Thursday, August 10, 2006

Senator Lieberman On The Offensive

Less than 48 hours after his primary defeat to Ned Lamont, Senator Joe Lieberman is on the offensive attacking Mr. Lamont’s position on national security following the overnight terror arrests in the United Kingdom. At a luncheon in Waterbury today, Senator Lieberman stated:

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England . . . It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

Mr. Lamont’s campaign manager, Tom Swan, responded (without any substance) to Senator Lieberman’s comments by stating:

“Did Karl Rove write this attack line for Joe?”

Senator Lieberman went on to say:

“How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don’t distinguish based on our party affiliation? They want to kill any and all of us.”

The Lamont campaign might want to take notice of this and, in particular, Mr. Lamont might want to reconsider what it is that the people of Connecticut (not just primary night Democrats, but all voters) want. Today, I think most citizens want to feel safe when we board an airplane or train, cross a bridge, or travel through an underground tunnel. If I am mistaken, and these things don’t matter to you, by all means continue to support Mr. Lamont, who would rather see our troops come whom on a date certain and allow Iraq to become an unofficiated terrorist-breeding ground. But then again, those terrorists wouldn't come after us, as Americans, if we leave Iraq like they want us to right, Mr. Lamont?

Source

Healy, Patrick and Medina, Jennifer, New York Times, August 10, 2006, Lieberman Seizes on Terror Arrests to Attack Rival

UPDATE: In fairness to the Lamont campaign, I did receive this press release after I posted the article. Mr. Lamont's statement is in the link below:

Ned Lamont’s Statement on Terror Arrests

61 comments:

bluecoat said...

The full story on the successful counter terror efforts by the Brits has yet to come out. I am anxious to see how having their military nad ours deployed in Iraq assisited in that effort. Apparently Joe has some inside dope on this.

Anonymous said...

There is no depth to which this man will not sink.

He would have made a perfect follower of Joe McCarthy.

Anonymous said...

It is very important that we keep people terrified of terrorists. That is the only way we can keep the terrorists from winning.

Anonymous said...

It's all Rove's fault---somehow I don't think that's going to help Ned garner more votes.

Anonymous said...

Sweet--The gloves are off, going to be brutal campaign!!!

Anonymous said...

Actually no, I don't want to feel safe. I want to be safe.

And I think it's pretty clear that keeping our troops engaged in the occupation / civil war in Iraq is not doing too much to prevent terrorists from "coming after us."

Anonymous said...

Quite the pathetic statement by little Neddy. Joe is right, we are fighting an enemy who wants to destroy us.

BRubenstein said...

TG,,,..the facts are..we were led into the war on misleading and false information..and Joe was a cheerleader...having found out that the information was wrong Joe refused to even consider the right facts or change his position...after spending 2600 good american lives..and over 600 billion dollars to put in an Iraq Prime Miinister and Legislature..The Iraq Prime Minister spoke out against us...this means that the Iraq Prime Minister and government are alot closer to Iran then us..even though we put them in and bankrolled them.

Iran,now having alot of control in Iraq, told Hezbollah to kidnap those Isreali soldiers..or went along with it as a diversion because they dont want us to interfere with there budding nuclear power, as they seek to be the dominant arab force in the middleast.

Had there been no Iraq invasion by us..there would have been no fighting in Lenanon either.

Anonymous said...

http://community.webshots.com/user/JeffGold06

Photos from Lamont Headquarters

Gary Holder-Winfield said...

So are these people terrorists or do they want to kill us all? Joe and George keep acting as if they are the same (more reason to believe that they really have no clue)but they are not the same thing? And, because of that the approach has to be different. If they really just want to kill us all then Ned's position will do nothing to change their resolve. If they were terrorists (using fear to obtain a goal) maybe Joe would have a point. Maybe. So which is it Joe? You know what they say...can't have your cake and -

wundrin said...

Since you seems to accept Lieberman's comments at face value, do you see some connection between the native born terrorists in England and the (civil) war in Iraq that the rest of us don't? It would be thrilling if you could explain the connection between al-qaedism in Europe and Ba'athism, sectarian strife in Iraq. Or maybe you could challenge Lieberman's position? Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Lamont's biggest weapon is if ROY O remains a Lieberman strategist...he is 0 for 5 and frankly i dont see that improving.

Anonymous said...

Lamont's biggest weapon is if ROY O remains a Lieberman strategist...he is 0 for 5 and frankly i dont see that improving.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that Senator Lamont, in the face of similar terror threats that will undoubtedly occur in the future, will stand on the Senate floor and call upon the United Nations to pass yet another resolution condemning the terrorists, telling them that they are really bad people and ask them to stop. Sure, that will work. I feel safer already!

dana b said...

Anonymous,
You said it right. I hope we get to say "good night and good luck" to Lieberman.

Anonymous said...

even Fairfield's nitwit town attorney wrote in to the CT Post today about how Joe was wrong on Iraq.

The True Gentleman said...

BR and Wundrin, I find it so amazing that you and many others just refuse to recognize that leaving Iraq right now (on a date certain) would result in greater threat/harm to our country. Do I want our troops there? No, I'd rather them be at Fort Benning or Camp Lejune or some other homeland location. But we are there and should not leave until there is stability and the Iraqis have the ability to govern/secure themselves. Do you honestly believe that there are no al-Qaeda members in Iraq and that it is just "sectarian strife" (as Wundrin put it)?

Lamont Rules said...

that is absolutely the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard, without question. First of all, as anyone with a half a brain knows, the root cause of terrorism is the fact that the United States and Israel keep killing innocent people, who have done nothing wrong and committed no crime, for essentially no good reason. To someone living in a city where hundreds of people have died over the past few weeks and bombs are falling on your house, abstractions about the "new middle east" from washington and london mean absolutely squat. Leaving Iraq would not cause the nation to become a breeding ground for terror, rather, a major cause of terrorism will be eliminated. Joe Lieberman is not a democrat, the democrats did not choose him as their nominee, and for him to use the democratic name to win an election is damn near fraud. the man should be condemned and thrown under house arrest in downtown beirut.

Anonymous said...

BR said: "Had there been no Iraq invasion by us..there would have been no fighting in Lenanon either."

Are you nuts??????

Hezbollah just woke up and started firing rockets into Israel b/c we are in Iraq??? Seriously. How can you say that with a straight face?

They are a political party armed with a militia that is supported by Syria and Iran. They have been making in roads in the Labanese gov't for years. Their leader has stated publicly that there can be no peace in the middle east as long as Israel exists. Their goal is the inhilation of Israel. They have been digging bunkers and getting rockets to attack Israel for years.

You guys don't get it. Should we get out of Iraq ASAP? Absolutely.

Are we in World War III? Absolutely. Our enemy is islamic fascism - people who teach and preach that we (the west) need to be destroyed.

Our presence in Iraq did not give rise to these beliefs; they believed it and taught it long before we invaded Iraq.

Hello, remember 9/11! We lost thousands, we were attacked in an act of war! BTW I lost one of my best friends and I will never forget.

They attacked us!!!!!!!!!!

Those UN resolutions did nothing; the French and Russians did nothing (except steal money in the food for oil program); the inspectors were kicked out.

Man, is it going to take another attack and thousands of lives lost for you to get it?

I cannot believe you would make such an idiotic statement!

bluecoat said...

Joe is right, we are fighting an enemy who wants to destroy us.

these soundbites only debase the debate; we are now bringing stability to Iraq - or at least tryin to; ah shit, I can't expound on this stuff and change anybody's mind on this blogger platform.

Bobby McGee said...

McCarthyism is back in full force. I can't wait until Joe claims Lamont's a closet member of Al Qaeda. That's only a few speeches off at this point.

BRubenstein said...

TG...what ive read is that the country will slide into a civil war ( some already advocate that they already have)..whether or not we are there...so we may as well try to save american lives as soon as possible by leaving and let them ( the iraqi's) fend for themselves...since they criticised us recently for backing Isreal just how loyal are they anyway?

If and when we leave we could maybe repair the diplomatic damage that Bush has done around the world. Id prefer that Bush concentrate by meeting with Iran and working out a way where they drop their nuclear capabilities...to bad he wont meet with them or north korea either.

Id argue that Bush's mideast blunders havent made us one iota safer...in fact many would argue its alot more dangerous now...

George Bush took out a secular government that was at least a problem for Iran and now has made Iran almost the dominant power in the mideast..so instead of a secular Iraq, we know have a civil war and a budding theocratic government...for that we should thank Bush and Joe for cheerleading him on.

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..your shilling for George Bush by saying " we are now bringing stability to Iraq" is a fraud..there have been more killings in recent months then ever...wake up Bluecoat, even our generals are saying that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war...and your friends President Bush and Joe Lieberman are responsible for it.

cgg said...

Nice to see you back TG. I look forward to sparring with you again.

No surprise that Lieberman has taken to fear mongering. At this point what else does he have left? Expect his attacks to become more negative and more desperate.

bluecoat said...

BR: I got frustrated and stopped posting but go way back up to post #1, which is where I should have left it; invading Iraq was wrong and I have said that all along; I was going to go into the diplomatic, humanitarian stuff but the truth is Iraq is all screwed up and where we go from here is very tough; when Gen John Abizaid says something I beleive him because he knows the Middle East and I know he is cautious as hell on many fronts; I also am pissed that the new Iraqi govt has not condemened Hezbollah but it's no surprise;

and BR: say hi to Karl for me will ya!

bluecoat said...

and the laest on this from the AP says we/the public don't know much about this yet, which is just fine for now.

Anonymous said...

Voted for Lamont but given that its time to move right for the general election, couldn't somebody have elbowed Sharpton and/or Jackson out of the picture? Was Castro too ill to make the scene?

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

The "did Karl Rove tell you to say that" response from the Lamont camp is very powerful and substantive. It really adds to the political discourse.

Had the primary been today, Joe would have one, but then again, if my aunt had certain body parts, she'd be my uncle.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Chris Dodd can now say he voted for Joe Lieberman before he voted against him.

So can Diane Farrell.

Anonymous said...

Lamont Rules said that "anyone with a half a brain knows, the root cause of terrorism is the fact that the United States and Israel keep killing innocent people, who have done nothing wrong and committed no crime, for essentially no good reason."

Do you really believe that? Can you give me examples, PRIOR TO THE INVASION OF IRAQ, of the US killing innocent people?

When do you believe this root cause of terrorism was spawned?

Who did we provoke that caused the 9/11 attacks?

By the way, are you even remotely aware that Saddam killed and tortured close 2 million innocent Iraqis?

If you despise America so much, why don't you do us a favor and just leave.

AB said...

Yes folks and if we are just nice to the poor terrorists and leave them alone, they will just make nice and leavbe us be....not. The stated goal of these organizations is the destruction and deaths of every jew in Israel and with any lucks the deaths of as many americans abroad and at home as possible. They hate us becuase we are not islamic. They seek world domination and nothing more. They seek the eradication and assimilation of every non muslim in the world, much teh way Hitler sought to assimilate every "pure", non jew in the world and accomplish world domination.

Those of you who think that if we just play nice with these people are naive, ignorant fools. They want us gone...dead......done. What part of that don't you get. its exactly why, mainstream america doesnt trust the democratic party of today with our defense....you just dont get it.

Anonymous said...

Aaaron B. - I'm sorry to say this, but you don't get it. Listen, the Democrats in Congress, like Maxine Waters, Ned's friend, who said 9/11 was our fault, they do get it. All this violence is our fault. We are the root cause of terrorism. They didn't hate us, until we made them hate us. These terrorists come after us because of the horrible atrocities that we have committed.

Boy, I can't wait for Ned to go and fight for more UN Resolutions.

Anonymous said...

Dear FGMS - LMAO Can I use that one about Dodd & Farrell? I promise I'll give you full credit!

The True Gentleman said...

"TG...what ive read is that the country will slide into a civil war ( some already advocate that they already have)..whether or not we are there...so we may as well try to save american lives as soon as possible by leaving and let them ( the iraqi's) fend for themselves...since they criticised us recently for backing Isreal just how loyal are they anyway?" -- BRubenstein

BR, I appreciate your candor on this subject. You are one of the few who actually are willing to debate the issues without resorting to namecalling or going off on some wild tangent. I agree that Iraq is on its way (if not already there) towards civil war. Obviously, no one wanted that to happen (even George Bush - are people in this country filled with so much anger that they really believe that anyone would wish that upon another nation?). I was disheartened with their comments re: Israel as well, but I just can't believe that leaving them in their current state is the best solution for our future. We obviously disagree on this, and it is pointless to endlessly debate, but do you at least agree that it is possible that if we leave Iraq say on January 1st we could be endangering the Middle East, Europe, and America more than it is today? (I'm not looking for more debate on whether we got ourselves into this situation, just whether you at least understand why many people like me think the way we do and that it is possible we could be right? People like me could also be wrong, and only time will tell us if we are; and I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong).

Anonymous said...

Lamont did a good job at keeping Tom Swan in the background during the primary...

I hope "Swannie" becomes the campaign spokesperson -- sure to sink Lamont.

Gabe said...

TG - For the record, I understand what you are saying and I do think you are incorrect in that your statements seem to imply (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the Iraq war had something to do with rolling up the plot in England.

My personal opinion is that it would be better for our safety and security if we concentrated most of our resources currently in Iraq on finding Osama Bin Laden and rolling up the Al Queda infrastructure that is closer to home (i.e. here and in Europe) than Iraq (where, according to most evidence, it did not exist until we got there). One person's opinion.

Charles Gaba said...

True Gentleman--

For what it's worth, both arguments have merit.

Bush, the entire GOP *and* about half the Dems screwed up bigtime (some deliberately, some out of ignorance) by authorizing this clusterf*ck of an invasion in the first place. Now, three years later, of course, the question is what the hell do we do *now*?


Argument #1 is the "pottery barn" theory: "you break it, you buy it" (or in this case, you fix it). In other words, ok, regardless of how horribly incompetent the Bush Admin has been so far, the bottom line is that we ripped Iraq apart, so now we have a responsibility to patch things up no matter how long it takes, bla bla bla.

Argument #2 is the Archie Andrews/Mr. Lodge "Just Get OUT!" theory: if someone breaks your best china, then knocks over a vase with the broom handle while trying to sweep up the mess, then spills hot coffee in your lap while trying to calm your nerves down...at a certain point, most people will tell you to just LEAVE, dammit!

Of course, it's also not necessarily an either-or situation. There are any number of in-between strategies.

Neither option is necessarily "right" or "wrong", both are simply attempts to try and salvage SOMETHING from this debacle. All I know is that #1 sure as hell has turned into a mess.

Gary Holder-Winfield said...

Anon 9:13
Look I like Ned and all but the truth is that the reason these people hate us is not as simple as we have committed atrocities. Qutb back 50 years ago was advocating for the destruction of America after a visit because of our negative influence. Azzam and Bin Laden follow suit.

Bobby McGee said...

Joseph Lieberman is dangerously trying to blend our national security with the failed stay-the-course "strategy" in Iraq. This is in the end very bad for our national security. Lamont has it right. As much as the neo-conservatives would like you to believe it, we cannot defeat Jihadists with more bombs. Starting wars will never end wars. I'll defend that statement to the death.

The True Gentleman said...

Gabe, I'm not exactly clear as to what you mean when you say that I might be implying that "the Iraq war had something to do with rolling up the plot in England." If you think I am implying that the two are related, my answer is no, you misunderstand me. What I am trying to say is that I believe that we will see the UK situation times 10 if we just leave Iraq now in its current state. Remember Syria, which has been eerily quiet in recent months, is a known breeding ground for terrorism. If our presence is no longer existant in Iraq, the Iraqis surely cannot stop Syria from having its state-sponsored terrorists train in Iraq (which could then become a launching ground for any number of terrorist attacks on America or Europe). And to say that there weren't terrorist groups in Iraq prior to Iraq War would be incorrect, as there were numerous terrorist organizations with training operations in that country (as the State Department and CIA evidence has demonstrated).

I've said it before, I too want the troops home and think that our domestic security is poor (no one even checks bags on a train), so at least we somewhat agree but it is the means to the end that we struggle with...

Bobby McGee said...

TG, you said:
What I am trying to say is that I believe that we will see the UK situation times 10 if we just leave Iraq now in its current state. Remember Syria, which has been eerily quiet in recent months, is a known breeding ground for terrorism. If our presence is no longer existant in Iraq, the Iraqis surely cannot stop Syria from having its state-sponsored terrorists train in Iraq (which could then become a launching ground for any number of terrorist attacks on America or Europe).

The terrorists were all Pakistani with British citizenship. Obviously our involvement in Iraq has little to do with their ability to carry out these terrorist plots, but everything to do with their motivation.

BRubenstein said...

TG,,,..Ty for the compliment...

Im not sure if we left on January 1st what would happen...my guess is that Iraq slips into civil war and Iran backs its Shite brethren and we back the Sunni's and Kurds behind the scenes.

justavoter said...

Leaving Iraq and using diplomacy instead of creating wars like Bush did in Iraq will allow us to start to deal with International problems that exist around the globe.

We created more terrorists with Bush in office and our policy's have been to create conflicts with others not peaceful resolutions.

Lamont will do fine in dealing with the issues of security once elected to go to Washington.

Lier is a loser who's time is up.

He needs to honor the outcome and dropout now and join the Republican Party once and for all.

Thats the bottomline.

End of story

justavoter said...

It appears like we arron want to control the world thats the Bush agenda.

Instead of understand other cultures and there problems we create Wars.

Irael needs to back down from being a bully right now in Lebanon.

As a Jewish American I see that issue not being resolved until Israel agree's to working with there neibors .

Terror is also created by the Superpowers who become big bullies.

We create terrorists and then wonder where did they come from.

Until everyone sits down like grown ups nothing will get solved.

arron your comments create terrorists but maybe you don't see this.

Its our lack of talking to one another and picking up weapons first that have created the mess we are in as a world.

This has got to change.

Ned Lamont will be just what we need in Washington and if we can get more Progressive sane voices in the Senate and Congress will all be better for it.

Anonymous said...

The reality is that the average voter is going to return to post 9/11 mentality and want someone seasoned, experienced and a known quantity to represent them in the Senate. If this happened two days ago, let's face it, Lamont would cease to be the flavor of the month. In times of uncertainty, people seek what is comfortable. Regardless of whether we want it or not, the U.S. was at war on 9/11 when our country, our people and our way of life was attacked. It was vicious and senseless and it shook us to our very core. The recent terrorist threats will remind people of that. It will be a visceral response and you can opinionate here all you want, but again, the average voter, will look for experience. I too got caught up with the Lamont movement. But let's face it, we're not voting for prom king, we're voting for leaders who can help guide us in the face of terrorism. I for one will sleep better if people like Joe Lieberman are making these decisions. It's time to look past the cutesy commercials, dogs barking, bears whining and get down to brass tacks.

Anonymous said...

justavoter - sounds like you're a contestant in the Miss America pageant - all we need is world peace...your comments are sophmoric.

Chris MC said...

[...]the truth is that the reason these people hate us is not as simple as we have committed atrocities. Qutb back 50 years ago was advocating for the destruction of America after a visit because of our negative influence. Azzam and Bin Laden follow suit.

This is exactly right, and good reading for anybody concerned with knowing the history behind the Wahabbist Sunni beliefs on which Al Qaeda is built. Recommended: Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong

Clinton's Defense Secretary Cohen's view corresponds to the thesis in Lewis' book's title. To paraphrase him, the root problem with Israel and the Arabs is that Israel is a European Democracy imposed on a semitic and theocratic region.

This analysis is a better basis for understanding what is going on because it is (A) a simpler explanation that accounts more consistently for a broader array of events, and (B) deflates the jingoism that taints what passes for discussion and debate about what is happening and why it is happening, putting sectarian aspects in a more appropriate perspective.

Billy said...

Civil war in Iraq is a good thing people for, at least for us. Its the SAME WAY the British used to rule nations. Divide and Conquer.

If theyre busy killing each other all we have to do is help the side most favorable to us to root out the insurgents. Then we win. Get over it.

Is that the last talking point you loonie leftists got before the Dems imploded? CIVIL WAR CIVIL WAR CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ! Who cares, Civil war, Iraqi vs Iraqi is good for what we are trying to accomplish over there.

And to the nugget heads saying that the war is pointless, yadda yadda, get some perspective, see the big picture. This war isnt about JUST Iraq, the Middle East has been home to violent islamic facist expansion for 1000s of years. Everywhere they expand they cause trouble, Be it Southern Spain, Albania, Indonesia, so for and so on. Its the same phenom! We are in a global struggle against a brutal enemey who wants us to be like them, we refuse.

TALKING does NOTHING.
Debating them DOES NOTHING
UN Resolutions are IGNORED
We dont need speech and communication with them, what they NEED is good ole fashioned killin'. Thats ALL they listen to.

It worked in the Crusade which contrary to popular belief was started by Islamic military expansion into Europe, the Christain nations responded by bringing the fight to them in thier homelands. Not saying either side was innocent, but this is how old that war is. And we didnt start it. Inquisition? Same thing, the expelling of Islamic military expansion out of Spain by the rightful Catholic monarchy. These are ALL chapters of the SAME war thats been raging across 1000s of years.

We must find a way to end it now, either by destroying Islam itself, or by bringing the fight to thier homelands again, and reformng thier governments forcefully so that thier governments can keep them in check.

AB said...

I am simply astounded by the belief that we are at fault for the worls terrorism. Lets see, exactly what di the US have to do with the fact that the arab nations have been trying to destriy Israel since its inception. The war has never ended over there and never will.

YOu actually believe that 9/11 was our own fault. Well thats simpyl liek saying, because you live in anice home and that other guy doesnt you made him angry and gave him the right to murder your family and take your home. Its illogical. The hatred is the fault of the arab nations themselves who oppress their people and teach them to hate americans and jews at an early age.

You know how this will stop, when Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other arab nations stop preaching and teaching hatred to their people. Until then we as a nation must defend ourselves and if that means we need to kill each and every terrorist, than that is what we must do. I am appaled that anyone would think we or the Israelis should negotiate with Hezbollah, an organiaztion whos stated goal is the death and destruction of Israel and who prior to 9/11 were responsible for the largest number of american deaths by terrorism.

Sure we will negotiate with them, at the end of the gun barrel, as this si alll they understand.

Lamont's win is only polarizing the republican base in this state who realize his winning the seat is a danger to us all.

Gary Holder-Winfield said...

Yes, Bernard Lewis - someone who know what he is speaking about -exactly

The True Gentleman said...

Justavoter, did you forget that Hezbollah has fired over 3,000 missiles into Israel since this conflict began? (And yet you call Israel the bully) Where is your call for Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to come to the negotiating table? And I must of missed the part when al-Qaeda called the US before 9/11 to negotiate, same for in Spain a couple of years ago, and London last year...Negotiations only work when the parties will adhere to reason and then follow the terms of the agreement reached (terrorist organizations seeking the destruction of Israel, the US and the western way of life do not follow this -- and as we have witnessed over the past 10 years, neither does North Korea nor Iran).

Gary Holder-Winfield said...

In one breath Aaron B says that this will never end and then states that the way to go is to "negotiate" with guns. My question: are you going to be there the whole time holding that gun? Also, I state again that there is a difference between terrorists and some of those we are discussing here. Whether we chose to or not terrorists may be negotiated with. Those driven by a real ideology - eh, not so much.

The True Gentleman said...

"This is war . . . Alas, it is. Wherever they were born, the men who want to blow up airliners, who want to destroy Israel and, not coincidentally, who want to kill all hope of a decent society in Iraq -- are Islamofascists who are united in hatred of us. The sooner we in Europe understand that, and that they must be defeated, the safer everyone -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, nonbelievers -- will be."

-- British Prime Minister Tony Blair

justavoter said...

Anonymous you said you got caught up in the Lamont Movement . Did you vote for Lamont? and if so just days later if you truly support Lamont you will stand with him in November.
Thats if you did in fact vote for him?

Are you going vote in fear in November then stay home .

If your voting for change then vote for Lamont its that simple and remember there was a time when Joe Lier never was in office.

So that experience argument is B.S.

Joe experience with Bush and Company has been a romance that needs to be put to an end once and for all.

What happened in Britian was taken care of by the British government.

Our National Security is not up to where the British are .

Bush and Joe Lieberman and the Republicans have made thing far worse then better for America.

Connecticut voters are smart and will not fall for Liers fear tactics.

Remember now the Washington Repukes will advise Lier on what to say during is losing Independent bid.

Things will improve once we get Bush out of office and the Conservatives in both parties replaced with Progressives in the U.S. Senate and Congress.

bluecoat said...

TG: the US Congress has yet to declare war on "the terrorists" and they won't because there is no country - or group - to declare war against. As Gen Abizaid who knows the Middle East has said: you can't kill all of the terrorists. Invading Afghanistan was about getting OBL but when the CIA called for air support at Tora Bora where they had OBL cornered the planes never came - Bush had changed the military mission to the invasion of Iraq. As I have said half of the Republicans in the US Senate aren't real happy with Bush and the other half are clueless about how to stop terror.

bluecoat said...

from US Senator Richard Lugar:Elevating the Iraq Debate

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, I don't recall claiming that Congress declared war on the terrorists or saying that the we have to kill them all - in fact, I'd be much happier if we captured them rather than killed them. I'm not quite sure what your point is in relation to what I've said - perhaps you are misinterpreting other posters' comments for mine.

bluecoat said...

you can't capture all of them either!!! same thing.

bluecoat said...

TG: you quoted Tony Blair saying "This is war.." but it's not war; it is a security and law enforcement effort backed up by the military and international intelligence - the sooner peopel get that through their heads, the sooner we can be all safe. OBL says he declared war and by calling the counterterrorism effort war all Blair and Bush are doing is giving OBL credence with the vulnerable who would follow him- like the British citizens with no criminal history who blew up mass transit last year and who got caught yesterday for plotting to blow up commercial airpliners.

Anonymous said...

Someone said Senator Lamont He will be lucky to ever be Dog Catcher in Greenwich after November.

Lamont pals lets review: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, George Soros, Lowell Weicker, Tom Swan, Keith Crane,Peter Crane and other liberals not famous enough to mention.

This list does not impress me or Many of us in The Democratic Party.That is why I am Sticking with JOE!!!!!!!

Lamont Rules said...

Anonymous:
You really think the US has not killed innocent people before the Iraq invasion? Do you know anything about world history? I can give you a brief list of examples of the US/Israel killing innocents:
1) War of 1948
2) War of 1967
3) 1973 Invasion of Lebanon
4) 1983 Invasion of Lebanon
5) Bloody 30-year occupation of Lebanon ending in 2003

If you would like a history lesson I reccomend all of you take some classes... I am an expert in the region and an member of the Middle East Studies association. I have been to Israel 4 times.
Also remember that Osama bin Laden made it very clear that the cause of his attack was the US presence in Saudi Arabia, a country from which almost all of the initial hijakers were from.
Secondly, remember that on average in the Israel / Palestinian conflict, 3 Palestinians die for every 1 Israeli. In this current month-long slaughter by Israel, THOUSANDS of Lebanese civilians were killed, while dozens (at most) Israelis have been killed. In the words of one Lebanese official, "it's not a war, its a rampage." Anonymous, you are nothing more than a McCarthyist, equally uninformed on the issues as was he. Futhermore, your open challenge made you look like a fool and I hope you realize that. Don't challenge people when you lack an even elementary knowledge of what you are talking about.