Lieberman v. Gore

The New York Sun ^ | 09/26/2002 | editorial board

[Pokey78]

But two years since Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman shared a ticket for the highest offices in America and they have emerged on different sides in the most important debate in the land, whether to go to war against Iraq. In one of the most spectacular public collapses in memory, Mr. Gore repudiated not only his past positions on the Iraqi threat but also the unified front the Democratic Party had signaled, in the weeks following September 11, it was prepared to maintain with President Bush. Before an audience in San Francisco Mr. Gore came out in opposition to the coming war and accused the president of pushing the case against Iraq “in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right.”

Mr. Lieberman wasted no time in rejecting such a position. “I have never said that,” he was quoted as saying in the Washington Times, “and I don’t believe it.” And just to mark the point, he reiterated his own support for a war to remove Saddam from power and underscored his own willingness to put politics aside at the water’s edge, telling the Times, “I’m grateful President Bush wants to do this, and I don’t question his motives.” Mr. Lieberman also uttered his criticism to the Associated Press, saying that he does not believe that an attack on Iraq will hinder the broader war to unseat the state sponsors of terrorism. “I respectfully disagree with that part of it.”

Such talk also throws into sharp relief the shenanigans of the majority leader, Senator Daschle. After long complaining that the president was neglecting to consult Congress with regard to Iraq, Mr. Daschle now seems to have brought on more than that for which he bargained. Initially reluctant to have a vote on a resolution before the election — best not to be held too immediately accountable for one’s vote, after all — and now having welcomed the prospect of a vote, he is complaining about the administration’s use of the war resolution as a campaign issue. “I was very chagrined,” he told the Washington Times, “that the vice president would go to a congressional district … and make the assertion that they ought to vote for this particular Republican candidate because he was a war supporter, that he was bringing more support to the president than his opponent.”

Mr. Daschle accused the president himself of politicizing the war and demanded that Mr. Bush “apologize to the American people.” If the Democrats feel they must vote for the Iraq resolution in order to secure their reelections, perhaps it is because fighting the next battle in the War on Terrorism has widespread support from the American public, still properly wrathful after the attacks of September 11. Which puts the divide between Messrs. Gore and Lieberman into sharp relief. The other day one of Mr. Gore’s most ardent supporters in the last campaign, The New Republic magazine, issued an editorial lamenting that the Democrats have become bystanders to the war. No doubt those who still cling to the notion that the Democrats have a capacity for war leadership will start looking to Mr. Lieberman as he emerges from the fading shadow of the man to whom he once was a running mate.

[Joe Boucher]

Mr. algore just wants to be pres so badly you can see him peeing in his pants and little tommy dashole is just as pathetic. What do these two bozos want to do, wait until sadman nukes N.Y. or D.C.?
At least loserman has the sense to understand that Israel is currently under Sadmans umbrella of weapons. And what about Euprope? The Eurotrash as per usual is sitting on the sidelines when it is they that gets all of their oil from the area. They too are within Iraqs range and still they care to do nothing.
Thank GOD Mr. Bush is in office instead of the dimwit dems.