home

Where I Agree With Lieberman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:29:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One point in Lieberman's column I do agree with:

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds.

In fact, one would expect Joe to have some kind words for Russ Feingold, and his proposal to end funding for the war six months after enactment of such a law. Heck, General Petraeus even gets a chance to "succeed." Or if Joe thinks General Petraeus needs more time, let's make the date certain March 31, 2008. Which would mean the US "occupation" of Iraq will have lasted five years. Does Joe need more time than that?

Funny how Joe does not mention THAT proposal.

< Lieberman on Iraq: We Have A Good Plan | Going To Canada? Maybe Not >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Where I Agree With Lieberman | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Lieberman (none / 0) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    Why direct the venom at Joe? He's just one senator. Go after Reid since he's the majority leader and can actually make something happen.

    Your fixation of Joe seems unhealthy considering some of the other areas where your anger should be directed (Hint: Reid, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Webb, etc...)

    Why worry so much about Joe yourself? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:33:06 PM EST
    Heck, I am just one blogger.

    Parent
    As for your list (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    I get the impression you do not read my non-Lieberman posts.

    Parent
    Why here is a post from (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    today.

    You missed that one I think.

    Parent

    U ask, why direct the venom at Joe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Electa on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    the answer is simple.  Joe has assumed the role of a serpent.  His personal stance on Iraq due to his loyalties to Israel have caused him to tip the scale.  The chatter about Jodie (Jodie got your vote and ran) defecting to the other side comes as no surprise.  He was elected by republicans and therefore is duty bound to submit to their beck and call.  He sold his birthright for a can of potted meat and that ain't kosher.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#15)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    Joe is a bit player, a newcomer.

    We should be criticizing the half-term heavyweights like Barack Obama. He pulls all the strings in the Senate. Although, unlike Hoe Joe, he didn't vote for the war...

    Parent

    Litmus test (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    Thanks Headscratcher for affirming that Lieberman is a Elephant in Donkey's clothing.

    Considered??? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:22:17 PM EST
    Big Tent. Have you ever paused to consider what would happen if Congress cut off funding?

    How could any friend or foe every know what we would do if Congress got into the managing of a war business? Which, of course, the Demos are trying to do now.

    Tell that to Joe Jim (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    and  Bush and Cheney and McConnell . . .

    Parent
    "The War Business" (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    How could any friend or foe every know what we would do if Congress got into the managing of a war business?

    Gee, I don't know, maybe because unlike Dick Cheney and the other architects of this war, Congress generally has enough respect for the other 300 million of us to speak in public?

    Parent

    Right wing talking points (none / 0) (#19)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:50:59 AM EST
    How could any friend or foe every know what we would do if Congress got into the managing of a war business? Which, of course, the Demos are trying to do now.

    This is right wing talking points.  Lets dissect these talking points.

    How could any friend or foe every know what we would do 20 months down the line when we will elect a new President?  Seriously, I look forward to your analysis.

    How could any friend or foe every know what we would do when Bush manages the war?  Given that he himself has not been steadfast (e.g. starting Iraq while leaving Afghanistan unfinished, being against the surge before he was for the surge in Iraq, saying that he is for the generals to decide before being against the generals to decide, etc.).

    And finally take a look at the latest British plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, at a time when Basra is among the top 5 violent cities, and at a time when Pentagon's assessment is that the region is not ready for transition to Iraqi authorities.

    Parent

    How to get out? (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    That's the question now, nobody seems to have a answer.  Like most things in life, more complicated getting out than going in.  That's why you need to be careful going in.

    It's also why Americans know it's ridiculous to blame the Dems for not getting us out.  They've been in slight control of Congress now for about two months.  By the time they got there things had been impossibly twisted up.  

    Ideas will be hard to come by, and it will be tempting at times to jump all over Congressional Democrats, but the blame must remain squarely on the Republicans for putting us in this position.

    And like most fights (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    you get into in life it is helpful if your enemy seems a united front.

    Too bad the Left couldn't do that for two years.

    Heck, they couldn't even do it for six moths.

    "I want my MTV!"

    Parent

    Bottom line (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    Those who started the fight made a mess and now some of them, including apparently you, will do anything to avoid taking responsibility.

    I asked you on another thread, any culpability for the invaders?  Your refusal to engage that very basic question is telling.

    And by the way prattle on about "emboldening the enemy" all ye want, but the assumption that republican style government could be imposed from without was always fu#@ing lunacy, that's all there is to it.  

    Your people spilt the milk.  Be a man and take some friggin responsibility.  

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    Short answer, no. None. Nada. Never.

    We did what we did because we were convinced that Saddam had WMD's, and was trying to get more.

    He had them. We haven't found them.

    We have found proof of his violation of around 17, 18 UN Resolutions, and we have found proof he was trying to get into the WMD business.

    To do this it is obvious that we had to have a regime change. That has been the issue every since. The terrorists are trying to run us out by killing each other.

    Seems silly until you remember these people think if they commit suicide while killing someone else they will immediately go to paradise and receive the attentions of 72 virgins.

    In the meantime the anti-war Left in this country, and the Demos... it's hard to tell them apart now days...are busy convincing the terrorists they are ready to cut and run just as soon as they BS a few more Americans into thinking that it isn't really surrendering and that the terrorists will leave us alone if we just run off and hide.

    That this is absolutely stupid doesn't seem to enter the Demos minds.

    Parent

    How like the Old Testament (none / 0) (#30)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    Your stories are, Jim.

    Your people are ever ready, and willing, and indeed even eager to spill the milk.  To visit violence upon a panoply of human beings.  But when it comes time to explain, to justify, it is always someone else's fault.

    How nice it must be to feel so entitled, so morally unaccountable.

    "no. None. Nada. Never."

    Thank you for the candid answer.

    P.S.

    The terrorists are trying to run us out by killing each other.

    Heh.  I almost spit coffee on the screen when I read that line.  You'd be a great correspondent on The Daily Show, with that kind of material.


    Parent

    The Left?? (none / 0) (#20)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:55:14 AM EST
    There is no unity on Iraq.  Sixty percent of the US people are against the surge.  Now if you want the enemy to see a united front in Iraq, then you should be blaming and lobbying the remaining 40% who are the roadblock to the united front.

    Does that 40% include you?

    Parent

    MiddleOfTheRoad (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    My comment goes back to the time before the invasion and since then.

    Do you remember the demostrations on the Oakland dock to try and prevent supplies being shiped?

    That was the Left.

    Or do you think it was the local Young Republicans???

    The demonstrations have become worse, and the Demos, to their eternal shame, used this as a political point, even though many voted for the war.

    BTW - Love your moniker. I giggle everytime I see it.

    So your comment about today must be considered against what has happened before.

    Parent

    Too bad (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:55:45 AM EST
    Do you remember the demostrations on the Oakland dock to try and prevent supplies being shiped?

    Sad that you and your warmongering right wing pals didn't realize that the demonstrators were prescient, way back then. Most Americans today wish that attempt to block the war machine back then was successful.

    I imagine families that lost loved ones and soldiers who have lost body parts would give anything to turn back the clock now in order to stop the war before it started.

    Parent

    Squaky, if the shoe fits (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:02:47 AM EST
    My belief is that the war would have been over long ago had these people sat down, shut up and supported the country.

    I think that would have had some effect on the number of deaths, don't you??

    BTW - Would you have been pleased to let the radical  moslems continue to atttack us?

    Do you believe they will ever quit until they are destroyed??

    Are you really that naive, or is your opposition to the war based totally on your hatred of Bush, and your obvious belief that Israel should not exist??


    Parent

    AIPAC next? (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:09:33 AM EST
    My belief is that the war would have been over long ago had these people sat down, shut up and supported the country.
    Yes, and some children belive that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese and that Santa Clause and the Tooth Faery exist.

    My belief is that the war would have been over long ago had these people sat down, shut up and supported the country.

    It is always interesting when the left and the right agree: The Iraq war was about Israel. Next you will be arguing that AIPAC has undue influence in American foreign policy matters.


    Parent

    AIPAC next? (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:15:43 AM EST
    Are you really that naive, or is your opposition to the war based totally on your hatred of Bush, and your obvious belief that Israel should not exist??

    It is always interesting when the left and the right agree: The Iraq war was about Israel. Next you will be arguing that AIPAC has undue influence in American foreign policy matters.



    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#28)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    My belief is that the war would have been over long ago had these people sat down, shut up and supported the country.

    How has the act of me sitting down in the comfort of my chair and typing in front of a keyboard prevented the war from "being long over"?

    Enough scapegoating of other people.  If you want to blame anyone for the way this war has gone, the buck stops at the desk of the President.

    Parent

    By "these" people standing up, (none / 0) (#29)
    by Electa on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    & speaking out they are supporting the country.  To support the Constitution...freedom of speech, association, assembly, etc. is supporting the country.  Where have you been dude?

    Parent
    Giggles? (none / 0) (#27)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    My comment goes back to the time before the invasion and since then.
    Do you remember the demostrations on the Oakland dock to try and prevent supplies being shiped?

    That was the Left.

    I doubt it is the case that the left stopped supplies from being shipped.  Is that the best that you've got?

    Meanwhile there is a rising tide against the Iraq war (not just the left).

    The demonstrations have become worse, and the Demos, to their eternal shame, used this as a political point, even though many voted for the war.

    There have been plenty of demonstrations near where I live.  They have been peaceful.  Before you start about supporting Iraqi democracy I hope that you would have supported American democracy.

    So your comment about today must be considered against what has happened before.

    Except that you are ducking replying to the question I raised.  Let me state it one more time.  Since two thirds of the American public are against the surge, and since you think that we should present a unified front to the enemy, shouldn't the remaining 1/3 abide by the wishes of the 2/3 and present a unified front?

    Parent

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#10)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    I've read most of your posts, and agree with many of them. However, I believe everytime you take a swipe at one pretty powerless (unless he defects) senator you take energy and focus away from where it really should be - The dems can stop the war today if they wanted to - keep the pressure constantly on those with the power to do so!

    Electa, Joe has loyalties to Israel? I'm not quite sure how to take that. Is it because he's Jewish or because he agrees with some in their government? And if you are in agreement with people in government are you "loyal" or just in agreement? I mean, I favor some actions taken by the government of Bhutan but I would hardly consider myself loyal to Bhutan.

    Likely both.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Electa on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 04:11:58 PM EST
    Electa, Joe has loyalties to Israel? I'm not quite sure how to take that. Is it because he's Jewish or because he agrees with some in their government? And, your analogy to Bhutan, unless you're Bhutanese, has no association in comparing Lieberman's LOYALITY to Israel and his use of political power in support of the Iraq debacle.

    Parent
    The 500lb gorilla in the room (none / 0) (#12)
    by bx58 on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 04:39:59 PM EST
    I guess Joe at least acknowledges the beast.

    That makes him look heroic compared to the TL official candidate.

    Uh, if you be so kind (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    to read what I wrote, you will see that I said "the Left." Now I know that the anti-war Left considers itself THE Democratic Party, and that many Demos quake when the anti-war Left snap their fingers, but...

    I wasn't referring to the Democratic Party..

    But rather to that noisy bunch of rebates who put their beloved right to demonstrate to the enemy that we are not united ahead of just being quite for a while to see if we can win the war and establish some peace.

    Now I know that's hard, but one should try to support one's country don't you think?

    Where I Agree With Lieberman | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment