Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Friday, August 11, 2006

 

The Necessity of Calling Joe Out

Will prominent Democrats call Lieberman out on his attacks on the Democratic party? Not likely, thinks Colin McEnroe:

The senator is obviously wrong and out of line. His statement suggests he intends to run as a Cheneyist against his Democratic opponent. He has handed the Democrats an unsought and probably unwelcome opportunity to show us what they mean when they say they will support Lamont. Ordinarily, it would entail calling Lieberman's bluff. Will they? I say no.


More McEnroe:

Who were the London terrorists and what did they expect to accomplish by blowing up more planes? I don't know the answer right now, and I can promise you Lieberman didn't know either yesterday when he made his remarks. What's perpetually astonishing and sickening is the degree to which he doesn't care. He is so interested in scoring political points and in pursuing a strategy of shoot-first, think-later, that his remarks make Bill O'Reilly seem like a fairly sophisticated geopolitical thinker by comparison....

This is how Lieberman lost me: by trafficking in fear and by the chronic blurring of 9/11 and our Iraq policies.


Both Ned Lamont's statement and Harry Reid's statement (representing all Senate Democrats) on the UK terror plot yesterday called for a "change in course" in Iraq. The type of action that Lieberman claimed would "strengthen" terrorists.

Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) was attacking the Democratic party yesterday. Not just Ned Lamont (D-CT). It's time for Democrats to call him out on it, the same way they would call out Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

Lieberman - by choice - is no longer a Democrat. He no longer deserves any protection or special treatment from his former colleagues in the party.

Time for Democrats like Hillary Clinton to put their mouths where their money is.
Comments:
Republicans falling behind on the “terrorism” issue!

Once again, Joe Lieberman is finding himself on the wrong side of public opinion. Check out this online poll over at C-SPAN’s CapitalNews:

Question: Which party is better suited to deal with terrorism?

Democrats: 48%
Republicans: 44%

Link
 
that's a fairytale unless staying home with your head under your bed qualifies you as better against terrorism
 
What's even more of a fairytale that the Iraq War has done anything even remotely positive in "the war against terrorism".

Why don't we have a "war on lightning"? Lightning is very dangerous and unpredictable - just like terrorism, and every year in the US many more people are killed by lightning than by terrorism.

I say we unleash the US military and have them go out and root out all the lightning.. It would make a lot more sense than how Lieberman and the Republicans are prosecuting the "war on terror".
 
lieberman: there is no US military to unleash.

ZERO combat-ready Army units in the USA, according to AP last week.
 
Last time I heard, we turned the corner on the War on Terra, turned the corner in Afghanistan and turned the corner in Iraq.

It looks like we're back at the beginning, back to where it all started.

With nothing to show for it.

Joe says stay the course. Do it all over again. Joe says if we do it all over again, the results will be different.

Joe didn't stay the course with the results of the primary. Joe says if he does it all over again, the results will be different.
 
You fools, enery analyst is correct! Islamofascists want to destroy our way of life, and all they need to it are British sports drinks. There is only one thing that stands between the terrorists and the insidious British sports drinks, and that is Joe Lieberman.
 
That's your opinion, and you can cite such luminaries at Harry Reid as proof. Having been there and studied the region I know better. It aint perfect, but I do know that for 5 years the terrorists havent managed to carryout another attack here. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I like to think that the guys who read the intelligence reports everyday, have a bit more idea of what's going on Then a bunch of putzs (pardon my yiddish) in Connecticut. 1/2 the people said do it, 1/2 said dont and the margin of error look like erring on the wrong side and you wind up with a WTC redo.

Of course the partisan spite patrol has turned it into lies etc, but the reality is the President did what anyone would have done in that situation (anyone that is who was willing to go on offense as opposed to being satisfied with playing defense).

The one thing I constantly wonder about is would it all be over in Iraq by now if the harping from the appeasers wouldnt consistently encourage them to keep fighting. We know it is definitely the case because they consistently site the polls the the deranged comments of people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. With any luck Ned Lamont will not really show up on their radar screen because come early November he will return to the obscurity he so rightly deserves.
 
Energyanalyst: You need not wonder. The problem in Iraq is that the wrong tactics are being used. Deploying ground troups against a well-organized and very determined insurgency is just not something that works.

And history bears this out. It didn't work for the British in 1776, it didn't work for us in Viet Nam, and it's not working for us again now.

Blaming the "appeasers" may be very convenient for those responsible for this disaster, but it's unlikely to be something that really works.

Americans are pissed about this disaster, Democrats and Republicans alike. The Iraq War was started based on lies, and it has been managed terribly. Lieberman and others responsible for this travesty will be held to account.
 
That's your opinion, and you can cite such luminaries at Harry Reid as proof. Having been there and studied the region I know better. It aint perfect, but I do know that for 5 years the terrorists havent managed to carryout another attack here. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I like to think that the guys who read the intelligence reports everyday, have a bit more idea of what's going on Then a bunch of putzs (pardon my yiddish) in Connecticut. 1/2 the people said do it, 1/2 said dont and the margin of error look like erring on the wrong side and you wind up with a WTC redo.

Like energyanalyst, I have also been there, and studied the region. And I must also say it is such a quintessential point that, just as energy analyst mentions:

I like to think that the guys who read the intelligence reports everyday, have a bit more idea of what's going on Then a bunch of putzs (pardon my yiddish) in Connecticut.

Exactly, the guys who read the intelligence reports everyday knows what's going on.

That's why I (and energyanalyst) support the foreign policy of President Bush.

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.


Cause Prez W. and his friend Joe base their national security decisions on what the people who read the reports say, not on what a bunch of putz (pardon my yiddish) in Connecticut say.
 
If that's true, then why has Senator Lieberman been telling us all of these fibs about how great things are in Iraq these past few years?

Michael Ware, Time Magazine's Baghdad Bureau Chief on Lieberman:

"I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

This, in fact, is one of Joe's biggest problems. Just last year he gushed about all of the "progress" in Iraq, that lots of people had cell phones and DirecTV.

Of course, the reality was quite different. Lieberman was spinning yarns about Iraq and the whole time it was on the cusp of disaster. Now, thanks to Lieberman and Bush, we have a civil war in Iraq.

Lieberman and Bush were advised by the experts you mention not to perform the Iraq invasion in the first place. Their gloomy predictions made before the start of the invasion have all come true. Lieberman and Bush were wrong. They did not listen to the professionals.

And for this they will be held to account
 
Lieberman and Bush were advised by the experts you mention not to perform the Iraq invasion in the first place. Their gloomy predictions made before the start of the invasion have all come true. Lieberman and Bush were wrong. They did not listen to the professionals.

A lot of people in 1776 probably had pretty gloomy predictions about Democracy in America but those people were BRITISH SPIES, and Democracy turned out pretty good. Today some defeatists are negative about Democracy in Iraq, but we need to listen to today's Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and today's Abraham Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, and do what's right for Iraq!
 
so there havent been any attacks in 5 years?

By the way, it's not uncommon for the US to not be attacked twice in a period of 5 years?
It has never happened, so stop pretending that this is due to Bush's good handling of the war on terror.

Do you care about the victims of the Madrid bombings? Oh wait, they are not Americans, so they don't count.

Or the London train bombings?
Or the Iraq civil war?


Read history.
 
The ultraconservative Royalists in 1776 were telling people to stay the course and support the king. However, there were agitators who thought otherwise:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

For his servlie promototion of King George's corrupt agenda, Joe Liberman was sent packing.

If the Government will not do right by the people, the people will right the Government. It's called Democracy. If one doesn't like Democracy, in this country they are free to move to a Saudia Arabia, Pakistan or Dafur.
 
Actually half the experts said no and half said go. Too bad the president doesnt get to take a poll and decide what to do based on that--he actually has to lead. I suppose the tilting point was met as he watched the smoldering ruins of the WTC.

Now of course the insurgency is home grown in Iraq. and the terrorists in Gitmo from Syria, Sudan, Nigia, Iran, and Saudi by way of Iraq must have moved there for the cooler summers.

It's funny I dont hear anyone talk about changing tactic (except the military which constantly changes tactics) if politicians talk about tactics it's time to run not walk away. Old Red Ned doesnt talk about changing tactics, he talks about running away. That will set us back 25 years. You kill them before they kill you. It is the only solution. To think otherwise is simply naive. My complaint with the government is that they havent been nasty enough. But how could they be when the opposition at home cheers our dead soldiers (because it gets them closer to winning the next election) and screams bloody murder when violate the human rights of the insurgency.

And of course we know all about the lies. The President just felt like he hadnt killed enough people when he had the planes flown into the wtc and then imploded them, so he thought he'd lie to start a war. Spare me the talking points!!
 
EnergyAnalyst, so your complaint with the government is that "they haven't been nasty enough"? Sounds like you should be helping out the authorities with interrogations in nice friendly places like Jordan or Egypt-- maybe those countries have governments "nasty" enough for ya. Uh, in fact, why don't ya just move there since you seem to have such contempt for people's rights and the law and you don't seem to have any respect for democratically-elected government? Good riddance. . .
 
Actually, I think if you look at the Bill of Rights, you might see that it only applies to American citizens. Also, I have a lot of respect for our democratically elected government--it is not I that seeks to undermine it at every turn.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home