Lamontster

Libloggers have been alternately dancing for joy over Ned Lamont's primary win in Connecticut, and denouncing the defeated Joe Lieberman, who will, as long predicted, mount an independent campaign to keep his Senate seat. On the latter, it's instructive to see libs foam over Lieberman's end run 'round the party primary in order to maintain what power he has. They don't like people bucking or otherwise dissing their beloved Dem party, the apparent final stop in human decency. Of course, Lieberman will keep attacking Lamont from the right, and he'll get plenty of dough and outsider/elite help to do this. He's simply too important to the neocon cause to allow pro-Lamont Dems to put Holy Joe out to pasture. Personally, I think Lieberman is rotting garbage, but he has the right to run in the general election. Are the Lamontsters afraid of real struggle? If so, they better get over it fast, 'cause Lieberman could conceivably win this thing, and crying about his "selfishness" ain't gonna derail whatever Joementum remains.

As for Lamont, I can understand why libloggers love him so, given that he speaks in the same generalized way most of them do, especially where Israel is concerned. Yeah, it's nice that Lamont isn't down with the Iraq war, that he backs Jack Murtha and calls for a censure of Bush. Much better than Lieberman all down that line. But reading his statement on the "Situation in the Middle East" doesn't inspire much confidence in the broader political sense. After beginning with the requisite We-Must-Stand-With-Israel-In-Her-Hour-Of-Need blather, Lamont goes ahistorical:

"But for the first time since Israel’s founding, the United States has lost influence and the diplomatic initiative in the region. We can, and must, do better."

First, the US hasn't "lost influence" over Israel, evidenced by the clear fact that it fully backs the current Israeli assault. If the US really and truly wanted to rein in Israel or otherwise isolate it diplomatically, it could do so. But the US won't do this, since Israel plays a serious supporting role in our ongoing regional policy. "We" certainly "can, and must, do better," but Lamont's bogus statement does nothing to make a "better" Middle East approach possible.

And he drones on in this vein:

"Unlike previous administrations – Republican and Democratic – President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Really? I'd say that Bush is pretty much in concert with his predecessors when it comes to allowing Israel to smash and destroy those who oppose its aggression. One can criticize the Bush gang on style points, but these criminals are well within the elite consensus regarding Israeli violence, as well as making sure that the Palestinians remain a token player at a game they cannot win, not under the present circumstances, anyway.

Lamont, like many "concerned" libs, seems to believe that the US can be an honest broker in this area. It cannot and will not, unless American political reality undergoes some kind of immediate radical change. But I doubt that even Lamont believes this tripe; if he does, he's in for some serious schooling once -- if -- he goes to DC.

After all the pious smoke is blown up the reader's ass, Lamont finally tips his hand when he says:

"All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself . . .We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel . . ."

There it is, peaceniks. "We" must impose Resolution 1559 on Hezbollah (good luck with that, especially now), but not impose upon Israel, which is doing the lion's share of killing and destruction in Lebanon. Which routinely violated Lebanese air space and territorial waters since 2000, and brutally occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years before that, after killing some 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians before said occupation. And the bloody timeline goes back further still. But Lamont isn't interested in Middle East history or any kind of real justice there. If he was, he wouldn't sign off on such one-sided nonsense. (He wouldn't be the Dem nominee for the Senate, either.) Indeed, how committed is Lamont to any peaceful settlement when he says that "we" shouldn't negotiate with "terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah"? If you're not going to negotiate with those in the thick of the action, and who have elected representatives for their respective peoples, then what is the alternative? I think you know the answer to that question.

I will agree somewhat with one point Lamont raises: "Other Presidents have made progress in this difficult region." I can think of one -- Dwight Eisenhower, who stopped an Israeli-British-French invasion of Nasser's Egypt in 1956. Of course, this same president oversaw coups in Iran and Guatemala, and offered to nuke Vietnam on behalf of the French who were getting mauled by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu, after which he initiated direct US involvement in that country's southern half. But you take what you can, which is about all one can do with Ned Lamont. He's not Joe Lieberman, thank God, but he's no savior, either.