Lieberman Freakout

In response to the NYTimes Endorsement of Ned Lamont, Lieberman's team freaks out. Among the lowlights:

The fact is, as the Times itself reported last week, Joe Lieberman has openly and frequently challenged the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war -- just not in the shrill and hateful terms that the Times and the blogger extremists confuse with strong leadership.

Um, does Joe mean the article so poorly written that it required a corrective article the next day?

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an article published Tuesday in The New York Times.

Joe's team continues:

He had called for Secretary Rumsfeld to be replaced as far back as October of 2003, and he had warned of problems with the Administration’s approach even before the invasion began in a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations.

Sure in October 2003 when Joe was playing for Democratic votes, he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, but once the primaries were over Joe demanded Rumsfeld NOT resign in May 2004:

[I]t is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq.

As for Joe's stinging criticism of Bush on February 26, 2003, just weeks before the war, it is not only lame, it is pathetic:

I'm disappointed the administration has taken this long to engage on this part of our policy toward Iraq. But there is still time to do this right, and to seize the opportunity to create in Iraq a model that will best answer Osama bin Laden's incendiary lies about us and create hope, not hatred, throughout the Arab world. To do so will take a clear, comprehensive, and collaborative strategy to win the peace in Iraq—one that applies the lessons of history to build a better future for the Iraqi people and the region.

What a freaking joke Joe. Weeks before the war is when you ask for a plan? That clearly was too late. But even funnier is Joe's suggestions:

Although many details of the Administration's strategy haven't yet been forthcoming, the outlines—according to press reports—appear to be as follows: Our military would exercise control over Iraq until basic security has been established and weapons of mass destruction have been secured. After that, an American civilian administrator would run the civilian government for a period of time to direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid. That administrator would then be responsible for helping transition the nation, over time, into some form of self-rule. If the Administration does in fact intend to name an American civilian administrator to govern Iraq, I feel strongly that would be a mistake. Although American military rule will be required for a short time after hostilities end, it would be an error to continue it longer than it takes to deal with the war's immediate aftershocks. To do so would risk making the peace—and all the risks and costs that go with it—our own, again. It would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator. And it may well widen the gulf between the United States and the Arab world.

That Joe thinks today's Joe is a blithering idiot. But it is obvious why in 2003 Joe said what said - he was running for the Democratic nomination for President. How do I know this? Because in December 2005, when he no longer was running for President, Joe said:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years.

What a clown Lieberman is. And the lying does not end:

Here is an excerpt from his “Closing Argument” speech to prove this point.

I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don’t need to be lectured by Ned Lamont about the place of dissent in our democracy.

My opponent wants you to believe otherwise, to cement his distortion campaign against me. That’s why they keep repeating and misrepresenting a single comment I made in one speech, in which I said we undermine the President’s credibility at our peril.

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else -- including me -- should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions. The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree.

Bwahahaha. What a joke. And of course Joe immediately proved he was full of crap by questioning the patriotism of Democrats who voted for Lamont in the Connecticut primary, just as Dick Cheney and George Bush had done. Joe Lieberman is simply an unmitigated unprincipled liar.

The funniest of all, Joe's flat out lie on "stay the course":

Most importantly, Joe Lieberman has said on several occasions during the campaign that a “stay the course” strategy was a recipe for more failure in Iraq, and five weeks ago he outlined a substantive 10-point plan for a new approach. So to suggest that he is blithely refusing to acknowledge facts on the ground is just patently false.

For crissakes - you link to the very darn article that proves you did say stay the course over and over again - an article that is deeply embarrassing to the New York Times:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an article published Tuesday in The New York Times.

. . . In fact, Mr. Lieberman has used the phrase more than a half-dozen times over the last two years, during a presidential debate and in television interviews — including several instances that were in the Times database. As recently as November 2005, upon returning from a trip to Iraq, for instance, he said on CNN’s “American Morning” that he agreed with the administration’s view that it was necessary to “stay the course.”

“I agree to the extent that we have to stay the course of the policy we chose in overthrowing Saddam and helping the Iraqi people become free, which will really make us a lot more secure and set the terrorists back,” Mr. Lieberman said, adding that some war tactics should change.

Mr. Lieberman used the phrase several times in January 2004 during a presidential primary debate in Iowa. “We have to stay the course in Iraq now,” he said, “and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there.”

After losing his party’s primary, in April 2004, Mr. Lieberman said in a televised news conference that he blamed his support for the war in Iraq and his praise of the Bush administration’s policy for his loss.

“I thought the president gave the strongest case that I can remember him giving about why we went in and why we have to stay the course,” he said then. “We’ve got to adopt a strategy of success. A defeat will create chaos in Iraq, chaos in the Middle East, and will embolden the terrorists in a way that will endanger our future and our children’s future.”

Mr. Lieberman also made his support for the president clear in an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in May 2004, saying, “The president’s right.”

“It’s been a lot harder to achieve it than we hoped it would be,” he said of America’s mission in Iraq. “But we’ve got to stay the course and finish the job.”

In July 2004, Mr. Lieberman used the phrase again on Fox News’s “Hannity & Colmes,” saying of the president: “What I’m most happy about is that he said that he will stay the course in Iraq until we finish the job and the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Lieberman has called for different tactics in Iraq.

Joe Lieberman is a bald faced unprincipled liar. And his freakout over the New York Times's endorsement of Lamont demonstrates that he also is not above lying to himself. The man is a disgrace.

< CNN Brings Bloggers to D.C. for Election Night | An End to Oversight in Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lieberman, spinnin' like the proverbial top (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    BTD:  You should have read my diary, and worked more of Joe's spinning crap into yours.

    Viz., you note:
    "As for Joe's stinging criticism of Bush on February 26, 2003, just weeks before the war, it is not only lame..."
    In my diary, I quote extensively from, and link to, Joe's February 7, 2003 speech (less than 3 weeks prior to the one you quote) to the Euros, in Munich, where he stated:

    But he [Bush] and I agree on the danger posed by Saddam and the need to do something soon to eliminate that danger to us, to you, and most immediately to his neighbors in the Arab world as do most other Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the US. In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

    In so many words, I don't have to agree with W, because he's really my beeyotch.

    Joe and McCain. BFF?

    Someone should really start an involuntary commitment proceeding, to force a test of his sanity.  No one sane can hold so many contradictory ideas in his head, and espouse them all as being true.  And, so long as he is running around loose, he is almost surely "a danger to himself or others"

    Songs Of The Doomed (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    Don't be so hard on Joe. Joe's doing everyone a favor the way he's going.

    His head is exploding in slow motion. He's  showing the world what happens when you suck up too close to bushco. He's becoming so utterly conflicted that any day now he's going to start looking like a take off on a Ralph Steadman drawing.

    ...he was clearly sick and dangerous. He was a liar and a thief and a rapist who was probably incurable.... In some states they have Castration Programs for foul balls like this: Chop out the hormones, turn them into eunuchs with fat little hands and glistening eyes and wispy hair on their necks who don't mind admitting they're wrong.
    --from Songs Of The Doomed, HST

    Good one Scribe (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:06:49 AM EST
    I should have stolen yours.