Editorial: Lieberman, please leave our party

Click To Play

Joe Lieberman paid a surprise visit to Baghdad this week and mimicked John McCain's trip there just one month prior -- patrolling the streets with heavy force and sniper cover.  And like McCain, he claimed that the situation in Iraq is getting better:

Overall, I'd say what I see here today is progress -- significant progress from the last time I was here in December.

But the soldiers there strongly disagree.  While waiting for Lieberman to arrive, a few soldiers spoke with the media:

"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comradewho was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive aroundand wait to get shot at."

But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.

"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."

Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, ofMoosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning theconversation to baseball.

"It's like everything else in this war," Adams said, referring to Baghdad. "It hasn't changed."

During the trip, Lieberman even said he would not rule out war with Iran.

Even though the Senate is 51-49, if we explode at people like Joe Biden for supporting the President's Iraq funding bill, then why are there not calls for Democrats to abandon Joe Lieberman?  This Connecticut Senator is pulling the party in the wrong direction on the most important issue since Vietnam.  Yes, we will lose control of the Senate.  But this is a matter of principle.  It is how this Congress will be remembered 50 years from now.  Voters demanded boldness last November.  Instead, we have Senate Majority Leader who awarded pro-war Joe Lieberman the gavel as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.  Something is wrong with that.  Even if it means losing the Senate, I would gain a great deal of respect for Harry Reid if he abandoned Mr. Lieberman.

Comments

[George]

I'll second this. I don't see a point in the Dems having a majority in name only.

Couldnt even get benchmarks in Iraq?! What kind of compromise is that? Bush held out and got everything he wanted. Usually you hold out for a compromis. And Couldnt even pass a clean bill to raise minimum wage? Humiliating.

[jaguar]

Absolutely abandon Sen. Lieberman. We cannot allow anyone to stray from the official message of "cut and run". God forbid any Senator should have an thought independent from The Party. No More Big Tent! I want Stalinist orthodoxy!

[Tony]

Seems Lieberman forgot his khaki shirt, Imus would have reminded him to bring it.

I hope he mistakenly grabs **4 plates during chow, and when he's charged $112 and wants to know why, the cashier will say "the plats Joe, it was the plates"

** KBR charges us $28 per plate, full or empty.

[George]

Hey jaguar,
Invoking the name of Stalin is a pretty good argument. I think that's what everyone who is anti-Bush is hoping for - a Stalinist regime. Oh no wait, we just want our government to be intellectually honest, same thing i guess right?

Next time you want to make empty posts with absolutely no thought, grab a sheet a toilet paper.

[granny]

I LIKE that, George.

Good one.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Jaguar, are you trying to audition for the "1/2 Hour News Hour" on Fox?

[jaguar]

The original post would push the Ds back to minority status in the Senate, all for one Senator's position on the War in Iraq. That is short-sighted and self-defeating. The Rs had to put up with leftwing Republican Senators for decades. Sure, they were a disappointment on lots of key votes, but they kept them in the majority, and majority has its privileges. Tossing Lieberman overboard will make you feel good, until VP Cheney starts breaking ties in the Bush Administration's favor. Then we'll see how good the Ds feel about demanding orthodoxy. Lieberman has his position, and has stuck to it, in contrast to many Democrat Senators who haven't figured out their position is this year, and many who oppose the war but can't vote against funding it. Talk about intellectual honesty -- too many Democrat Senators refuse to take a firm stand on the war.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Jaguar, I understand your concern, but I disagree. Strategically speaking, NOT taking a strong stand on a war that 73% of the country opposes will propel the Democrats to minority party status. People voted in November for a change of course. If Democrats don't have the courage and principle to take a stand, then they don't deserve to be the majority party. Cutting Lieberman out of the party is about more than just making us feel good. It's actually a good strategy. Lieberman's votes on the environment and education wouldn't change if he were Republican. The only difference is Democrats and Republicans would split the committees (which historically has happened under a 50-50 split), and Harry Reid would be in a position that would force him to be more aggressive.

[George]

"Tossing Lieberman overboard will make you feel good, until VP Cheney starts breaking ties in the Bush Administration's favor."

Ties? The landmark vote of this Senate was 80-14! 80% of the senate voted to follow Bush. Clearly, because they think Iraq will improve in either the long term or in the short term. So 80% of the Senate is at odds with 70% of the population.

[The Mexican]

The Dems should have backed Republican candidate Lincoln Chafee over Sheldon Whitehouse. Having that 51 over a dissenting voice in the opposite party was the wrong decision. Look how Repubs use Lieberman. Like Ron Paul, Chafee isn't a liberal, he's bred from a line of libertarianism and old-school conservativism. To me, 51 wasn't worth losing Chafee's dissenting voice.