Tuesday, October 17, 2006

How Dare They!

Sen. Lieberman has been quick to blame nearly everything and everybody for his primary loss and the strong challenge against him in the general election. He's blamed "partisanship", lamonsters, "attacks", "distortions", negative millionaire Ned, terrorists, partisanship, record turnout (well, not according to him), and that massive-left-wing-blogger-conspiracy. He, and his campaign, seem so indignant that anyone would even dare to challenge such a visable national political figure. They just can't seem to find the reasoning behind it. They can't seem to comprehend why--why on earth--anybody could possibly be so mad at the Senator. Here's a hint to the Lieberman campaign:



This war is immoral, a huge waste of money, and a huge waste of life. We were led into it under false pretenses and it has been managed terribly. Sen. Lieberman has cheered on the entire way.

26 comments:

Bobby McGee said...

It's old, it's unoriginal, but it's the truth. Lieberman just doesn't get it.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget, it's also all about Joe and his friggin' arrogance.

Jim said...

....and a happy Torture Day to all you Lieberman apologists, by the way.

AB said...

The war is immoral? How, in that the US took premptiove action. It was based on false pretense? Even if true the democrats particularly those on the sentae intelligence comittee had access to all the information the president did and they supported it. I am no big enthusiast for the war in Iraq, but to sit here and say that democrats were fooled either makes george bush the worlds most brilliant evil genious or democrats just plain stupid. Personally I think the US Government collectively, dems and repubs and alike made the mistake to go to war. The difference is that liberals think we need to negotiate and coddle terrorists and there supporters while republican beleive we take the fight to them.

Anonymous said...

MUST TELL ALL.
Only 20 days left.
Joe has to go.
www.liebermeforme.com

Anonymous said...

"The difference is that liberals think we need to negotiate and coddle terrorists"

The last thing we need is more liberals in power and their unelected judges ruining this nation.

ugh.

Shadow said...

I sent this question to CBS to ask in tomorrow's debate: "Senator Lieberman, the law signed yesterday overturning our constitutional rights was described last night by Newsweek’s Chief Political Analyst as follows: ‘The President or some group that he sets up can declare any American citizen to be an unlawful enemy combatant; that’s outside the bounds of American history.’ Senator, why have you continued to support the Bush administration’s polices to the point where today any Connecticut citizen could not only be held without charges indefinitely, but tortured as well?"

Any of you neo-con apologists want to defend the overturning of more than two centuries of constitutional protections for American citizens?

By the way, terrorists need to be killed, not coddled; everyone agrees on that. The difference is that neo-cons believe in policies that create more terrorists, while moderates and progressives think that creating more terrorists is insane. Take your Carl Rove propoganda and shove it up your ass, no one is buying any more.

Anonymous said...

Aaron B.,

Please stop taking the fight to grammer, you are killing it...

Brassett said...

Anon 8:59

Seems to me that your complaint isn't with really liberals or unelected judges, but rather with a bunch of guys in powdered wigs who came up with the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago.

God Bless America!!!

Anonymous said...

"Seems to me that your complaint isn't with really liberals or unelected judges, but rather with a bunch of guys in powdered wigs who came up with the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago. "

Not at all- Exhibit A would be the Lynn Stewart getting just 28 months in jail.

Convicted of conspiracy and providing material support to Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of 30 years.

Clinton appointed liberal judge handed down 28 months.

Disgusting.

GMR said...

Ucombatant actually has legal precent. See Ex Parte Quirin, a 1942 Supreme Court case involving captured German sabateurs who were operating in the United States (one of them was a citizen).

Blue Turned Red said...

Just ask who would you want defending you when things got tough - Ned Lamont, Nancy Pelosi, Russ Feingold, and Howard Dean, or Joe Lieberman? Enough said! If the main stream voters of CT ask themselves this question then there is no doubt Joe will win.

Blue Turned Red said...

And to all you weak in the knees liberals who complain about the so called torture bill - it amazes me how concerned you are about the plight of terrorists, but are dead silent when you watch American's get their heads cut off on tv. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Yet again it shows where your true sympathies lie.

justavoter said...

what a bating right wing response .

Total garbage.

When our troops Blue Turned Red are dying in Iraq which side are you on.

Don't play that game it won't work.

If you care and your Conservative Republicans care so much about protecting American people then bring the troops home now.

Mainstream voters want the troops home .

Bush and his Neo Cons are terrorists aswell or don't you see that?

The problem is Lieberman supports Bush and the Neo-Cons support Lieberman.

Yoou need to truly be ashamed of yourself.

People in this state and country are far from dead silent its the so called Liberals that you hate and many mainstream Americans who are fed up with Bush and this War.

So lets get the facts straight.

TrueBlueCT said...

BlueTurnedRed, (yeah right)--

What you have missed is the fact that the majority of Americans now agree with the prescient Howard Dean that the Iraq War was a stupid blunder. The Iraq invasion and the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made safer either America or Israel. In fact we have emboldened the suicidal nuts of the Islamic world.

But hats off to Howard and the majority of his supporters, who understood that Bush 41 and Brent Scowcroft were right. Invading Iraq would have left us as "occupiers" in a foreign land, for who knows how many years, and with who knows what kind of result.

C'mon now, repeat after me. Bush 41 was right. Colin Powell was right. Howard Dean was right. And the bullishness of your "Invade First, Deal with the Consequences Later" crowd was just completely asanine.

Shadow said...

> Blue Turned Red: And to all you weak in the knees liberals who complain about the
> so called torture bill - it amazes me how concerned you are about the plight of
> terrorists, but are dead silent when you watch American's get their heads cut off on tv.

Are you paying ANY attention? The new bill Bush signed into law yesterday (and Lieberman voted for) says that a group of The President's choosing has the power to throw YOU in jail without cause or charge, torture you, and lop YOUR head off, all within the law. Your whole family, your children, too - all without anyone knowing.

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 wanted us to change our laws and democratic tradition to resemble the restrictions in the Middle East, and now they have succeeded in overturning over two centuries of Constitutional protections for American citizens, thanks to appeasers like you who toughen these laws completely oblivious to the fact that you're achieving Bin Laden's objectives more quickly that he could have imagined. If neo-cons are too retarded to comprehend this, you guys are chronically incompetent and a greater threat to us in office than anyone.


> You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Yet again it shows where your true sympathies lie.

Yes, with America. You, as a neo- con apologist, have so far doubled the amount of terrorists by villifying us around the world, caused us to somehow lose a public relations war to zealots in caves, and enacted laws in our country to undo our most basic freedoms.

Where do YOUR true sympathies lie?

Where is YOUR shame?

NewLondonDem said...

Who do I trust to protect Americans? Well, let's look at the record: nearly 2800 American soldiers dead in Iraq. What the hell did Lieberman do to protect them?

Blue Turned Red said...

The last few posts prove how weak and spineless the new left has become. What happened to the Democrats of yesteryear – when they had socially conservative values, looked out for the common man, and defended American interests on the foreign policy scene? Now being a Democrat means being anti-military, socially liberal (never say God in public) and fiscally conservative (lots of tax breaks for rich seniors on the Gold Coast who really don’t need it).

Bin Laden’s goal is not to change our laws; he wants to destroy our economy because he knows that’s his most effective weapon. He wants to kill Americans because he despises our support for Israel. Please don’t tell me his real goal was to impact habeas corpus.

The reality is that GW isn’t going to start pulling liberals out of their homes and cutting their heads off. That’s all over blown hype. The fact of the matter is that we have not had a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. A big part of the reason why is due to the protections afforded in the Patriot Act, something the left calls another infringement on our rights. How would liberal Democrats protect this country when they are not willing to enact any measures that would rightly do so in the name of “injustice”?

Lets’ face it, we all know how the left truly feels about this country – they believe we are the cause of all our own problems, that we are greedy capitalists that keep the rest of the world down, and mad-men like Osama Bin Laden are the result of our own doing. To that I say you may want to leave your $800,000 mansions some time and visit places like India, Venezuela, or Colombia and then you will know what it really means to be called “the land of opportunity”.

Ironically, Howard Dean never expressed outrage over the terrorist who cut the heads off Americans on TV. He never condemns their actions because he believes Americans shouldn’t be there in the first place. He did condemn using strong arm tactics by Americans to illicit information from terrorists, and he laments that they might not get a trial in a timely manner. I wonder who the terrorists are hoping wins the congressional and senate elections this fall?

Anonymous said...

the problem, of course, with the Military Commissions Bill is that it likely won't pass Constitutional muster and justice will again be delayed. Mousaui was tried in federal court but who wants to get into policy on a partisan blog?

Jim said...

Now being a Democrat means being anti-military

It wasn't the Democrats who sent too few troops into Iraq.

It wasn't the Democrats who refused to purchase adequate body armor and armored vehicles for troops in Iraq.

It wasn't Democrats who proposed cuts in miliatary pay.

It wasn't Democrats who cut funding to VA hospitals and research into brain trauma (the "signature injury" resulting from the urban, IED-based war in Iraq).

It wasn't Democrats who tried to bill wounded veterans for their VA hospital stays.

It wasn't a Democrat who said "You go to war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had."

It wasn't Democrats who blamed the mess in Iraq on the military's choice of "tactics".

It isn't Democrats who use troops as background visuals for photo-ops.

You really are a sad little man.

Shadow said...

Um, let's see, THE NEO-CONS, seeing as they're the ones who have doubled terrorist recruitment with their self-destructive policies.


>BlueTurnedRed: Now being a Democrat means being anti-military,
> socially liberal (never say God in public) and fiscally conservative

Fiscally conservative is a good thing. It's nice to have an option other than running our financial future into the ground, don't you think?

And you can say God in public all you want. Just don't expect me to say it. And that extends to don't expect us (a country that also includes millions of athiests and agnostics) to say it, whether it be on our money, a prerequisite for pledging allegiance to our country, or any publicly financed affirmation of deity. Stay clear of imposing your religion on people on those three clearly unreasonable fronts, and I wish you nothing but joy and peace in your spiritual life.

The only people who are anti-military are the ones who tied up 140,000 of our forces in a country that never had weapons of mass destruction or links to 9/11. The result, REAL nuclear threats like Iran and North Korea can wave their bare asses in our face, and we can do nothing because they know we have no troops to back it up; consequently, we have no leverage against nuclear proliferation, no way to stop Afganistan from further slipping into the hands of the Taliban, and no additional forces to use in pursuit of Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells.

Furthermore, almost every retired general has spoken up against the Iraq policy (the current generals only can't because they cannot question policy publically under our laws), and the majority of the military on the ground, in a poll earlier this year, wanted to be out by the end of 2006.

Neo-cons are asking those soldiers to stay in Iraq at these current levels until things are stable (which means never), and every American soldier there has to stay, fight, and possibly die knowing that they're doing it all to push a policy that has doubled the amount of terrorists.

Clearly, the only anti-military point of view here is your neo-con apologism.


> Bin Laden’s goal is not to change our laws; he wants to destroy our
> economy because he knows that’s his most effective weapon.

Yes, that's 'weapon', not 'goal'. Destroying our economy is a tactic, changing our society into an authoritarian theocracy is the final goal that tactic is meant to achieve (ideally, of course; Bin-Laden and al-Zawahiri don't really expect that to happen, but any steps in that direction is good news to them).

And even if you disagree with that assessment, forget what they think for a moment; what about our own standards? EVERYONE here in America said after 9/11 how important it was to stay steady in our principles, and not allow those things to change. By that standard, you and all other neo-con apologists have capitulated to the terrorists.


> The reality is that GW isn’t going to start pulling liberals out of their
> homes and cutting their heads off

The issue is not that we think the goverment going to bust down our door tomorrow, the issue is that we now have nothing but Bush's good judgement stopping that stuff from happening, and that's just not good enough. Bush will not always be President, keep in mind, and future presidents who you loathe will also have this unchecked power. Do you think you come off as anything other than an reactionary neo-con extremist by saying that staying consistent with over 200 years of Constitutional protections is "left" or "liberal"?


> To that I say you may want to leave your $800,000 mansions some time

Are you nuts? I'm a 27 year old musician who has never made more than $18,000 in a year. Most rich people are Republicans, in case you haven't noticed.


> Lets’ face it, we all know how the left truly feels about this country

Yes, we don't want to see it further destroyed by neo-cons who act like the bastions of security as they create more anti-US animosity and terrorists around the world, while somehow being chronically oblivious to all of it. They are simply the most fundamentally incompetent group of people in power in US history, and American patriots of all political beliefs have a stake in getting them out of office and keeping them out.

not-rich-republican said...

Shadow says: Most rich people are Republicans, in case you haven't noticed..

You sure about that buddy? Might wanna recheck whereever you got that from because it out and out WRONG. Or is a preconceived notion in your head?

Anonymous said...

I hope someone nails Lierberman in the debate on his 80% funding from out-of-state lobbyists, such as Sempra Energy of San Diego. What has he done for them lately? People in CT have a right to know.

Shadow said...

> not-rich-republican: You sure about that buddy?

Oh, I'm sure about it, and you can look it up: the majority of rich people are Republicans. However, that does not mean the majority of Republicans are rich, which is what my statement sounds like if you read it backwards like you just did.

I'll explain further: what you missed is the basic axiom of logic that dictates not every statement works in reverse.

In otherwords, just because all frogs are amphibians, that doesn't mean all amphibians are frogs; just because a rifle is a gun, that doesn't mean all guns are rifles; just because all neo-cons are conservative, that doesn't mean all conservatives are jackasses - ahem, I mean neo-cons. And just because most rich people are Republicans, that doesn't mean that most Republicans are rich people.

Blue Turned Red said...

Jim said...."It wasn't the Democrats who sent too few troops into Iraq”


Really, I thought John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and a host of other Dems voted for the war. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they weren’t complaining about troop levels back then.


Jim said...“It wasn't the Democrats who refused to purchase adequate body armor and armored vehicles for troops in Iraq.”


This is a myth that continues to be thrown around by the left wing blogosphere. While it was an issue earlier on in the campaign, it has been remediated since then. Our men and women have body armor.


Jim said....“It wasn't Democrats who proposed cuts in military pay.”

You are correct, Clinton and the Democrats didn’t cut pay, they just quietly reduced the size of military in the 90’s. No need to cut pay when you cut positions. Go back and see what happened to the military between 1990 and 2000. You might actually learn something.


Jim said...“It wasn't Democrats who tried to bill wounded veterans for their VA hospital stays.”

FYI - VHA facilities provide care for any veteran who is disabled by a condition connected to his/her military service, and care for specific medical conditions acquired during military service.

The 1996 Veterans Health Care Reform Act expanded eligibility for VHA care to all veterans and instructed the VHA to develop priority categories for enrollment. Only veterans without service-connected illnesses or disabilities and with incomes above 80% of the median income in their area are classified in the lowest priority group.

I suggest you read the Veterans Reform Act to see what services the VHA provides for veterans. You might be surprised.

Jim said..…”It wasn't Democrats who cut funding to VA hospitals and research into brain trauma (the "signature injury" resulting from the urban, IED-based war in Iraq).”

Since the passage of the Veteran Health Care Reform Act, VHA enrollment has increased by 141%, from 2.9 million to 7.0 million. Doesn’t sound like a cut to me. In 1996 you had a Dem president and Republican congress, who are you going to give credit to here?


Jim said……"It wasn't a Democrat who said "You go to war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had."

Again, tell that to Kerry & Co. He had a say in it both before and after he voted against it.

Jim said……"It wasn't Democrats who blamed the mess in Iraq on the military's choice of "tactics".

No, they simply blame the military for torturing and raping Iraqi women. The Republicans don’t blame the military, another dishonest statement.

Jim said... “It isn't Democrats who use troops as background visuals for photo-ops.”

Oh really, maybe you weren’t born yet back in 1988, but for those of us who remember Michael Dukakis ‘the Massachusetts Miracle’ they will tell you he most certainly did.

Jim said...

Jim said...."It wasn't the Democrats who sent too few troops into Iraq”

Really, I thought John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and a host of other Dems voted for the war. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they weren’t complaining about troop levels back then.


Were troop levels part of the debate that took place six months before teh invasion? when your idiot princeling was still pretending that war was a last resort? Sure, you and I knew he was lying, but some people were still caught up in the romantic notion that a President of the United States wouldn't lie about war.

Your reference to Michael Dukakis certainly is persuasive. It also does a lot to reinforce the sense of your nickname: "I was a lifelong member of the Democrat Party...."

And it was Kinda-useless Rice and Rumsfailure who blamed the Iraq mess on the military. Aren't they Republicans, Muffin?