Sailing Against The Wind: Senator Lieberman Speaks His Mind As An Independent Democrat

"There is a poisoned political process today in the United States," remarked Senator Joe Lieberman at our SAIS Center on Politics & Foreign Relations/Financial Times/Johns Hopkins School of Government breakfast last week in Washington, D.C.

Speaking on the topic of "The Politics of National Security" before a crowd of nearly 200 guests, the fourth-term senator from Connecticut presented a foreign policy view that irritates many of his Democratic colleagues in the United States Senate and throughout the country.

Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, stated that "the Democrats top priority is to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. This is the simple litmus test for Democratic presidential candidates."

Continuing speaking about Iraq, Lieberman remarks that "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 the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And, if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006."

Spelling out his differences with the majority anti-war mood in the Democratic Party today, the Connecticut Senator goes on to say, "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 progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there."

It is easy to see why many Democrats do not like hearing Lieberman's comments on Iraq as they are so different from the prevailing anti-war view in the party.

While I disagree with Senator Lieberman on Iraq and agree with the majority Democratic view that the war has gone on too long and it is time to bring American troops home, I do feel his insights on the history of foreign policy in the Democratic Party are very accurate.

He feels the Democratic Party has "flip-flopped" on its foreign policy views on Iraq while he has stayed true to the views of Roosevelt and Kennedy. He feels that the Democratic Party has traditionally been for a strong internationalist foreign policy backed up by military force if necessary.

"That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party -- but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them," says Lieberman.

With these comments the now Independent Democrat from Connecticut is saying that he is following the traditional foreign policy views of the Democratic Party from FDR to Bill Clinton and that the anti-war views on Iraq go against this tradition.

Lieberman also feels that current prevailing opinion in the Democratic Party has very little to do with actual foreign policy but with a strong dislike of President Bush.

As he says, "Another reason for the Democratic flip-flop on foreign policy over the past few years is less substantive. For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism -- it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.

In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s -- even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest."

Senator Lieberman is an honorable man with a point of view that traditionally, as he correctly states, has been the dominant Democratic Party foreign policy throughout its history. Foreign policy did change with the Democrats in 1972 with presidential candidate George McGovern who also held a strong anti-war view against the Vietnam War.

And, Lieberman is also correct that much of the anger today among some Democrats is against President Bush personally and politically against his policies in Iraq which have been disastrous for the United States. Lieberman needs to see the extent of this anger among his old party and the party needs to accept Lieberman as a strong voice for a strong international Democratic foreign policy.

Iraq, like Vietnam, has not only divided our country but the Democratic Party. The party of Jefferson and Jackson and FDR is big enough and strong enough to embrace the views of the Iraq anti-war activists and the hawkish views of Senator Joe Lieberman. Diversity in all of its forms including differences in foreign policy are the backbone of the Democratic Party today.

A good debate on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East and overall American foreign policy is a healthy thing not only for the country at large but for the Democratic Party today and for all of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates.

My colleagues and friends in the Democratic Party may dislike Lieberman for becoming an Independent Democrat and for his hawkish views on Iraq but they should feel he has a vital part to play as we all don't have to have the same point of view on the key issues of the day. That would be boring!

This post first appeared here.

Comments

[Querent]

"Lieberman is an honorable man." So I suppose that's why he repeatedly told everyone he was as "anti-war" as Lamont, and then proved that he had been lying at the first opportunity after he was re-elected. Oh well. At least he didn't "flip-flop".

[KRANKY]

You are joking, right?
There is no one in either political party that has so poisoned and polluted the process than Lonesome Joe. He is the modern Benedict Arnold in various formats.
He needs to go away as soon as possible.

[loslobo]

Did you really think your analysis will fly here?

"Lieberman also feels that current prevailing opinion in the Democratic Party has very little to do with actual foreign policy but with a strong dislike of President Bush."

Ya think one might effect the other? First Cheney mapped out the Iraq oil reserves. Saddam threatened to move to the Euro. The Afghan pipelines were drawn up. The Afgan battle plan was formed.(when did that data mining take place?) Then the miltary complexes Godsend happened. And how long did it take for the lies about Iraq start? Which was first the 9/11 commission or Cheney having Judas Miller print lies and quote her lies as facts?

I think to have America commit the HEINOUS of all war crimes, getting thousand killed and tens of thousands maimed might have a little to do with our fondness of GW and his little poodle Joe.

[BUSHsurvivor]

At what cost to our nation's soul & stability & security do we stand by the Iraqi people? What you and everyone else with your opinion fail to say is that Bush lied his way into Iraq, he made a HUGE mistake and a mess that is costly and apparently lengthy! Our domestic issues have been thrown to the curb, our military has been weakened (whether anyone want to admit that or not), our enemies have grown and so much more, and all because of Bush's ERROR! Our military has done all it's been asked in Iraq and how long do we wait with them in the middle of a civil war, while the corrupt Iraqi politicians take their time pretending to want to work with each other.

Roughly how many Al-Q in Iraq are there....just an estimate? I mean we supposely keep capturing them and killing them, but we never seem to run out. Is that the spin being used to take our minds off of the Sunni vs. Shia battles?

[themodernleader]

Senator Lieberman is a man possessed by ideas and goals that could lead an indifferent observer to conclude that his allegiance is to other than the Constitution of the United States of America.

[batguano]

Your defense of this traitorous Israeli/Zionist shill is curious. When he ran against the winner of the Dem primary and true Democrat, Ned Lamont, he effectively renounced his party affiliation and became a Bush/Neocon candidate and traitor. If it were not for the efforts of some other Democratic Israeli shills and supporters, "Holy Joe" would NOT have won the election and we would now have a real Dem in the Senate instead of this warmonger. I wonder why your attempt to rehabilitate him now and defend his pro war views? In his election rhetoric against Ned Lamont he proved himself to be a liar on his beliefs and future direction as Senator, and anything BUT "honorable". He is a long time subverter of our foreign policy in favor of Israeli/Zionist goals, and those are NOT in the best interests of America, just as the war in Iraq is NOT! Nor are his frankly Republican views on many other issues or his many recent dangerous efforts to foment war with Iran! Any "vital role" he plays is in subverting our American foreign policy in favor of the Israeli right. This creature has nothing to offer a new progressive direction for the Democratic party and nothing to offer in regaining our national honor. He will become totally irrelevant and shunned after the '08 elections when a larger Dem majority takes power in both House and Senate. He will then be cast on the dung-heap of history, along with his defenders and supporters.

[EspressoAtNoon]

"He feels the Democratic Party has "flip-flopped" on its foreign policy views on Iraq while he has stayed true to the views of Roosevelt and Kennedy."

>> HAH!! Lieberman has stayed true to the views of Ariel Sharon. Don't even utter Lieberman's name in the same sentence as JFK or FDR. Lieberman is a neo-con who will destroy this country if it somehow benefits his beloved Israel.

And to suggest that Democrats "flip flopped" on Iraq is to suggest that we were originally for invading Iraq. I was 100% against the invasion. It was apparent we were being mislead with shotty intelligence by the "JINSA crowd", as Colin Powell refers to them.

[NABNYC]

He is not an "independent" Democrat. He is not a Democrat at all.

Lieberman is an interesting character in a smarmy kind of way. I wish LeCarre would write the book. Agent Zero (as I think of Joe) claims to have been a life-long Democrat, clung to the bosom of his party, embraced and supported by all the other Democrats.

But then suddenly, without explanation, at almost the age of 60, Agent-Zero defects from the Democratic Party and announces that he is an Independent.

Except he always votes with the Republicans.

Did he go over to the "dark side" with his good friend Karl Rove and Dick Cheney because he was secretly attracted to their manly-man talk about torture and murder? Was it the thrill of Georgie's Shock and Awe: TV-Killing Writ Large? Was it the smell of depleted uranium in the morning that did it for Joe?

Or was it money? Did the other side just pay better?

Who knows. He is Agent Zero. Joe the Defector. Two-faced, going from one side to the other depending on where he thinks he'll do best from day to day. No loyalty, no real party. A politician without a party. A man without a conscience.

Just don't call him a Democrat. However weak my party may be, it's still my party. And we do not let traitors belong.

[syllepsis]

Every word of this essay was false.
Joe Lieberman is not an honorable man in the Roosevelt-Kennedy tradition, he is a neoconservative warmongerer.
It is worth noting that some believe that had JFK lived, he would have ended the Vietnam War in the mid 60's. It is also worth noting that McGovern, whom this essay 'swiftboats' as a pacifist who neutered the Democratic Party, was a decorated WWII bomber pilot. I am tired of these endless slanders of McGovern from the Democratic 'center.' If our current Dem politicians had half his guts, we would not be in Iraq at all.
And we were LIED into Iraq. I detest liars, and therefore the author is correct that I (andf many other Dems) detest Bush, but this is because the man is a pathological liar who has squandered countless lives with these falsehoods, and Lieberman has applauded this destruction as if it were for a sane or noble purpose.

[MrLion]

To begin with, Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He was elected on the Connecticut for Lieberman ticket after losing the Democratic primary.

And Lieberman is dead wrong when he ascribes Democrats' out-of-Iraq sentiment to animosity toward President Bush. Many, if not most, rank-and-file Democrats were against invading Iraq long before the war began. Events since then have proven them right.

[Bongborg]

I'll tell you how I see Joe Lieberman... as bought and paid for by AIPAC and Israel. Honorable man, my ass. Traitors have no honor, and a Senator who serves the interests of a foreign government, ANY foreign government, friendly or not, before the interests of THIS country, is a TRAITOR, deserving of impeachment at the least, if not the bitter end of a rope. And he isn't the only one in Congress who is guilty.

[Lon]

Lieberman claims that the litmus test of the democratic party is to pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences. Of the three leading candidates on the democratic side none of them has committed to pulling out troops as fast as possible, all have sited the consequences. So the centerpiece of Lieberman's attack is verifiably untrue. What is there to like in the fact that he is bravely willing to say untrue things in attacking the members of his party?

Richardson has advocated pulling out troops as quickly as reasonably possible. His reason for this is that he thinks the consequences of this are least bad. I think he is probably right at this point.

But attacking people by misrepresenting their views is not really a sign of character. Painting the democrats as isolationists and pacifists because they don't agree with one about the best way to protect America (and in particular there are wars they do not support) is a sign of lack of character.