Ned Lamont: From No-Go Senator to Befuddled Historian
Writing at the Politico, Ned Lamont (remember him?) takes aim at his former rival Sen. Joseph Liberman, who says the Democrats have forsaken the muscular internationalism of FDR/Truman/Kennedy for — well, we're not quite sure what the new party ethos … Read More
Writing at the Politico, Ned Lamont (remember him?) takes aim at his former rival Sen. Joseph Liberman, who says the Democrats have forsaken the muscular internationalism of FDR/Truman/Kennedy for — well, we're not quite sure what the new party ethos is these days ("Bashar al-Assad: Shave. That. Mustache.").
Here's Lamont on what he thinks was a noble bipartisan past:
That is our bipartisan foreign policy tradition, which President George H.W. Bush understood when he asked his son to consult with Gen. Brent Scowcroft before invading Iraq. “Don’t Attack Saddam,” wrote Scowcroft, who was Bush No. 1’s top foreign policy adviser. “Any campaign against Iraq is certain to divert us from a war on terror.”
Brent Scowcroft, like Bush I and Bush II, is a Republican, but never mind that now. The Cabal's Jamie Kirchick has fashioned a reply to the Daily Kos nutters' anointed, published in today's Politico:
Praising the first Bush administration and “our bipartisan foreign policy tradition,” Lamont neglects to mention that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress opposed the first Gulf War; Gore and Lieberman were two of just 10 Democratic senators to vote in favor of authorizing the use of American force.
What you can take away from Lamont's addlepated revisionism is his praise for Scowcroft's slogan, "Don't Attack Saddam." At least that got the parameters of the conflict right, and distinguishes the conservative realists from their convenient allies in the anti-war left, who preferred to say things like, "No Quarrel With Iraq."