ELECTION POST:
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) today:
Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.
Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.
7 Responses to “ELECTION POST:”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Mr. Lieberman continues to earn that I in front of the CT. He is also quite right.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Exceptionally insightful. Thanks for the post!
July 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how leaving a part of the world were we’re not wanted makes us “less safe.”
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how invading a country that was no threat to us, and in doing so gave rise to a whole new generation of people who now hate us, makes us “more safe.”
I’m still waiting for Mr. Lieberman to admit that his stance isn’t about keeping America safe. It’s about keeping Israel safe. And I’m still waiting for someone to explain how this country’s unfettered support of Israel, no matter what, makes us more safe.
Still waiting.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’m voting for my dog (as a write in) so I could care less what the other candidates stances and reasoning are. My dog promises free yoga classes to every American so we can enjoy the flexibility of dogs so we can lick our own privates, passing on to humans the right to relieve themselves publicly, and the right to sniff anyone’s crotch upon initial meetings and any subsequent meetings thereafter to ensure that this is the same person with the same crotch we met before. He is also considering adding to his platform the right to dry hump anyone whenever the urge hits.
Albie in ‘08 - I live a dog’s life and you can too!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sound’s like your dog’s platform is a mix between McCain’s and Obama’s… McCain is a dog, and Obama is a crotch.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I am not sure that is utopia for me.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
SO the “I” after Lieberman’s name stands for “Israel”? THat’s what I thought. Htat’s why i didn’t vote for him in the primary or the election. If The Dems gain senate seats this election, Lieberman may have to move across the aisle, or remain partyless.
Albie in ‘08!!!!! I am about to start the self imposed media blackout when the conventions start.