What A Difference A LIEberyear Makes
Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:49:04 PM PDT
Here in CT, a year ago, I was getting ready for our town’s annual Labor Day Parade. Because ours is the only Labor Day parade in Connecticut, it has traditionally been the kickoff to the political season The Progressive Dems in CT were flying high, with Ned Lamont just having taken out Joe Lieberman in the August 8th primary. The big brouhaha was whether Lieberman would even walk in the parade and as what? We already had our Democrat and Lieberman still hadn't become an Connecticut for Lieberman candidate. What was Joe going to do? Well, the little man showed up and walked with Nancy Johnson (R-CT-5), which makes perfect sense because he votes with the Republicans on so many key issues. And so Joe, with no political affiliation, decided to rain on our parade.
Thinking back on the current Democratic presidential hopefuls there were only two who had determined that Ned Lamont was the voice of CHANGE and took the brave step of campaigning with him. One was Connecticut's Chris Dodd and the other was John Edwards.
We saw the writing on the wall when Bill Clinton came out and put on a big show for Lieberman leading up to the primary. Had he remained silent I would have had more respect for the Clintons. And, really, does Hillary do anything political without Bill's advice? I very much doubt it. And if she hadn't agreed with her husband perhaps she might have voiced her own opinion?
Clinton, in a recent speech at the Aspen Institute conference, defended Lieberman and his staunch support for the war in Iraq. He questioned why antiwar Democrats are seeking to oust a fellow Democrat, saying that instead of seeking to retire Republicans they were pursuing "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life."
How Clinton could even have given Lieberman the right time of day after Joe's despicable finger pointing at Clinton during the Lewinsky impeachment catastrophe is more than I can fathom.
Lieberman famously broke with Clinton in 1998 when he took the Senate floor to condemn the president's marital infidelity as "immoral" and denounce his "premeditated" deception. The speech was widely interpreted as Lieberman's stepping-stone to the Democrats' vice presidential nomination two years later.
And just today I read Hillary's statement on Prime Minister Maliki. Looks like she agrees with Carl Levin, John Warner, Joe Lieberman, and Bush when she says:
“Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Baathification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections, and amend their constitution,” Clinton, a senator from New York, said in a statement.
“I share Senator Levin’s hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks,” she said.
Clearly Hillary's instincts are to not stray very far from the Republican talking points when it comes to Iraq, which is why I cannot, in good faith, suppport her. We can all speculate as to what happened when it came to the whole Lieberman fiasco, but the fact remains that neither she nor Bill had the vision to see why we so desperately needed to replace Lieberman in the Senate. And you have to wonder what the Clintons do stand for, if not simply political self preservation.
As if to pour salt into an open wound I got correspondence from Lieberman yesterday. I don’t think Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or Bill Kristol could have written it any better. Well, come to think of it, maybe one them did. I don't think Lieberman missed one Republican talking point; in fact he appears to have tossed in a few extras for good measure.
Read it and weep. And think about what could have been. For your viewing pleasure I've bolded the Republican talking points.
Thank you for contacting me regarding U.S. military operations in Iraq. Like you, I would like our troops to return safely from Iraq as soon as possible. However, I believe that any decision to draw down our forces must be based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our military commanders and diplomats, rather than arbitrary deadlines imposed by politicians in Washington. I have never hesitated to criticize the many mistakes the Bush Administration has made in its prosecution of this war. However, I also believe that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic for Iraq, the Middle East, and our national security here at home. Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly told us that they consider Iraq the central front of their global war against us. Indeed, al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq is clear. It is perpetrating horrific suicide bombings against the Iraqi people, in the hope of radicalizing the country's population, sparking a civil war, and creating a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, which it can then use as a base. Iran is also trying to drive America from Iraq. The Iranians are waging a proxy war against us in Iraq, providing weapons, training, and other forms of support to terrorists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. After pursuing the wrong approach in Iraq for far too long, the Bush Administration changed course earlier this year, appointing a new commander, General David Petraeus, who is implementing a new strategy in Iraq based on classic counterinsurgency principles. There are encouraging signs that General Petraeus' new strategy is working. In Anbar province, which just a year ago was al Qaeda's main stronghold in Iraq, the security situation has dramatically reversed, and what was once one of Iraq's most dangerous places is now one of its safest. Elsewhere in Iraq as well, the Sunni Arabs who once formed the core of the insurgency are increasingly coming over to our side to fight against al Qaeda. In Baghdad, as well, thanks to General Petraeus' strategy, security is improving, with the sectarian violence that paralyzed the city dramatically down. According to General Ray Odierno, the deputy commander of our forces in Iraq, total attacks are on a month-long decline and are at their lowest level since August 2006. Attacks against Iraqi civilians are also at a six-month low, and civilian murders in Baghdad are at their lowest level in more than 18 months. Obviously, there are still major challenges remaining before us. Both al Qaeda and Iran are determined and ruthless enemies, and they are far from defeated. In addition, Iraq's national politicians continue to struggle to find consensus on a range of daunting and difficult issues. In September 2007, General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, will report to Congress on the situation in Iraq. I look forward to receiving their report and listening to their recommendations on the way forward. For now, however, I believe that there is sufficient, compelling evidence of progress against al Qaeda and Iran on the battlefields of Iraq that Congress should allow General Petraeus and his troops to continue in their mission, rather than order them to retreat. As Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I am closely following the situation in Iraq. I appreciate your taking the time to write me with your thoughts. I will keep your views in mind as we move forward. To read more about the work I have done toward securing Iraq, please view this section of my web site at http://lieberman.senate.gov/...
Although I have had deep respect for Chris Dodd working on behalf of the people of Connecticut and the country, I truly believe our best hope for the future is John Edwards.
What more is there to say? When John Edwards came to Connecticut on behalf of Ned Lamont he spoke about CHANGE in Iraq, CHANGE in the way we deal with poverty and the needs of working people, CHANGE in healthcare delivery, CHANGE in our addiction to oil, CHANGE in environmental policies, CHANGE in the way the United States interacts with the rest of the world community.
Hillary doesn’t represent change when she and her husband essentially went along with the Republican support of Joe Lieberman. To me Hillary’s silence was complicity. Her husband's sentiments for Lieberman were wrong, just plain wrong. It is time for CHANGE. It is time for John Edwards.
Permalink | 17 comments