General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJoe Lieberman Sad Democrats Aren't Supporting Trump's Iran War
President Trumps sudden, massive escalation of the military conflict with Iran has freaked out large segments of the national-security Establishment. But one person who is not worried at all is Joe Lieberman, once the Democrats vice-presidential candidate, currently a lobbyist for a Chinese telecommunications firm, and, as always, deeply concerned that his party is failing to line up behind the right wing of the Republican Party on a high-risk foreign-policy venture.
Liebermans argument, laid out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, will only come as a surprise to those laboring under the impression that his thoughtful manner implies actual thought. He begins by fretting that the parties disagree on Trumps Iran strategy. Its understandable that the political class should have questions about it, he concedes, But it isnt understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans.
In fact, its hardly true that all the questions about Trumps policy are coming from Democrats many members of Trumps own administration have registered their intense dismay in the media at his policy, which has likely only gone through because Republican officials like James Mattis are no longer around to block it. Even if it was true, though, Lieberman doesnt hold both parties equally responsible for disagreeing with each other. Instead, he proceeds immediately to blaming Democrats for failing to agree with Republicans:
After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened Americas position in the Cold War. Politics stops at the waters edge, said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had earnest, honest, even vehement differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.
In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimanis death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenbergs standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.
</snip>
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)sakabatou
(42,158 posts)LakeArenal
(28,820 posts)Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)Democrats are not supporting Trump's Iran War.
Only Congress can declare war.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)was selecting this piece of shit to be his running mate.
kskiska
(27,045 posts)but the party wouldn't let him. They forced him to choose Sarah Palin instead.
dalton99a
(81,520 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)I have to wonder what they were each were thinking of.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)smb
(3,473 posts)sdfernando
(4,935 posts)budkin
(6,703 posts)That part stuck.
moondust
(19,993 posts)Pushing for regime change?
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)Its a little known fact but true.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4670426/user-clip-joe-lieberman-1999-funniest-celebrity-dc-contest-trump-jokes-the-donald-ladies-man
If you take his subsequent career in the light of that fact, then you see that its all part of a brilliant comedy bit that has taken decades to unwind.
Joe is the Andy Kaufman of politics.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)this AM,spewing the same shit just another day.
All about Joe,I am the best since sliced white bread.
dalton99a
(81,520 posts)JDC
(10,129 posts)Caliman73
(11,738 posts)Using the end of WWII as a comparison is ridiculous. In 1945, after FDR's death, the US and allies were still at war with both Germany and Japan. After the war, the occupation and re-building of both adversaries had to be determined, PLUS the Soviet Union, once an ally, was making its own plans for postwar Europe. There may have been disagreement, but the world had just gone through 6 years of devastating war and new world destroying weapons had been introduced. People were not going to undermine the peace or blunder into another war.
A more apt comparison but still, not a parallel, would have been how the parties lined up on Korea. The Republicans ran on Truman's handling of the war and Eisenhower's promise of peace. Partisanship certainly did not stop at the water's edge there.
Trump is incompetent. He has tried to bully his way through an exceedingly complex situation in the Middle East and it seems to be blowing up in his face. The US cannot afford to follow his whims into a conflict with greater potential for destruction than the disastrous Iraq War. Iran, which is no model for ethical activities either, is not a hollowed out state like Iraq was. It is backed by Russia and China, and Trump's stupidity has cost the support of our traditional allies.
The Democrats in opposing his stupid actions, are looking out for the best interests of the United States. Trump's very election cost the US any "authority abroad" that President Obama had recovered from the 8 years under Bush and Cheney.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Caliman73
(11,738 posts)He has no idea about actual US history.
Either they all seem to live in the alternative reality that has been created by Fox and the right wing media, or they are so cynical that they can lie about it with a straight face.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)not_the_one
(2,227 posts)Now THAT is sad.
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)Pachamama
(16,887 posts)The only good thing that came out of Gore not becoming President is that Joe Lieberman never was Vice President.
He should just go away...
sprinkleeninow
(20,252 posts)🤮