Why did we invade Iraq? Why is Joe Lieberman running AGAIN as an Independent in defiance of the voters of Connecticut and the Democratic Party?
A similar pattern of lies, shifting rationales, and outright fraud constructed around an egocentric personality
by R.J. Crane, editor
topplebush.com
August 11, 2006
Let me see if I can list the main ones we all heard. The reasons BushCo floated for invading Iraq: Saddam had WMDs and was an imminent threat to use them against us. If we don't stop Saddam, there will be mushroom clouds. Saddam was involved with al Qaeda and therefore was responsible for 9/11. Saddam was an evil dictator so we needed to remove him to free the Iraqi people. We had to bring democracy to the Middle East and toppling Saddam was essential to this process. Iraq was vital to our oil interests in the Middle East and removing Saddam was vital to securing these interests. Sound familiar?
Now let's duplicate the above exercise listing Joe Lieberman's reasons for running as an Independent if he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Here's what Joe said before the primary:
"While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary, I know there are no guarantees in elections," ..."No one really knows how many Democrats will come out to vote on what may be a hot day in August." [Lieberman Weighs Campaign As Independent, by Susan Hiagh, The Associated Press, Monday, July 3, 2006]
Lieberman was justifying his Independent bid by claiming a low voter turnout wouldn't represent the will of Democratic voters in Connecticut. - unless of course he were declared the winner.
Then he went on to provide yet another reason for his hedge run as an Independent:
"What if my opponent, who says he is worth somewhere between $90 million and $300 million, decides to write bigger and bigger checks in the last weeks of the campaign?" he asked. [Lieberman Weighs Campaign As Independent, by Susan Hiagh, The Associated Press, Monday, July 3, 2006].
Lieberman never mentioned that he didn't agree to an offer made by the Lamont campaign to cap campaign spending.
Now that Lieberman has lost the primary here's his latest concocted reason for running as an Independent in defiance of the voters in Connecticut and the Democratic Party:
"The old politics of partisanship and polarization won today," Lieberman said, "and I will not let that result stand." [Lamont marches to win; Lieberman vows to battle by Ray Hackett, Norwich Bulletin, August 9, 2004]
"For the sake of our state, our country and my party," --which he feels is being overtaken by left-wing forces -- "I cannot and will not let that result stand." [from Lieberman's defiant concession speech, [Charleston Gazette, August 10, 2006]
Of course this one isn't anymore valid or rationale than his other lame reasons. In fact the newest excuse for running as an Independent only helps Republicans "swiftboat" the Democrats as extremists for not supporting Bush's failed "stay the course" position on Iraq in an attempt to divide and conquer Democrats in November. Lieberman is again allowing himself to be used by Bush and the GOP to help defeat Democrats.
It is not my intent in this piece to explain how BushCo lied us into Iraq nor to rehash how the justification for war shifted and changed when no WMDs were found and the insurgency gained strength. Suffice it to say that we will probably waste between $1 and $2 trillion dollars because of Iraq and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives will have been destroyed because of Bush's Folly that will have installed a Shiite theocratic majority aligned with Iran. There is no scenario under which Iraq can be viewed as anything but an abysmal failure.
My attempt in this piece is instead to point out some obvious similarities between two egocentric misguided politicians: Bush and Lieberman. Here's a prime manifestation of this personality type in a recent Lieberman statement: "My mind is made up," Sen. Joe Lieberman said Wednesday in a calm, confident voice. No, he said patiently, he would not be swayed by top Democratic leaders and friends, no matter who begged him to withdraw for the party's sake. [Charleston Gazette, August 10, 2006]
In order to grasp the magnitude of the arrogance, misguided self-righteousness, and deceptiveness in Lieberman, we must examine all the statements made by Lieberman for running as an Independent to see why they are all bogus:
Turnout in Connecticut primary might be insignificantly small because of hot weather
The Connecticut primary drew a record turnout for a state primary with at least a 40-43% turnout among Democratic voters. About 268,000 registered Democrats voted in the Senate race and Lamont prevailed by 4%. [Hartford Courant] In other words this wasn't a small backroom deal to select a candidate nor was the primary reflective of only a tiny portion of Democratic voters as Lieberman claimed it might become if the August weather was too hot.
Lamont might spend a lot of his own money at the last minute to buy the election
Now let's look at the money spent on this election as of the last report made on July 19, 2006. Lieberman spent $7.68 million and Lamont had spent a little over $4 million. The final reports might show Lamont being outspent by 2:1 or more because Lieberman had $3.5 million left to spend to flood the airwaves with his last minute ads. So it was much more likely a flood of Lieberman money at the last minute entered the campaign - not the reverse. As I also stated earlier, the Lamont campaign had offered to cap primary spending but Lieberman with a big $12 million dollar war chest loaded with PAC money at the time never agreed to this. [Lamont Challenges Lieberman to Spending Cap, by Paul Bass, New Haven Independent, May 24, 2006] So Lieberman can't claim either that Lamont's personal wealth bought the election. Even if Lieberman had been outspent by Lamont he only had himself to blame.
"For the sake of our state, our country and my party"
What really should gall all Democratic voters in Connecticut and everywhere is Lieberman's current reason for running as an Independent now that his pre-primary reasons have been invalidated. Basically he has shifted course with a new messianic-sounding rationale that boils down to this storyline: Joe, being the good loyal Democrat that he is, is now willing to sacrifice himself in order to save the soul of the Democratic Party from itself and against the party's wishes, from extremists who want to take it over and ruin it. If this isn't total delusional thinking and an elevated irrational sense of his own importance, I don't know what else would qualify. Does this now make all of the good Democrats who have united behind Lamont after his victory whacky extremists too? Are 60% of Americans who oppose the Iraq war also extremists? Aren't we sick and tired of this divide and conquer brand of politics? And how can Joe claim he is acting like a loyal Democrat while attempting to divide the party with such a blatant disrespect for the primary process? Let's get one thing perfectly clear: Joe is running again for Joe's benefit and only Joe's benefit because he can't envision himself as a defeated candidate with the loss of power and prestige that goes with it. Nor can he picture a life without a podium, microphone, press, and cameras spotlighted on him. If Joe really cared about the Democratic Party he would have offered his congratulations and his support to the Lamont campaign. That would have been the honorable and unselfish way to behave.
Conclusion
There are more important fundamental similarities between Bush and Lieberman that unite them besides Lieberman's support for Bush and his failed war that have not received the attention they deserve. Neither can deal with reality. Neither can tell the truth. Both are stubbornly determined to hold positions that go against common sense, good judgment, and majority views. And neither can admit when they were wrong.
topplebush.com
Posted: August 11, 2006
|
