"It is wrong for some on the right to imply that some Democrats don't care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the president's policies on the war on terrorism emboldens our enemies. (AP)
He's right, of course. But this is actually something of a new position for him. In fact, it's really a new position. The Courant article notes that last year, he said this:
"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." (AP)
He also said of Lamont in August:
"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."
And has he yet said anything at all about Dick Cheney's assertion that a Lamont victory encourages "al Queda types"? That's bad, too, right?
Not quite. What Lieberman said is that we should have the debate. However, only his side is correct, and it's perfectly fine to say that if we elect people like Lamont, terrorists will kill you, your family, your cat, and everyone you know.
We need to have a serious debate about national security and Iraq. But if the response to any deviation from what is obviously a failed strategy is "terrorists will be emboldened," then we can't have that debate. We can only hurl accusations back and forth.
Sen. Lieberman's statement is heartening. I hope he follows this line of thinking, and actually engages in this vital debate without trying to whip up as much fear as he can.
Source
Lieberman criticizes Republicans who assail war critics." Associated Press 15 September, 2006.
7 comments:
You don't really think he means to have an open debate about Iraq and terrorism, do you? You state it a new position; no, it's just Joe mouthing words. He has zero credibility. Talk one way, act another.
Lieberman could have avoided the primary challenge if he had said anything close to this back at the beginning of the year. His saying it now merely demonstrates the depth of his desperation. He clearly doesn't believe it because he would have said before he was in extremis if he did. We've seen too many political death bed conversions which didn't really take. Lieberman needs to find a new life.
While it is unfair to call political opponents traitors, I think it is entirely fair to call them fools
Osama Bin Laden said America was the weak horse. If your agenda weakens the horse, you may not intend to help the jiahdists, but you are.
1970's liberals didn;t intend for the killing fields of Cambodia or the boat people of Vietnam to happen. It is fair to point out the consequences of their policies, however.
Lieberman again shows that he will say anything to voters even if he does not believe in what he says.
Its really sad to see a man who has lost his progressive values.
Lamont is so lame to run those stupid tv commercials with the kid reading the names of the military it is just another ploy by the Left Wing Liberals to spread lies and deceive the Public.
Wake up Liberals It isnt working
"I am mad as Hell and I am not going to take this anymore"
Why do we keep asking for debate? Debate rarely changes minds, it seems to merely raise the level of rhetoric and anger by partisans. Debate got us to where we are- in a you are right or I am right world, only the extremes win. I do not know too many people that believe we should drop everything in Iraq and head for the airport and I do not know too many people that think we should reinstate the draft and send all of our population under 24 in there to fight. The answer has to lie in the middle at this point, and dialogue, not debate is the way to find it
I see this blog is back at the censoring of Conservatives again.
Keith Crane strikes again!!!!
Post a Comment