From email@example.com Thu Aug 10 06:30:16
Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
Date: 10 Aug 2006 09:59:21 -0000
Subject: imap Digest of: get.10268
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 16:10:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [NYTr] Don’t Be Fooled: Lieberman Rival Lamont No Peacenik
Three term Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, one of the strongest supporters of the racist Iraq war and the colonial occupation of Palestine, just lost the Democratic primary on August 8 to Ned Lamont, a multi-millionaire cable television executive. After he was declared the loser, Lieberman announced that he’ll continue his bid for reelection by running as an “independent Democrat” since Lamont won the primary.
Lamont's victory was largely fueled by his attacks on Lieberman's support of the Iraq war, which isn’t surprising. A majority of people in Connecticut as in the United States in general oppose the war. The corporate media has given this race a great deal of attention, often portraying Lamont as Lieberman's “anti-war challenger.” But is Lamont really against the Iraq war?
In short, no. An examination of Lamont's positions and statements reveal a clear support for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and around the world. His positions are similar to those of Rep. John Murtha—supporting U.S. interventions but disagreeing on tactics to carry out those policies. Click here to read more from the PSL about Murtha and the war.
Lamont's web site states “that the war in Iraq has diverted far too many of our dollars, and too much of our attention, from our needs back home.” But Lamont stops far short of calling for complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Instead, he supports Murtha's plan for redeployment of “frontline troops out of harm's way” and states that U.S troops should “continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked.”
In his victory speech on August 8, Lamont called the U.S. troops in Iraq “brave” and said that, if he gets elected in November, he’ll ensure that the United States has “the strongest military in the world.”
Lamont has never spoken a word about the will of the Iraqi people, who are against any foreign occupiers and are courageously fighting back. In fact, he fully ignores their existence. To Lamont, it's as if the occupation of Iraq is all about keeping U.S. soldiers safe—a racist, chauvinist position to be sure.
At no time has Lamont questioned U.S. imperialism and the many war crimes perpetrated against the Iraqi people, instead presenting minor changes so that a “winning strategy” can be reached. Unlike Lamont's demagoguery, a true anti-war position calls for immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq, followed by reparations paid to the people of Iraq.
Lamont's support for U.S. imperialism does not stop with Iraq. He stands fully behind U.S. threats against Iran, North Korea, and the Palestinian people. He has stated that since the start of the war in Iraq, “Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous,” and called North Korea the “most serious threat facing the United States today” in a debate with Lieberman. Lamont also recently reiterated his unequivocal support for Israel, saying on national television that “Israel has the right to defend” itself. He failed to mention the ongoing occupation and war on Palestine and the murderous Israeli bombing campaign on Lebanon. This was no mistake.
Lamont, just like the Democratic party he belongs to, clearly supports the goals of U.S. imperialism around the world. He's a capitalist politician cut from the same cloth as Leiberman and his politics are hardly different.
Ned Lamont is himself a member of the capitalist ruling class. Lamont's great-grandfather was chairman of J.P. Morgan and Co. and Lamont's personal fortune is estimated at up to $300 million. He has used these many millions to self-fund his Senate campaign. Lamont and other ruling-class politicians, Republican and Democrat, wholeheartedly support and in fact rely on U.S. imperial domination of the Middle East and elsewhere to maintain their wealth and power.
In the coming months, liberal anti-war groups and media outlets will call for support of ruling-class politicians like Ned Lamont who supposedly promote “peace” and “a speedy end to the war in Iraq.” No progressive person should be fooled. These self-interested appeals keep the progressive movement tied to the capitalist class and its interests. They divert crucial efforts away from building an independent, anti-imperialist anti-war movement and deepening class consciousness. Instead of having to choose between pro-war politicians, who have minor tactical differences on Iraq, it is important to know which side we’re on and to confront the ruling class with the power of the working class and progressive movement.
The ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), of which the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a member, is cosponsoring a National Emergency March on Washington, D.C. on Aug. 12 to defend stop the U.S.-Israeli war on Lebanon and Palestine. ANSWER has also initiated a call for nationally coordinated anti-war actions on October 28, days before the November 2006 elections. Tens of thousands of people across the country will demonstrate against brutal U.S. military occupations and their proxy forces on these days. Only by mass struggle can U.S. imperialism be stopped.