Lieberman's Long View
New York Sun Editorial
November 9, 2007

Senator Lieberman gave one important speech yesterday at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, tracing the history of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party. "Confronted by the totalitarian threats first of fascism and then of communism, Democrats under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy forged a foreign policy that was simultaneously principled, internationalist, and tough-minded," he said. Back then, the Democrats were "a party that understood that a progressive society must be ready and willing to use its military power in defense of its progressive ideals, in order to ensure that those progressive ideals survived."

"That Democratic foreign policy tradition — the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy—collapsed just a few years later, in the trauma of Vietnam. And in its place, a very different worldview took root in the Democratic Party," Mr. Lieberman said. "Reflexively skeptical about America's authority to make moral judgments about the rest of the world, inclined to see the planet's leading problems as more often the result of American involvement than American disengagement, and viscerally opposed to the use of military force, this rival worldview was in many respects the polar opposite of the self-confident and idealistic internationalism that had, just a few years earlier, animated the Democratic Party under President Kennedy."

The senator traced Democratic failures to win the presidency to the "disastrous detour" of George McGovern's presidential candidacy. "The American people didn't trust Democrats to keep them safe, and the McGovernite legacy was a big reason why," he said.

"Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush," Mr. Lieberman said. "No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. … Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there."

Mr. Lieberman was re-elected last year in Connecticut, a state that leans Democratic. He was the vice presidential nominee of the Democrats in 2000, a year in which he and his running mate won the popular vote nationwide. We see his comments less as directed to the Democrats — though we don't rule out Senator Clinton moving to the right after winning the nomination. Or to the Republicans, who, with the exception of Ron Paul and Governor Huckabee, are a pretty sound bunch on foreign policy. Rather, we see the beginnings of the logic of a foreign policy platform for a presidential campaign of Mayor Bloomberg, who strongly supported Mr. Lieberman's campaign in Connecticut.

Mr. Lieberman concluded his address at Johns Hopkins by telling his audience not to "become so wedded to a party that you are unwilling to diverge from it, when your convictions diverge from it." He told them, "If you choose to identify as a Democrat or a Republican, in other words, I encourage each of you to be independent Democrats and independent Republicans." It will be advice that Mr. Bloomberg — a Johns Hopkins alumnus and major donor — will need voters to heed if he is to win the presidency.

The Democratic party is glad to be rid of the traitorous Jew. Lieberman has allowed his faith to completely dictate his views on the Middle East. I'm sure he would be quite happy in a Jewish theocracy. The New York Sun is Jewish tilted as well, from Wikipedia quote, "the Sun is known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues". Next you'll be pasting the latest press release from AIPAC, or the ADL. Gone all the way Jew boy have we steve?

So, what do you think about Jews? I'd like to thank you for being as upfront and honest about you're feeling about Jews. It's quite refreshing. Not everyone has the integrity to be so honerst. However, it does once again prove my point that the "elites" or liberals or whatever you want to call them are just as - if not more - bigoted than those they claim on the right to be.

A perfect, textbook example.

Oh and P.S.: I'll paste whatever the fuck I like.

Oh, so now it's time to play the 'you're anti semitic card'. Has nothing to do with bigotry, has a lot to do with facts. Go ahead, tell me, Lieberman's faith isn't influencing his views on the war. Tell me also, that a lobbying group, such as AIPAC, isn't affecting our foreign policy. You're demonstrating that the real PC comes from the right. BTW, you misspelled Lieberman's name on the thread title.



I don't care what you paste, just don't get all defensive when I point out where they're from.

You're saying a lot without saying anyting. Put some fact sbehind what you're allegedly accusaing him of. Anyone who says something like "traitorous jew" espeically in the context of what you're referring is going to have issues with jews. It's as simple as that. I think everyone's "faith" influecens their decisions in life. So, what? Lots of people get their moral compass from their faith be it a Jew or a Muslim or a Catholic. I'd still like to know what a "traitorous jew" is. I find that interesting.

A traitorous Jew is Lieberman, one who puts his faith above his country, and allows it to dictate his policy votes. His Zionist connections are well documented.Sen. Lieberman's Zionist Connections - A Conflict Of Interest?

Now instead of doing your normal dancing around, why don't you address my question. That of the influence of Jewish lobbying group AIPAC, to use a phrase from your language, do you think that's kosher?

"Back then, the Democrats were "a party that understood that a progressive society must be ready and willing to use its military power in defense of its progressive ideals, in order to ensure that those progressive ideals survived." -Lieberman

>>>This is Lieberman/Neocon code-speak for "Israel wants to utilize the U.S. military to dominate its neighbors and prevent people from saying bad things about it." FOTM is, Israel's ideals are a long way from "progressive". They go all the way back to Joshua when he slaughtered all the inhabitants of Jericho.

"My language?" Nah, you don't have an issue with Jews. My error. The answer is I don't have a fucking clue about AIPAC and the notion that someone of your ilk is going to educate on the issue is laughable. Being he is a Democratic Jew, it would make common sense to even someone of such limited abilities such as yourself that he would have a large Jewish support base as most Jews are fairly liberal in their thinking and he is fairly liberal in his thinking as relates to social issues ie: taxation and government responsibility in one's life.

Instead of "tap dancing" yourself, give me one specific issue where he has put his faith above his responsibilities? I'd like to see that.

You know, I just read the link that you supplied and if this is the kind of crap that you rely on for your information then no wonder you're so fucking stupid. jeses Christ, stop wasting my fucking time with this nonsense.

You, "don't have a fucking clue about AIPAC", that's a bit disconcerting, but hardly surprising considering your choice of media outlets. Whether you agree with AIPAC's aims or not, the simple fact that you don't even know who they are speaks volumes. Your naivety, at times, is astounding. Here, learn something:American Israel Public Affairs Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In case you haven't heard, Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He actually is officially listed as an independent Democrat in the senate records, as he was elected as an independent. So, referring to him as a, "Democratic Jew" is incorrect, adding to your already lengthy list of simple mistakes. Perhaps you need more education, Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont in 2006, he kept his senate seat by running as an independent in the general election. Lets see, you've misspelled Lieberman's name on the thread title, misidentified his party, are completely unaware of the large Jewish lobby AIPAC and it's interests. What do you know, except what time your idol, Bill O'Reilly, comes on?