Why Liberals Don't Like Joe Lieberman

Because he supports Conservative Causes. And because he has voted with President Bush right down the line on our occupation of Iraq.

This is in response to William F. Buckley, who, in a recent article, wonders whether or not the fact that the President kissed Joe is the reason liberals are, in many cases, supporting his opponent in the Primary.

But in looking into Lieberman's vulnerabilities, I discovered in Wikipedia this item: "Following his 2005 State of the Union address, President Bush, after shaking lawmakers' hands, abruptly grasped Lieberman's head in both hands and kissed him on the cheek. At first, Lieberman's staff humorously referred to the embrace as 'some kind of Yale thing.'

"However, as political backlash against the peck arose, Lamont's supporters have appropriated the incident into a campaign button: 'The Kiss: Too Close for Comfort.' Lieberman has since denied the kiss ever took place. 'I don't think he kissed me. He learned over and gave me a hug and said, 'Thank you for being a patriotic American,' Lieberman told Time magazine."

Kind of pathetic, Mr. Buckley. I realize it's enjoyable to imagine all your political enemies as deranged, angered by a simple show of affections. The truth is that we Liberals can see which politicians are fighting for what we believe in and which aren't.

Inspections

Well, the United Nations has an embargo on Iraq, as we all know. The United States would like the embargo lifted so that Iraq can begin selling oil to the United States (and probably other countries too). Their argument is that the embargo was against Saddam Hussein's regime, and not against the Iraqi people. The U.N. may decide that the embargo is contingent on the removal of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Here's where the shell game comes in--Iraq claims not to have Weapons of Mass destruction, and the United States claims they do have them. Now that the war is over, we are begin asked to find the weapons and destroy them. Except we can't, apparently, because we can't find them. Now the New York Times has a piece on a captured Iraqi scientist, who claims that we won't find any weapons of mass destruction because Iraq destroyed them before the war. They buried some of the building blocks of their military program, and the military has apparently recovered those burials sites.

So we will have to see what comes next. William F. Buckley has a piece suggesting that if the UN doesn't want to be further delegitimized they had best play ball and let Iraq off the hook.

Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq

Three articles on Iraq (so far) today. One an editorial article (sans Author) borrows a leaf from Salon.com on why we should attack Iraq immediately. Because if we don't show Saddam how tough we are the rest of the Middle East will think we are wimps and will immediately begin building Nuclear Bombs and increasing terrorist activities. Hmmmm. So showing the middle east we don't care about international law and will invade any of them at any time will lesson terrorism? At any rate the main reason the article annoyed me was that it used the phrase, common in conservative circles right now, "the liberation of the Iraqi people." First of all there are dozens of nations around the world who deserve liberation just as much as Iraq, if that is going to be our new policy. And second, lets not forget we comfortably funded Iraq at the time when he was using weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds and the Iranians. I don't bring this up a lot, but it does fit if we are going to get all weepy about "the liberation of the Iraqi People."

That aside, I wish we would fight this war to liberate the Iraqi people. I wish I believed this war would result in better lives for them. But we all know it won't.

William F. Buckley has an interesting take on the exile proposal, discussed last week. "The value of an ultimatum does not rest solely on whether it is acceptable. It defines a position. The accommodationist forces are at high speed mobilizing opposition to a ground war conducted by the United States. One set of reasons against such a war is vivid and undeniable. There would be casualties, including civilian casualties. There would be reprisals, conceivably featuring Saddam's (to be sure, nonexistent) apocalyptic weapons.

So Saddam turns down the ultimatum. In reasonable moral arithmetic, it becomes Saddam who, by the single act of refusing to step down, brought on war."

This actually makes sense--it is unlikely that Saddam will accept it, but it would give a solid reason to go into war, and it would let the US act mercifully. If Saddam rejects our mercy, than what choice do we have? But nobody is taking exile seriously as near as I can tell.

Robert Novak has some kind words for Colin Powell, which I appreciate. It is common to read in Conservative articles or to hear on the radio how wrongheaded Powell is, and how needs to support his president. What they usually mean is that Powell needs to support what I think the president should believe in, out of deference for my view of what President Bush believes. So it's nice to see Novak acknowledging the valuable service Powell has provided as Secretary of State, by pushing the US towards a more multilateral solution in Iraq.

The End of Dividend Taxes

Two things about this issue--first of all, Republicans are fond of saying that more than half of America has money in the stock market, and therefore a cut in Divident Taxes will benefit all. In fact, most small investors now have their money in 401k's or company IRAs that are already untaxed. Secondly, those who benefit from this tax the most are going to be those who's portfolios are large and diverse. I don't invest for dividends myself--and I don't know anybody who does. I invest because I think the value of the stock is going to go up. If I had much more money than I do, perhaps I would feel different, and I would drop money into blue chip companies who always pay dividends--but so far that's not been my plan. So William F. Buckley's postering aside, this is a tax break for the wealthy.

Second, it's clear to me at least, that this is not going to stay part of the plan for long. It's half of Bush's plan and it's terribly easy for Democrats to criticize. So he "compromises" and eliminates this part of his plan to take it down to the more manageable $3 to $3.5 million.