Liberman sucks

[EBSB52]

Lieberman's Pro-War Views Concern Dems By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 40 minutes ago



Sen. Joe Lieberman's staunch stay-the-course defense of President Bush's Iraq policies isn't winning him any friends among fellow Democrats.

Lieberman's pro-war views may be winning him praise from a grateful White House, but some Democratic colleagues see him as undercutting their party's efforts to wrest control of Congress from the GOP next fall.

"He's doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign," said Ken Dautrich, a University of Connecticut public policy professor. "It's Lieberman being Lieberman. And it's frustrating for people trying to put a Democratic strategy together."

Sensing political vulnerability in Bush's handling of Iraq, Democrats are anxious to craft a compelling anti-war theme uniting the party for the pivotal midterm congressional elections.

Democrats hope a surging anti-war tide in 2006 can help them shatter the GOP's 12-year lock on the House and win back the Senate for the first time since 2001.

"It's not a tidal wave now, but the ingredients are starting to fall into place," said veteran Democratic strategist Tad Devine.

Lieberman, who seems to relish his role as a maverick, is veering far from the Democratic script. His vocal support for the war, a stark and frequent reminder of the deep divisions among Democrats on how to end the war, makes him something of a marked man.

"Lieberman is a big voice, he was Al Gore's running mate and he carries weight," said Dautrich. "But he beats to his own drum and that's a problem for Democrats."

Lieberman's pro-Bush stance has long rankled many Democrats, but his comments Tuesday scolding anti-war critics within his own party had a sharper edge.

"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," said Lieberman, urging bipartisan cooperation.

The words drew a frosty response from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a former Lieberman foe during the 2004 presidential primaries.

"We believe that talking about the president's failed strategy in Iraq is not unpatriotic," Dean said on CNN. "It may undercut the president, but it does not undercut our troops."

Dean tossed a parting jab at Lieberman, claiming Democrats are not as divided on Iraq as press reports say. "The differences are pretty small, perhaps, Senator Lieberman excepted," he said.

The senator has a long history of bucking his party. He was one of the few Democrats to chide former President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He has assailed Democrat-friendly Hollywood for producing sleaze.

Lieberman, a firm backer of U.S. intervention in Iraq, voted for the 1991 Gulf War, casting the fight in moral terms.

"They may not agree with him, but Democrats respect what he is saying," said former Clinton White House spokesman Michael McCurry. "People know he's not playing politics with Iraq."

The Bush Administration, meanwhile, can't seem to get enough of the senator who has sided with the president on many foreign policy, defense and homeland security issues.

Lieberman huddled with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a private Pentagon breakfast meeting Thursday amid rumors he could be a potential Rumsfeld successor.

Bush singled out Lieberman for praise in his two most recent speeches, including Wednesday in New York where he noted: "Senator Lieberman is right."

Last month, as partisan debate raged, Bush cited "fine Democrats like Senator Joe Lieberman" who oppose immediate troop withdrawals.

Some say Lieberman may be filling the void left by Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Pennsylvania Democrat and longtime GOP favorite until his dramatic call last month for a speedy troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Lieberman's pro-war views may not be as popular in Connecticut where former Gov. Lowell Weicker has suggested he may run against the senator unless a major anti-war challenger surfaces. Dean's brother Jim, who heads the liberal advocacy group Democracy for America, is rallying anti-Lieberman forces in Connecticut as well.




Lieberman is showing his very large Republican side. I'm waiting for him to do a Zell Miller. Gore was a dipshit in that he chose this turd, but I see why he wanted to appeal to the Republican-swing voters, but this guy is trash.

My GF's family has one of these POS; he wants to smoke his herb and be artsy-fartsy, but he also wants to spent non-Jewish American lives to defend his Jewish homeland, for which he has no real connection other than figuratively. Like Lieberman, this POS would never send his own, but wants to send others. Fuck Lieberman - hurry up and just switch parties and quit faking - you're fooling no one.

[p8ntman442]

so you want all dems to be sheep to their party. NICE.

Immediate troop withdrawl will reusult in the wasted efforts of all those troops, including the ones who lost their lives.

[GT86]

So if someone doesn't toe the party line, they suck? Blind allegiance to a label is a good thing in your eyes?

[V8Mikie]

This is not an anti-semitic remark but of course Lieberman is going to support a war against Iraq. Now Hezbollah and all the other whacko terrorist groups are focused on killing Americans in Iraq instead of Jews in Israel.

[MNFatz]

I'll vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket. In a heartbeat.

-Fatz

[eHoward]

and not because Saddam was paying suicide bomber's families and sending the PLO weapons?

This is not an anti-semitic remark but of course Lieberman is going to support a war against Iraq. Now Hezbollah and all the other whacko terrorist groups are focused on killing Americans in Iraq instead of Jews in Israel.

[DiggityBiggity]

Immediate troop withdrawl will reusult in the wasted efforts of all those troops, including the ones who lost their lives.

The mission was to remove Saddam... Saddam is removed, Bush said "Major combat operations in Iraq have been complete" in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished"

Time to withdrawl.

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Illegal war in the first place"Biggity

[V8Mikie]

and not because Saddam was paying suicide bomber's families and sending the PLO weapons?

This is not an anti-semitic remark but of course Lieberman is going to support a war against Iraq. Now Hezbollah and all the other whacko terrorist groups are focused on killing Americans in Iraq instead of Jews in Israel.

That too. Whats your point.

[eHoward]

I didn't think your reason for Lieberman supporting the war was correct.

and not because Saddam was paying suicide bomber's families and sending the PLO weapons?

This is not an anti-semitic remark but of course Lieberman is going to support a war against Iraq. Now Hezbollah and all the other whacko terrorist groups are focused on killing Americans in Iraq instead of Jews in Israel.

That too. Whats your point.

[EBSB52]

so you want all dems to be sheep to their party. NICE.

Immediate troop withdrawl will reusult in the wasted efforts of all those troops, including the ones who lost their lives.

Nah, just reflect the majority of their party's wishes. To pretend to be a Dem and have primarily Repub leanings is dishonest. Be real, if a Republican politician pretended to have a little compassion for other than corporations, you would be disgusted too.

You can espouse that immediate withdrawal crap all day long, and the Repugs will ever time it is mentioned. Hmmmm, weren't there people saying the same thing during Viet Nam?

[EBSB52]

So if someone doesn't toe the party line, they suck? Blind allegiance to a label is a good thing in your eyes?

It's not about teoing the party line, it's about if the majority of your political leanings go one way, don't be a tard and pretend to go the other. It's not as if 90% of his ideologies are with the left, I'd say 50/50 would be a stretch. He should be a Libertarian (disgruntled Republican).

[EBSB52]

I'll vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket. In a heartbeat.

-Fatz

You might have the chance. That would be the ultimate fence-riders ticket.

[EBSB52]

Immediate troop withdrawl will reusult in the wasted efforts of all those troops, including the ones who lost their lives.

The mission was to remove Saddam... Saddam is removed, Bush said "Major combat operations in Iraq have been complete" in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished"

Time to withdrawl.

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Illegal war in the first place"Biggity

You won't get a reply here, as the others side avoids questions of the legitimacy of the war.

[88GTneverfinsihed]

Lieberman knows he is not electable as president. He wants VP but won't get that either. Unfortunately he thinks it is because of party affiliation and wants to get around what he thinks is his obstacle.

Sorry Joe, You've gone as far as you can. You only get so many shots at it and we've already said no.

[V8Mikie]

I didn't think your reason for Lieberman supporting the war was correct.

and not because Saddam was paying suicide bomber's families and sending the PLO weapons?

This is not an anti-semitic remark but of course Lieberman is going to support a war against Iraq. Now Hezbollah and all the other whacko terrorist groups are focused on killing Americans in Iraq instead of Jews in Israel.

That too. Whats your point.

You pretty much said the same thing I did, Lieberman is supporting the war in Iraq because he is jewish. You just offered an alternate in depth reasoning for this but essentially it was the same thing.

[p8ntman442]

so you want all dems to be sheep to their party. NICE.

Nah, just reflect the majority of their party's wishes.

whats the fucking difference? You say the majority of the party's wishes, well that indicates there has to be a minority. Why dont you contradict yourself some more.



and diggity, illegal war or not, pulling out imediatly would be a hit and run leaving the people defenseless and open to "a new improved saddam", and we would be back there in another 5 years. Im not for soilders getting killed, but im also not for letting that part of the world deystroy itself. Its time to suck it up and rebuild with a friendly government, to help stabilize that section of the world.

[DiggityBiggity]

and diggity, illegal war or not, pulling out imediatly would be a hit and run leaving the people defenseless and open to "a new improved saddam", and we would be back there in another 5 years. Im not for soilders getting killed, but im also not for letting that part of the world deystroy itself. Its time to suck it up and rebuild with a friendly government, to help stabilize that section of the world.

The military is trained to kill people, and blow things up... policing is NOT something in their training... one of the many reasons Vietnam was so deadly is because it was a police action, and the military isn't meant to police.

As for stabilizing the region, the region was stable with Saddam... now that he is gone, a civil war is going to break out in that country with or without us, and ALL insurgencies WILL PREVAIL. Since most of the Iraqi's don't think it's right for America to be there, they don't "give up" the insurgents positions... but once America is out, Iraqi's will take over their country, and the insurgents will be kicked out.

We need to pull out... it's doing nothing but getting us killed

Your concerned leader

Diggity"John Murtha has the right idea"Biggity

[p8ntman442]

and diggity, illegal war or not, pulling out imediatly would be a hit and run leaving the people defenseless and open to "a new improved saddam", and we would be back there in another 5 years. Im not for soilders getting killed, but im also not for letting that part of the world deystroy itself. Its time to suck it up and rebuild with a friendly government, to help stabilize that section of the world.

The military is trained to kill people, and blow things up... policing is NOT something in their training... one of the many reasons Vietnam was so deadly is because it was a police action, and the military isn't meant to police.

As for stabilizing the region, the region was stable with Saddam... now that he is gone, a civil war is going to break out in that country with or without us, and ALL insurgencies WILL PREVAIL. Since most of the Iraqi's don't think it's right for America to be there, they don't "give up" the insurgents positions... but once America is out, Iraqi's will take over their country, and the insurgents will be kicked out.

We need to pull out... it's doing nothing but getting us killed

Your concerned leader

Diggity"John Murtha has the right idea"Biggity

I see where your coming from, i just disagree.

[The Dark Side of Will]

ditto.

A phased pullout could begin as soon as a few months after the parlaimentary elections. An immediate and complete pullout is not an option.

[Dirty Sanchez]

He may be bad but he still is better than that ass wipe Weicker. I would rather keep him than have Weicker win his position as Senator.