Gore
now basks in the glow of having made a supposedly brave
decision. "Mr. Gore… selected him despite his religion
and any possible anti-Semitic backlash," the Times
intones piously. Leave aside for the moment the absurd idea
that provoking "racists" and "anti-Semites"
to do their damnedest is a perilous enterprise. The truth
is, putting Lieberman on the ticket is about as non-controversial
you can get. You cannot get more mainstream than Senator
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. He is chairman of the Democratic
Leadership Council. And he has never come across a United
States military intervention that he was not willing to
fund to the hilt or to pop on the Newshour with Lim Lehrer
to defend with his usual sanctimony. This is why the Wall
Street Journal cannot get enough of him despite his
liberal voting record in the Senate. Lieberman has been
a fervent advocate of expanding NATO. He urged military
intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. He supported every bombing
mission flown over Iraq over the last 10 years. Lieberman
voted against limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary
and the Czech Republic. He voted against limiting the President's
powers to impose sanctions on other states. He voted in
favor of giving the IMF every dollar it asks for. He voted
in favor of strengthening the trade embargo against Cuba.
George
Dubya, Dick Cheney, Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman are all
reading from the same script. All four are ardent advocates
of the American Empire. One wonders what on earth Cheney
and Lieberman will argue about in their Vice Presidential
debate. Who will be the first to organize an invasion of
Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein? Who will be the first to
recognize the independence of Montenegro? Who will be the
first to organize a military expedition to Belgrade to seize
Slobodan Milosevic and ship him off to The Hague? Who will
be the first to invite the Baltic states and Ukraine to
join NATO? Who will be the first to secure funding to build
the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline? Who will be the first to move
the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Who will tighten
the screws on the "rogue states" sorry, "states
of concern" the hardest? Lieberman is without doubt
far more of an interventionist than Cheney Where Cheney
might on occasion follow traditional Republican caution
about getting involved in fights in far off places peripheral
to US interests, to the self-righteous Lieberman any US
hesitation at all is evidence of moral turpitude. Gore-Lieberman
2000 is the demented world-view of the New Republic
and Weekly Standard brigade incarnate.
Lieberman's
claim to be the conscience of the Democratic Party, perhaps
of the US Congress, perhaps even of the American people
stems from his speech denouncing President Clinton's transgressions
in the Oval Office. "[T]he President apparently had
extramarital relations with an employee half his age,"
he declared sonorously, "and did so in the workplace,
in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not
just inappropriate. It is immoral. And it is harmful, for
it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the
larger American family, particularly to our children, which
is as influential as the negative messages communicated
by the entertainment culture." Terrific stuff. But
that was not really the issue and Lieberman knew it. Clinton
had been accused of perjury a rather more serious matter.
"I believe that the harm the President's actions have
caused extend beyond the political arena," he went
on, "I am afraid that the misconduct the president
has admitted may be reinforcing one of the worst messages
being delivered by our popular culture, which is that values
are fungible. And I am concerned that his misconduct may
help to blur some of the most important bright lines of
right and wrong in our society." Yet one instance of
misconduct that Lieberman did not address himself to, either
in his speech or, to the best of my knowledge, ever since,
was Clinton's bombing caper over Sudan launched just two
days after his public admission of lying about Monica Lewinsky.
During that infamous bombing run undertaken to distract
an appalled nation Clinton destroyed a pharmaceutical factory
within a poor African nation. This, however, did not fill
Lieberman with anguish. He has never offered an apology
or expressed his condolences or regrets to the Sudanese.
As
he concluded his speech, Lieberman urged Congress not to
do anything rash. He also went out of his way to make sure
everyone knew that he did not wish the President to resign.
"It seems to me that talk of impeachment and resignation
at this time is unjust and unwise. For that reason, while
the legal process moves forward, I believe it is important
that we provide the President with the time and space and
support he needs to carry out his most important duties
and protect our national interest and security." In
December 1998, the day before the impeachment vote was to
take place in the US House of Representatives, Bill Clinton
decided that, in order to "protect our national interest
and security" he had to bomb Iraq. The ostensible reason
was Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow United Nations inspectors
to continue checking for alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Lieberman predictably enough was on the Newshour that night
vigorously applauding Clinton's action. The President "remains
our commander-in-chief," he intoned, "and I think
it should be clear to everyone looking at this that he had
a pressing responsibility to do exactly what he did tonight
as our commander-in-chief. Honestly, if he did not, I think
that he would have been derelict in his duties." Clinton's
attack accomplished nothing whatsoever. 20 months later
and Saddam still refuses entry to the UN inspectors. Will
Jim Lehrer have the courage to ask the morally upright Senator
whether, perhaps in retrospect, he now has doubts as to
the usefulness of a bombing mission he had once so stoutly
defended?
The
answer almost certainly is no. We are living at a time when
it is the bombers who are deemed reasonable, mature, bipartisan,
and thoughtful. And it is the skeptics who are dismissed
as extremists. Lieberman once described Kosovo as the "heart
of Europe." It is nothing of the sort. It is the backwater
of Europe. But thanks to hysterics like him, the United
States now has troops stationed in parts of the world that
are of marginal significance at best. Here is how Lieberman
once justified dispatching US forces to Bosnia: "When
the Senate debated whether to ratify the President's decision
to send 20,000 American soldiers to Bosnia, I proposed that
we had to view our vote to send Americans into harm's way
both as an expression of our continuing interest in European
peace as well as an integral part of our mutual responsibility
with the NATO nations. With Bosnia, our allies were calling
on us to help them come together and act with force to stop
aggression in Europe." Behind the vacuous pieties is
the standard US inversion of the truth. The Europeans had
put forward a number of peace plans for Bosnia, each one
of which the United States deliberately sabotaged. The Clinton
Administration was itching to bomb the Serbs; the Europeans
were desperately trying to prevent this. Eventually, Albright,
Holbrooke and Lieberman got their way.
Back
in October 1998, Lieberman was already urging military intervention
in Kosovo. Appearing on the Newshour with his usual sidekick
Senator John Warner widely believed to be the stupidest
man to enter the Senate in a generation and fielding
the customary toothless questions from Jim Lehrer, Lieberman
trotted out standard boilerplate about "the credibility
of the United States and NATO." Asked to justify US
bombing of a small country that had never done us any harm,
Liberman rambled on (making all the classic "neo-conservative"
pit stops along the way): "We have been involved in
two world wars in this century, actually three, if you consider
the cold war. Because we didn't get involved early enough
to stifle conflict….So it's a question of acting early to
stop a broader war in the Balkans, but also it's a question
of acting out of our humanitarian values to prevent the
kind of starvation of women and children and freezing to
death of women and children and older people that will occur
if this aggression by Serbia doesn't stop." That the
Balkans were going up in smoke in large part due to US meddling
is a factor that never seems to enter the Lieberman moral
equation.