Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

BBB,



Curious if you concur that living to one's principles is defined as living to the Dems political platform...Most Republicans (heck, I would argue most people) would defer to a higher authority than the party platform in defining one's principles.

Also don't you see a bit of an inherent conflict between this position against Lieberman and your own support of John Dean's new book "Conservatives without Conscience"?

To me, at least, it is clear that on the one hand, you, Xingu, many liberals and Dean, believe that conservatives are sheep, blindly following their "fascist" shepherds. and .


Yet, in this post, you ream Lieberman for not strictly following the democratic party line....kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

slkshock7
slkshock7, you accused me of "Yet, in this post, you ream Lieberman for not strictly following the democratic party line....kind of hypocritical, don't you think?"

You've been posting on A2K long enough to learn to know the difference between an article posted for general information and one that is supported by the poster. I'm not the author of the article. The only comment I made was about Lieberman putting the interests of Israel above those of America. That's my opinion. The rest are the opinions of the article author.

BBB

Re: slkshock7


Ok.....but what about your tag line? Is that not your opinion?

Now this is strange....when I first looked at your response, I could've sworn that this tagline was on this thread. Now however, that tagline has disappeared...however, it can still be found on some others you've posted.

slkshock7
slkshock7, what has my tag line have to do with the topic of this thread?

BTW, I hadn't noticed it was missing.

BBB

It has everything to do with your tagline. Do you believe conservatives blindly follow their "authoritarian" leaders or not? Your tagline obviously is a sarcastic jab at someone. Since Republicans are "in authority" within the federal government, I assumed that you wanted folks to question Republican (Bush Administration) authority. Am I wrong?

I suppose we could hold this discussion on the other "Conservatives without Conscience" thread and will gladly debate with you the merits (or lack thereof) of Dean's position and/or your tagline there, if you'd like.

I understand now that you've posted an article that has absolutely no connection to the lead in to your thread (other than the fact that both have to do with Lieberman). Nevertheless, I'd still be interested on whether you (or anyone else reading this post) concur or nonconcur with the author of the article, particularly his argument that those who fail to follow the Democratic platform are not principled.

BBB
My tag line has, for all of my long life, applied to anyone in power regardless of political party.

Sorry to spoil all of your fun by disappointing you that I have low disgregard for both Republican and Democrat parties.

BBB

Republicans are more independent minded, and follow the party line less. There is more room for dissent. Democrats are expected to toe the line, and if they don't, watch out for the party bosses and the people behind the scenes running the party. The reason for this is Democrats are group driven, and Republicans are more individually driven. This is evident in how donations of support come into the parties. I do not claim this distinction is true across the board, but in general, that is the way the parties lean. I did not read this. This opinion is my own personal observation of the last 40 years or so.

That's patently ridiculous. When Dole got the nomination in 1996, the Republicans stuck him with an abortion plank in the party platform that he didn't want at all. Most of the time, the nominee gets what he wants in the platform, since he is the one who has to try to ride it to victory. Not with Dole.

And what did the Republicans in charge of the party do to John McCain in 2000? They smeared the heck out of him.

It's one thing for Lieberman to be independent minded, quite another if his actions are not what Democrats agree with and so can't in good conscience vote for. What's the big deal?

Re: Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a par

Why? How do you think the American invasion of Iraq serves the interests of Israel?

Re: Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a par


Despite propaganda by the Bush administration and its bipartisan supporters on Capitol Hill, Iraq was not a military threat to the US. As a result, was the invasion done to protect Israel from an Iraqi attack?

Though Iraq had no connection with al-Qaeda, it was supporting other terrorist groups that were attacking Israel. A US invasion was seen as a way of stopping the terrorist threat targeted at the Jewish state.

Individuals and organizations sympathetic to Israel strongly supported the invasion. Sizable numbers of otherwise dovish Jewish members of Congress voted in support of the war resolution, and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), long considered one of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill, pushed Congress to authorize an invasion on behalf of Israel.

Pro-Israel Jewish neo-conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others were among the key architects of the policy of 'preventive war' and were the strongest advocates for a US invasion of Iraq. They have left a long paper trail of their goals going back to the mid-1990s.

Where Have All the Architects of War Gone?
Joe Lieberman supported the goals of the neo-cons to protect Israel. ---BBB

Where Have All the Architects of War Gone?
Arianna Huffington
07.18.2006

In his terrific post on the hornets' nest we've kicked open in the Middle East, Gary Hart makes the point that as the fighting spreads, we have seen precious little of "the nation's wisemen, those neoconservative idealists who saw the great American empire imposing democracy on the Middle East at the point of a bayonet."

And, indeed, in the wall-to-wall coverage of the latest Middle East carnage -- and the analysis of said carnage -- the neocon architects who brought us the invasion of Iraq and the promise that it would bring democracy and stability to the region have been notably absent from the discussion.

Where have you gone Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, et al? A nation turns it anxious eyes to you.

In the run up to Shock and Awe, these guys were all over the place, singing from the same song book, letting us know that the fall of Saddam would bring good things throughout the Middle East. With their every pronouncement, you could hear the sound of Arab dominoes falling.

The neocon fantasy was summed up by Dick Cheney, a charter member of the Project for a New American Century brigade, in August 2002: "Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region: extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad, moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israel/Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

Wolfowitz was just as optimistic, predicting the invasion of Iraq "will be an act that will bring more stability to the region." According to pre-war Wolfie, "With Saddam Hussein out of the picture, it'll be a much better atmosphere for peace."

Same with Doug Feith, who assured us that a democratic Iraq would be "inspirational for people throughout the Middle East to try to increase the amount of freedom that they have." He also suggested that success in Iraq "would be impressive and influential" and allow others in the region to look at the Iraqi example and say, "'If the Iraqis can have these benefits, perhaps we can get some of these benefits for our own people.'" And he was confident that the ousting of Saddam would "influence the thinking of other states about how advisable it is for them to continue to provide safe harbor or other types of support to terrorist organizations." (Maybe Tommy Franks knew what he was talking about when he called Feith the "stupidest guy on the face of the earth.")

As for Richard Perle, six months after the fall of Saddam (and months into the insurgency), the so-called Prince of Darkness was still seeing nothing but blue skies: "I think others in the region will look at Iraq and say, 'Why can't we rid ourselves of a regime that's rather similar in some ways to the Iraqi regime?' So the precedential effect of liberating Iraq may assist in bringing about democratic reform elsewhere."

It hasn't exactly turned out that way, has it? The extremists are as committed to jihad as ever, the Israel/Palestinian peace process has been declared officially dead and buried by the Arab League, "democratic reforms" in the region have led to the rise of fundamentalists in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, and the legitimization of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iraq has indeed proved "inspirational" -- to al Qaeda and its fellow jihadists.

Could the wise men's crystal balls have been any cloudier?

But an admission that they were wrong -- or a stirring defense of why, despite all appearances, they were actually right -- has been harder to come by than a Y chromosome at a Melissa Etheridge concert.

In his post, Gary Hart wrote, "Democracy does not work without accountability." But no one is holding these guys accountable. Especially not the media -- which the neocon shills used so effectively when selling the country on the wider benefits of war in Iraq.

The cable and Sunday shows -- where so much prewar misinformation was disseminated -- need to haul in the war triumphalists and ask them to account for the gulf between their rosy predictions and the bloody reality.

It would be interesting to see how they would react. Would they belatedly go the way of Francis Fukuyama and disavow their notions of war in Iraq leading to peace in the region or would they pull a Bill Kristol and use the current upheaval as the perfect justification for expanding the war in Iraq to Iran and Syria?

When last we heard from Perle, back in June, he was using the Washington Post to wag his finger at Bush -- dreaming of the next war, the one in Iran, and clearly not feeling any obligation to explain the sectarian chaos that's become of the current one in Iraq.

Wolfowitz has been hard at work at the World Bank, posing as the Second Coming of Mother Teresa and doing all he can to whitewash his past. His official World Bank bio extols the role he played in "the successful liberation of Kuwait" but expunges any mention of his role in the failed occupation of Iraq or his forecast that the people there would "greet us as liberators."

For his part, Feith has retreated to the halls of academia, landing a job at Georgetown's school of Foreign Service, where he will teach a course on the Bush administration's antiterrorism policy. Supply your own syllabus-related punchline (here's Jesus' General's). Feith's last TV appearance was in August 2005, on Geraldo, right before leaving his post as Undersecretary of Defense. He clearly owes the nation an update.

These men were the architects of the administration's imperialist policies in the Middle East. It's time to hold them accountable for the fatally flawed blueprint and the woefully shoddy workmanship.

Just exactly which alternate sphere of reality do you inhabit?

Its called Earth. Earth to Roxxxanne......

New York Times endorses Lamont over Lieberman

RAW STORY
Published: Saturday July 29, 2006


Sunday's edition of The New York Times is set to include an editorial endorsing challenger Ned Lamont over incumbent Joe Lieberman for Connecticut's Democratic primary race for the Senate, RAW STORY has found.

An article also slated for Sunday's paper called "After sluggish start, Lieberman heeded warnings of trouble" mentions the endorsement.

"The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a 'warped version of bipartisanship' in his dealings with President Bush on national security," reports Adam Nagourney.

DEVELOPING...
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_York_Times_endorses_Lamont_over_0729.html

Good point, except it seems that in some circles the argument is made that Lieberman is somehow guilty of betrayal for not more closely adhering to the party line.

It seems to be that it is far more admirable to not vote for a candidate of your party because he doesn't represent your way of thinking, then to vote for him, in spite of his positions, because he is a member of your party.

Personally, I hope he does lose the primary battle. The polls seem to suggest that he will win as an independent, and as a independent in the Senate, he should not be constrained by allegience to his former party.

I feel a person ought to vote their conscience, not the polls.

Re: Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a par


He's a Democrat, right? And continually (apparently) pushes the Republican agenda? I don't understand, then, why he continues to receive the endorsement of his party & why Democrat voters in his state continue to vote for him. This blatant disloyalty wouldn't be tolerated in too many political parties around the world. (& I do understand that there can be disagreement about particular issues within any one political party. You see this often, in political debate in many countries.) Why are the Democrats putting up with him? (Pardon me if I'm missing something here, on the other side of the planet, but he appears to be working for other Republicans, not his own party.)