the last 6 years it will be justified.

Rovian/Machivellian GOP Playbook Rule #1--"THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS"

Anonymous said...

You must be experiencing some similar emotions to Old Joe, I should think, as your readers continue to be dismayed by your defense of Israel's cold-blooded aggression.
Let's play swap-the-names-to-see-the-parallels once again:
...Andy's "unyielding public support of the Lebanon war coupled with his Bush-like morphing of Al Qaeda, terrorism and the Hezbollah rocket counter-attacks, has aroused the ire of readers of this blog...

Anonymous said...

In my opinion anonymous is right about you Andy Read 3:32am Anon. What happened?

Anonymous said...

Andy is a chauvinist.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't start the celebration just yet. Who gets out the vote will tell?

As for Hillary... I would vote for her in a heartbeat, but as a so called political junkie, I know she is not the right candidate at this time.

It's not her war stance (many were sucked in to vote for it), but rather she has too many negatives in the minds of the voters.

Primary voters pick the candidate, so voters have no reason to gripe if they do not vote in the primary.

From the proud State of Michigan who is still hurting.

Anonymous said...

How could Hillary and the others be "sucked into" giving the power/duty of Congress, the branch of government designated by the Constitution to to be the branch of government to declare war, to the Executive Branch - one man. One man who in this case was totally unfit to handle that responsibility. There was abundant evidence of his inability in his performance as Gov. of Texas and his business deals. Molly Ivins wrote a comprehensive book about his short comings long before this crucial vote. Never mind their personal feelings about going to war, none of them should be forgiven or excused for abdicating such power which was their duty to keep, protect and exercise.

Anonymous said...

You are a political junkie? I believe you are a junkie, but I don't believe it's on politics. If Michigan is full of people like you, I understand why nobody can get a job.

You want to celebrate when Lieberman loses, but you'd vote for Hillary "in a heartbeat". This is ridiculous. The only thing that explains your hypocrisy is that you are a sexist pig who would vote for a candidate because of the candidate's gender.

A simple review of voting history shows that Hillary and Lieberman have almost identical voting records. When both Hillary and lieberman vote, their votes are identical 86% of the time (109th congress, session 2, 229 votes).

Where does your intolerance begin? Does Joe have to vote 100% of the time with Hillary for you to vote for him 'in a heartbeat'? Are you so blinded by partisanship that you cannot accept a good Senator disagreeing with your idol Hillary?

Any Democrat who would cast Lieberman to the side while supporting Hillary is a disgrace to America.

Anonymous said...

Larry, Larry, Larry,

Can't you make a point without attacking the opposition with nasty slurs? Surely one who prides himself on his intellect and success can argue a point without stooping to name-calling. Well,I guesS not. It's the way you Republicans respond. We've endured your bad manners (a kind way of putting it), for months now.

Anonymous said...

Joe is in a spider hole of denial.

Anonymous said...

Once again Larry shows us the true Republican side, when all else fails go to the name calling.

Anonymous said...

...and once again, liberals avoid the point in one of my posts. You demonize Lieberman, yet Hillary leads the list of potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates by a landslide margine.

A simple review of voting history shows that Hillary and Lieberman have almost identical voting records. When both Hillary and lieberman vote, their votes are identical 86% of the time (109th congress, session 2, 229 votes).

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:41,
Thank you for addressing my point. I accept your criticism that my point was weakened by name calling. I should stop that if I want to have a serious discussion here. Of course, I'm often attacked on this blog because I disagree with most of you and this results in me going on the offensive with name calling. I'll tone it down, but guarantee I'll be attacked after a few posts.

It is true that my motive is not to help Dems to the left of Lieberman. I was interested to compare the voting records between the two because I find it hypocritical that Hillary is idolized, yet Lieberman is demonized. My bet is that a deeper comparison of their voting records would increase the percentage of identical votes.

I do have a motive, although I admit that I often fail to succeed on this blog. My mission, like yours, is the improvement of American politics. We may disagree on how this is accomplished, but I'm sure we are all truly patriotic. I believe the only real way to improve America's current political situation is to take power away from both Democrats and Republicans and to give it to independent candidates. When there is no party line to tow, people will make decisions that are best for America, not decisions that are best for the person's party.

Anonymous said...


I say "Amen" to your comments.