MidnightMike
Topic Author
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:54 am

"He's doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign," said Ken Dautrich, a University of Connecticut public policy professor. "It's Lieberman being Lieberman. And it's frustrating for people trying to put a Democratic strategy together."

Sensing political vulnerability in Bush's handling of Iraq, Democrats are anxious to craft a compelling anti-war theme uniting the party for the pivotal midterm congressional elections.

Don't piss off Howard Dean,

Quote:
Lieberman's pro-war views may not be as popular in Connecticut where former Gov. Lowell Weicker has suggested he may run against the senator unless a major anti-war challenger surfaces. Dean's brother Jim, who heads the liberal advocacy group Democracy for America, is rallying anti-Lieberman forces in Connecticut as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/ap_on_go_co/lieberman_dems
NO URLS in signature
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:57 am

Current wisdom around DC: Lieberman is campaigning to take over DoD from Rummy.
International Homo of Mystery
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:02 am

Refreshing to see a politician - ANY politician on either side of the aisle - speak for themselves instead of the usual party line uber-partisan   .

One thing I like about Lieberman, Biden, McCain and others in their ballpark. They aren't afraid to speak their minds. Frustratingly - a lot of people on theleft say "Lieberman is no Democrat or Biden is no Democrat" and "McCain is no Republican". . . . but of course they are, they're just not brainwashed robots succumbing to the party line drivel.

Refreshing!

""It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," said Lieberman, urging bipartisan cooperation.""

Some of our more left wing members here should re-read this quote a couple of dozen times (or more) and let it sink in! Failing the ability to read, perhaps tape this statement to a wall and try this:  banghead 

""Lieberman huddled with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a private Pentagon breakfast meeting Thursday amid rumors he could be a potential Rumsfeld successor.""

Interesting. Secretary of Defense Lieberman? Hmmmm, never thought much about that. I think he'd be reasonble there- will have to study up more to form a better opinion. I think Dumsfeld has completely shit the bed as SecDef, so whomever it might be, the Five Sided Funny farm can only get better.

[Edited 2005-12-10 20:03:43]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:03 am

Indeed AeroWesty. There has been lots of talk about Lieberman replacing Rumsfeld. Plus, the governor of Conneticut is a Republican, so the Republicans would gain a seat in the Senate while appearing to be reaching out to the Democrats....

From what I've read, Rumsfeld is likely to retire early in 2006 and be replaced by either Lieberman or Deputy SecDef Gordon England.

[Edited 2005-12-10 20:06:45]
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:13 am

An editorial that Lieberman wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
Our Troops Must Stay

By JOE LIEBERMAN
November 29, 2005; Page A18

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood -- unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

* * *
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

* * *
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan -- Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future -- and why the American people should be, too.

* * *
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Interesting. Secretary of Defense Lieberman?

I thought that'd tweak your interest, seeing as how Rummy is the gift that keeps on giving, so to speak.  Wink
International Homo of Mystery
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:53 am

Some highlights from Sen Lieberman's column above . . .

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
Progress is visible and practical.

I hate to say I told you so . . . . .

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern.

Hmmm, heard this somewhere before as well.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.

Why then - if this is the case - do folks here insist the Iraqi's believe the opposite?

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

And again. . . .read this, read it again, read it a third time. Failing the ability to read, please, paste the message to a wall nd do this  banghead . Perhaps it will become clear to some of the naysayers . . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:59 am

Big Joe (Lieberman) and Little Johnny (McCain) are gonna run together on a ticket in 2008.

Independent ticket?  Smile
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:26 am

We know there is progress in Iraq. The schools are being rebuilt (after American forces bombed them). Cell phone service is at an all-time high. Sattelite service is at an all-time high. Cars everywhere. Iraqis are becoming a people of consumers. Just like the United States. Good for them. Why then are troops still dying? Why then can American and Iraqi forces not find the foreign fighters and bring them to justice? Why can "Democrat" Sen. Lieberman not even spell out an exit strategy? I see he started to hint at one, but what is it? During the presidential elections, Republicans liked to say that Sen. Kerry kept talking about a plan for America but never spelled out anything. Lieverman's quotes sound like that.

ANCFlyer: I did read those two quotes. Yes, barring impeachment, Bush will be commander in chief till at least '08. I have doubts and fears, but I save that for another thread. My response to the two quotes you pointed out is: some of us are upset that this administration will stop at nothing to get rich. Some of us see a pattern developing and do not like where this country (the United States) is headed. I believe Sen. Lieberman has too much invested to see it.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:41 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Refreshing to see a politician - ANY politician on either side of the aisle - speak for themselves instead of the usual party line uber-partisan .

A big  checkmark  on that one

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Some of our more left wing members here should re-read this quote a couple of dozen times (or more) and let it sink in!

I doubt that's possible, the sinking in part that is, especially for the more radical lefties we've got.




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:44 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
We know there is progress in Iraq

Seb146 . . . you might know there is progress in Iraq, but very few others will admit to that . . . whether they know it or not.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
Why then are troops still dying?

As has been pointed out by various members, countless times, the Insurgency doesn't want a democratic Iraq. They don't want to break the status quo. As Sen Lieberman said above: " roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making."

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
During the presidential elections, Republicans liked to say that Sen. Kerry kept talking about a plan for America but never spelled out anything.

And they would be dead on balls accurate.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:02 am

ANCFlyer: My response to your comment would fit better in the "What the Dems need to win" thread, but Kerry actually started to spell out his plan for a better America after he had been Swift Boated and when the election was near. After all the attacks from the right was when he started spelling out his plan. If the Republicans are smart, they will learn from this.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:08 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
If the Republicans are smart, they will learn from this.

Ha Ha I will NOT take this bet!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
but Kerry actually started to spell out his plan for a better America after he had been Swift Boated and when the election was near. After all the attacks from the right was when he started spelling out his plan.

I watched the entire election campaigning process pretty intently Seb, I can honestly tell you, if Sen Kerry had begun to spell out a plan, it wasn't evident to me.

But regardless . . . the '08 election will be something to watch . . .

Anyone have an independent candidate handy that can beat a repub or a dem?  pray 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:22 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Anyone have an independent candidate handy that can beat a repub or a dem?

That was one problem I had with the '04 election: Nader should have thrown his support behind Kerry instead of running. Not that it would have affected the Deibold machines, but still....

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
I watched the entire election campaigning process pretty intently Seb, I can honestly tell you, if Sen Kerry had begun to spell out a plan, it wasn't evident to me.

I listened to the debates and sound-bites throughout the election and Kerry mainly was talking about "I have a plan for America" and not much substance after that. But, the last few weeks of the campaign, he started spelling out his plan and his camp stared issuing press releases. But, by that time, the Swift Boat Veterans and anti-gay camps had done their damage.

Like I said before: If the Dems want to win in '08, they need to play hard and dirty and not let up.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:28 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
That was one problem I had with the '04 election: Nader should have thrown his support behind Kerry instead of running.

I'll agree that was a waste of time, but the number of votes Nader got wouldn't have made a difference regardless . . . .

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
Not that it would have affected the Deibold machines, but still....

 redflag 
That said: I'm all for electronic voting with a paper trail. It still amazes me that we can bank by mail, by airlines tickets, trade stock, buy a house, get laid (almost) on the web or via computer - but we are still hamstrung by antiquated paper punch car or fill in the blank voting machines! WTF?!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
Like I said before: If the Dems want to win in '08, they need to play hard and dirty and not let up.

I wonder how much more 'hard and dirty' the American public will put up with? I'm thoroughly fed up with it. I'm fed up with ultra-partisan politics. That is one reason I find Lieberman's remarks refreshing. Not so much for their content - although I appreciate most of what he said - but because he's made an obviously conscious decision in making remarks that are not necessarily what the party line would to hear. That shows gut and a willingness to be his own man, if you will. Kudos to Sen. Lieberman.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:43 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
Why can "Democrat" Sen. Lieberman not even spell out an exit strategy?

What part of Sen. Lieberman's plan (Or GW Bush's) do you not understand? You ensure that you win the war, and then you leave.

The Murtha-Sheehan is to simply leave. And of course, as soon as that happens, they will say "GWB lost the war". Frickin hypocrits.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:37 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 15):
The Murtha-Sheehan is to simply leave.

Not true. Murtha's plan calls for us to pull out of the areas that are pretty much a low-grade Civil War at the moment, and put the troops in areas where they can easily respond to whatever threats emerge(Kuwait, Kurdistan). Frankly, that is not a bad idea. Why focus so much energy on getting Sunnis and Shiites to tolerate each other when we can instead focus on helping/rebuidling the parts of Iraq that want our assistance the most (the Kurds and the Shiites).

I don't think the war in Iraq is a total mistake/disaster...But I do think the current "go with the flow" attitude is entirely wrong and dangerous and giving ammo to those will eventually suceed in bringing US troops home.

For anyone who wants to read a great article on changes that should be made in our strategy to salvage the mission, read this:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200509...inevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:42 am

Well, it seems that the same people who want to call pro-abortion views "pro-choice" want to label someone who sees the necessity of war as "pro-war".

Some DNC mouthpiece on Fox News this PM said that Lieberman better hope he's the next SECDEF or else he's gonna be on the soup line. That's pretty much a direct quote.

I think he's a mensch, and while I disagree with some of his economic views, I admire his courage for standing up for whats right in the face of such venal hostility.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:43 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 16):
Murtha's plan calls for us to pull out of the areas that are pretty much a low-grade Civil War at the moment, and put the troops in areas where they can easily respond to whatever threats emerge(Kuwait, Kurdistan).

Right. Retreat.

A rose by any other name...

I see you live in NYC. How would you like it if most of the NYPD packs up and is based in, say, Boston?

[Edited 2005-12-11 00:46:41]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Logan22L
Posts: 4464
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:45 am

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 9):
I doubt that's possible, the sinking in part that is, especially for the more radical lefties we've got.

In many respects, I would consider myself fairly radical left, and I fully understand what Lieberman is saying. When I lived in CT (for 8 years), I really respected him. I also think it's a bit unfair to call his stance "pro-war." Noone can ethically be "pro-war." It is, however, often the only course of action, and it can be justified in certain circumstances.

I still think that this Administration has designed this war poorly, and conducted a propaganda campaign (e.g., Mission Accomplished) that has made them look like bufoons. I had little doubt that after a prolonged period, things could get better, I just think things could have been unilaterally handled much better, and America's perception around the world could have been spared the scorn that it has accrued.

I think that Lieberman now knows that leaving now would be a mistake. Well, of course it would. Bush used the war as a justification for a second term. He knew if he started it, he could say "well, we can't change our course of action now, that would demoralize our troops." In fact, he used this as a major platform in 2004. So, it was basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have nothing but disdain for terrorists, but it's just not being made clear how global terrorist cells are being addressed by the war in Iraq. What about Indonesia? Why can't we get the big picture? Where's Osama?

Tell us something concrete, because not all of us are stupid and listen to and buy into your propaganda. I realize that there are matter of security, but the bungled handling of Katrina and the cronyism that Bush has displayed effectively negates the perception or reality of any good being accomplished in Iraq. Put another way, why believe someone when they say good things are happening when they actually are, if we didn't believe "Good job Brownie?" And no, that's not the only example.
"The deeper you go, the higher you fly. The higher you fly, the deeper you go."
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:53 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
Some DNC mouthpiece on Fox News this PM said that Lieberman better hope he's the next SECDEF or else he's gonna be on the soup line.

I rather suspect that is up to the voters in Connecticut . . . I wasn't aware the DNC did the voting for the constituents there . . .

Furthermore, this is a prime example of dirty, ultra-partisan hard party line politics. This should - should mind you - piss off every voting American in the United States, regardless of political affiliation. Essentially Sen. Lieberman was told to get in line and shut the hell up! Ridiculous. Absurd.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
MidnightMike
Topic Author
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:58 am

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 19):
I have nothing but disdain for terrorists, but it's just not being made clear how global terrorist cells are being addressed by the war in Iraq. What about Indonesia? Why can't we get the big picture? Where's Osama?

The terrorist that are sneakng into Iraq are being slaughtered one by one. Al Quaded is being run to the ground running out of money, losing support from countries that used to be friendly to these terrorist groups.

Indonesia. The Indonesian government is taking the war to the terrorist, people are taking to the streets, protesting against the terrorist and begging the government to kill them

Saudi. Charities that were ways of raising revenue for the terrorist are being investigated by the Saudi Government & their assets ceised.

Osama, yeah where is Osama? Is he alive, is he dead? Many reports have it that he is not even in Aphanganistan, if he is not dead already.
NO URLS in signature
 
Logan22L
Posts: 4464
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Furthermore, this is a prime example of dirty, ultra-partisan hard party line politics. This should - should mind you - piss off every voting American in the United States, regardless of political affiliation. Essentially Sen. Lieberman was told to get in line and shut the hell up! Ridiculous. Absurd.

While there has been corruption in politics for more years than I have been alive, this is very true. And it's sad as hell. I would vote for any person who is for doing things as well as possible, making necessary things available to people who need them at a cost that is commensurate with their lot in life, keeping personal views to themselves, fostering peace whilst fighting oppression and evil, and basically doing the job as a politicain for no money, as it is, after all, designed to be a "voluntary" position.

Also, Congress might want to eliminate their pensions and other perks
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl .

We, after all, pay for them, and it is supposed to be a part-time avocation. How can we institute a 10 or 12-year maximum for Senators and Congressmen?

Then, it's back into the real world - get a job, pay for healthcare, and figure out how to retire. Then, maybe, we'll figure out how to fix Social Security.
"The deeper you go, the higher you fly. The higher you fly, the deeper you go."
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:25 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Essentially Sen. Lieberman was told to get in line and shut the hell up! Ridiculous. Absurd.

He was also told this by the Defense Department when they threatened to close the submarine base at Groton. I guess he saw it was more lucrative for his bank account to side with Bush, Co. than with his party. Oregon has one Democrat senator, one Republican senator and and Democrat governer and we still retained our minor air base.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:48 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 23):
I guess he saw it was more lucrative for his bank account to side with Bush, Co. than with his party.

Can you prove that or are you just throwing partisan hatred about the internet?

Personally, I think moving the sub base in Groton would have been ridiculous. As were some of the other bizarre closures/realignments on that silly assed list. So I don't find it unusual that the base will remain . . . it is rather an important part of Naval Sea Power - you know - nukular attack subs and boomers, etc.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:07 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
Can you prove that or are you just throwing partisan hatred about the internet?

Okay, the "bank account" thing *may* be overboard, but still, Lieberman is now (conveniently) in line with the Republicans and the base is still open. Everyone who follows these things knows it was on the list to be closed. It may be important to the defense of this nation, but it is also a powerful bargaining chip.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 19):
In many respects, I would consider myself fairly radical left, and I fully understand what Lieberman is saying.



Quoting Logan22L (Reply 19):
Noone can ethically be "pro-war." It is, however, often the only course of action, and it can be justified in certain circumstances.



Quoting Logan22L (Reply 19):
I still think that this Administration has designed this war poorly, and conducted a propaganda campaign



Quoting Logan22L (Reply 19):
I have nothing but disdain for terrorists, but it's just not being made clear how global terrorist cells are being addressed by the war in Iraq. What about Indonesia? Why can't we get the big picture? Where's Osama?

Logan, thanks for your lengthy response -- but I don't consider a member such as yourself as an example of the radical left wingers that I mentioned in my previous remark, and the quotes that I selected of yours above are exactly why.

You have fair opinions regarding the administration and the war, and you seem willing to see both sides of the issue. For several members here, both left and right (although I think there's more of the left), they fail with this capability. They make unfair judgements, and they are blinded by partisan nonsense. In honestly, I wasn't directing that remark to more respectable members such as yourself -- it's why members such as ANC, RJpiecees, Guitrthree, and I, who sometimes have directly opposite political views than you, will still respect you and the views you have to offer as well.




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:35 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25):
Lieberman is now (conveniently) in line with the Republicans and the base is still open.

And you're suggesting a payoff?

How so. What does Lieberman stand to gain by saving the Base?
A position as SecDef? An appointed position?

Rather than one to which he is elected by the constituents in his state?

Why?

He's probably guaranteed reelection having saved the base don't you think?

And if he by chance does get nominated to the SecDef position?

Guaranteed approval by the Senate for what?

Playing the Republican game? How so - the Republican Senate and Administration (albeit using a supposedly bipartisan BRAC) called for this new round of base closings - specifically that idiot in the SecDef office now.

What benefit does Sen Lieberman get out of this?

Suggest the scenario . . .

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25):
It may be important to the defense of this nation, but it is also a powerful bargaining chip.

Granted. As are some rather large base here in Alaska - Eieleson Airplane Patch. A shitty base in the middle of no-where (actually about 35 miles outside of FAI) that provides the only real "top cover" for this quadrant of the continent . . ."Top Cover for North America" as the sign at the entrance says. Every major base - saved or otherwise - on the list could be considered a bargaining chip. Eieleson was saved, but not by our politicians in Washington . . . at least overtly. But by the people of Fairbanks.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Logan22L
Posts: 4464
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:10 am

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 26):
I don't consider a member such as yourself as an example of the radical left wingers that I mentioned in my previous remark

Well, I may tend slightly toward moderate when it comes to defense, I more than tip the scales to the left when it comes to my views on healthcare, religion/gov't, and capitalism. Thanks for the kind words.
"The deeper you go, the higher you fly. The higher you fly, the deeper you go."
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:34 am

No one in Congress takes a stand without looking behind his/her back. And that goes for Lieberman as it does for anyone else.

Lieberman has close ties to many hawkish Israeli and Jewish organizations in the country and overseas, who were always in favor of a military intervention against Iraq (as early as 1994). At some point, the views of your backers, your funding sources, and your biggest supporters become your own. Or else, you really haven't a choice. I seriously doubt if Lieberman is taking the stance he is taking because he stands to succeed Rumsfeld (which I strongly doubt, although Washington loves to indulge in such corny extrapolations. Yes, Clinton made a New England Senator from the opposite party Secretary of Defense, but Lieberman is no William Cohen).

That having been said, neither Lieberman, nor Bush, nor Rumsfeld, nor anyone in the administration can hoodwink Americans any more into trotting out an improving Iraq as a new reason in hindsight for having gone to war. Any idiot could tell you that if you throw $ 500 billion at something, it's going to improve - at least for some people. It still doesn't answer the question of why you threw the $ 500 billion at it in the first place. When Lieberman is faced with this question, he goes into his confused "mensch who looks like the grinch" look, and acts like someone's grandpa who's embarassed because he just wet his depends (And that voice, Geez, its like a dull spoon trying to cut tough meat).

At least when we went in with NATO into Bosnia, we didn't trot a bunch of lies like "Slobodan Milosevic is planning on destroying Cleveland or some such pap." We went in saying exactly what we intended to do - prevent genocide and restore some civility to the Balkans.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:17 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 14):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
Like I said before: If the Dems want to win in '08, they need to play hard and dirty and not let up.

I wonder how much more 'hard and dirty' the American public will put up with? I'm thoroughly fed up with it. I'm fed up with ultra-partisan politics.

So am I. But the Republican party has made the "hard and dirty" game and sticking to the party line their MO for quite some time now, and the results speak for themselves. The current state of the media doesn't help. Unless the Republican party is willing to back off, it does the Democrats no good to do so themselves. I think that as long as the Bush Administration is around, there is absolutely no chance of the Republicans changing their strategy. I think the only way that it can be stopped is if the public decides that they're going to elect people who have the intelligence (and the balls) to be able to stand apart from the party if necessary (follow up question: is it possible to find enough of those type of people to fill Congress?). Progress can possibly be made on that in 2006, but we'll have to wait until 2008 to get some real change.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:09 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
the public decides that they're going to elect people who have the intelligence (and the balls) to be able to stand apart from the party if necessary (follow up question: is it possible to find enough of those type of people to fill Congress?). Progress can possibly be made on that in 2006, but we'll have to wait until 2008 to get some real change.

As long as the candidate is getting his support from one party or another that will never happen. Simple fact of life, tow the party line or get tossed over the side.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:12 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 27):
And you're suggesting a payoff?



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 27):
He's probably guaranteed reelection having saved the base don't you think?

Guaranteeing his reelection was the payoff. Looking farther down the line, he could also campaign in Rhode Island and Massachussets and tell the people there that by him saving the Groton base, he helped the economies of those areas as well. Smart move if he ever decideds to run for VP or president.

I should know this but what committee is Sen. Lieberman on? That could have something to do with things too. He could vote in favor of whatever the Republicans on his committee want to do.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:09 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 32):
I should know this but what committee is Sen. Lieberman on?

Homeland Security Committee

Armed Services Committee

Environment

I had thought he was in the Intelligence Committee, but not the case.

I'd have to go read up on what he's done in each committee to see if there is some sot of Repub/Lieberman connection . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:26 am

I said it before and I'll say it again--I believe Joe Lieberman to be one of the few truly honest and good men in Congress.

I trust his opinions of the matter and am grateful for his understanding that we ned to support the mission regardless of party affiliation at this point and get it done.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:55 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 34):
I trust his opinions of the matter and am grateful for his understanding that we ned to support the mission regardless of party affiliation at this point and get it done.

That's all fine and dandy.

Frankly, leaving Iraq at this point would be a geopolitical disaster. And that fact is something that many realize, be it 2 years or 10 years. Leaving what is essentially a vassal state in a state of disrepair - and not gaining access to its oil fields after all the billions we have spent - would be pointless.

However, the good Senator and his comrades in arms, the disgraceful White House, must still face the music on a. the lies and obfuscation that propelled the US into this war; and b. the stupidity of the good Senator for being the White House's cheerleader for the Iraqi onslaught, in spite of the cooked up evidence that any responsible Senator who convinced not only himself but the rest of his party to support would have examined in greater detail.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:45 am

As an earlier poster stated, it is refreshing to see a politician step out on his own and give us his view points. It is less than refreshing to see that the Deomcratic party is looking to form an anti-war theme for the next election cycle. Yet again the party of donkeys makes an a$$ out of themselves.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:50 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 34):
I trust his opinions of the matter and am grateful for his understanding that we ned to support the mission regardless of party affiliation at this point and get it done.

That's all well and good, but why is it good that a Democrat crosses the aisle to support a "stay the course" strategy? Why not support the troops by giving them armor? Why not support the troops by teaching the Iraqis to stand up? Why not support the troops by sending more translaters to help find the insurgants?

I have no problem supporting the troops. The troops are following orders. I just don't support the mission and have not since day one. There is a huge difference.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 36):
it is refreshing to see a politician step out on his own and give us his view points. It is less than refreshing to see that the Deomcratic party is looking to form an anti-war theme for the next election cycle. Yet again the party of donkeys makes an a$$ out of themselves.

Murtha did the same thing and was blasted. He went out on his own and called for an exit plan. How are the Dems looking to form an anti-war theme for the elections? It looks to me they are forming an "exit strategy" theme for the next election. Besides that, the Dems can point to the current round of tax and spending cuts as well.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:01 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 37):
I have no problem supporting the troops. The troops are following orders. I just don't support the mission and have not since day one. There is a huge difference.

Seb- I respect your position and understand where you're coming from. The problem is that the distinction between supporting the troops BUT being against the war has been blurred--and much of the rhetoric from the anti-war crowd runs into the sedition arena. Then there's Howard dean's comment about not being able to win....well, that's hardly supporting the troops. It's demoralizing at best, sedition at worst.

Navigating this regime when one is opposed to the action is difficult.
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:58 am

It is not only Dean saying we are not able to win in Iraq. It is a host of Dems. But, what does that have to do with the troops? It is a rallying point for getting the troops out. The sooner the better! Why cut taxes and keep a war/occupation going on?

The American public gets very little information about the goings on in Iraq anyway. Mainly, we just get the number of dead from roadside bombs. If the troops had the equipment and translators they needed, there might be fewer deaths from roadside bombs. The American public is undereducated about the war in general.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:58 am

Yes, a host of Dems saying that we need to leave and that we can not win the war. Also in another post on this forum they (Dems) have stated they are looking to form an anti-war movement as the basis for their next election cycle. All of those things wrapped together is despicable.

What the Democrats like to say is, "I'm not against it, I just don't support it." Ahhh the wonderful legacy of Bill Clinton. What is the definition of is?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:02 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 40):
What the Democrats like to say is, "I'm not against it, I just don't support it." Ahhh the wonderful legacy of Bill Clinton. What is the definition of is?

I think that a bit of a stretch there CX . . . I know many of the A-Netters that are adamantly opposed to the actual war but would do anything to support the troops that are fighting . . .

I think it entirely possible to support the troops wholeheartedly and not support the war and/or the reason for it. There is a difference.

That said: it is a fine line. There comes a point when some of the opposition to the war becomes almost seditious in it's action. And, whether some believe it or not, it can and will affect troop morale after a bit. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.

As for that fine line - there are some that have in fact crossed that line.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:55 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 39):
But, what does that have to do with the troops? It is a rallying point for getting the troops out.

I wholly disagree. I think it's seditious and unsupportive of the troops...if you throw their mission under the bus, you're throwing them under the bus by not believing in what their doing--hence, not believing in them.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 39):
The American public gets very little information about the goings on in Iraq anyway.

Due to the media, which is another rant altogether. But basically, you're right. The mainstream media is distorting the war completely.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 39):
The American public is undereducated about the war in general.

Yes and no. I'd say most who have relatives, family, acquaintances, and so on over there are getting the straight dope on the goings-on and I believe it to be generally more accurate than the regular press.

**************

Here's where I come down on this whole Iraq issue, as it pertains to this thread and Lieberman:

The Democrats need to get onboard. They might disagree with the war, but we're there, we need to win the peace. If they want a campaign issue, then go after the angle in terms of developing discussions for what constitutes intervention. For all the rhetoric focused on Iraq, the necessary attention on intelligence gathering and the failures there are what NEED to be focused on.

But you can see where this should lead--the Democrats could be PROactive and not simply reactive partisan attack pitbulls. But unless they have an informed, responsible electorate (which they are ironically jointly responsible for dumbing down), that won't win them elections. Hence, the level of histrionics gets ratcheted higher and higher with each subsequent election cycle. And nothing gets fixed, the divide grows and partisanship becomes more important than national interests.

Ultimately, it all starts in 1) Who their candidate is, 2) What the platform is, and 3) How it is presented and what strategies are devised to execute it.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:08 am

Great!
Lieberman should replace Donald Rumsfuck as DofD.
If Lieberman wants to jump on a sinking ship, more power to him.
Perhaps Connecticut could use a better senator to represent them.
Perhaps another Christopher Dodd protégé.
Bring back the Concorde
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:45 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 42):
I wholly disagree. I think it's seditious and unsupportive of the troops...if you throw their mission under the bus, you're throwing them under the bus by not believing in what their doing--hence, not believing in them.

The way I see the occupation right now is the troops are there in harms way simply to keep civil/regional war from breaking out. Since no WMDs have been found and no threat to the United States and no connection was found between Saddam and al-Qaida, the only clear objective the President laid out has been achieved: regime change in Iraq.

Don't you think it would boost the morale of the troops for them to know there are people here that want the troops out of harm's way? Would't it boost the morale of the troops to know there are people trying to bring them home as soon as possible now that major combat operations in Iraq have ended according to the President?

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems

Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:49 am

Just off topic here, I fail to understand how anyone voted for Lieberman for Senator in the first place. He is a mensch and has the personality and charm of a soggy tuna sandwich. I guess the choice was between him and a GWB like dummy.
Atheism is Myth Understood.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tvilum and 8 guests