On the central question of why a nation should or shouldn't go to war, Lieberman's answer is simply, "yes!"
~ Spencer Ackerman
Since he lost the primary last week Joe Lieberman has been making good use of all the administration talking points. He has accused Lamont and most of the Democratic Party of being part of the terrorist attack on the US. His supporters turn out to be the RNC, the Bush administration and the right wing bloggers. Spencer Ackerman writing in the American Prospect gives us the lowdown on Joe and he not only isn't a Democrat he isn't real sharp and apparently has never seen a war he didn't like.
But belligerence isn't the same thing as wisdom -- and hawkishness does not always lead to a safer America. Lieberman has, of course, been the most vigorous Democratic defender of the Iraq quagmire, which has laid waste to U.S. defense capabilities in a way that not even Vietnam was able to. Many have asked why Lieberman has been the lone Democratic hawk to face a vigorous liberal primary challenge, and the answer is surely complex. But part of it may be that while other Democratic hawks emphasize the risks of withdrawal, Lieberman is unique among Democrats in defending the wisdom of the invasion itself, a position so inexplicable as to be nearly insane. Indeed, Lieberman's judgment on defense questions is like that of a stopped clock: the hawkish position, applied consistently, has to be right sooner or later. What Lieberman is asking Connecticut -- and the Democratic Party, and the country -- to accept is that the only secure America is a bellicose America. And that position is a guarantee of future Iraqs.It seems that above all Lieberman is a groupie for whoever happens to be residing in the White House during a time of war, which if Lieberman had his way would be all the time.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about Lieberman's defense record is the difficulty of defining Liebermanism. On the central question of why a nation should or shouldn't go to war, Lieberman's answer is simply, "yes!" His Senate-floor explanation of his 1991 vote for the Gulf War wasn't a ringing endorsement of the need to confront Saddam Hussein, or a defense of Kuwaiti sovereignty, or even a simple explanation of how the war served American interests – none of which were difficult cases to make. Rather, Lieberman contended that the war was necessary "because our president has asked us to vote to support him in this hour of challenge." (Perhaps such a vigorous deference to someone else's judgment explains Lieberman's belief that criticism of George W. Bush comes "at our nation's peril.")
It is time to urge Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate to strip Lieberman of all his committee assignments. Yes Harry, Joe is constantly stabbing the Democratic Party in the back and refuses to play by the rules. If it takes Joe to gain a majority in the Senate then the Democrats still won't have a majority in the Senate. As the Republicans try to distance themselves from Bush Joe is still trying to kiss up, I guess on kiss wasn't enough. Just say good bye Joe.