Roger L. Simon: Lieberman's speech - Partisan Hell in Washington/Hope in Iran

Reading Joe Lieberman's speech to AIPAC the other day was a depressing experience, not because I disagree with him, but because I agree with him:

Increasingly, the debate over our foreign policy is becoming so polarized, so partisan, so bound up in the battles we are having here in Washington, that it seems blind to the real battle outside of America, the challenge of our time from the Islamist extremists who want to destroy us all, who attacked America on September 11, 2001, and intend to do so again.

He goes on from there, but that's the gist of it, and, of course, it's getting worse every day.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Personally, I don't know how Leiberman can continue being a politician under the present conditions. Just watching the insane fear over "global warming", and all it reveals as to our society's ignorance of the most basic science. And along with that, Al Gore, failed theology student, smiles happily as he foretells DOOM DOOM DOOM.

And then, Nancy and Co on the attack, backed by a truly ignorant media. And this despite Islamist threats, foreign and domestic...

The current posting at the Iraq The Model is titled "Is Iran's honeymoon in Iraq Over?" describing a hopeful situation that Pelosi, Murtha & co would like to ignore. The link to be entered is below, unless, as for a recent comment of mine, terrye can perfom the same magic and create a simpler click-on to the link:

Claiming that "the situation is serious and that others are politicizing it, is hardly new. It's a well-known rhetorical device. I don't think that's a compelling reason to like Liebermann, and hardly worth a blog post.

Well, we didn't give it to 'em, they TOOK it, damn them. But, there's simply NO excuse for Peter Reaper having the vote.
:-)

Actually, Peter Reaper's comment is highly instructive of a certain kind of modern bourgeois thinking nowadays. He criticizes Lieberman without contradicting one word of his entire speech on any kind of substantive level. He then goes on to say that he distrusts Lieberman. Why? He doesn't say.But whatever you think of Lieberman's positions, at least he is clear and direct about them - honest, really - compared with 99 percent of politicians. So Reaper smears without substance. Typical, as I said, of his class.

Unless you've been on Mars the last year or two, you'll know that if there's ANYone who is not a say-anything-to-get-along pol, it's Senator Joe.

I knew Joe Lieberman when he was a Junior Lawyer in the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection.

He didn't spend a lifetime "talking" about looking after the little guy(as the other Senator from Connecticut has)...he has spent a lifetime doing it.

Roger and St. Joseph Lieberman are both members of Partisans Against Partisanship, aka PAP. Instead of Swift Boat Attacks, they do Pap Smears.

I have more respect for Cheney. Both he and Lieberman are on the same page policy wise with regard to the Middle East and The Global War on Terror. Cheney, though, doesn't pretend that he wants to lower the partisanship in Washington. He wants to turn it up. He feels the same way about John Kerry voters that he felt about Pat Leahy that day on the Senate floor, and about anyone else who disagrees with him on these vital issues. The same way regular posters here on this blog feel about me: idiot, dupe, maybe even traitor.

After 9/11, we had bipartisanship in foreign policy, outside the far left: there was general agreement on both outlines and specifics: give the FBI and DOJ most of what it got in the Patriot Act, get serious about government agency coordination related to homeland security, overthrow the Taliban, destroy AL-Qaeda, cooperate internationally to root out terrorist cells from London to Madrid to Indonesia, and continue to implement the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 (i.e. enforce the no-fly zone, give money to Iraqi exiles, including shysters like Chalabi, and announce that official U.S. policy was that it would be a swell thing if Iraqis and Iraqi exiles were somehow able to overthrow Hussein). Also, with a bit of help from AIPAC itself, let Sharon know that he could pretty much do whatever the hell felt he needed to do in response to Intifada II.

Cheney, Lieberman, Pat Leahy and Al Gore all were on the same page with this stuff. Opposition was limited to people like Ramsey Clark, Rachel Corrie, along with a handful of eccentric Members of Congress. Then, beginning in the summmer of 2002, people like Lieberman eloquently began to argue that this didn't go far enough.

Today, we are in the midst of a war. As with every previous American war with the exception of WWI and WWII, this war is controversal. We are in the midst of a fierce debate about the direction of our foreign policy, a debate entirely befitting the democratic character of our country. Lieberman remains an eloquent spokesmen for one side of this debate, the one that began that fateful summer. All the while insisting he is opposed to partisanship. What a sanctimonious, cloying, disingenuous phony.

BTW, if he really is such a straight shooter, just what does he think should be done if sanctions don't work against Iran? I'd like to hear what he has to say. He certainly doesn't say in his AIPAC speech.

Lieberman IS a nice guy, sincere in his beliefs. I want him in the Senate, as long as he's willing to caucus with Democrats. Just stop the "why are people in my party beating up on me, why can't we all just get along" schtick."

They're beating up on him because he is defending an unpopular position. Unpopular with Democrats and independents, increasingly unpopular with Republicans.

And we all just can't get along because our Administration started an unpopular, apparently unnecessary war that we don't know how to extricate ourself from, one that Lieberman continues to believe was a good idea.

Also, my favorite Beatle is Bill Evans -- there are some fantastic videos of his trios on Google Video and YouTube that everyone who likes great music should check out.

As to John and Yoko, those quintessential New York bohemians and American immigrants, were rich artists and investors, not politicians. She was really into buying cows, as I recall.

Barone, and you, conflate "anti-Bush", "anti- Iraq war", " with "anti-American" and "blame America first." You conflate anarchists and communists and pacifists and Jihadi-sympatizers with each other, and even worse, with Americans who supported removing the Taliban from power, who want to destroy Al-Qaeda, and who want to weaken radical Islamism and think that our occupying Iraq has the exact opposite unintended consequence.

This tack is stupid and unfair. And now, finally, it is becoming politically ineffective.

I agree, Markus--it's stupid and unfair to have a leadership that fails to fine-tune every shade of gray in every shifting breeze to keep every sensibility in perfect atmospheric bliss in every given moment of time.

How stupid and unfair to conflate the proper undermining and delegitimizing of the GWoT with the improper undermining and delegitimizing of the GWoT.

"Politically ineffective"? Jeez, how can it possibly be patriotic to hope that by intransigence, DC witch-hunting, automatic all-points hyper-opposition, et cetera, your nation's war-effort (as led by its duly-elected leadership) will be nullified, causing the loss of a war and the attendant following world-historical, perhaps irretrievable, damage to the nation and the world it lives in?

Aren't you the party that has for 35 years sneered at "burning a village in order to save it"?

And no, you're not John Lennon--the point is, embracing cloud-cuckoo incoherence was fun in its time, but nowadays it's lazy, stupid, and so dangerous as to be ipso-facto unfair to the people with whom you share the planet.

"And we all just can't get along because our Administration started an unpopular, apparently unnecessary war that we don't know how to extricate ourself from, one that Lieberman continues to believe was a good idea."

I'm still waiting on the exit plan for Bosnia, South Korea, Japan, and Germany (and New Orleans and Washington DC).

The real problem, however, is that Bush did something that made it harder for you to focus the country's attention on the burning issue according to markus. No wonder you don't like him. Your priorities are all screwed up.

But don't flatter yourself. We wouldn't get along if Al Gore was president, and after 9-11 we had fired a missle into a camel's butt, either. It's just less likely we'd be talking about Iraq in particular.

Causes and situations come and go. Views of the world and human nature remain remarkably constant within individuals and contentious across individuals.

Hell hath no fury like a liberal Dem scorned by a Jew, I mean a neocon Zionist tool.

markus is so hip, he likes Bill Evans but not the Beatles. I like the Beatles and Bill Evans, I saw him play a week before he died. I have no idea what his politics were, though.

Roger: You need to re-read my post. I'm not saying that what Lieberman is saying is false (obviously, the situation is "serious"), I'm saying it was obvious, and, ironically, by implying that others aren't considering the situation as "serious", he's the one that is politicizing it. Not only is that ironic, it's hypocritical, underhanded, and dishonest. And that is an example of why I don't like Lieberman.

Regarding your (attempted) insult about me being "burgeous": I am part of the middle-class. I am not part of the owning and ruling classes. (burgeous can mean either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois)

Gary Rosen -- at the Keystone in San Francisco, or Fat Tuesdays in NYC? All I know about his politics is that he dedicated a performance of "Turn Out the Stars" to the recently deceased Bobby Kennedy, and once played a benefit for a synagogue in Nyack!

I have been bemused by the technique of this twit Markus for some time now, but have not had the ability to put it into words........

"Markus, it's not the disagreement that is my issue with you. It's that you make the same arguments over and over. Arguments that were tired and stupid and worn out when I was a child. Then tomorrow, after having been answered by someone that hasn't seen your front of reasonableness crack yet, you come back and continue as if you have not been answered."

Markus has a problem. His affiliation drives his philosophy (rather than the other way around).

This makes it very hard for him not to 'dance', as his affiliation is with the party that has placed special-interest and identity-group politics above--really, almost to the exclusion of--all else.

So he has little choice but to ignore the counters that he generates. If he accepts any one of them, his entire position dissolves.

Ya got give him credit for effort and loyalty, even if his cause is, well, a little putrid.

Renzo -- Your problem with me is that you're simply not interested in engaging in political debate with people you disagree with. Not with me, not with people a dozen times smarter than me. You don't respect them, therefore, considering their objections to your opinions is a waste of your time. Their cause is putrid, as Buddy said, they are putrid too. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, name a single writer or political figure that you disagree with but listen to anyway because you find him to be intelligent and challenging.

As a rule - correct me when I break it -- I avoid the ad hominem attack. "You make the same tired, stupid and worn out arguments over and over again" is an aesthetic opinion, a statement of taste, not a claim that can be challenged. Obviously, my arguments are different based on the issue being discussed, but Steven Mitchell lumps them together because that's how they sound to him. He might as well say, "you're rapper, I can't stand hip-hop, therefore, I can't stand you." I try to give writers here the courtesy of directly and SPECIFICALLY responding to the points they make, in addition to whatever ironic or contradictory asides, snide remarks, stupid jokes, and other rhetorical flourishes pop into my head.

I do it for writing practice, and 'cause I think everyone (including me) ought to have their political prejudices challenged, not reinforced by like-minded comrades. Also, as Paul Simon said, (in a tune Bill Evans played at the Keystone), "I Do It For Your Love."

Gary -- I found out another political act Bill Evans did (I'm reading his biography now, I've become obsessed with him recently). Right before his death, he wrote a letter to Down Beat, explaining that he had always wanted to visit Russia, where his mother's family was from. He had been offered a tour, but after some thought, he was turning it down, because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and because agreeing to tour would be lending de facto legitimacy and support to a oppressive government that stood against all the values that he held most dearly.

Regarding your initial comment, you apparently think liberals despise Lieberman for his ethnicity. This accusation would be more credible if so many of the people attacking him weren't Jewish themselves, and if they didn't spend so much of their other time attacking, or even trying to impeach, gentiles like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

"Your problem with me is that you're simply not interested in engaging in political debate with people you disagree with. Not with me, not with people a dozen times smarter than me. You don't respect them, therefore, considering their objections to your opinions is a waste of your time..."

The fronts slips again. Usually you have to go back four or five posts to find the counter example.

It is straight out of the Marxist-Lenist playbook to talk such. Talk about the debate rather than the point that is very sticky to *you*. It's so ingrained in the left (and typical education), that even people who are nowhere near that extreme do it. In fact, it's a hazard of modern life that all are susceptible to from time to time, as it is a pernicious influence. (A professor I knew called it the "Modern American Mind", but it's wider than that, and he was mainly talking about the unconscious practicioners.) The difference is whether when aware of the tendency you fight it, succumb, or actively embrace it.

For the record, if it isn't obvious by now, I have been practicing a little of Kant's Categorical Imperative. I simply treat markus the way he treats everyone else, on the grounds that is the kind of world he wills to exist. Only I'm more conscious of what I'm doing, and thus more obvious and blunt about it.

It's true that I'm not interested in engaging in political debate with people who are only pretending to engage in political debate. For some reason, some of us here that have disagreements manage to engage in such debate all the time. Hmm.

Markus, there you go again, with the ad-homs disguised as accusations of ad-homs. But enough of that, let's dissect the left's Lieberman-hatred.

You say it's ethnicity-free, but the truth is, his ethnicity is a huge threat to the left via his high profile with traditionally-reliable Jewish Dem voters. Therefore he must be attacked because of his ethnicity as it applies to his positions.

You say it's because he turned coat on the party, but the truth is, he has stuck to his guns--at great personal cost--on the nature of the dangers we face, and this makes the true turncoats (AKA the swollen left side of your party) squirm.

Every time he comes into mind, it is as a flashlight shining on scuttling cockroaches.

Like Zell Miller and Bill Cosby, who also suffer from the same people in the same way, but as ignernt hillbilly and oreo cookie, rather than wandering jew.

You really are baiting me lose my cool and attack you personally, aren't you? Well, congratulations, that's ONE thing you're good at. I have spent hours engaged in political debate with people on this blog, and resent the entirely unsupported claim that I only "pretend" to do so.

As usual, I made an very specific assertion -- Ratso dislikes interacting with liberals -- based on his cheering on your BASELESS attack on me, without any examples that would illustrate why he finds your insult to be right on. I also give him chance to show my assertion is wrong.

Your second and third paragraphs are utterly incoherent. You make charges (my words are "out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook") without the slightest inclination (or ability?) to support them. You claim that I refuse to address "the point that is very sticky to *you*", without saying what that "point" is.

Buddy, on the other hand, has the decency (and ability) to articulate his disagreement with my comments on Lieberman's ethnicity. I am respectfully considering what he said and will reply shortly.

that's not to insult Greeks--just the old "beware greeks bearing gifts" Homeric reference.

OK, let me see if I got you straight: Lieberman challenges traditional Jewish liberal orthodoxy, thus he is the Jewish Clarence Thomas, and even more dangerous than CT, because unlike CT who is pariah among most blacks, Joe retains a large measure of credibility and affection with his Jewish Americans brethren. He is thus being attacked because of he is an unorthodox, non-conformist Jew. But I don't see anyone attacking Lieberman, either Jewish or non-Jewish, making any reference to his ethnicity. Can you find me a political figure who has done this?

Gary Rosen goes even further: Lieberman is being attacked not because he is an ideological outlier among Jews, but because he is a Jew -- it is thus a manifestation of antisemitism. That is baseless. True antisemites have as many problems with liberal, anti-neoconservative Jews as they do with the minority of Jews that embrace a neoconservative foreign policy.

Thus, saying "hell hath no fury than a liberal Dem scorned by a neocon" is probably true, and "scorned by a neocon Jew", is possibly true, though I see no evidence for it. "Hell hath no fury like a liberal Dem scorned by a Jew", on the other hand, is a cheap shot.

No, I'm explaining to other people why they shouldn't bother to answer your "arguments" with reason. I quit caring what anonymous people said about me personally a long time ago.

If my comments had been directed at you, I'd have explained them differently. (Perhaps something like this: I treat you the way you treat President Bush--and with about as much effect. I don't expect any constructive results by saying that, but it's fun to say it.) Rather, I was explaining to other people why I appeared to practice the same kind of activities that you do--with certain limited posters.

Here, I'll even call it out for you. I'm going to provoke you now, on the off chance that it will do any good.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is really very useful on the internet--even if it is a particularly twisted version of the Golden Rule. If you feel aggrieved, examine that feeling very carefully. Especially when someone is holding up a mirror.

Back on topic. As Buddy so aptly said, this is why Lieberman is so hated now. He is a mirror. When he refuses to sit down, some people can't help but catch their reflection. You can blame the reflection or you can consider the source. I'm sure if she had still be around to complain about it, the Medusa would have been plenty peeved at Perseus.

I think you have done a very lousy job of explaining why people shouldn't bother to engage with me in debate.

I can do better: Liberals are idiots that cling to ideas unworthy of consideration. They are not worth the time of day, it is only worthwhile engaging with them to the extent that they can be persuaded to modify their views. Markus is a liberal that cannot be persuaded to modify his viewpoint (this is wrong, but it is your perception). It is tus not worth your time to engage him in debate.

Buddy -- re: mirror. Your point was that Lieberman, and you, were holding up a mirror to the Democratic Party, and to myself. The mirror shows people who hate Bush more than they hate radical Islamists.

That's not me, though it applies to others. My reply was that some people oppose the war and oppose Bush not out of anti-Americanism, but out of PRO-AMERICANISM, out of concern for the preservation of the West, and out of opposition to radical Islamism. So far, not a single response to this assertion. This is where this thread got sidetracked.

some people oppose the war and oppose Bush not out of anti-Americanism, but out of PRO-AMERICANISM

But, when did Bush become the war? The war has been going on since 1935, and you know it, Markus--you're too smart not to.

illustrates your game-playing, the very Mitchell observation that incensed you to say it. I've seen you pull many complex notions out of 'search' in between rapid-fire comments, you know perfectly well your statement is disingenuous for effect.

Categorical Imperative: "the rule ... that one must do only what one can will that all others should do under similar circumstances."

That's from dictionary.com, which doesn't explain it very well. A good example is that society can certainly execute murderers because murderers have "willed" by their actions that society should be such that one person can kill another. Instead of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," it's "When you do unto others, you are telling us how we can do unto you." The Categorical Imperative doesn't say those are the only reasons/justifcations for execution, or say that society should execute criminals (despite the modern sense of the wording above.) It does say that if society decides to execute a murderer, the murderer has no philosophical or ethical grounds for objecting. Or put another way, if society decides not to execute, the decision is ultimately for it's benefit, not the murderer's.

No. Lieberman is a liberal. Daniel Monihan was a liberal. Bill Clinton is a liberal. He isn't worthy to carry Monihan's shoes, but he still managed to have ideas worth considering occasionally. Mario Cuomo is a liberal not afraid to actually engage Newt Gingrich. It's not their fault that the "liberal" label has picked up baggage that has nothing to do with being a liberal at all. (Well, Clinton pandered to the crowd that did that, as did Lieberman in 2000 and Mario when the mood strike him. But I'll make allowances for practical politics.) Even Carter was on solid ground occasionally (stopped watch twice a day, you know the drill), despite his later ambition to become the kookist ex-president ever.

"...it is only worthwhile engaging with them to the extent that they can be persuaded to modify their views..."

No. It is only worthwhile engaging anyone to the extent that they will engage back. In order to engage back, the person will need to understand not only their own position, but the opposing one as well (and varieties of each side). You get bonus points for policing your own side. That includes, with particular relevance to this dicussion, that everyone considers the history of the discussion to this point forward.

Suppose one day we had a discussion about the color blue. I asserted that blue-green was superior. We argue. (It's a silly example on purpose. Work with me.) You give me five reasons why pale blue is better than blue-green. We disagree and argue some more. A few days later, I come back and simply assert that blue-green is the superior shade of blue--without even acknowledging that there has been some dispute. You might be a trifle nonplussed and conclude that you had wasted your time. You call me on it. I question your motives or change the subject or slam a popular person that shares your views or do *anything* but admit that you said something concrete earlier. You again go through the (now somewhat tiring) exercise of rebutting me. Or maybe you give up. Hooray, I win! Next week, I slip in the same comment (or better yet, imply it in a completely off-topic tangent with plausible deniablity).

A few instances of that, over wide-ranging subjects, one can attribute to the complexity of the discussion and the vagaries of internet communication. As I mentioned earlier, even the most careful poster will do that from time to time. However, when it happens repeatedly, on the same topics, you start to suspect that perhaps the person is more interested in disruption than discussion.

This is what Marxists-Lenists were *trained* to do for propaganda. Whether you know it or not, it happened. That training has dribbled down through society (primarily through academia, in my opinion) into common usage. It happens to also corespond to the exact period when logic and rhetoric slowly disappeared from the standard education. Draw your own conclusions about that. People that fall for the more banal forms of moral relativism seem particularly susceptible to it, even if they wouldn't be caught dead near anything remotely "Red".

The point here, being, that you don't even have to be conscious of this habit to be engaging in it. However, even with the best of motives and intentions, **there is no point in arguing with the person displaying that habit until they drop it**. Not all liberals, or even "liberals" do this. Not all people that do this are "liberals". However, due to the historical nature of the problem, and how it propagates, a subset of "liberals" seem to be some of the more tenacious examples.

This is the "dancing" mentioned earlier. It's what I have been doing to you for some time now. I'm not doing it in this post. I'm playing fair. I'm answering your question directly--even if parts of the answer might seem to reflect poorly on me or otherwise lack tact. Now, if you want "evidence", then I suggest you go review what you have written, in context. (Google Cache might help.) I'm not digging it out for you.

If that gives you pause instead of making you angry, then wait for the appropriate topic and we can talk about government sponsered health care again. You might notice that I happen to be your ally on one minor but substantial point (preventive care). I'm a true ally on that point. It means that I won't sell out on over personal stuff or partisan issues--but I'm hard-headed that way. You don't have many such allies on that issue. Now consider all such views where you find yourself in the minority. Can you afford to alienate some allies via tactics?

Steven -- finally you engage me seriously. Let me think about what you wrote and get back to you tomorrow.

...and not to pile on, but last night on the Hannity & Colmes show, Allen Colmes and Jane Fleming were explaining how all the nasty behavior coming from the left is basically trivial, and is due to "only a few fringe actors".

This bears on your ...people who hate Bush more than they hate radical Islamists. That's not me, though it applies to others, which in turn bears on Mitchell's 'bonus points for policing your own side'.

IOW, Markus, you (& Allen Colmes, Jane Fleming, et al) can't be the 'third way' in the Dem party--because (here it comes) Joe Lieberman is already the third way in the Dem party. He has broken with the radicals, and has done so at his own peril, and out of--what else can it be but--a sense of patriotic duty.

OTOH, you and Colmes & friends are simply the more polite, less feces-and-paint-spattered, fringe of something turning brutish and nasty before your very enabling eyes.

You've been hijacked, and either don't know it, or don't want to face it, or are enjoying the (attempt at the) free ride.

"Steven -- finally you engage me seriously. Let me think about what you wrote and get back to you tomorrow."

Fair enough. I note for the "finally" part however that this is not the first time I have made this precise point. It's the first time I've been this explicit or lengthy or personal about it, but it was pretty overt several times before. I've engaged you many time before on other issues. In the spirit of a fresh start, I'll quite cheerfully grant you that I haven't engaged you recently.

"You've been hijacked, and either don't know it, or don't want to face it, or are enjoying the (attempt at the) free ride."

For Buddy or anyone else that might wonder why I would bother: Consider that it is also in the Marxist-Lenin playbook that one never lets the discussion become about oneself. That's the last thing they want. If markus is willing to put himself on the line, then that is a clean break with that nasty crowd Buddy mentioned.

Maybe it is my Chestertonian practical realism (sometimes easily mistaken for wild-eyed optimism), but I don't like to lose potential allies, either. I don't think civilization can afford it.

I agree--don't throw the fabian out with the bath water. Chesterton ref is very apt, too, as his "Lepanto" brilliantly illustrates that neither side has to be right or wrong in a war, that the issue is do you win or does he.

...the poem asks you (or implies that you must ask yourself) why it matters to you, who wins, who loses.

Buddy, funny I was thinking about Chesterton's distinction between the Pessimist, Optimist, and Realist in "Orthodoxy". I'd forgotten about his "Lepanto". However, it crossed my mind yesterday that Lepanto is a very awkward battle for the modern mind to consider. One would think that people who considered the various Crusades terribly important to discuss would consider it somewhat of a bookend, but somehow it gets left out.

Good thought--it IS a bookend--and truly saved Europe, and bought peace from the jihad, for a century. Which is probably about the best we can hope for today--tamp it back down for a few generations. IF we can do even that, what with the schizo politics.

re: "name a single writer or political figure that you disagree with but listen to anyway because you find him to be intelligent and challenging."

re: "answered by someone that hasn't seen your front of reasonableness crack yet"

March 16, 2007: Lieberman's speech - Partisan Hell in Washington/Hope in Iran

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post