There is something profoundly right about Joe Lieberman
Power Line
Here's part of what Sen. Lieberman said in his speech yesterday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the
war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than
opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something
profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our
intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain
and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran.
And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face
of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety
and stability by pulling back, by talking to and
accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and
allies. Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world
is happening because we're in a political climate where,
for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex
reaction is to say "no." That is unacceptable.
Lieberman concluded his speech with the following words:
The esteemed historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis,
was in Washington this past week. He said that, when he
looks at the world today and the threats we face, it
reminds him of the 1930s-and that he hears far more voices
that sound like Chamberlain than like Churchill. And so I
challenge each of you to find the voice of Churchill
inside yourself, and let it be heard this week on Capitol
Hill and throughout the nation in the days and years
ahead.
Stand up for your arguments. Stand up for your principles.
Stand up for your values. Stand up for America. Stand up
for Israel. Stand up for freedom. And have confidence that
in the end, our cause will, with God's help, prevail.
Is it any wonder that Lieberman became the special target of leftists in the Democratic party or that the Democrats of Connecticut rejected him?
The complete text of the speech is here.
lieberman.senate.gov
JOHN adds: Lieberman's reception apparently was warmer than Nancy Pelosi's.
thehill.com
PAUL adds: Confessed Bush-hater Jonathan Chait admits that there's a grain of truth to Lieberman's statement, but disagrees on the whole. But if there's even a grain of truth to any of what Lieberman says, that's a serious indictment. Moreover, Chait's main argument against Lieberman's statement -- that opposition to the war in Iraq transcends partisanship -- misses the fact that most of Lieberman's indictment pertains to Iran and anti-terrorism policy generally, not Iraq.
Finally, Chait's claim that if there were less partisanship, the war in Iraq would be less popular is supported, at root, only by his own prejudice. He assumes that because some Republicans have turned against the war, but virtually no Democrats favor it, those Republicans who continue to support the war are more likely to be doing so for partisan reasons than those Democrats who oppose it. One could just as easily argue (as Lieberman does) that Demoratic soliditary exists because Dems hate Bush too much to evaluate the war on its merits. I don't think that's the case on the issue of whether the decision to go to war was correct, but it may well be the case on the more important question of "what do we do now?"
powerlineblog.com
tnr.com
tnr.com |
