Billmon:
Back to Main
July 30, 2006
WB: Dark Horse
Comments
The editorial
On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.
Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.
Quite devastating.
Boy… I answered what I thought was Billmon’s joke about the NYTimes’ endorsement with a “hey, you know this could happen”.
I think that the NYTimes, one eye on, from their perspective, Israel’s PR debacle in Lebanon and finger on the pulse of Americans’ growing revulsion with Israeli policies, has sacrificed Joe Love Man for “the Cause”, now that Ned Lamont has “come around”.
Or perhaps Ned Lamont has “come around” because of the NYTimes, and other crucial “players” support?
Ned Lamont can now play “good cop” to Joe Lieberman’s bad cop. And if they’re wrong… Lieberman wins anyway.
It’s not unlike the Bush-Kerry contest. You can safely back Kerry, he’s a “made man” and in the bag. And if “your man” loses… the fall back is “even better”.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 30 2006 12:50 utc | 4
Cloned Poster :
Ned Lamont does not give me hope.
From Ned Lamont’s website :
At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel’s security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure… Lebanon is again part of the battlefield. Syria and Iran are in position to broaden the conflict… It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself… After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere. We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel. But peace between Israel and its neighbors must be a priority.
Syria and Iran are less likely to broaden the conflict than are the neocons in Washington and in “our ally”, Israel. It IS for the United States to decide that Israel will no longer “defend itself” at the American taxpayers’ expense. Lamont is right on board with the carte blanche for Israeli ethnic cleansing with his “after the fighting stops” line. The “imposition” of a cease fire is EXACTLY what we need to do.
Do you not find it interesting that the NYTimes’ endorsement comes directly on the heels of this publication of “nuanced” ideas on the neocon agenda in the US and Israel?
I don’t know who the Republicrats are going to put up against the winner of the Lamont-Lieberman contest, but if he or she came out for NO MORE FUNDING of the US/Israeli wars in the Middle East I’d pull the Republicrat lever in CT.
Our house is on fire and our children will burn.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 31 2006 1:56 utc | 5
Remember the cartoon family circle? You know, the ol’ “not me ” ploy…
Each one blames the other and in the ensuring chaos neither party is held accountable…
The plame blame game
Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the United States that the US would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
Also see,
US Orders Media Blackout On Troop Movements As Syria Prepares To Attack Israeli Forces
Translation: US Orders Media Blackout On Troop Movements As Israel Prepares To Attack Syria and make it look like Syria attacked first (which is why that pesky UN Observation Post had to be bombed)
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 31 2006 2:26 utc | 6