The Lamont-Lieberman Debate: Lieberman Wins the Battle and Loses the War
But if Lieberman won, he damaged himself among the engaged, like myself. As Howard Fineman of Newsweek said on Imus, Lieberman seemed angry and rattled. He's in real trouble, and knows it.
Fineman also made a revealing statement: Lieberman had shown "courage" in voting for the Iraq war. This is the conventional wisdom now in Washington, where as Paul Krugman said so beautifully, To be credible on national security, you have to have been wrong about Iraq.
Why is it the conventional wisdom? Because all the columnists were for this war and they're still covering their asses now that even blockheads are questioning their judgment. As Fineman said in his role as a cheerleader in 2003 (per FAIR): "We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back." Well, I remember disunity. I remember people saying, Not in my name.
Courage wasn't going along with a foolish idea that would alienate the Arab world and turn Iraq into a terrorist-breeding hellhole, it was opposing it. Ned Lamont's riding that wave.
Lieberman's cowardice is utterly amazing. It was common knowledge at the time of the war authorization vote that Al Queda and the Baath Party were mortal enemies, yet Lieberman went along with the Bush Administration's laughable claims of links between the two.
Myself and most anti-war protestors knew the Bush Administration was lying about WMDs before the war started. How could Lieberman be so incredibly stupid as to believe the Bush administration in this area?
Of course, Lieberman didn't believe them either. He was just a coward who thought it was politically expedient to play along with the lies and launch bizarre attacks against Democrats who were honest.
Now, he's finding out that what he thought was smart politics could cost him his Senate seat. If he was honorable instead of cowardly, he wouldn't even be facing a primary challenge.
Why is it so hard saying it.
Lieberman was for the Iraq war because of Israel. He didn't put the country first or even his party first. He put Israel first.
There, now that isn't so hard saying isn't it.
Peter Morris: Your claims are laughable. The fact is that the government of Israel was very reluctant for the US to go into Iraq because its intelligence foresaw precisely the scenario we are now in -- where Israel's security is under greater threat from terrorists in Iraq than it was from Saddam's weak regime. You better be careful with accusations like that -- bring your facts or your motives will be questioned.
"the government of Israel was very reluctant" - now taking the ass covering manoevres of the zionist r