Yet another Democrat has turned against Joe Lieberman, but this time it's a group that had Lieberman as a founding member: The New Democrat Network (full disclosure: I used to serve on the Board, though I resigned from the group today after seeing this post). It's a disappointing and opportunistic position to curry favor with the (very) far left at the expense of a thoughtful Democrat who admittedly has made some poor
word choices that I and many others have complained about. But he doesn't deserve to be thrown overboard, and certainly not by organizations he helped start.
From Simon Rosenberg's blog NDN Blog:
"It is time, my good friend. Senator Lieberman, it is time. Time to end this part of your remarkable career with dignity, grace and honor. You had a great run, made a great contribution, and done a lot of good. But it is time to move on."
This is insulting and patronizing. Lieberman is not a horse that needs to be put out to pasture.
While I did not support the Iraq war and have been very critical of it's execution, Lieberman's position on the war is perfectly reasonable -- that leaving Iraq right now would create a vacuum in which terrorism would flourish -- indeed it is the position Rosenberg holds. On the other hand, here is the attitude toward terrorism of the people who support Lamont:
"Within hours of the news that authorities had disrupted an alleged plot to blow up US-bound commercial airlines, liberal bloggers and commentators attacked the announcement, saying it was part of a plan to derail the political momentum of Democratic candidates such as Ned Lamont."
Yes, you read that correctly. Tony Blair shut down the UK airports to try and keep Ned Lamont from winning.
Or this. Daily Kos: CT-Sen: Lieberman is seriously unhinged:
"Lieberman has lost it. Completely and utterly. He is insane."
Why is he "insane"? He believes terrorism is a major threat on the level of Nazism or Communism. What a kook. Since the terrorists only dream of killing 6 million people, we shouldn't worry about them.
Kirsten Powers: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AN UGLY DOG
Animal Planet disagrees: World's Ugliest Dog Competition
BUT ISN'T HUMILIATING PRISONERS JUST "HAVING A GOOD TIME"?
From LA Times:
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.
But Rush Limbaugh said that humiliating and degrading prisoners at Abu Ghraib was just soldiers "having a good time," and "blowing off steam" and having an "emotional release." Why would this rollicking good time require legal protection?
Apparently, the Bush Administration thinks they need to "cover their asses" (as Bush said to the CIA briefer who flew to the ranch to brief the vacationing president on the impending 911 attack) with a change in the law. After all, it really is clear that stacking up naked prisoners in a pyramid and taking pictures of them is a critical part of the war on terror and we should change our laws to protect people from this very serious work.
On a related note, I'm still looking in the Bible to find the passage where Jesus endorses humiliation and degrading treatment, for personal amusement or otherwise.
Dated: Friday, August 11, 2006
| 
| 252 : vote(s) so far
| Cast your vote: