I wasn’t going to write anything about Joe Lieberman, but after reading several articles Joe’s “centrism” over the last few months and how the Democratic Party will either be irrevocably damaged if he lost the nomination or it would actually destroy the Democratic Party, all of which deserved nothing more then a yawn at the dull minded guardians of the status quo. While Lieberman stood up for many of the issues that are important to the domedtic side of the progressive cause, he was never a real force for building consensus, nor an especially gifted legislator. For those like myself that had some small regrets that things turned out the way they did, well let’s just say that Joe is a bridge burner, Lieberman Shows His True Colors
“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”
This isn’t the kind of lie that some politician somewhere makes on a near daily basis, a little red meat for supporters, Lieberman’s lie is hurting America and the world. Liebrman is echoing the conservative lie that occuping Iraq will by some magical mysterious means weaken non-state militants spread around the world, Booman Tribune writes,
We quickly learned that the terrorists were natives of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. All of these countries are formally allied with the United States and have been allied with us dating back to the Cold War. Clearly, we were dealing with a political statement about our relationship with the rulers of those nations.
But we were not told this. Instead, we were told that we were attacked because these ‘folks’ hate our freedom. That was the first betrayal. The second betrayal was suggesting that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, or that regime change in Iraq would matter to dissident groups in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Militants in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia welcomed the invasion of Iraq. It played right into their hands, lending their movement an ideological push that they never could have achieved on their own. The Bush-Lieberman operation requires that we keep putting resources into a front that does little to no harm to terror networks while it weakens our ability to respond to nations like Iran and North Korea. The British plot shows that extremists Muslims are not the least bit intimadated by the Iraq quiqmire. There is another angle to this whole idea that Lieberman was the “center” of Democratic thinking, an idea mostly sold along with warm beer and moldy pretzels by conservatives pundits, that is if Lieberman was wrong, then so are the neocons, Nonsense and Sensibility
Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?
You could admit your error and move on — and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics.
They say: Pay no attention to the fact that I was wrong and the critics have been completely vindicated by events — I’m “sensible,” while those people are crazy extremists. And besides, criticizing any aspect of the war encourages the terrorists.
That’s what Joe Lieberman said, and it’s what his defenders are saying now.
Now, it takes a really vivid imagination to see Mr. Lieberman’s rejection as the work of extremists. I know that some commentators believe that anyone who thinks the Iraq war was a mistake is a flag-burning hippie who hates America. But if that’s true, about 60 percent of Americans hate America. The reality is that Ned Lamont and those who voted for him are, as The New York Times editorial page put it, “irate moderates,” whose views are in accord with those of most Americans and the vast majority of Democrats.
John Edwards, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton have admitted that they were wrong and that Iraq has been disasterous, but not old Joe. Its some some radical left that has made Joe a tragically irrelivent, as Krugman states it is the moderates that are finnaly getting fed up.
Taking note of recent events something that terror experts have predicted might happen, one would think that detecting explosive devices would be a prioity. The old addage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of hurt, Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the
Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department’s own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security’s research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a “rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course,” Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
“The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security,” the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency’s 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration’s recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
Given that the Bush administration prefers the illusion of security over the non-glamourous iniatives that actually make as a little more secure it is little wonder that they relegate research like this to the basement of prorities.
TH’ expense of Spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action; and till action, lust
Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoy’d no sooner but despisèd straight;
Past reason hunted; and, no sooner had,
Past reason hated, as a swallow’d bait
On purpose laid to make the taker mad:
Mad in pursuit, and in possession so;
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;
Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.
. Sonnets 163 by William Shakespeare