Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Lieberman to the Rescue

Sincerity is one of the more important attributes that a politician must learn to display. Once a pol has learned to fake sincerity convincingly, his career is made. Joe Lieberman fakes it as well as anyone in Congress. His words as opposed to action in the Clinton impeachment are one piece of evidence of that fact and his groveling performance as a Vice-Presidential candidate in the 2000 election was further confirmation.

He has an editorial in the New York Post today that is a real corker. It has to be read very carefully in order to comprehend in full what a masterful exercise in sophistry has been created. Note in particular:

"The plan, developed over the 21/2 years since Saddam Hussein's overthrow, has resulted from trial and yes, many errors."

followed by:

"The response to the president's proposal by leading Democrats — including my colleagues Sens. John Kerry and Jack Reed — was important and instructive: Most did not call for an arbitrary withdrawal, but instead questioned some tactics and asked the administration to go to the next level of detail on its plans."


So, many errors were committed and the Dems only want to interject their views on tactics - at three years in, with victory in sight and having behaved in the most craven manner imaginable.

Then Joe goes into a "politics must stop at the water's edge" riff which might have had some value - three years ago. Today it is as irrelevant as the Democratic Party.

He closes with a modest proposal:

"To encourage that new partnership, I propose that the president and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high-ranking administration national-security officials. This group would meet regularly, I would hope at least weekly, to discuss conditions and progress on the ground in Iraq and ways to alter or improve our strategy for victory."

He wants to plan the victory parades and make sure that he has a place in the front car.

I don't know how the President will respond to faux Joe, my response would conclude with "strong letter follows" but the President generally reserves that response for the press.

Joe Lieberman has been consistent in his personal support of the war but his party has owned the "Not in Our Name" franchise for the past three years.

Victory and success in Iraq were achieved in spite of the Democrats - politically they had nothing to do with it. Sorry Joe, you're a thousand days late and as many dollars short. If you want to ride on the victor's float in the big parade, you're going to have to switch parties.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe might be interested in a GOP seat that is open next year in Rhode Island...

ex-democrat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ex-democrat said...

Predictably, the Senator's prescription calls for Republicans to do the impossible: make Democrats support the war; while asking Democrats simply to NOT do what they should NOT be doing to begin with: ankle-biting the CinC at time of war.

It's nice to see that the Democrats have discovered the other Churchill, though (Winston, not Ward). They should keep reading.

ex-democrat said...

rick - there's another lawyerly sleight of hand here: "Last Wednesday, the President laid out his strategy for victory in Iraq ..[and].. The response of leading Democrats to the president's proposal last week ..."

"Proposal?"

Rick Ballard said...

Clarice,

Lieberman may be slightly better than McCain in that he recognizes that principles exist as he subsumes them to personal or party interest but that's as far as I would go. He wants it both ways as he remarkably illustrates by calling for politics to stop at the "water's edge" after having tossed in "many errors".

He's no Zell Miller and I have a tough time rating him any better than Hillary. "All things to all people" just doesn't inspire admiration.

Unknown said...

Rick:

I respect Lieberman for doing the right thing. He didn't have to.

Unknown said...

mark:

The fact that a man like Lieberman is reviled by much of the Democrat party explains why you guys are in a minority.

Besides most of what Democrats say today bears no resemblance to what they were saying 6 years ago, so why should I think that what Dean or Pelosi or Murtha say today will have any lasting meaning?

They just go do a poll and dance to it anyway.

BTW, keep your posts short. You are very tedious and if they are more than 20 words I don't read them.