by user Don Pesci
It’s difficult these days to get Sen. Joe Lieberman’s opponents, who are legion, to dispute with him. They much prefer abuse; it takes so little effort.
Progressive bloggers in particular, cloaked in anonymity and petulant by design, are very good at this; they all sound like Don Rickles with a hangover. Thus, Lieberman is referred to by even reasonable bloggers as certifiably nuts.
On June 10, Lieberman caused the leftist’s stomachs to churn when he said the United States and its allies should be prepared to take action against Iran, according to the Hartford Courant, “…if that country continues helping extremists who are killing US soldiers in Iraq.” And on July 2, perhaps in preparation for the holiday that was to occur two days later, Lieberman said, following a briefing in Baghdad by Brigadier General Kevin Bergrier, “The US has a responsibility to use all instruments at its disposal to stop these terrorist attacks against our soldiers and allies in Iraq, including keeping open the possibility of using military force against the terrorist infrastructure inside Iran,” at which point the combustible heads of the senator’s opponents burst into flame.
It should be noted that there is nothing exceptional in Lieberman’s statements. Of course the US, at war in Iraq, “has the responsibility to use all instruments at its disposal to stop these terrorists attacks against US soldiers.” Lieberman went on to express a hope “that these latest revelations about Iran’s terrorism in Iraq will prompt some of my colleagues in Congress to reconsider their demand that US forces withdraw from Iraq.”
But Lieberman’s colleagues in congress, particularly US Sen. Chris Dodd, have traveled too far forward on a politically expedient road to think of withdrawal now. There are Congressional seats still to be wrested from Republicans at the upcoming elections, and virtually the entire line of Democrats running for president have tied their success to a withdrawal of troops – never mind the consequences that will follow from what is certain to be perceived by jihadists as an American rout.
The Democrat congress is at least as obdurate in its designs as the jihadists who, with considerable help from Iran and Syria, are attempting to drive the US out of the Arabian crescent lying on the south shore of the Mediterranean sea. North of the Mediterranean sea, the catch basin of Western civilization, jihadists have attempted to penetrate France, Spain and now England with their explosive devises. A “scientific,” almost clinical, argument has been advanced to show that Europe already has been conquered by Muslims who procreate with greater energy than Europeans. Italy and France cannot produce enough children to replenish the population, but Muslims in all the European counties to which they have been drawn by the promise of a better (more European?) life do not have this problem. The attack in England was thwarted by police and the ringleaders were quickly rounded up because in England the threshold for the arrest of terrorists is more easily surmounted than it is here in the United States.
Lieberman view of the jihadists’ purposes is both clearly and truthfully stated. His statements are not condemned by Lieberman’s opponents because they are untrue but because an acknowledgement of their sweet reasonableness would put demands on others that are inconvenient, both militarily and politically, to his opponants.
That is the truth Connecticut will not see boldly stated, by someone other than Lieberman, in Connecticut’s media.