Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Clinton Parts Ways with Joe


So much for "the hug."
Lieberman has characterized his loss - and the need for his subsequent independent run - as liberals in the party purging those with the Lieberman-Clinton position of progressiveness in domestic politics and strong national security credentials.

"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," [former President Bill] Clinton said.

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security. (ABC News)

Clinton also said that he had campaigned for Lieberman because of their long friendship. I wonder if he'll return to Connecticut to campaign for Lamont?

Source
"Clinton Sounds Off on Terror, Republicans." ABC News 15 August, 2006.

Update: I just noticed that both tparty at LamontBlog and I, entirely without meaning to, basically made the same post. Same opening zing and everything.

I will add that a ton of Lieberman supporters at his HQ on election night were wearing those buttons. Not sure how they feel about Clinton turning on Joe...

95 comments:

disgruntled_republican said...

Holy crap what a bunch of bulsch...

I don't give a hoot what Billy thinks...didn't before either but for Billy to say that W, Dick or Rummy said:
"Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam."

What a pile of crap. Can anyone, anyone at all show me where and when that or anyhting like it was said?

No, because it wasn't said or implied. And furthwermore, if Bill did his goddamned job when he was President all of 9/11 could have been avoided. He needs to stick with the interns and stay out of Senate races.

bluecoat said...

I am no fan of Bubba but 911 happened on GWB's watch....

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, are you inferring that 9/11 was somehow the Bush Administration's fault? If so, that is hogwahs and you know it - the first attack ont he World Trade Center and the bombings at our African embassies happened on Clinton's watch. I don't hold either responsible, because it was the actions of Islamic radicals who perpetrated those attacks.

And more related to the original post, I don't think this hurt's Lieberman that much (other than financially) because at this stage people aren't supporting Lieberman because of Bill Clinton; instead, it's because they think he is the best choice.

bluecoat said...

I was responding to DG's:if Bill did his goddamned job when he was President all of 9/11 could have been avoided. and as for you TG with:because it was the actions of Islamic radicals who perpetrated those attacks. is true but the President at the time is responsible for protecting the country - it's not just about being President when everything goes right!!!!!!

disgruntled_republican said...

Bluecoat-

USS Cole
World Trade Center #1
African Embassy
Soldier's barracks in S.A.

All on Clinton's watch. We also know 9/11 was being planned when Clinton was in his oral office. And for all of that, what did we do? We fired a couple of cruise missles into Afganistan....well I'm scared, arent you? C'mon get realistic. If Billy actually went after OBL then 9/11 could have been avoided...not that I said "could", not "would". Certainly Bush shoulders some of the blame but if Bubba did something it quite possibly wouldn;t have happened.

As for the post...after I get past my outrage...TG says it perfectly, Joe is the better choice in the eyes of most of the voters and in a General Election, that's all you need.

bluecoat said...

DG: so the day Bush took office he said to everybody that Clinton was wrong and that combatting terror is now job one because during Bush's campaign he constantly harped on the lousy job Clinton did comabatting terror. I don't think so.

disgruntled_republican said...

No, I said it.

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, don't be so selective about who is to blame for what. You can create a list like the one DR just posted for EVERY PRESIDENT that has occupied that position dating back to George Washington. You don't like President George W. Bush, and that's fine, but to state that 9/11 was either President Bush's (or former President Clinton's) fault is incorrect.

bluecoat said...

All I said was that 911 happened on GWB;s watch and that combatting terror was not his #1 priority prior to that date. On other threads I have said that he hasn't done the job of tightening national security that needs to be done and the members of the 911 Commission have said that as well. And you may say that I don;t like GWB but it's many of his policies and decisions that I don't like - I do like his immigration proposal for one.

Anonymous said...

Bluecoat said: "the President at the time is responsible for protecting the country - it's not just about being President when everything goes right!!!!!!"

OK, Bluecoat, I agree.

If you want to point out that GWB was President at the time of the 9/11 attacks, then you MUST ALSO point out that we have NOT had another terrorist attack on US soil since.

This latter fact also flies in the face of the liberal's argument (not saying it is your argument) that we are less safe because of the war in Iraq. Of course, typical of liberal arguments, there is no evidence to support such a claim. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the people of France have a lower opinion of America since the war started, therefore, we are worse off as a nation. Yea, that's it!

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat-

And you will also note that all I said is that if Bubba had done a better job on battling terror then 9/11 COULD have been avoided all together. It's MY opinion and the actions of W and inaction of Bubba back it up.


You should also note that my comments came from the comment by Bubba in the original post about Iraq. When you said "9/11 happened on GWB's watch" I simply said we know it was being planned when Bubba was in the oral office. It is my belief that Bubba dropped the ball and if he hadn't we wouldn't be where we are today.

bluecoat said...

Folks, I don't have to do anything except deal in the truth and that's what I did.

Anonymous said...

Bluecoat: there is a lot more merit to disgruntled's argument than yours.

Your argument - had the President been more engaged in protecting our country against terrorists we could have avoided or thwarted the 9/11 attacks - is at best speculation.

Disgruntled's argument - had the US under Clinton been more forceful in our response to the terrorist attacks and had Clinton gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance, then we may have avoided 9/11 - is actually supported by some evidence (i.e. information collected by our intelligence tells us that bin laden never envisioned the US response in Afghanastan etc).

Nice try though bluecoat.

The True Gentleman said...

DR, I agree that the Clinton Administration failed us when it comes to our national security, but I'm not sure that I would go so far to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened...While we may have prevented 9/11, I think that something similar still would have occurred at some point during the last five years. The conflict between Islam and Christianity goes much further back than our country's role in the Middle East.

cgg said...

Our infactructure and mentality were the real problems. Both the Clinton and Bush could and should have done things differently. That being said I think the Bush administration handled 9/11 badly.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that we can blam Clinton or Bush for the attacks on WTC??? Neither did ALL they could to prevent them...However, now that they've happened I want to know why we can't get Bin Laden? Had we put the force towards finding Bin Laden that we have at ruining Iraq, we'd of ruined Afganhastan, but, in the meantime we'd have found the SOB that was behind 9/11 and at least some justice would've been had...instead we pissed off the middle east and started a civil war in Iraq. Sweet.

bluecoat said...

had Clinton gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance, OK fine but how about had Bush gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance - it's no secret that when the CIA called for air support when they had OBL at Tora Bora the military was off getting ready to invade Iraq and neve r sent erh bombs!!!

If I didn't know better I'd say you're all reading from Condi's talking points.

disgruntled_republican said...

TG-

I said "could have" not "would have".

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat-

I have never said that W handled this perfectly nor will I but please please please dont give Bubba a free ride as you are. He is a part of the cause of problems we face today and that is undeniable.

Anonymous said...

Clinton said other Senate Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war - including his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York - who may be weighing a 2008 presidential run, had hoped that the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspections.



"They [Democrats] felt, frankly, let down that the U.N. inspectors were not permitted to finish, and I hope that everyone reads the entire article. Thank you GC for posting it. I find Pres. Clinton's comments remarkable.

Here is what he said: "they (he is talking about Democrats that voted for the war like his wife) were worried that we were devoting attention away from Afghanistan and the hunt for [Osama] bin Laden and al Qaeda, which was a huge, immediate threat to our security in the aftermath of 9/11, as we saw [with] this foiled British plot continues to be," Clinton said.

There is so much wrong about this statement that I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with his theory that the threat of war would be enough to stop Saddam. Well, we now know that Saddam never thought that we would attack. Why did he think that? Because we had been attacked several times before (1983 world trade center, USS Cole, etc.) and had not responded. Who is responsible for this attitude? Clinton.

Then he says that we took our eye off the ball and didn't go after bin laden or al Qaeda. If we took our eye off the ball, how come we haven't been attacked. Maybe, just maybe, al Qaeda has been busy with other things (say in Iraq) and their top men being captured to pull off such an attack in the US.

My last point: Democrats voted for war because we were turning our attention away from al Qaeda. Seriously, that is his position. Sorry, Mr. President, if that is the case, then you should have been voting against the war. Hillary didn't, and now you are trying to reconstruct history. Doesn't work that way my friend.

bluecoat said...

I am no fan of Bubba is hardly a free ride. But Bubba ain't the leader of the free world right now and he hasn't been since 12:00 hours 20 January 2001.

disgruntled_republican said...

That comment means nothing. Seriously bluecoat, read the entire thread from start to finish and tell me that you aren't laying all of the blame square on the shoulders of W and non on Clinton.

Anonymous said...

bluecoat - since you like to deal in facts, help me understand this: Clinton had a chance to get bin laden prior to 9/11, right? And, Bush, you claim, could have gotten bin laden at tora bora, right? Was the tora bora incident before or after 9/11?

The True Gentleman said...

Your right, DR, I misread that - sorry.

bluecoat said...

Let's start with his theory that the threat of war would be enough to stop Saddam. it was more than a theory , it was reality. Saddamm allowed the weapons inspectors back in to his country based on that very threat but Bush got impatient and ordered them out so he could invade.

And trying to link the attack on the Cole, etc. by a renegade well financed radical criminal group to Iraq doesn't work for anybody that is in a command position to defend our country. The Republicans on this blog might be surprised to know that half of the US Senators from their party understand all of this. Oh, and before anybody asks: yes, I am glad Saddamm is gone but he should have been tried at the Hague and even Simmons said that.

Anonymous said...

DR - It's President Clinton. It's also the Oval Office. You don't have to respect the man, but when you disrespect the office you're just being a jackass.

bluecoat said...

Yes, I am laying the "responsibility" square on the shoulders of the President who was in power at the time of the 911 attacks but nowhere do I dismiss what Clinton did or did not do before Bush took office. The baton was passed - that's the way it works except in kindergarten maybe.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11;57 said: "I want to know why we can't get Bin Laden? Had we put the force towards finding Bin Laden that we have at ruining Iraq, we'd of ruined Afganhastan, but, in the meantime we'd have found the SOB that was behind 9/11 and at least some justice would've been had...instead we pissed off the middle east and started a civil war in Iraq. Sweet."

Anon. 11:57 we could have bombed Afghanstain into oblivion and not gotten bin laden because he left the country. Are you suggesting that US forces move into or invade another country where he may be hiding? Should we go into Pakistan with all our military power to get bin laden? I'm sure that would meet with world approval, right?

By the way, the middle east has been "pissed off" for hundreds of years and we certainly did not start a civil war.

disgruntled_republican said...

Let me clarrify everything I said.

Clinton said, "Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam."

Well if Clinton had taken Saddam then Bush couldn;t have used 9/11 as an "excuse" to take out Saddam and 9/11 COULD have been avoided.

Got that? OK, moving on...

The Cole was financed by whom bluecoat? I don;t think I need to answer this one, do I?

Next, you say, "The Republicans on this blog might be surprised to know that half of the US Senators from their party understand all of this."

Yep, I got it and I think my original comments show that I am NOT disagreeing with them anywhere in my comments.

And finally you say, "I am glad Saddamm is gone but he should have been tried at the Hague and even Simmons said that."

I agree 100%. That would be included where I said I don;t think W has done everything right.

I don't know why you aren't getting this. I am responding to Clinton's dumba** comment. He is that last person who should be saying anyhting about Bush's policy on terror or the war on Iraq since he didn;t do anyhting but fire a coyuple of cruise missles.

Anonymous said...

bluecoat: stop reading the NY Times. Your facts are wrong about the UN weapons inspectors.

BRubenstein said...

The fact of the matter is that Bush was negligent in using "sexed up" intelligence in coming to the invasion conclusion...if it was less like a frat house and more like a white house there then the invasion wouldnt have happened..as a result the american people were lied to again ( shaldes of LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin)..all to their detriment..

The results were taking out a bad...very bad but contained secular government and replacing them with Iran allies. You all must remember a few weeks ago when the Prime Minsiter and Legislature took America to task..

The Iranian's fearing increased pressure on their nuclear weapons sanctioned Hezbollah to do what it did and Isreal over-reacted...

The end result is Bush has made our stability much less so in the middle east and Isreal's also...And Joe cheerled all of the above..even in the face of "sexed up" evidence,lies,distortions and untruths..

BRubenstein said...

DG..actually Bush#1 started it by not taking out Saddam when he could have..thank him for the problems we have now

Anonymous said...

Bluecoat said: "Yes, I am laying the "responsibility" square on the shoulders of the President who was in power at the time of the 911 attacks."

Be consistent bluecoat. Deal with the truth. The "responsibility" for there NOT being any further attacks also goes to the President.

Still waiting for an answer as to whether the tora bora opportunity was pre or post 9/11 attacks?

Can you answer that question?

bluecoat said...

As far as I am concerned Clinton is irrelevant to the debate these days but I do know many pay attention to him. I rarely pay attention to him and didn't comment directly on what he said. I will, however, engage in discourse on this blog with fellow bloggers from time to time about current events. I will say that Clinton did a hell of a lot more than fire a couple of cruise missiles. Several attacks in the making - including on our soil - were thwarted during Clinton's reign, just like they have been during Bush's.

bluecoat said...

BR: there is some recent info released out of the NSA archives that shows that the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" reporting was actually mistakes at a low level and later covered up by agency heads. There is a good chance LBJ didn't lie about it but probably should have asked more questions and maybe he didn't want to be bothered - just don't know yet. But his calling bombing raids from the Oval Office was pathetic for sure, etc..

Anonymous said...

Remember folks...Bubba's big mistake, lying about a BJ, didn't kill anyone.

The Bush Administration's inability to use logic and critical thinking helped get us into this mess in Iraq.

But hey, at least he's faithful to his wife, right? I'm sure that's great solice for the families and friends of all the great Americans we have lost as a result of Iraq.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 12:18-

Calling the man Clinton and not President Clinton is acceptable since I am referring to the original post where it states "President Clinton", thus in subsequent comment it is not necessary. As for the "oral" office; I actually didn't intend to do that. I found it funny when you pointed it out. Must have be a freudian slip.

In the future, if you want to lecture me about respect for the office, or anything else for that matter, which I have more of than just about anyone I know, please idetify yourself as I cannot tell if you are sincere or are one of the anon bloggers who show a great deal of disrespect to the office because they don't like the current occupant.

bluecoat said...

Come on BR:DG..actually Bush#1 started it by not taking out Saddam when he could have..thank him for the problems we have now the history of how Saddam got where he was is more complex than that. And had BushI gone in, the coalition he built with the Arabs to liberate Kuwait would have fallen apart. There were mistakes made in the aftermath - absolutley...

BrassBoy said...

Well, it only took until 12:27 for the Vietnam War reference.

Someday, SOMEDAY, people will stop trying to relive the 60's, Vietnam and all of that stuff that is best left in the trash-bin of history.

BR, you call the Bush administration a "frat house" atmosphere, yet it was the previous administration that brought us intern affairs, stained dresses and what the definition if "is" is. That sounds more like the Delta Tau house than what we have now.

bluecoat said...

Brass Boy: there were lessons learned from VietNam and they should never be forgotten. BushI learned them; BushII ignored them.

Anonymous said...

bluecoat-

How so? There were no terrorists in Vietnam. The Unitred States took Baghdad in no time at all. We are now facing terrorists...that has never been done on this level in the history of the world.

Anonymous said...

Didn;t Bubba sign the Iraq Liberation Act?

well, when the going gets tough, the tough get going

Frankly, Clinton endorsing Lamont is as newsworthy as Britney Spears doing something crass.

bluecoat said...

12:52: I assume you're the same guy that wants to know when Bush blew it at Tora Bora. I only engage in inteeligent discourse not kindergarten games. Sorry.

Anon12:52 said...

Actually I am not him but I find it interesting that you won't answer his question either. Do you always get snippy when someone gets ya?

I really don't understand what you mean though about Bush 1 and Bush 2 in regards to lesson from Vietnam and that is why I asked.

bluecoat said...

OK then 12:52 number 2: what BushI learned from Vietnam and actually knew as the youngest navy pilot in WWII is that you must have a military mission with a clear definition of the objective - like liberating Kuwait rather than conquring Iraq. And to answer your question about Iraq: what's going on in Iraq is primarily sectraian violence rahter than international terrorism alrthough foreign terrorists do play some role - and the obejective in Iraq was to disarm saddam but when Bush plled the trigger it became regime change.....................regime change can happen by other than military invasions and Bush I had tried for that and failed....you migth recall that before the invasion we flew missions over the north and south of iraq........

Anonymous said...

It is sad that the argument comes down to asking who has done a worse job protecting our country, Bush or Clinton.

No wonder voters are looking for a new direction.

bluecoat said...

and anon 12:52; now that regime change has been effected in Iraq our military is helping to build a new nation...it ain't the objective anybody signed on to...Blix shoul dhave been allowed to finish verifying the absence of WMD;s and then the next step of dumping Saddam could have kept on going...Bush II had actually ordered a covert mission to go after him in November 2001 - rules of engagement were self defense but such a mission takes time and patience the frat boys weren't interested itn...slam dunk anyone!!!!.

Anonymous said...

Indepedent Democrat Joe Lieberman can stop this fighting and bring unity and purpose to Washington!!!

Go Joe Go!!!

bluecoat said...

Oh Puh-leez: Joe's "unity and purpose" is about Joe and only Joe. He says what people like to hear and he's been doing it for years - and got caught on the Terry Schiavo deal. Joe must go!!!!!!!!! Too bad the GOP didn't put up somebody good - sorry DG, but the comment needs to be said and it is not meant for you.

Anonymous said...

Wow, a whole bunch of new traffic here today GC - no doubt a lot more out-of-staters (maybe in-the-belters).

It doesn't take a linguist to figure these posts out -

Just one quick question - are people still arguing that invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was about to use them on us?

BrassBoy said...

BC,

Actually I agree about lessons to be learned...

bluecoat said...

BB: the Jouranl does some nice investigative reporting but their OpED people have become Bush propogandists on Iraq. BTW; their editorial chief Walter henninger is a Grateful Dead fan of the Vietnam era but I don't think he ever saw service.

anon 1:41; you've go the linguist thing figured out pretty well; after the invasion the US military spent 900 million dollars and verified there were no WMD's - even Bush agreed but I am not sure about Dark Dick Cheney. I was just trying to point out there are steps that need to be taken before pulling a trigger on someone - just like a cop has to go through.

And I heard the ninny, Alberto Gonzalez, call terrorists an "enemy" again last night. Shit, I don't know why these people allow the criminal terrorist element to exalt themselves to that status. terrorists are thugs and they broke through our defenses on 911 - it need not happen again like that with the right security and intelligence in place.

Anonymous said...

NC, speaking of ninnies I don;t Lamont's wore any uniform since his college badminton team

Yeah, he's got all the military strategy answers for America...right...

bluecoat said...

anon 1;41; I have also seen a couple of reasonably reliable polls showing that half of the Americans are still confused in one way or another about the puported connections among 911, Iraq and WMD's. The linguists have suceeded but not so well in CT.

bluecoat said...

Lieberman has never served in the military and you don;t see me championing Lamont's military or foreign affairs prowess. Nice useless comment like usual 2:18.

The True Gentleman said...

You don't have to have served in the military to have a good sense of national security and military policy - that is an excuse used by pundits who have no real arguments with which to counter the opposition's positions.

As for Bluecoat's poll numbers...post the results and indicators used to reach those conclusions.

bluecoat said...

TG: I am not a walking reference library; I saw what I saw; if you think I am wrong post the #'s to prove it;

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, that's typical of many posters on this site but not normally you. I wanted to see the numbers and indicators to see what/why those polled were responding to - relax, buddy.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman's been on the Armed Services Committee of the US Senate

Lamont has been on the Memberhsip committee of the Round Hill Club.

Next question

Genghis Conn said...

I'm a walking reference library!

Scroll down on this page to this question: "Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?"

39% said yes, compared with 54% who said no. 7% weren't sure. This was done in March.

disgruntled_republican said...

Genghis -

I noticed a different poll that showed that 42% of Americans think we should stay in Iraq as long as we need to vs. the next highest of 29% who think we should withdrawl by 2007...I found that interesting.

The True Gentleman said...

GC, you rock! Query For ALL: Why is it that in discussing terrorism, whenever the conversation turns to Iraq and the relationship between terrorism/Iraq, most people misinterpret that comment to be that Iraq was involved in 9/11? It still is happening at this very moment. I don't understand why so many people don't seem to be able to see the correlation between the two subjects. (And for the one millionth time, NO, I do not think that Saddam Hussein/Iraq orchestrated the events on 9/11/01.)

Anonymous said...

next Ned will be blamed for 9/11

The True Gentleman said...

Anon 2:59, the Cuban Revolution and Cold War, maybe, but 9/11, no.

Anonymous said...

Joe was in law school playing bad mitton,crocae and tiddly winks while american men were dying...

BrassBoy said...

BC, please... the Journal's OpEd board is far from a Bush propaganda machine. They've been critical of this administration in the past, though not as much as some other publications. But if you want to talk about propaganda, perhaps we should turn our attention to the venerable gray lady herself, the NYT.

Further, the piece I linked to does not attempt to defend the adminstration or its rationale for the war (it does not even mention that) so much as it simply outlines a particular lesson from the Vietnam era that candidates who are running around screaming for troop wthdrawal should keep in mind.

p.s. I'm not really sure what relevance is found in pointing out that Henninger is a Vietnam era Grateful Dead fan with no military record. I'm a big Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen fan... so what?

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Joe was a frequent visitor to the South fighting for civil rights during college and law school. Some of you are too young to remember that there was more going on than Vietnam in the 1960s in this country. Watch Mississippi Burning for a refresher on what happened to a few Jewish kids who went down there.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

For all of you with amnesia- on October 31, 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. By my count, that was just under 3 years prior to 9/11.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

The Act found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

So, what gives, guys? Did Dick Cheney lobby Bill Clinton to do this? Or was Bill too preoccupied with his impeachment to know what he was signing?

My HUNCH is that BC is trying to have it both ways, which would be so unlike him.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Anon 2:39

Lieberman's been on the Armed Services Committee of the US Senate

Lamont has been on the Memberhsip committee of the Round Hill [Country] Club.


Yes, but the Round Hill Country Club is more exclusive than the US Senate, so the position is clearly more difficult.

Anonymous said...

and Bush 1 didnt finish the Job,...he could have deposed Saddam...and he is to blame for all this..

Anonymous said...

FAtguy..please, Joe got several student deferrments and while americans were dying in Viet Nam, he was playing tiddly winks and eatting finger cucumber sandwiches at yale Law School....

The True Gentleman said...

Why isn't anyone angry with our allies, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, for not arresting Osama bin Laden?

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

True Gentleman,

It's like a jury trial. When you're the plaintiff, you benefit from the notion that jurors will blame the nearest party. The guy that's in the room.

Someone was injured and someone must be blamed. The concept that our "allies" should be held to account is too much for people to grasp.

After all, Bubba politely asked to Saudis to put OBL in a "residential program" back in 1996. They declined, Bubba said, oh well, that's OK. Thanks for the oil, though.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Lest, we forget. Tom Daschle became majority leader in May 2001 after Jeffords jumped. (A move applauded as courageous, not disloyal, by Dems. Despite the fact that Jeffords was elected as a Republican...)

9/11 happened on Daschle's watch. We must blame him for his legislative ineptness in not passing adequate security measures and engaging in poor oversite that summer. He had 4 months at the helm. IT'S DASCHLE'S FAULT!

bluecoat said...

I don't know how i missed this one earlier:bluecoat: stop reading the NY Times. Your facts are wrong about the UN weapons inspectors. when one of my biggest sources was a Chris Shays account of a conversation he had with Blix after the invasion. and Braas Boy, I said the Journal was a propoganda machine for the Bush administration on Iraq - and that;s true. And Fat Guy, as I said there are other ways to effect regime change than an invasion: like flying planes on iraq's southern and norhtern territories and economic embargo - and yes, saddam got around it but he was being squeezed - and not to mention the covert mission I mentioned that BushII authorized in November 2001 to get Saddam - those ususally gets done at night but not overnight. Fat Guy, the only thing that Americans were sold on about invading Iraq was WMD's, not the next step on regime change. And has anyone noticed that since losing the primary last week, Joe has been saying he has been an ardent crtitic of Bush's performance in Iraq all along? math and science education has taken a turn for the worse in this country and shows in some folks logic.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Anon 4:16:

I would say nice dodge, but it wasn't really a good dodge.

To quote the speech of Dodd's nomination of Lieberman (2000 convention):

Even before he first ran for public office, Joe Lieberman rode south to help register African-Americans to vote.

Because for Joe, civil rights was not just a political position.


Joe's a fighter- he didn't have to roll up a sleeping bag and register black voters- but he did. A lot of Yalies from that era (GWB) stayed home. Whatever you say, Joe wasn't just eating cucumber sandwiches, unless that's what they were serving in Mississippi.

Anonymous said...

hey, bluecoat, how long have you had the military clearance to know about all of these covert military operations?

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Oh, Bluecoat.

The North was sold the Civil War on economic interests, not slavery. Preserving the union. Impeach Lincoln. Does it matter now?

The Clinton strategy for regime change did not seem to really be working, did it? The sanctions were REALLY effective (see e.g., Oil for Food and the Annan family...) It took a megaton of bombs and troops to remove the guy.

You suffer from hindsight syndrome. If a CIA director tells a President that a sworn enemy of the United States has WMD- that it's a "slam dunk"- and every intel agency in the West agrees- and a President knows that he used bio-chem before- and a President knows that the guy is playing France and Germany and the UN like a drum...it would have been criminally negligent for any President not to engage in regime change. After 9/11, in particular.

Now that we are here, following the Clinton Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the question is what do we do now? I hate the term "cut and run"- because there is no cutting. Just running.

After watching 60 Minutes this week, I'd be hard-pressed to allow the nutty guy with the Members Only jacket to take over the place. Look forward, not back.

Who was it that said elections are about the future? The guy who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Oh, and in the mean time, folks, while everyone is focused on this fight between two Democrats, Rick Santorum has risen to within 6 points in PA.

Nice focus of national energy, guys.

Ay, Dios Mio.

disgruntled_republican said...

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD...

Great post Fatguy. Just great. Not much more to say, you got it all.

bluecoat said...

it was one covert mission reported in the newspaper; anybody who can read has the same clearnace as me; the newspaper didn't give the details 4;50 but I am sure you and Bob Novak can get them.

Anonymous said...

It's nice to see bc get spanked once in a while...but alas, I'm sure he has a comeback.

bluecoat said...

Fat Guy: Hans Blix was in the country!!!!!!!!!Suffice it to say I'd never follow you up a hill but I might watch you go and get taken out with your bravado.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 5:03, bc always has a comeback, but he's not always right.

bluecoat said...

once again CT DECD brings in cutting edge companies to meet an unmet demand for outdoors equip this time:Rell heading to East Hartford to announce incentives for Cabela's construction By Ben Rubin, Journal Inquirer 08/15/2006

anon: I am aware that a decent volume of old (1980's vintage) mustard gas containers were found in Iraq; as packaged they could not have done much if any thing; in the wrong hands they could do some damage but invading Iraq wasn't necessary.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Bluecoat, when I see the name "Hans Blix" I usually stop reading. You may recall that we had a good, reliable guy, Rolf Ekeus, for that job. He was a guy we could trust. Even Kofi supported him.

Guess who wanted Hans instead of Rolf? That's right. France and Russia. Hmmm... what were their interests?

The UN had no credibility at that point. The institution that FDR and HST created is a sorry racketeering enterprise that can't be trusted. I wish it was not so, but so it is.

I know that history is hard to remember over the noise of talking points and screaming talking heads.

bluecoat said...

5:13 or is it 5:03; so Hans Blix wasn't in Iraq and he never talked to Shays about what he was doing there before he was ordered out? Wow, now you're calling Shays a liar!!!!

bluecoat said...

Yeah OK fat GUY: I follow your logic, we just went along with Blix for a while and then pulled him out becasue he was doing a bad job - and then invaded the country, not too mention before the military was even ready to do that; I got it now and I understand how the four star who was the COS to the JCS (Anthony Newbold, USMC retired Gen) at the time of the invasion has come up with the wrong critique too; and the guy (LtGen can't rmember his name right now)that led the infantry in Iraq and has since retired got it wrong too; I got it now - OK, up the hill you go fat Guy!!

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Bluecoat,

This is the sort of hysteria that cost the Dems in 2002 and 2004.

I'm not asking anyone to follow me up a hill, and I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Let's look at this race again- where do these guys want to take us? Ned's approach, and your approach, if unchecked, would effectively award Iraq to Iran.

I don't understand why that's desirable, but go ahead and vote for it- it's on the ballot, unfortunately, just a lever below John DeStefano's.

Just no bellyaching when Iran emerges as a regional behemoth, please.

bluecoat said...

Fat Guy, nowhere have I ever suggested that we unilaterally abandon Iraq and nowhere have I exhibited hysteria to anyone who thikns foreign affairs is more than a soundbite. As for the up the hill metaphor - read the whole exchange you engaged me in - or maybe the fact you don't get it is the problem; just dunno about that. I am not a Democrat and never will be a Democrat but I will tell you your guy, Leiberman, doesn't know his ass from the hole in his fat head about military strategy and tactics despite his years on the Armed Services Committee. And as an aside, he didn't even make the meeting last week when Gen. John Abizaid was in town giving an update on the region to the committee he serves on - or is supposed to anyway.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Suffice it to say I'd never follow you up a hill but I might watch you go and get taken out with your bravado.

Oh, never mind. I get it. I may have glossed over it because it wasn't substantive.

nowhere have I ever suggested that we unilaterally abandon Iraq

Is "unilaterally" your code word for insert the U.N. in there? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Leiberman, doesn't know his ass from the hole in his fat head about military strategy and tactics despite his years on the Armed Services Committee.

If Joe indeed had a hole in his fat head, I would guess that he would know it from his posterior. Joe is counting on rhetoric like yours to make Ned's campaign seem more radical. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

So lets see,

Lets say I hired A security firm to protect and defend my wife and kids.

h9 months nto a 4 yr contract my eldest son was murdered by the people I hired the security firm to protect and defend my wife and kids from.

Is it the fault of the security firm whose contract ran out 9 months previous to my sons murder that he was killed?

Great logic from The Republicans on this board.

Don Pesci said...

Looks like someone will have to pay attention to FatGuy from now on. He's got all his ducks -- historical and rhetorical -- in a row. Great postings all.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 10:23-

That makes a hell of a lot of sense...not.

Try comparing apples to apples and maybe I'll listen.

bluecoat said...

I don't use code words fat guy and Liberman's fat orefice is his mouth. The US needs to finish the job in Iraq both militarily and diplomatically. You have to register at the Norwalk Hour but Joe's buddyShays: Time-frame for Iraq Pullout Near