Sore Loserman Rides Again (II)

The defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic party primary was the occasion for some characteristic whining from the losing candidate — a proclivity that earned him the sobriquet “Sore Loserman.” Now he’s confirming what we all knew — he’s a two-time sore loser-man. Not content to accept the verdict of his own party, he’s jumping ship and running as an “independent,” i.e. a Neocon Democrat — a very narrow constituency, and one that is getting rapidly narrower, much to Hillary Clinton’s (and Marshall Wittmann’s) chagrin.

Loserman’s defeat is a major rebuke to the War Party: his opponent, Ned Lamont, campaigned almost exclusively on the issue of opposition to the Iraq war. Loserman, on the other hand, refused to abandon his pro-war position, and defended his stance at every opportunity. If ever there was a referendum on the war, then this was it: but Loserman — who famously ascribed the verdict of the voters in 2000 to “the rule of the mob” — can’t accept the judgement of his own party. Instead, he smeared Lamont and his supporters in his non-concession speech — “Every disagreement is considered disloyal. And every opponent it is not just an opponent but is seen as evil” — and whined that he fell victim to “insults” instead of a fair debate of “ideas.”

But the election was about ideas — Lieberman’s ideas about foreign policy, which proved such a disastrous failure in Iraq and are rejected by the majority of Americans. And as for charges of disloyalty, it was Lieberman, you remember, who said that criticism of Bush during wartime “undermines presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

We can expect more of the same — and worse — during the general election. Get ready for charges of “extremism” directed at Lamont. This, coming from the co-chair of the extremist Committee on the Present Danger, is a charge that no one can take too seriously. But that won’t stop the Lieberman-Beinart-neocon wing of the party from trying.

Huh.

Anti-U.S. Feeling Leaves Arab Reformers Isolated

Before the war, half the Lebanese supported Hizbullah. Now more than 85 percent do.

Arab World Finds Icon in Leader of Hezbollah

Arab governments struggle in crisis response

“America, we hate you more than ever!”

War in Lebanon becomes propaganda tool in Iran

Arab anger at their governments grow

It seems that the “Global War on Terror” is either not working very well or the real goals are something other than getting back at the bad guys who knocked down those towers.

Sore Loserman Rides Again

As of 11:30 p.m. CT, the only statement on Joe Lieberman’s campaign Web site is the following:

UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: “For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman’s website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review.”

“We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy.”

Yeah, that’s why he lost. Or does the conspiracy go even deeper than Ned Lamont? Was this the work of Hezbollah? Iran?

Israel to Lebanese: Flee, but Stay Off Roads

Defenders of Israeli actions in Lebanon have made a point of the fact Israel has warned residents of South Lebanon to flee, as if this makes it okay.

But today Israel is dropping new leaflets on South Lebanon, telling residents south of the Litani River to stay out of cars and off the roads.

So now residents of South Lebanon have a choice: they can flee the bombing or they can stay in their homes.

Economist: Why US gives Israel unconditional support

The Economist reports that the American public is usually on Israel’s side:

Americans are far more likely than Europeans to side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians.

Politicians are much more likely than their constiuents to support Israeli policy:

Support for Israel stretches from San Francisco liberals like Nancy Pelosi to southern-fried conservatives like Bill Frist. The House and Senate have both passed bipartisan resolutions condemning Hizbullah and affirming Congress’s support for Israel. The House version passed by 410 to 8 (of which three were from districts in Michigan with concentrations of Arab-Americans). The Senate resolution, sponsored by 62 senators—including the leaders of both parties—passed unopposed.

Why the unquestioned support?  Two reasons: the Israeli lobby and Christian evangelicals:

“Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world,” says Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister. The lobby, which is the centrepiece of a co-ordinated body that includes pressure groups, think-tanks and fund-raising operations, produces voting statistics on congressmen that are carefully scrutinised by political donors. It also organises regular trips to Israel for congressmen and their staffs. (The Washington Post reports that Roy Blunt, the House majority whip, has been on four.)

White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.

Israel Lets Some Hezbollah Rockets in for PR?

On CNN’s “Reliable Sources” news show on Sunday, Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks stated

One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

HOWARD KURTZ: Hold on, you’re suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it’s fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that’s what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That’s an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.