Joe Lieberman gets it
There aren't many contemporary folks who identify themselves as liberals that I respect.
Most of those folks are the Elitist Left, as illiberal a group as you can find.
Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, is a liberal. He understands, as few of his Democratic colleagues do, that the only option in Iraq is not cutting and running.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Iraq's prime minister Wednesday that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq until their mission is complete, despite growing unease in Congress about the progress of the conflict here.
"We cannot let extremists and terrorists, a small number, here in Iraq deprive the 27 million Iraqis of what they want which is a better freer life, safer life for themselves and their children," Lieberman said after his meeting with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
The Connecticut Democrat, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the cost of success in Iraq would be high "but the cost for America of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic — for America, for the Iraqi people and I believe for the world."
Not many Democrats -- or Republicans, for that matter, including President Bush himself -- could make the case so eloquently.
"Terrorists can't defeat us on the ground," the Connecticut Democrat said [before the trip to Iraq]. "They can win by affecting public opinion here."
Lieberman's 1991 reasons for wanting forceful action in Iraq still echo through his speeches today."If we do not act," the senator said in April 1991, "if we neglect our duty to humanity, we would, as Dwight Eisenhower once said in speaking about a failure to confront evil in the world, `outrage our own conscience. In the eyes of those who suffer injustice, we would become partners with their oppressors.'"
Such consistency doesn't sit well with the Elitist Left.
Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, called Lieberman "one of the worst Democrats in the Senate when it comes to foreign policy. He has an ideological view that prevents him from processing new information."
The Institute for Public Accuracy?
What is this?
The Institute for Public Accuracy was founded in mid-1997 by its current executive director, Norman Solomon, with the support of a two-year $100,000-per-year Public Interest Pioneer grant from the Stern Family Fund. IPA opened its national office in San Francisco in October 1997. Several months later, IPA established its media office in the National Press Building in Washington, D.C. It is a 501(c)(3) organization.
IPA increases the reach and capacity of progressive and grassroots organizations (at no cost to them) to affect public policy by getting them and their ideas into the mainstream media. IPA gains media access for those whose voices are commonly excluded or drowned out by government or corporate-backed institutions. As a national consortium of independent public-policy researchers, analysts and activists, IPA widens media exposure for progressive perspectives on many issues including the environment, human rights, foreign policy, and economic justice.
Progressive? I suppose condemning 27 million Iraqis to the terror of Saddam is progressive.
And a 501(c)(3)?
That's a tax-exempt non-profit. But I'm sure Mr Solomon is profiting mightily.
Whose word would you take -- the word of a man who has made four trips to Iraq to check out conditions himself, or the word of a self-appointed declarer of "accuracy"?
I'll take Joe Lieberman.
Joe, get out of the Democratic Party. There's no home for you there any more.