Radiofree West Hartford - LIEBERMAN TAKES HIS STAND by Tim Siggia

LIEBERMAN TAKES HIS STAND

By Tim Siggia

June 24, 2006

It used to be said, long ago and in a far more civil time, that politics ends at the water's edge. In those days it was considered bad form not to support the president of the United States when the country is at war. Because one Democratic senator apparently still believes that, furthermore, not only refuses to compromise this tradition but also believes that our president has staked out the right position, he is now in trouble with his own party. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), in a display of courage rarely seen in this day and age, has chosen to stand alone among Democrats on the issue of the war in Iraq, and place principle over politics.

Unlike most in his party, Lieberman sees this issue as being not a Democratic or Republican issue, but rather, as a matter of doing what is best for our country, as well as keeping a pledge to the Iraqi people.

"The war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein may have been a war of choice," he says. "It is now a war of necessity. We must win it. Why? Because the consequences of an American retreat and defeat there would be terrible."

This is not the kind of talk Lieberman's fellow Democrats want to hear. Couching their rhetoric in terms such as, "a new direction", "a timetable for withdrawal" and "redeployment", the Democratic position is nevertheless clear to just about anyone whose eyes and ears are truly open: They want to cut and run. They want us to abandon the Iraqis in their hour of need, and hand victory to the Saddam loyalists of the Baath Party and their terrorist allies. The motive for this policy is equally clear: personal hatred for our commander-in-chief. In other words, they will now resort to any means, including the deliberate undermining of a war effort, in order to run a Republican president out of the White House and replace him with a Democrat. In like manner, they seek to purge the halls of Congress of Republicans and replace them with Democrats. They want their power back. This, of course, is what elections are all about. There is nothing inherently wrong with political campaigning per se. But when a party places its own interests over those of the nation simply to win an election, the line is clearly crossed, and the end no longer justifies the means.

To his party's talk of setting a deadline for withdrawal, Lieberman answers, "I fear that it would send another message to our terrorist enemies and to the sectarian militias in Iraq, that America is not prepared to see this fight through until the Iraqis themselves can take over. . . We cannot and must not concede any battlefield to our enemy in this unconventional but deadly serious war. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that our freedom and security and that of most of the rest of the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, depends now, as it had at critical moments in the past, on American persistence and fortitude in this painful, awful, essential worldwide war."

So Senator Lieberman has taken his stand, and now risks his political future on doing what is right over what is merely convenient. In doing this, of course, he has incurred the wrath of many of his liberal Connecticut constituents -- to the point where, for the first time since he wrested his Senate seat from Republican incumbent Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., in 1988, he now faces a challenge from within the ranks of his own party in the person of Greenwich, Conn. businessman Ned Lamont, specifically on the issue of the war in Iraq. Taking up his party's anti-war position and running essentially as a one-issue candidate, Lamont, a multimillionaire, is financing his own campaign, and has forced an August primary for the Democratic nomination. At this writing, an estimated third of Connecticut Democrats are Lamont supporters.

The presumed Republican nominee is the relatively unknown Alan Schlesinger of Derby, who describes himself as moderate-to-conservative in political philosophy. Though he has a firm position as a tax cutter, Schelsinger's stand on social issues at this point remains unaddressed, at least on his web site. Understandably, he is for the most part remaining silent as the two Democratic rivals duke it out both in print and over the airwaves.

As a columnist I found Lieberman a rich source of material for writing, particularly during 2000 when he ran both for reelection to the Senate, and as Al Gore's running mate for vice president. "Sleepy Joe", as I called him in those columns, was a liberal then and is a liberal now. His views on economic and social issues have not changed since then. What sets him apart now is that he is a hawk among doves -- moreover, a hawk who will not recant his hawkish views in order to toe the antiwar party line of the Democrats. And, though I still disagree with him on the majority of issues, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge a newfound respect for Connecticut's junior senator.

There has been widespread speculation in Connecticut that Lieberman, should he lose the upcoming primary, might continue his run as an independent. As if to force Lieberman's hand on this, rival Lamont, in a campaign ad, has publicly stated that should Lieberman win the primary and thus become the Democratic candidate, that he, Lamont, will support Lieberman's candidacy, and challenged Lieberman to pledge support Lamont's candidacy should Lamont win nomination. For his own part, Lieberman has not ruled out the possibility of an independent run, but beyond that has not addressed the subject. Rather, he is at this time campaigning as a Democrat for the Democratic nomination.

In a larger sense, however, Lieberman has already won. By staking out his ground on the issue of the war in Iraq, by publicly aligning himself with Republicans in opposition to the popular Democratic position, and by showing his willingness to risk everything on a matter of principle, Joe Lieberman has shown Connecticut, and perhaps the rest of the country as well, that he is his own man, and not merely a functionary of the Democratic Party.