Meyerson Gets It Wrong
In Harold Meyerson's "Leiberman Vs. The Democrats" to make his point on party unity, Meyerson misses Lieberman's point on the issue completely. In fact, he evidently read the quotes and articles he referenced wrong in writing his own piece.
Meyerson repeatedly says that Lieberman has refused to criticize the President over his Iraq policy, which isn't true. What Lieberman actually said, and was referring to with the comments on putting national interests over partisan politics was :
"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."
That's a far cry from agreeing with everything Bush has done in Iraq, as Meyerson asserts Lieberman has been doing. In fact, in the Nov. 29th Wall Street Journal piece that launched Ned Lamont's challenge, Lieberman admits that there have been mistakes made in Iraq.
He has criticized the administration at other times for not having enough boots on the ground, not having a good follow-up plan for Iraq after Saddam fell, and for not being ready for the insurgency.
What Meyerson has implied; along with most of the Democratic party and it's followers; is that if you refuse to say the entire war has been a mistake, then you have said you support Bush on it entirely.
The point Lieberman has been trying to make since last year is that even if parts of the war have been a disaster, a larger one looms if we pull out to early. Unfortunately that message falls on deaf ears in the Democratic party, which seems to believe any conflict lasting longer than the 24 hour news cycle has turned into Viet Nam redux.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Lieberman, Lamont, Connecticut, Bush
Meyerson repeatedly says that Lieberman has refused to criticize the President over his Iraq policy, which isn't true. What Lieberman actually said, and was referring to with the comments on putting national interests over partisan politics was :
"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."
That's a far cry from agreeing with everything Bush has done in Iraq, as Meyerson asserts Lieberman has been doing. In fact, in the Nov. 29th Wall Street Journal piece that launched Ned Lamont's challenge, Lieberman admits that there have been mistakes made in Iraq.
He has criticized the administration at other times for not having enough boots on the ground, not having a good follow-up plan for Iraq after Saddam fell, and for not being ready for the insurgency.
What Meyerson has implied; along with most of the Democratic party and it's followers; is that if you refuse to say the entire war has been a mistake, then you have said you support Bush on it entirely.
The point Lieberman has been trying to make since last year is that even if parts of the war have been a disaster, a larger one looms if we pull out to early. Unfortunately that message falls on deaf ears in the Democratic party, which seems to believe any conflict lasting longer than the 24 hour news cycle has turned into Viet Nam redux.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Lieberman, Lamont, Connecticut, Bush
posted by Crazy Politico at 5:11 AM
2Comments:
Sounds like "If you're not 100% for us you're 100% against us." Isn't that what they criticized Bush for?
I would have sworn I left a comment here...? Perhaps I previewed without publishing.
Anyway, I believe Lieberman is Old School Democrat... not at all what the party has become. Lieberman isn't a socialist disguising himself as a "liberal". Strange he hasn't moved even further right considering the Democrat's metamorphosis.
Post a Comment
<< Home