When you have no idea what Bush’s views over the last 10 years have been concerning the Constitution and when you have no idea of the global strategic ramifications of Iraq via the Petraeus Surge, I am not required by any formal or informal logic to accept your non-factual, biased, and misinterpreted “data” on Lieberman.

The claim that Lieberman has a history of flip-flopping is a statement I give no credit to. So why do you still pretend as if that affects my position one way or another, when it is you claiming something I reject as true?

Does the mere fact that somebody denies your claims, make it justified for you to revel in their “hypocrisy”?

I have never seen a bigger flip-flopper politician in my life. Because he is defending a GOP cause, however, the conservatives aren’t using that favority adjective to describe the amazing shift in his views.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/how_cryptomarxism_won_the_cold.html

Lieberman can say all he wants that the Democrats changed from the happy Gore to the crazy Gore, but crazy Gore wouldn’t have become crazy if the seeds weren’t already planted and ready to sprout. Certainly Lieberman’s connections to the Democrats prevented him from breaking apart from them, even when they were out to get Lieberman. It won’t be easy for him to paint a less optimistic picture of pre 9/11 Democrats because he spent most of his life working with those pre 9/11 Democrats because he believed they could be saved. Unfortunately, they didn’t want to be saved.

Democrats are big on talk but Republicans have the best track record of following through on principle, policies, and promises. Lincoln might not have spoken out against slavery in the beginning, but he followed through on the war and ended up ending slavery. If he had been a Democrat, he would have promised the moon and then quit because the cost was too high or some other new fangled thing came about to interest him. Peace at all costs because war is annoying to Democrats, was seen in Lincoln’s administration and it is seen now, in Bush’s administration.

Obama’s good with the talk too. He promises everything and makes things out to be easily solved if only he was in power. Obama would have acted no differently than the Democrat Presidential runner that was also Lincoln’s top general in 1861, McClellan. Meaning, he would have tried to make a peace deal with the South before the South had been militarily defeated, thus allowing Lee time to launch a counter-offensive that eventually led to Gettysburg and Antietam. Great work by the Democrat master diplomats and peace activists, eh?

As Churchill confided to his diaries, FDR was a backward child in the hands of a professional thug like Stalin, and knew nothing on the international stage. The problem that the Soviet Union was through the fifties, sixties, and seventies was about 80% due to Stalin’s manipulation of Roosevelt - and Truman, into giving him eastern Europe and then helping him rebuild his industrial plant.

Truman got us into Korea and then micromanaged that war as badly as LBJ did Vietnam, engineering a mess: not a victory. He got us there, and then didn’t allow the military to go ahead and win it. There’s also the fact of what a sleazy politician he was in the first place: the only reason he gave a damn in any direction about the far east was because (just like Bill Clinton) his broke campaign got a lot of help from what used to be called the “China lobby,” and thereafter he was pretty much willing to do whatever Chiang-Kai Shek wanted.

Kennedy. Well, Kennedy came across as such a weiner to Khrushchev that Mr. K. felt it would be fine to go ahead and load up Cuba with missiles, the little wimp wouldn’t do anything. If Kennedy’d avoided creating that impression in the first place none of it would have happened. He painted himself (and us) into a corner, and then had to start blustering and rattling other people’s sabers - but he didn’t in fact face down the USSR. What we did was trade withdrawing our missiles from Turkey for their withdrawing theirs from Cuba.

And then of course there was Vietnam, another Korea with no clear end in view, half-assed strategy in pursuit of unknown objectives - even Kennedy realized what a mess he’d perpetrated and was (allegedly) going to pull out in 1964-65.

It’s nice, I guess, that the democrats once upon a time contemplated the use of the military and the idea of American intervention, but I don’t seem to notice it ever amounted to anything other than new and different problems. Their history is one of startling ineptitude, primarily owing to a complete lack of follow-through.

Now, Democrats who want to remain in their establishment must support their rabid hate-America-first rhetoric and policies. And the far-left zealots are only getting started. They’ve only just begun to flex their power within Democrat circles.

Eventually the American public will catch on. But not this year. It will take awhile.