Lieberman channels his inner neocon

By Libby

There was a time in my life when lunatic ravings like this would have been regulated to street corners in Times Square. Now they get prime real estate at the Wall St. Journal. Joe Lieberman laments the loss of 'his' former party. Choosing a quote out of this exercise in overblown inanity at random:

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

The key words in the first graf would be "resisting attempted subjugation." That might imply to a sane mind that intervention would be appropriate when there's an active resistance to tyranny that needs help. Not so much to interjecting military interference in a tyranny where the oppressed aren't already fighting.

As for JFK, I don't think he means what Joe thinks he means. Unlike our current president and his supporting cast of clueless neocons, JFK actually fought in a war. He understood the underlying meaning of the claim. The words weren't just a slogan designed to excuse unilateral aggression. I shudder to think what might have happened in the Bay of Pigs if Bush had been president then.

I don't suggest you read the rest. The short version is "Oh no, I guess I finally have to admit I'm really a George Bush Republican." Steve Benen as usual sums it up perfectly in a post that should be read in full.

"It’s not that Lieberman has changed, necessarily, but rather it’s that his hackery has become more intense and bellicose. He’s gone from being a largely incoherent neocon to being a largely incoherent belligerent neocon."

Comments

[Kat]

>>This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

Sounds like Harry wouldn't have been happy about the CIA employing Saddam Hussein, or happy that, for decades, the US considered Saddam an ally.

>>And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

Problem is, since Kennedy said this, the definition of 'freedom' has been changed to 'support of the policies of the fascist far-right wing of the Republican Party'.

[Libby]

Good points Kat.