Joe Lieberman would never have been re-elected — a strong proponent of the war — against an opponent who was for pullout, if that was the American people's attitude.
TPM Election Central's Eric Kleefeld neatly rips this absurd argument to shreds (click through to read the whole thing and see the video of McCain making the claim):
First, let's take a look at Connecticut's exit polls. They show that sending more troops had the support of — get this — 15% of voters! Meanwhile, 63% of voters said some or even all troops should be withdrawn, in complete opposition to Lieberman's real position.
Second, given the total number of people who cast their vote for Lieberman, it's nothing short of absurd to say that it's in any way indicative of anything national. According to the final results, a total of 563,725 people voted for Lieberman — in other words, just over half a million in a nation of 300 million people.
Finally, Lieberman won because he was able to misrepresent his views on Iraq, not because voters agreed with his actual views on the subject. Back in July, Lieberman actually said he thought we'd be able to draw down "significant" numbers of troops by now. What's more, Lieberman worked hard to blur the line between himself and Ned Lamont on the Iraq issue. In one ad, for instance, he spoke of wanting to "bring our troops home from Iraq."
What he said.
15 comments:
It was a truly amazing quote. I suppose if Joe hadn't been challenged in the primary, it would have proven that all the Democrats supported this month's esculation.
And how about the fact that Bush gave Joe another kiss in the speech tonight!?
Is that literally or metaphorically?
A few more reasons why I'm glad I voted for Joe!
and good old George Bush just cited him in his speech!
your rage is unbelievable liberal wackadoos. substitute joe lieberman's name with any other democrat and you would all be screaming victory that the president awknowledged the need to form a bipartisan working group between the two branches of government. Its a good idea! You all have been stark raving mad that the president refuses to listen to Congress and as soon as he makes a step to do so don't even realize it!
I think CT voters were well-informed, especially on this race, and that they knew exactly what they were doing when they elected Jow Lieberman.
Now why did the electorate vote for Lieberman when they seemed to disagree with him on the war?
I might get beat up for saying this, but even though no one likes the war, I think that people realized that we're going to need to find pragmatic solutions to get out of it.
I though the only reason Bush mentioned Lieberman was to give Lamont a big slap in the face.....
Perfectly put. McCain saying a quote like this knowing that it would reach local media out here is foolish, as more and more Republicans have turned against the war since November, and will continue to leading up to 2008. CT was the only closed primary McCain won in 2000 aside from his home state, but he's squandering his appeal to even some Republicans with this kind of talk. I say this because I could have seen how some diehard Republicans who don't want an escalation would still vote for John McCain in 2008, but him TELLING them they've already decided to support the war when they don't makes it that much less likely. There's a fine line between speaking for the people and being perceived as telling them what to think.
I already write a big check to the government. How about the lunatic left giving up their gas-guzzling SUV's to we don't have to fight a war over oil?
wtfdnucsubsailor,
Unfortunately, the President's plan is probably doomed because Twenty Thousand additional troops aren't enough.
On that, you and I agree. This small number might have made a difference in 2003--not now.
The additional troops come with a different startegy.
At least it isn't a different strategery. That would be bad.
hey, GC, at ;east I didn't hit my head
Lamont should run for President.
More on the people and philosophies being put forward in the name of more war...
There is an interesting article in The Nation about Odierno and Petraeus, which then expands into more information on how the war in Iraq is being or will now be waged. I have had a favorable view of Petraeus based on description of him in Thomas Ricks' book, FIASCO. However, we have Petraeus trying to resolve the past mentality of the institution of the Army, and making a counterinsurgency manual doesn't an institution change. And the author raises some questions about the philosophy embodied in the manual for which Petraeus is largely responsible.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=156005
The author also has a blog and expanded on her reading of the counterinsurgency manual by posting an annotated table about some of its language, which you can see here:
http://justworldnews.org/archives/002322.html#manual
Author Cobban notes, "It gives what I understand to be broad permission for those engaged in counter-insurgency operations to "eliminate" broad classes of those whom military commanders judge to be "extremists".
That is, for the military to engage in extra-judicial executions." source:
http://justworldnews.org/
see her post called:
The Petraeus doctrine and extra-judicial executions.
Within that post is a link to a power point presentation that went on line in conjunction with Bush's speech that says, among other things, "Success in Iraq remains critical to our national security and to success in the War on Terror," and "Failure in Iraq would have disastrous consequences for the United States, the region, and our allies" and goes on to note a change in approach from "restrictive ROE [Rules of Engagement]" to a new state of affairs in which "Iraqi leaders [are] committed to permissive ROE".
As the author emphasizes, Americans may have one point of view or another, but we no longer have any excuse to claim we are uninformed or lack information about what our leaders are doing in our names. It's there if we will take the time to listen, read and learn.
Post a Comment