That guy is gone for good:
Sen. Joe Lieberman, may have agreed to caucus with the Democrats in the next congressional term, but the Connecticut independent made it clear Wednesday he would not hold the party line on a call for phased troop withdrawals.
...
Lieberman's comments are a sign his defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary has not weakened his hawkish stance on Iraq.
Voters fooled? Mission accomplished! For one, I'm with Ralph Waldo Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
23 comments:
Nothing really changes in DC. Different faces, same results. A career politician is a career politician.
Voters mislead? I'll say! The bloom is already off the rose for Smurph. Even the ultra-liberal DNT is distancing itself from the wonderkid.
"As a rule, we worry about politicians who have sought the limelight of public office since high school. It's typically better to run a business, head a nonprofit or teach at a college for a few years first."
Wow. Sounds like they expect they worse from Smurph.
Who's challenging Joe in 2012?
Matt Lieberman is back down south making a fortune as the headmaster of a nice Jewish School and Hanna Lieberman is "studying abroad" (Thats code for going to college in Israel).
Joe Lieberman could care less how many of your kids die in his effort to transform the Middle east to make Israel Secure.
Enjoy your war,Republicans,you put him back in the Senate.
Matt Lieberman is back down south making a fortune as the headmaster of a nice Jewish School and Hanna Lieberman is "studying abroad" (Thats code for going to college in Israel).
Joe Lieberman could care less how many of your kids die in his effort to transform the Middle east to make Israel Secure.
Enjoy your war,Republicans,you put him back in the Senate.
Who's challenging Joe in 2012?
my blind cat could beat him.. he's sweet and cuddly and hates loud noise so he'd be anti war. And he ROCKS on the cute quotient.
and chicks dig him.
He'd BURY joe.
Gabe, good call on that video. I may use it. I probably have the same video somewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it and edit it...plus, I was busy getting ready to get thrown out of that event.
Who's challenging Joe in 2012?
I'm beginning to think Jim Vicevich could run against him from the left...
This shouldn't be a surprise to those of us who already knew his sanctimony was a pile of baloney, and that he was a "win at every cost" pol for whom lying was no stretch.
The only people who should be ashamed of themselves are anti-war Democrats who voted for Lieberman based on some other rationale.
Y'know, the ones who said stuff like "Sure he supported a disastrous and deadly war and efforts to subvert the Constitution...but at least he voted against drilling in Alaska."
Hang your heads, you poor, delusional suckers.
Thank Tim, I dug it up on his page - good job getting thrown out.
I am unclear what the comment about Smurph means? I happen to agree that Chris Murphy is a young career politician who is far more concerned about his career, than he is about anything else. But at age 33 most of us who were looking to get ahead were no different.
To somehow bring him up in the same thread that shows Joe Lieberman for what he truly is, is even for me a bit unfair. Joe has had many years at the taxpayers expense to hone his skills.
Murphy so far only has 8. Of course he is only 33 years old so I guess by time he is Joe's age .....Well, let's hope by then he gets a real job in the private sector...
I can't stand the thought of a career politician that spans that many years.
>shakes head<
I guess the Ned-heads don't see this video like I do I guess.
Joe is right- Who wants the war to continue? Who doesn't want the troops to come home?
Funny... all the dems who were taking about leaving ASAP have changed their tune from what I see in the news.
Manning the levers of power comes with the slight downside known as RESPONSIBILITY when things blow up in your face.
Make no bones about it dem lovers... if you cut'n run in Iraq now and it turns to poop bet the Republicans are going to ride it for all it's worth in '08.
And alas, in 2008 the Democrats won't be able to blame a goddamned thing on Bush. Not on the ticket and his party isn't in power. Whatever will they do?
Whatever will they do? They will do the obvious:
They will at least try to blame everything on Bush and count on the public to agree.
The empty slogan "It's time for a change" dosen't mean actually accepting responsiblity for that change. Now that would be a change.
if you cut'n run in Iraq now and it turns to poop bet the Republicans are going to ride it for all it's worth in '08.
IF it turns to poop?
Buddy, we're up to our eyeballs in crap over there, and have been for going on three years. Where have you been?
> Make no bones about it dem lovers... if you cut'n run in Iraq now and it turns to
> poop bet the Republicans are going to ride it for all it's worth in '08.
Whether we leave or not before '08, it will turn to poop, and the Republicans will try to blame the Democrats no matter what - so nice try.
What the Democrats need to come out any say is "Look, what we didn't face before going into this war was the fact that no matter when we leave, there WILL be chaos. So what will make a few more years in Iraq better than deploying the vast majority of our troops by the end of 2007, aside from more dead American soldiers, and an increase in terrorist recruitment (as the National Intelligence Estimate clearly shows)"
We screwed Iraq and ourselves the moment we thought we had the ability to externally impose democracy there. The question now is do we listen to people like me, who understood this all the way back in 2002, or people like you and Joe Lieberman, who haven't figured it out after four years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of dead Americans, and who want to do it all over again in Iran?
What Lieberman is saying here should be no surprise to anyone who payed any attention to his ridiculous and disengenuous 180' on the Iraq war. Any of the 30% of Democrats who voted for him who feel a little dirty right now have no one to blame but themselves.
"Buddy, we're up to our eyeballs in crap over there, and have been for going on three years. Where have you been?"
The troops I hang out with don't agree with you, try getting you news from a source that doesn't have some axe to grind.
"Whether we leave or not before '08, it will turn to poop"
Try fighting our nations enemies insteading of hoping for the worst.
Fight them there or fight them here, take your pick... because they WILL come here if we leave.
Nonsense. We should leave Iraq tomorrow.
There are two main arguments against this:
1. That the country will devolve into all-out civil war, with Iran gaining influence in the South, Syria in the middle and the Kurds creating problems for Turkey in the north.
But you're naive if you think that won't happen WHENEVER we leave -- next week, next year, next millenium.
Remember Yugoslavia? Tito kept the lid on for 40 years, but when he left the whole place fell to crap.
2. The terrorists/insurgents will take over.
Except that the reason the insurgents exist is that we're there. The reason they recruit new terrorists is because we're there.
Any sensible analysis of this says that if we leave, the insurgency's reason-to-be evaporates, as does their number one recruiting point for terrorists.
_____________________
And here's another reason to get out now: Is there a parent anyhwere in the US willing to give up their child for the principle of "phased redeployment?"
If you're for that, send your kids first, please. Don't all rush at once.
"If you're for that, send your kids first, please."
Intellectually shallow and not unexpected.
I was under the impression our armed services who are filled with adults.
You may get your wish when "insurgents" arrive here in force. We all will be on the front lines then.
"Except that the reason the insurgents exist is that we're there."
You have no grasp of history in this region, they have been around for hundreds of years.
We did not create them, THEY just have global reach now.
> Try fighting our nations enemies insteading of hoping for the worst.
Being realistic is not hoping for the worst.
Not being realistic guarantees the worst.
Being realistic is necessary to defeat our enemies.
Not being realistic gives them the advantage.
We are tired of your lack of realism giving our enemies the advantage, by enacting policies that create more terrorists, and then spouting off the same talking points that were retarded to begin with in 2002.
Speaking of which...
>Fight them there or fight them here, take your pick... because they WILL come here if we leave.
What utter, utter stupidity.
We were attacked by twenty hijackers who took out three thousand Americans. Read that again: it took twenty men in the field for them to kill three thousand Americans.
You think some war in the Middle East that all our intelligence agencies agree has doubled terrorist recruitment is the reason why the terrorists can't spare twenty guys to attack us again?
Are you that dumb?
I am so sick of people like this who talk a tough game but could care less whether the facts back up their position; they are perfectly content to continue spewing their drivel while their policies decrease America's power abroad and increase the power of our enemies, and they have absolutely no shame about it. It's disgusting.
"Are you that dumb?"
Are you so dumb to forget the other attacks on our nation and citizens?
9/11 was not an isolated event nor was there just 20 people involved with making it happen.
"I am so sick of people like this who talk a tough game but could care less whether the facts back up their position"
Check in the mirror before throwing that one out, the statment you made above displays your own ignorance on the subject.
> 9/11 was not an isolated event nor was there just 20 people involved with making it happen.
It took 20 men in the field, I said. It obviously also took funding from multiple sources, and plotting from the leadership. But when we measure casualties in any war, we measure the consequences IN THE FIELD; casualties on one side vs. casualties in another.
But let's have it your way: the funding is no problem, terrorism has become so much more popular in the last few years that there's no lack of rich religious extremist donors willing to chip in. And as for the terrorist leadership, they were never captured by our President as he had promised; furthermore, the copycat cells are so prevalent now that even if we caught UBL and Al-Zawahiri tomorrow, we'd have no impact at all on the leadership and funding of a thousand splinter cells.
And obviously, with the National Intelligence Estimate showing all our intelligence agencies agree that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for terrorism, and doubled the amount of recruitment, there would be no problem drafting twenty guys to kill a few thousand more people.
Instead of spewing your neo-con talking points, listen to the national security experts and intelligence experts. The terrorist war against us is based on major, ever-escalating attacks that take longer and longer to plan; they want the next attack to top 9/11. They're not in a rush. And when they do attack, it will be people like you whose pipedream regime change policies bled our troops and treasure so dry that we weren't able to protect our ports and our homeland; you guys won't take responsibility for it though, of course.
Watching neo-cons is like watching WWII Germany in its last days; you guys have been so personally invested defending in your strategy that you can't admit the mistake, and everyday it gets worse and harder to admit. You will literally wait until the walls are crumbling around us to admit we're losing, and then it would be too late to win.
Well, I, for one, am not going to let you take me with you.
That's why the gloves are coming off. Enough of this crap.
I have to wonder what kind of coaches you neo-con apologists had as kids when you lost a game:
"We are not losing! We are making progress! Our mission was accomplished! NOW LET'S GO HAVE ICE CREAM!!!"
I wonder how much improvement that team would have over the season. What do you think?
Post a Comment