In an Editorial today, the New London Day takes Joe Lieberman to task for his support of the Iraq War. It has not yet clued itself in to the fact that Joe now has bigger fish to fry; having destroyed Iraq for no reason, he is now gunning for Iran, spreading disinformation as he goes. But, should we give credit to the Day for printing some of the truth about Joe?
No wonder President George W. Bush has a kind word and a smile every time he runs into Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman. The junior senator from Connecticut is one of the few who has constantly beaten the drums that the invasion of Iraq was a valid event. The deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, the ever-growing danger in the Middle East, the Iraq civil war, the new troubles in Israel — all seem to have no effect on Sen. Lieberman.
Now, Sen. Lieberman has topped his support for the war with the notion that the troop surge is working in Iraq.
He disputes directly the conclusion of Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and instead holds to the same line as President Bush: that patience in staying the course will lead to a successful conclusion. He also seems to ignore the facts.
This is not simply an honest difference of opinion. It is a conclusion one can reach only by ignoring most of the empirical evidence. The situation in Iraq grows worse because there is no solution that does not require a long-term commitment of American forces and a huge presence of troops now. Even the majority in the Congress who advocate a reduction in forces acknowledges that United States troops will be in Iraq for a long time.
Better intelligence has toppled the underlying principle of the Bush explanation about going to war. There was no major weapons production that threatened the United States in the near term. The second Bush justification for this unnecessary and harmful war also sits in ruins: that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. While there’s no denying the dictator’s evil ways, it’s legitimate to ask whether Iraq is better off now than before? Is the Middle East better off for having toppled Saddam Hussein?
Perhaps we should give the Day at least faint praise. But, before we do, here’s the concluding paragraph of the editorial:
Iraq is a catastrophe, a solemn and sad series of violence, death, destruction and religious warfare. Sen. Lieberman is one of the few in Congress who don’t seem to get it.
Pot, meet kettle. This editorial caused me to head into the Day archives (easily done, thanks to the Groton Public Library) to re-read this editorial, titled “Lieberman for U.S. Senate“. It seems like ages ago, doesn’t it? A lot of muck has flowed under the bridge since then. Nonetheless, there were lots of us who “got it”, even back then. But not the Day. Not when it might have counted.
Re-reading the Day’s endorsement makes you wonder what planet they were on. In typical Day fashion it asserts that Ned Lamont is not qualified to be a Senator because he is not a Senator, and that Joe is, because he is. It caricatures Ned’s positions, and implicitly diminishes the importance of the war as an issue. But I urge you to read this in light of Lieberman’s activities in the past few months:
Mr. Lamont and Sen. Lieberman are Democrats. Sending Mr. Lamont to the Senate probably also wouldn’t make much difference in the outcome of the debate over the war, on which both candidates appear to be naïve. Sen. Lieberman clings to the notion that the war can be won, while Mr. Lamont proposes that it will be a simple matter to get out. Neither of these views seems realistic or particularly useful in addressing the present predicament.
Mr. Lamont would dispute the point about Sen. Lieberman’s party loyalty, arguing that Mr. Lamont is a “truer” Democrat than Sen. Lieberman. But other than in the case of the war, that is a phony argument. On matters other than the war (a big issue, to be sure), Sen. Lieberman is as much a Democrat as Mr. Lamont professes to be, voting with his party most of the time. In fact, Sen. Lieberman has become more loyal to his party line in the last several years, since his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency in 2004.
Now, you see, those of us who “got it” were perfectly aware that Lieberman would remain a “Democrat” only so far as it was in his personal interests to do so, and no farther. If we look at matters “other than the war”, over the past seven months, we see, among other signs of Joe’s increased loyalty, that he has reneged on a pledge to investigate the criminal response to Katrina, raised money for Republicans, circulated White House spin points on Iran , voted to filibuster a proposed vote of no confidence of Alberto Gonzalez, minimized the lawlessness at the justice department, recently suggested that the Administration should wiretap more Americans, and taken every opportunity to question the patriotism of Democrats and their supporters. None of these positions is in line with Democratic policy, may the gods be praised.
None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who listened to Joe, or watched what he was doing last year with any discernment. The Day could reasonably have argued that party loyalty is not important, but it didn’t. It argued that Lieberman would be more loyal than Lamont. It could not reasonably argue that there would be no difference in the outcome of the Iraq debate if Lamont were there instead of Lieberman, but it did. (If Joe were not there, there would be no veneer of bipartisanship to this horrible outrage, and the Democrats would not be staring at the possibility of a turncoat Lieberman rendering them a numerical minority) The Day could not reasonably claim that Lamont’s stand on the war was simplistic, but it did because it was the only way it could make its argument look facially valid. The Day could not reasonably claim, as it implicitly did, that the Iraq war was such a trivial issue that the ability of Joe Lieberman to bring home the bacon should overshadow it. The Day could not reasonably buy into Lieberman’s hollow claims to be “angry” at the way the Bush Administration pursued policies that he continuously supported, but it did.
So, we can share the Day’s anger at the fact that Lieberman doesn’t “get it”. But, at some point, the Day itself should come clean about why it didn’t “get it”. We don’t know how much the press’s delegitimization of Ned Lamont (like the Day, most of the media portrayed Ned as a lightweight, which he decidedly was not) cost him at the ballot box, but it couldn’t have helped.
SPEAKING OF THE DAY: The paper has named a new Executive Editor, one Timothy C. Dwyer, who comes to us fresh from the Washington Post, trophy wife in tow. Many people believe that today’s Washington Post is the same paper that brought down Richard Nixon. Sadly, no. It is now the paper that gives aid and comfort to the powerful. Witness its support throughout for Scooter Libby. The paper that brought down one corrupt government is now propping up another.
Of course this doesn’t mean that Mr. Dwyer will take a similar “up with criminals so long as they’re in power” approach to the news business. Who knows, perhaps his departure from that institution is a sign that he doesn’t like where it’s going. We can only hope that his coming will mark an improvement in the paper, which, for all my griping, really is a pretty good rag. Every time I get disgusted with the Day, I think about the Bulletin, which today, the day after the President of the United States obstructed justice in front of 6 billion people, chose to headline a story about the Norwich City Council’s FOIA troubles. Libby didn’t even make it above the fold. Below the fold? I’m not sure. The most I ever read is what’s visible through the window on the dispensing machine.
