Some people have expressed some consternation that now the Democrats have been in office for a couple of months, no major effort has begun to end the war, and that Joe Lieberman — who was given committee positions even as an Independent in order to keep him “on board” with the Democratic caucus — is not only planning to torpedo amendments that would cut off funding for aspects of the Iraq war but might just switch parties.
What’s the surprise? That Lieberman’s had a hard-on for Iraq and a number of other Democrats — including most of the 2008 flock — have been right there along with him? Is that supposed to be news?
Lieberman Frustrated By Allies’ Reluctance To Back Iraq Strike
By John Bisney/CNN
WASHINGTON (Feb. 13 [1998]) — A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee says he is puzzled and frustrated about the lack of support from allies and Iraq’s Arab neighbors for a U.S. military strike against Saddam Hussein.
by James Ridgeway
November 21 – 27, 2001Opportunist Dems Call for War on Iraq
Hawks on the LeftCapitol Hill’s loudest voice for bombing Iraq? That would be Al Gore’s old running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman. The Connecticut pol heads a caucus of war-hawk Dems. Some of them are eyeing the 2004 presidential campaign, hoping to use the issue of Iraq to outflank Bush and look like a bunch of tough guys.
Lieberman argues the U.S. must be “unflinching in our determination” to “target Iraq as part of the war against terrorism.” Lieberman wants to push Bush into declaring it’s U.S. policy to remove Saddam Hussein. “He is not just a thorn in our sides, he is a threat to American lives,” he said between fundraisers in New Hampshire earlier this month. “If we give him a chance and don’t defeat him, he will truly attack us before long.”
Other Dems, backed by the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, want Bush to expand his war against terrorism. They don’t go as far as Lieberman, but Senator Joseph Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with Massachusetts senator John Kerry, a Vietnam vet, have been calling for a wider effort. Kerry would move to dump Saddam if Iraq were discovered to be behind chemical and biological attacks. Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey also is counted among this group.
During House debate, New York’s Gary Ackerman argued after the terrorist attacks that as long as Hussein remained in power, the world would be at risk. “Attacking Iraq depends on whether we have evidence of its participation on September 11,” he told the Voice. “But if there are strong indications that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it, I would agree a thousand percent, and we should do whatever we have to do and blow the shit out of them.”
The Democratic leadership hasn’t just been covering for this guy for nine years. They’ve been letting him run point so long they’ve gotten themselves out of sight of safe ground. They distrust the people who told them not to go that way so much that they won’t take the safe route back; they’re just crouched down out in the minefield the Republicans laid for themselves, hoping that waves of child soldiers will clear a path away from the dirty hippies.