Joe Lieberman’s war stance
Like Cindy Lauper once trilled, don’t be afraid to let your true colors shine through.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said today while he has no immediate plans to become a Republican, he might change his mind if Democrats oppose funding the war in Iraq. “I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman told the Politico. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”
Put your money where your mouth is Joe!
Great job conneticut, hope your f***ing happy, you should be really proud of yourself.
Dems refused to help fund his campaign because of this last year. Since Conn. elected him anyways, this would make complete sense. He is a Dem in name only.
Dems, there are consequences for your actions. You cut his funding, he won anyways, he owes you nothing. It is not ‘Great Job Connecticut’, it is ‘Great Job Democrats’
This should not be a surprise to anyone.
Hey Joe… Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out… and you might wanna invite Hillary to go with you.
I have no more use for pro-war or pro-censorship Democrats – and he’s both. Although I still see him as a positive on gay-rights and health care issues, maybe having his attitudes on those issues in the Republican party can help move that faction toward the middle where they should be so we can get back on a progressive path in this back sliding nation.
McCain~Lieberman~08 … take that filthy hippies
So now the party has to constantly worry about him threatening mutiny? Impeach him for being a tool.
Lets name a few companies: Sikorsky Aircraft and Electric Boat Works. Guess which state they’re in. The current defense budget may not include many submarines, but it does helicopters.
2) Lieberman is a John F. Kennedy Democrat which I guess is what you’re referring to as in “name only”. If John Kennedy were alive today, he’d probably align himself with the Republican party as well. The Neo-Liberals of today are not the same kind in JFK’s days. John F. Kennedy was also stern concerning things of national defense (irregardless of anyone’s splitting hairs of what how that should be interpretted). But I agree, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves on this.
1) Not sure why all of Conneticut gets the blame for this other than the Democratic party burning their bridges with Lieberman. They bumped him off the ticket because they changed their opinion of the war once they thought it was politically good to do so.
http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx
Rest assured, that the neo-liberal-leaning media will still do their hit jobs on those who support a strong defense.
You know, I was always surprised how liberal the posters to this blog were then I saw the results of the current VIZU poll and it all becomes clear.
Over half the respose makes less than $50k per year. It’s no suprise you like the Democrats. It isn’t your money they are giving away.
7, does “gop.com” provide a fair and balanced account?
It seems that LIEberman IS, in fact putting his mouth where his money is. His largest contributor, United Technologies, is a huge aerospace concern.
Guyver– Nope, I don’t think that Jack Kennedy would align himself with Republicans. He was far too concerned with the average Joe’s rights than Joe LIEberman is. Jack Kennedy would have attacked the correct
country, not a country that not only didn’t attack us, but didn’t pose a threat.
The Connecticut Democrats didn’t bump LIEberman off the ticked because they changed their opinion. There was a primary election which LIEberman lost, and thus, had to run as an independent. There is a move on in Connecticut, to prohibit this, by making sure that all petitions to run for a given office be submitted BEFORE the primaries.
LIEberman was a sore loser, didn’t like the decision of the Democrats in Connecticut, and took it up on his own to run as an Independent.
I suppose that Fox News is one of the neo-liberal media you are talking about… Yeah right.
I think you are drinking the wrong Kool Aid there Guyver.
Fun to see the right-wingers trolling as usual. Actually, the Republicans elected Lieberman by abandoning their own candidate. Nice little lesson in political ethics, in there somewhere.
When the Senator from Defense & Insurance threatens to mutiny over a war so unpopular it cost the corruptos their hold on congress, he’s playing power politics of a classic sort. It’d be interesting if some Republican with a marginal hold on power countered with a threat to join the Democrats. That could turn into messy fun.
I’m curious – are the political parties organized as corporations? If they are, can the many lawyers who occupy the upper ranks in both major parties start filing copyrights on political slogans? They could take opportunism to entirely new levels that way.
#8
So, what you’re saying is that they actually sent video off to ILM to have those words placed over what Pelosi & co. actually said? No, gop.com is not a fair and balanced source. Who is? However, that doesn’t mean the data is biased, just the presentation of said data.
#9 “Jack Kennedy would have attacked the correct country, not a country that not only didn’t attack us, but didn’t pose a threat.”
Like Vietnam? Dems are just as blood thirsty as the GOP. The riots of the 60’s were done by Dems. Look at how you Dems turn on one of your own once he takes the blinders off and begins to think for himself.
Yes, he is supporting the war to help the companies that hire his voters. At least he supporting the people who elected him, more honest then the rest of pack that sell their votes to the highest bidder. Or, just perhaps, he thinks that 17 UN resolutions justify the war, resolutions supported by many of the countries that were secretly breaking them. If a UN resolution will not be enforced, then what good is it? The French and Russians, who were secretly supplying Iraq, said he had the wmd’s. And we all see how Bush has them bought and paid for.
#10 – That post is supposed to be funny, right?
It was only a matter of time before Joe pulled this… the left had it coming when they failed to support him.
8) Doh! You got me there. I thought I could have that out in the open without you ever noticing. Actually it’s overtly obvious, but you can evaluate the truthfulness of the matter by looking at the videos. You can determine for yourself if they are out of context.
9) John and Ted Kennedy are polar opposites. I don’t think JFK has much in common with the Neo-Liberals of today nor his brother. JFK was certainly a man of the people and he wasn’t into redistribution of wealth. But you make a good case…. there was no proof that Cuba was going to attack us, but Kennedy was willing to go to war if the Soviets didn’t stop giving the Cubans those missles. Don’t forget Kennedy got us into ‘Nam as well on behalf of the French.
As I stated before, you can split hairs over national defense matters, but from how JFK was, he’d probably do quite the same as Lieberman. When mentioning about attacking the wrong country you might want to add that Russian intel gave us and the Brits info that Iraq was going to attack us soon when we were duking it out in Afghan… Putin made it clear in a Summer 2004 press conference though that he was not implying a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq… but interestingly few news agencies thought this was news worthy when Putin did his press conference in Summer 2004… Clinton’s new book at the time got more air play. And Russia was opposed to us going into Iraq. Imagine that.
Lieberman lost a primary election so that translates into being a sore loser? Amazing he carried the state even though he “lost” the primary election.
As for which news agency I prefer to watch, I am not a proponent of watching “objective” newscasts becasue IMO there is no such thing. I prefer to watch overtly biased newscasts and base my opinions off of that. If I had to pick the lesser of all the evils, I would say Fox probably does try harder to cover all the bases, but they’re not perfect.
You should try my Kool-Aid, it’s pretty good.
10) If you’re referring to me, I’m not a right-winger. I’m Libertarian.
11) I think that’s EXACTLY what #8 is implying…. he/she seems to believe that the truthfulness of the matter is not important because he/she is using a “genetic fallacy”. Therefore, ILM was indeed hired.
12) Rudy Giuliani, probably said it best during the last presidential debates on why it was good to go into Iraq when he compared it to how he got the mob out of NYC… you can’t attack a terrorist infrastructure one at a time, you have to do it all at once, otherwise the others fill the void of the one organization you took out only to get stronger.
Irregardless, the war was not executed in the best of ways. We had a skeleton crew of a military that somehow the current President gets the blame for, but the previous administration did a great job in shrinking it down to what the current president had to work with both in personnel and equipment.
He’s not leaving the Democrats, the Democrats are leaving him. It’s one thing if Zell Miller goes for Bush, but Lieberman? This guy votes liberal on almost every issue, and the National Taxpayer Union scored him an F at 15%.
14, that gop site epitomizes contextless soundbite drivel, and I suspect the Dems have the same type of stuff from the usual players. BTW, listening to the fringes too much will poison one’s brain.
15) For a moment I thought you were quoting Reagan when he was asked why he switched parties. But yes, Lieberman is pretty liberal in every other issue except this one.
16) I’d love to see the same from the Dem’s site. I’m all for hearing out the opposing viewpoints rather than a subjective one disguised in the shroud of objectivity.
If wanting to know what someone’s beef is with a particular point is drivel, then I’m all for it. It’s a shame that such contradictory comments don’t get the airtime they should given how the topic is still hotly debated.
If however you mean sensationalistic out of context mud-flining, then yes I’d agree that this is drivel I can do without.
#14.
Nice argument except for a few things:
1) Saddam was if anything holding the Al Qaeda elements in his country down. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Now you can hold your ears closed and rock back and forth saying “nonononono”, but its the truth.
2) The reason for going to war was use of nukes was eminent by Saddam. Which was a lie. Again you can hold your ears closed and rock back and forth saying “nonononono”, but again, the truth.
3) Bush keep saying to his intel people – “Lets try to pin this on Iraq”. -from Richard A. Clarke.
4) The military draw down was started by Bush #1 – part of our “peace dividend” – furthered by Clinton and accelerated by Bush #2 and Rummy even after 9/11
5) Bush was told by many in the military that to HOLD Iraq we needed at least 350,000 troops. He ignored them.
6) He was told in 2004 by the military we had an insurgency in Iraq, he ignored them saying “you have to get on board with me on this”.
7) In 2005 and a study was released by the armed services and state dept that said (among other things) the war in Iraq was a boon in Al Qaeda recruiting & enbolding Iran.
8) In 2003 Iran offered to stop its nuke program and neck step on it’s Islamic fundies, partly because they were afraid of the US military after the fantastic job our boys and girls did in Iraq, in exchange they wanted a more normal relationship with the US. Bush being a chimp said the “we don’t negotiate with the axis of evil”. Although interesting enough we are negotiating with North Korea.
9) You as much as say the war was not executed right because of Clinton. How stupid are you? Bush is the president and he’s had a rubber stamp congress for six years. If he needed more stuff and men, why didn’t he ask? we trained 6 million men from scratch in WWII. May be because he’s an idiot?
In short Bush II is a coward and a stupid coward who never served his country. The key people in his administration (except for Rummy) dodged the Viet Nam war (Cheney, Rove, Wolfawitz etc.). None of their children are serving (something they have in common with most of congress I might add) and they have looted the treasury.
We will be cleaning up from this mess for generations.
Yeah, we are.
Good lord I love watching Congressional Democrats squirm.
19)
a. I never said Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked. What’s your point? I do believe that Iraq gave safe harbor to any terrorist organization. Didn’t Zarcowee (don’t know the spelling) go from Afghan to Iraq when he retreated?
b. Well I guess you have to ask what is a lie. If it’s the willful intent to mislead someone of the facts then I don’t think you can say that. If so, then there’s a lot of Democrats who also qualify as liars. If you want to impeach Bush, I can go for that, but please use the same litmus test and impeach the other people responsible as well. Otherwise you’re applying double standards. Bush’s “lies” were inherited from the intel gathered from the previous administration and Jaime Gorelick who should have recused herself from the 9/11 commssion but didin’t. If you want to point fingers, at least be fair about it and call everyone (regardless of party affliation) the liars that they are… check the GOP website above. But “you can hold your ears closed and rock back and forth saying “nonononono”, but again, the truth”.
c. I’ve heard it before. Clarke and Bush apparently have some bad blood and he got relieved. I’ll entertain the possibility of that irregardless, but hopefully Clarke’s words aren’t some sort of Bible to you.
d. You are most correct in that Bush senior started the draw down due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. When Clinton took over he accelerated that even further and choked the military. The Army alone went from 18 divisions to 9…. an irresponsible reduction in force. Part of the justification of this crazy reduction was using the National Guard and Reserve more because on paper it was cheaper to train someone to operate a battle tank only one weekend a month. Laughable On top of that, the Clinton Administration also choked the military financially. With a smaller and less equipped military, Clinton sent us on many international police missions of which I participated in quite a few. Clinton also didn’t pursue UN approval over this even though the opposite was expected of Bush. Throw in the politcally trendy thing of women can do everything a man can do allowing women to serve in combat units only strained this skeleton crew even further. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but from my observations what resulted was many tasks could not be physically done by the females which in turn were put on the shoulders of the fewer males in a combat unit. A ridiculously smaller, underfunded, and overworked military is what Bush inherited. Bush hardly had a chance to accelerate shrinking down the military. But he gets the blame. He was in office less than a year when 9/11 happened. That must have been one crazy reduction in force. Fascinating.
e. Easy to armchair quarterback, but he heard all professional opinions and went with the best available options. But you’d rather believe something else. That’s your perrogative.
f. Too bad the Democrats weren’t interested in being more proactive about this.
g. Al Qaeda seems pretty strong now, eh? From people I keep in contact who are over there, Iraq is more a success than a failure. The country’s economy is booming and they have a higher % females in their congress. What people fail to realize is that only a couple of cities are being singled out of an entire country that for the most part is successfully transitioning away from the old regime…. but those who don’t want to hear this will cite the death toll for the whole Iraq war which has had one of the lowest casualty rates of any war . Not to mention more Americans are murdered in this country in one year than all of our troops since the Iraq war began. Amazing that the news doesn’t try to interview more soldiers on this to get their viewpoints… oh wait they do, but they don’t interview the active duty guys who were doing this before the National Guard got involved, they interview a lot of National Guard guys who are experience Clinton’s master plan of using the Guard more for Active Duty missions. It’s really funny how in all fairness Bush gets the rap for using what he’s got from what the previous administration handed over to him.
h) Amazing what sanctions on Iran has done to their disposition. As for N. Korea, Bush wanted international involvement which is what N. Korea didn’t want. Kerry wanted one on one discussions with N. Korea. Clinton just asked N. Korea to keep their promises even though they have a history of breaking them. Surprise, surprise. Irregardless, China is the main reason for N. Korea’s receptiveness. China doesn’t care about N. Korea other than that they are a buffer from S. Korea and that most Chinese do not see how a democracy functions.
Why didn’t he ask for more people? Are you THAT naive? Bush gave everything his generals asked for last time I checked and by the way, the only way to undo Clinton’s shrinking of the military is to implement a draft which by the way is how we got that many people to go to WWII. Just so you know, we’re all voluntary now. Rumsfield said it best when a bitter National Guardsman tried to put him on the spot over the lack of armor and adequate equipment (Clinton’s fault because you don’t get these things overnight) is that you go to war with what you have, not what you’d like to have. It was Clinton’s lack of foresight that has put the military in the situation it was put in when they time for duty was called. Not to mention a lot of good military people were forced out of the military due to Clinton’s reduction of military forces. Those people would rather not lift a finger of effort given the way Clinton RIF’d many career people to the curb.
Well, as for dodging the draft that’s a Democratic talking point which the military has already said the circumstances that the democrats are trying to make as a dodge was far from it, there are policies in place for that. Now you can hold your ears closed and rock back and forth saying “nonononono”, but its the truth. However, Kerry “earned” each one of those purple hearts, now didn’t he?
In the end, I’d be all for a draft because then we’d get a lot more elitest snobs serving in the military and better understand and appreciate what they put our people through rather than arm chair quarterbacking them. I like Robert Heinlein’s approach on this.
I’m not interested in an Ad Hominum attack on Bush or Clinton… that’s something Liberals tend to do unless it’s their own party member they’re protecting then it’s a one way street.
If I’m left with the choice of preventing a fire or putting one out, I will always prefer to prevent one. Bush IMO is trying to prevent further fires. Pulling and underfunding out troops yet again only tells the outside world that we are pushovers and that we are setting ourselves up for putting out later fires.
21) Yeah funny isn’t it? They resort to name calling too. 🙂 All this because one of their own is a JFK Democrat.
#22, Great trolling. Just one comment.
If I’m left with the choice of preventing a fire or putting one out, I will always prefer to prevent one. Bush IMO is trying to prevent further fires.
Putting out fires with gasoline or burning down the neighborhood so your house won’t catch fire. Great analogy there guyver.
Heh, as I said a while back on DU. Democrats would rue the day for the way they treated Lieberman. 😀
24) fight fire with fire.
Why don’t you file a resoluton with the UN over the issue. I am sure that any sanctions imposed will be honered by the estimed members of the UN.
24) fight fire with fire.
Why don’t you file a resolution with the UN over the issue. I am sure that any sanctions imposed will be honered by the esteemed members of the UN.
Imagine that, Lieberman might switch parties over a disagreement about the war. Usually people switch parties because of a dispute over education funding or milk tariffs.
Sounds the Alarm, as long as you’re quoting Richard Clarke, he also said that he thought Osama would boogie to Baghdad if he got spooked in Afghanistan. Why would he think that if there was no link between AlQaeda and Iraq?
I’ll be glad when he’s out of our party — just like when all those Dixicrat racists left for the GOP during the Reagan era.