Actions like todays only highlight Lieberman's point even more.
The subject of Senator Lieberman’s talk was “The Politics of National Security,” in which he spoke about the future of the Democratic Party and its response to the threat of Iran.
In the address, Senator Lieberman stated, “Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.
“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. 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 of 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. 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 that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”
Senator Lieberman also indicated, “…there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.
There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.”
Go read his whole speech.
Think Progress is whining because Lieberman called the left wing blogs "absurd" for their reaction to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment:
First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.
These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.
God for Lieberman!!!!!
I mentioned this next part, in my previous post, as an update, but it merits further attention.
Steny Hoyer is either trying out the new "party line" to see how it flies or he is breaking with Nancy Pelosi on philosophy and success in Iraq. (Hat Tip to Weekly Standard and Hot Air has the audio)
Hoyer Credits Surge for 'Decrease in Violence' in Iraq
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.
"Stability and a decrease in violence, they've done that - God bless them. I'm not surprised that they did," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.
Those comments will not go over well with the far left, the Pelosi faction, of the Democratic party or their supporters because they have been doing everything in their power to take the credit away from our military and General Petraeus with his new counterinsurgency strategies for the progress and success that has been seen.
Weekly Standard:(Linked above)
Steny Hoyer is one of the sharper members of the Democratic leadership. He's hated by many in the Netroots because he believes that Democrats need to tread a centrist path to keep the backing of a majority of the American people. He understands that the hard-line against the Iraq war favored by the Democratic base is not a winning message while the troops on the ground are winning the war.
This tone of Hoyer's -- recognizing success and arguing that the president made a fundamental mistake in not listening to Democratic calls for more troops -- might be a trial balloon of the next Democratic argument on Iraq.
Hot Air: (Linked above)
We’re not out of the woods in Iraq by any means, but when the Democrats’ majority leader in the House acknowledges that the current strategy is working, it’s worth mentioning.
This is a direct slap in the face to Pelosi and crew, who just this morning decided to once again try to force withdrawal language into the war funding bill, knowing it will never make it past the Senate.
Looks to me like Hoyer is cutting his losses and has decided to finally support the troops.
Better to lose the far left, liberal portion of the party than to lose all independents, moderate Democrats and America.
As Steny Hoyer goes, so will follow the blue dog democrats, making Nancy Pelosi, who has turned Congress into shambles, irrelevant, which reminds me of something Don Surber brought to everyones attention not long ago.
American Spectator quoted a House leadership aide with ties to Hoyer. “Last week was a bad week for the House Speaker and she didn’t seem to even know it.”
Debating Iraq all the time and trotting out 12-year-olds to push for a flawed doubling of SCHIP gets you 11% approval. Congressional Democrats won’t replace the first female speaker, but they may make her just a figurehead.
They may already have.
The American Spectator story is here
Kudos to you Steny.
Expect the far left to start attacking him for daring to state the undeniable truth because it does not fit with their agenda.
Some very interesting reading over at Right Truth discussing Holiday threats and check out her reading list.