It seems Liebermans support for war is also waning which is good news for the democrats since they now need a united front to challenge the Republicans at the next Presidential elections. I believe in the coming weeks the majority of democrats will unite in their rejection of the Bush doctrine which advocates a unilateral attack on Iraq.
Lieberman adjusts his war views](http://www.newhavenregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6823370&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7573&rfi=6) Newhaven Register 26 Jan 03
CONCORD, N.H. — Gerri Lipman King would love to vote for Joe Lieberman in New Hampshire’s Democratic presidential primary. She agrees with him on so many issues — except the one most important to her: the war with Iraq.
Standing at the door of Caffenio Coffee Shop last Thursday, King shook Lieberman’s hand as he worked the crowd, and she talked about her New Britain, Conn., roots. But on Monday she’ll host a small gathering in her Concord home for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of Lieberman’s rivals in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. “I’m very much against the war,” said King, who hasn’t decided who to back in next year’s primary. “I’m shocked and surprised (Lieberman) supported it … I would like very much to support him. But this war thing is a huge issue.”
**Indeed, here and across the country, the impending war against Iraq is a big issue. And as Lieberman launches his bid for the Democratic presidential nod, he may find that his hawkish stance doesn’t sit so well with many of his more liberal party members — the very people who will go to the polls in a primary. **A year ago, in a major policy address at Georgetown University, Lieberman was unequivocal. Saying the war on terrorism will not be over until Saddam Hussein is removed from Iraq, he said the United States must be prepared to do exactly that.
“The unique threat to American security by Saddam Hussein’s regime is so real, grave and imminent that even if no other nation were to stand with us, we must be prepared to act alone, and we are fully capable of doing so,” he said at the time.Later in the year, he became one of the first Democrats to come out in strong support of the resolution giving President Bush authority to wage war on Iraq.
But last week, in the face of polls showing waning American support for unilateral action by the United States and a growing unease with Bush’s Iraq policy, Lieberman began to take the edge off his more strident stands. When one New Hampshire voter asked him about his pro-war feelings, he first said he “would certainly not preclude intervening in Iraq without (U.N.) National Security Council support.” But moments later said he “would prefer to go in with as broad a coalition as you can. I would never go in alone.”
And later, at a house party in Salem when another voter asked him about the war, he stressed that Bush hasn’t adequately made the case for war and must do a better job of sharing intelligence information with the public. At the same time, however, he said that liberation of Iraq has been “a long-held position of mine” and is still necessary.
Other Democrats in the presidential race, including Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina also voted to give Bush authority to go to war. But they also are sounding words of caution. “Mr. President, do not rush to war,” said Kerry late last week in a speech, also at Georgetown.
And both Lieberman and Kerry used the exact same quote to describe their sentiments saying that "you don’t go to war because you want to, you go to war because you have to."Dean, who was also campaigning for president in New Hampshire last week, called them all “Bush-lite.” Democrats, he said, won’t win the election “if we keep nominating people who will say anything to get elected. They (his Democratic competitors) voted yes on Iraq and are now busy telling you they’re against the war. … We’re not going to beat George Bush with Bush-lite.”
And it seems many Democrats in the Granite State agree.Maureen DiOrio cornered Lieberman in Concord, blocking his exit as she pleaded with him to “reconsider” his vote on the war. “I would vote for him in a second if I knew his stance on the war was different,” she said. "But I can’t vote for him."Twenty-two year old Luc Schuster, also of Concord, traveled to Washington last weekend to join the anti-war protests. “Senator Lieberman stands for war, we have to find an alternative to war,” he said, adding that he would favor someone like Dean over Lieberman. In fact, the country seems to be shifting in that direction.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Jan. 16-20, found that 46 percent of those surveyed disapprove with the way Bush is handling Iraq — up from 37 percent last month. Support for taking action against Saddam Hussein has dropped from a high of 71 percent last January to 57 percent. And 58 percent want Bush to present more evidence showing why military force should be used.
Frank Garafalo met Lieberman at the gathering at his brother Mike’s house in Salem. He voted for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000, but right now he’s uncommitted and the war is an issue he’ll consider as he makes his choice.“I hope they let the U.N. inspectors do more and they build a coalition,” he said as he waited for Lieberman to arrive. “I’m not in favor of going it alone.”
“To run on an anti-war sentiment is probably a pretty good strategy within the Democratic electorate here,” said Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire’s Survey Center. “The Democratic electorate up here is really quite liberal in the Democratic primary.” Smith, a politics professor, said an exit poll after the 2000 primary showed that 54 percent of Democrats who voted considered themselves “liberal.” That’s up from just 29 percent in the 1984 primary. Still, with the primary a year away, Smith said it is too early to know what kind of an issue the war will be then."It all depends on what happens. If the war is going very well and things are somewhat stable, you don’t want to be seen as anti-war," he said. “But if we don’t do well, the anti-war note will be good. Right now it’s too early to say.”
Other Democrats argue that Lieberman’s pro-war stand will make him a more attractive candidate because Democrats want to choose a winner — and he would best compete against Bush on foreign policy issues. “Democrats have to offer a credible alternative,” said former New Hampshire Democratic state chairman Joe Keefe. Lieberman “may be a good person to make that case.”
Lieberman doesn’t apologize for his Iraq views, and dismisses Dean’s criticism of him as “Bush-lite.” “It’s a little early for us to begin attacking one another. There’s a better way to have this debate,” said Lieberman before repeating the vow he made when he announced his candidacy in Stamford two weeks ago. “I’m an independent Democrat. I’m not going to hesitate to disagree with my friends or agree with my opponents.”
What makes him so flaky, OhioGuy?