This is something-else. On today's Meet the Press, Joe Lieberman says he's still a Democrat. Yes, this is still technically-true, but that's like saying Hitler was always a Catholic--even at the end in the Bunker, hiding-from Soviet troops. It didn't make Schickelgruber a good-Catholic, but what is a good-Democrat? That should be obvious to anyone over-30: someone who is more an FDR, domestic-spending member of Congress. Someone who votes for a major redistribution-of-wealth. On some of these points, Lieberman has actually voted-for these things, which is what makes him a tragic-clown. But, substance-wise, this is not what Joe Lieberman has been since 1994, any more than Bill Clinton and his "neo-liberal" agenda of the 1990s was. Sadly, they are typical of the Democratic Party since Carter.
They aren't truly "liberal", and if you think the Clintons sincerely wanted universal health-care, I have a bridge to sell-you. Nevermind that Howard Dean--nobody-important, just the DNC chairman--has called-for Lieberman not-to-run (no-dice). Like the Clintonistas, this shill is just a front for corporate America, only desiring to be re-elected. Maybe he and the Clintons and their ilk once-believed in something, but when was that? 1972? Also referenced by the Lie-man, was his insurance-policy article in the May 19th, 2003 issue of the Boston Globe. On-the-surface, the article does criticize the Bush administration for mishandling the occupation of Iraq, but supports the contention that:
The liberation of Iraq was noble and necessary. The men and women of our armed forces performed brilliantly. Their victory now gives us the opportunity to win a battle in the war on terrorism, which is not only a war to capture and kill Al Qaeda, but ultimately to win over the hearts and minds of the Islamic world to the cause of freedom.
This is the Bush administration's standing, and Lieberman's today, while the majority of the world correctly-viewed the invasion of Iraq as being akin to September 1st, 1939: the invasion of Poland, which was also touted as a "pre-emptive" strike. The legitimacy of the invasions have also been-voiced by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton (but not Ted Kennedy). The new-move is to say that the aftermath was "mismanaged"--something the shrewd Joe Lieberman figured-out in 2003, he must be given-his-due here. These hawks are hardly-alone in the Senate. Even-worse, Lieberman and the other hawks populating Congress only confirm the fears of moderate Muslims who have found it more-difficult in countering the suspicion of many in the Middle East that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are the beginnings of a war on Islam-in-general. They all share the same-assumptions for the invasion and its war-aims. If the war went-off fine, then they would still be cheerleading the Bush administration today. The hawks in Congress support an imperial-Presidency, and still support the underlying-assumptions of this role. It has bipartisan-support.
Lieberman summed-it-up best in the Globe article by writing, "I raise these concerns as a strong supporter of the war, not as a lingering critic. The world is safer because America had the will and way to remove a repressive and homicidal tyrant from power." Right. America is not-safer because of the invasion of Iraq. It is time to remove an entire political-generation from-office. Maybe he is a mainstream-Democrat after-all, but he and his species haven't realized the context has changed. It is time to rid-ourselves of these scum, forever. If they steal the elections again, it's Ukraine time.
No comments:
Post a Comment