Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Sore losers
 by Joe Conason

The overthrow of Joe Lieberman has intensified the anxieties of the Republican establishment
and their friends in Washington's professional chattering class. This week they were full of 
furious insults, dire predictions and brazen lies about the political uprising of those well-heeled 
peasants in Connecticut who dared to ignore the conventional wisdom and did what they felt 
was best for country and party. 

Not surprisingly, the most vicious and partisan attacks emanate from those same statesmen 
and intellectuals whose propensity for fear-mongering and falsifying first led us into the Iraq 
quagmire. They hate being held to account for the catastrophe they authored, which is why
they again stoop to questioning the patriotism of their critics -- in this instance, the ordinary
voters who went to the polls to register their dissent from George W. Bush's war. 

So Vice President Dick Cheney claims that those Connecticut voters -- many of whom lost
neighbors and friends on 9/11 -- encouraged "the al-Qaida types" by supposedly endorsing
the "notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in 
this conflict and be safe here at home." RNC chairman Ken Mehlman accuses "national 
Democrat leaders" of "defeatism, isolationism, and blaming America first." And Bill Kristol 
charges that those voters didn't really dump Lieberman because of his position on the war, 
but because "he's unashamedly pro-American." (Either those leafy suburbs are crawling 
with subversives, or Kristol is a nasty little McCarthyite.) 

Such slurs and slanders were only to be expected from the ruffled chicken hawks, squawking 
over the potential loss of their favorite Democratic enabler and scared of the electorate's 
growing wrath. Equally predictable was the reaction of pundits and analysts, shocked by the 
diminishing impact of their bad advice and incoherent ideas. The great and the good of the 
punditocracy told the voters to shun Ned Lamont and to shut up about the war, and were 
duly ignored. Now those naughty children will pay the price, or so we are told. 

In Time magazine, Mike Allen regurgitates the Republican line on Lieberman's defeat: 
"The Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon 
that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance 
of '08." A Democratic primary in Connecticut is quite unlikely to augur "vast ramifications" 
for anything that happens two years hence, but never mind. What is most astonishing about 
Allen's analysis is that he ignores the stunning verdict on Lieberman delivered by his own 
colleagues, which showed exactly why he was anything but "sensible" on the issue of the war. 

It was Michael Ware, Time's Baghdad bureau chief, who provided the single most pungent 
assessment of the "centrist" senator last November. In an interview broadcast on Air America's 
morning show, the reporter recalled his puzzling encounter with the sunny, silly optimist so 
beloved by the White House: 

"I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we 
listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that 
he's completely lost the plot, or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues 
turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever 
been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting." 

In other words, Lieberman lacked credibility with voters on the most critical issue of the moment. 
He may pretend now to be a "critic" of the White House, but that isn't why Karl Rove has been 
calling every day since the primary to offer his support and best wishes. 

Such basic facts and clear perceptions present no intellectual obstacle to the shrewd purveyors 
of Beltway spin. Consider Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate, who published a breathtakingly 
dishonest attack on Lamont's supporters: 

"The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply 
opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his
incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against 
Islamic fanaticism seriously." 

He provides no evidence for that bit of Rovian smear, because there is none. The same liberal 
bloggers who backed Lamont are helping former Navy secretary Jim Webb in the Virginia 
Senate race and Democratic veterans in several congressional races. It would be amusing to 
hear the Slate editor tell them they aren't tough enough. 

As one of the "liberal hawks" who helped to sell the Iraq war, Weisberg has since changed 
his mind, but he cannot tolerate the public repudiation of his terrible mistake. 

"Just about everyone now agrees that the sooner we find a way to withdraw, the better for us 
and for the Iraqis," Weisberg says. But if everyone agreed about the need to get out as soon 
as possible, the voters wouldn't be infuriated with Bush -- and would not need to express that
sentiment by dumping Lieberman. 

More than two years ago, Weisberg began to express qualms about the war that he and his 
writers had promoted so insouciantly. Sooner than some who now share his doubts, he 
admitted that things weren't working out so well. In a January 2004 symposium published 
on Slate, he explained why he was worried. His reasons included "the huge and growing 
cost of the invasion and occupation: in American lives (we're about to hit 500 dead and 
several thousand more have been injured); in money (more than $160 billion in borrowed 
funds); and in terms of lost opportunity (we might have found Osama Bin Laden by now 
if we'd committed some of those resources to Afghanistan). Most significant are the least
tangible costs: increased hatred for the United States, which both fosters future terrorism
and undermines the international support we will need to fight terrorism effectively for 
many years to come." 

Since then we have suffered nearly five times as many dead and wounded, and anticipate 
six times as much in financial expense. The opportunity costs and the diplomatic damage 
are obvious in Afghanistan, in Israel and Palestine, and in the international struggle against 
Islamic extremism. The Democratic voters of Connecticut have delivered a verdict on the 
debacle made in Washington -- and they have no reason to heed the scolding of those 
who have been wrong all along. 

Privacy Policy
. .