Senator Joe Lieberman writes in the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed, that will most likely get him the nod for V.P. on the Republican side or at best kicked out of the Democrat Party.
About the Democrat’s after 9/11, Lieberman writes:
"…A debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
Predictably, the Democrat’s response ranged from "He’s nuts!" to "F*** Him!"
But, this does say quite a bit about how the Democrat Party has changed over the years. They have went too far to the left, This was evidenced after the gross insult to our troops by move on.org and the desecration to the Vietnam War memorial in Washington D.C. shortly afterwards.
So, now, for the next few days, the Liberal talking heads will sit around mocking Liebermann for "siding with the facists on the right". I can almost hear Keith Olbermann’s Hyperventilating "Special Comment" or naming Liebermann the "Worst Person in the World" over this one. At best, Olbermann will attempt to try and correct Lieberman with some useless fact of some sort, in a attempt to discredit his statement.
That’s the whole problem with the liberals anymore, they are just too damned predictable. Their whole mantra is, "If you disagree with us, screw you, you’re a fascist!" Then they go out of their way to smear you or mock you or try to start lies about you…..and this is the party of "supposed" free speech!
Yeah, free speech, as long as it conforms to our ideologies. I should not say too much, the Republicans do the same thing, some are worse than others.
This is why I am quite glad that I am not of either of these parties or their idiotic ideologies, because quite frankly, neither of them hold court on what is true America or patriotism. I am quite glad I figured that out long ago.
More Opinions @ Memeorandum