How sad has Joe Lieberman become?

Pretty sad. This recent speech of his, The Politics of National Security 11/09/07, shows his current public persona clearly. The Democratic base's gripe against him was not simply that he supported Bush's foreign policy and the Iraq War. It was in particular that Lieberman made a point of attacking other Democrats using White House talking points.

In that speech, he said (based on the text at his Web site):

Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there. (my emphasis)

This is one of those pitches that in one sense is irrefutable, because it's based on fantasy (our Saviour-General Petraeus and his sacred surge are succeeding) and slams the Democrats in a thoroughly dishonest and sleazy way. If you believe this type of propaganda, there's likely nothing rational that anyone could say to change your mind.

Lieberman sounds like a bitter man. And one who wants to widen the war to Iran. He talks at some length about his precious Kyl-Lieberman propaganda resolution. Without naming names so his claim could be verified, Lieberman says that Democrats opposing his resolution "invariably" agreed with the claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were sponsoring guerrilla attacks on Americans in Iraq. And why wouldn't they support his amendment to promote war with Iran?

"It’s simple," they said. "We don’t trust Bush. He’ll use this resolution as an excuse for war against Iran."

I understand that President Bush is a divisive figure. I recognize the distrust that many Americans feel toward his administration. I recognize the anger and outrage that exists out there about the war in Iraq.

But there is something profoundly wrong - something that should trouble all of us - when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base - even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime. (my emphasis)

In other words, he's saying that they (Democrats) hate us (Bush supporters) for our values.

This one is refutable in a more concrete sense, though it's also the same sort of sleaze. The Iranian sponsorship of anti-American attacks is questionable. But since launching a war on Iran in the current situation would put the 160,000 American soldiers, plus American diplomats and mercenaries, at much greater risk with few if any alternatives once that begins to occur, anyone who has the least sense of responsibility about supporting wars had very well better be concerned about how Cheney and Bush might "respond" to the allegations of Iranian actions that they themselves are promoting.

Holy Joe continues directly to sing the familiar song of, I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me:

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.

That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party - but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

I caught only one criticism of the Republican Party in that speech, and that was in passing and referred to the 1990s. The entire thing is a polemic against Democrats.

Lieberman calls himself and "Independent Democrat". I'd say he's become very independent of the Democratic Party.

Tags: democratic party, democrats, iraq war, joe lieberman, stab-in-the-back