home

Lieberman Asks For War With Iran; Petraeus Turns Him Down

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:42:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Joe Lieberman is not to be believed. Via Spencer Ackerman at TPM again:

"Can't we attack Iran pleeeeeeaze?" sez Joe. "No," sez Petraeus. Watch the disappointment in Lieberman's face. Priceless.

< Does The Surge Make Us Safer? Petraeus: I Don't Know | How To Disagree >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lieberman Asks For War With Iran; Petraeus Turns Him Down | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    if sen. lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:07:11 PM EST
    really, really, really wants to attack iran, i say, let him go. drop-ship him via ups over tehran, and let him do his thing. if nothing else, it might prove entertaining.

    Don Quimentum! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:09:23 PM EST


    Parent
    crestfallen, crushed, deflated, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Compound F on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    and still undeterred.

    Loserman... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 08:52:49 AM EST
    The inside the beltway ppj of the delusional Washington Consensus.

    Parent
    Mischaracterization (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    I think you mischaracterize the exchange. It's more like this:

    Lieberman: Wouldn't you like to attack Iran?
    Petraeus: No. Not my job. Talk to CENTCOM.

    Ahh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    But you see, Joe and Petraeus understand that the only way to war with IRan is through Iraq.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#8)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    But what do you make of all this talk of an air strike on Iran? Though Iraq would be used as the justification it wouldn't be using the ground forces in Iraq.

    Do you think that's likely to happen.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:29:12 PM EST


    Parent
    ....we can't win the war in Iraq, (none / 0) (#11)
    by mattes on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    if Iran is left standing.

    Is there any doubt we are still on the Clear Break Plan schedule?

    Parent

    What's that? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:08:22 PM EST


    Parent
    My first diary and a couple more: (none / 0) (#13)
    by mattes on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:22:45 PM EST
    Neo-con Master Plan
    by mattes
    Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 12:29:15 PM PDT

        A Clean Break:
        A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/21/152915/95
    ****************
    Foreign Relations Committee hears about Imperial Hubris.
    by mattes
    Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:15:43 PM PDT
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/6/20217/83986
    *    ****************

    Kossacks are not the only ones thinking that the Clean Break Plan is still on schedule, and that Congress should be paying attention.
    Netany** departs for U.S. in bid to increase pressure on Iran
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/20/19264/0503

    ******************

    Most of my diaries have been about Clean Break directly or indirectly.
    http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    Parent

    please put your links in html format (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:27:21 PM EST
    you can't post long urls here, they skew the site.  Also, please make sure your comments are on topic of the thread you are commenting one. Thanks.

    Parent
    I don't see what you're getting at (none / 0) (#16)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    I followed the links to all three diaries.

    I don't see an explanation of Clean Break much less a schedule. Maybe you should spell it out.

    Parent

    Did you read the last link? (none / 0) (#17)
    by mattes on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:52:33 PM EST
    It is a middle east policy plan written by some of the neo-cons in the Bush administration for Netenyahu in the 1990s.

    No more land for peace, take out Syria, Iraq and Iran.

    Parent

    Following the links (none / 0) (#18)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:45:18 AM EST
    You know, I hate it when people just publish a handful of links and then complain when someone doesn't draw the expected inferences.

    Much better, imo, is to state your point in a few clear, declarative sentences and provide the references for those who want to go deeper into the question.

    As far as I can tell, your argument is about Israel's defense strategy and I'm having a hard time connecting it to the discussion here.

    Parent

    Good advice. First BTD (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:36:03 AM EST
    on "how to disagree," then demi moaned [love the name]on how to write a spot on comment.  What next?

    Parent
    Iraqi insurgents "murdering" US troops? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:12:27 AM EST
    Let's see, we invade a country for no good reason, and some of its citizens fight back, in the hopes of getting us to leave, and in the process manage to kill some of our troops. That's kind of what insurgents do, after all--they kill soldiers and collaborators. And he's calling it "murder"? How is it murder? Someone please explain this one to me. And Lieberman's a lawyer. What a shmuck.

    Note that I'm in no way expressing support for what insurgents are doing to our troops. I'm simply saying that I understand why they're doing this, because this is precisely what we'd do if another country invaded the US.

    Sorry, it's not murder. It's tragic, brutal, horrific and heart-wrenching, but it's not murder. To call it murder is to imply that Iraq is not and was not a sovereign country, and that we have and had the right to invade and occupy it on trumped-up charges. No, when you invade a country--even for justifiable reasons--this is what happens, and it's simply not murder.

    Was it murder when we killed British troops in the Revolutionary War? Was it murder when we moved down Pickett's soldiers at Gettysburg? (Oh, sorry, we wore uniforms so I guess it was ok.) What a shmuck.

    As for attacking Iran because it's supposedly been training and supplying these insurgents? Uh uh. Expanding the theater of a war that is going terribly to include yet another theater because it supposedly has a tangential relation to that war is militarily STUPID (ever heard of Cambodia and Laos?). Scope creep is a nasty little monster--especially in matters military, and most especially when you're losing and stretched beyond your limits. Stupid stupid stupid. And totally unnecessary.

    What goals would attacking Iran likely accomplish that need to be accomplished that would not likely result in other, possibly even worse problems that would negate whatever benefits it might achieve, assuming that it even succeeds, and which, if it doesn't succeed, would not make matters even worse?

    I.e. in what way would attacking Iran be in any way different from attacking China, because our attack on Mongolia after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor hasn't been going very well, and we suspect that those terrible Chinese have been helping Mongolia and oops they turn out to have been the real villain all along?

    Japan? What does Japan have to do with this? It's "impotent" and holed up in a cave near the Korean border! And speaking of Korea... Oh, never mind...

    My analogy seems all the more apropos given that we're viewing a Kabuki drama.

    Is this really an accurate assessment? (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 08:43:10 AM EST
    Let's see, we invade a country for no good reason, and some of its citizens fight back, in the hopes of getting us to leave, and in the process manage to kill some of our troops.

    Don't you think that you are being dishonest with this gross distortion of reality?

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 08:57:07 AM EST
    It's an accurate assessment.

    No.

    It is not a gross distortion of reality. Your attempt to paint is as such is.


    Parent

    Am I correct (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:44:11 AM EST
    that you believe the insurgents in Iraq to be just ordinary citizens who are bristling at being oppressed by the American occupiers?

    How does the intentional destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and the murder of fellow Iraqis fit this theory? Are the foreign insurgents akin to Canadians rushing the the rescue of the U.S. in an invasion by China?

    It seems more realistic that the insurgents are trying to create as much chaos as possible to appeal to the likes of you, knowing that your response will be: "Look at what a mess Iraq is. Get us out of there now!"

    Parent

    You are partly correct.. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    They are bristling at being invaded and occupied.

    And you know what their response     to any attempt at oppressing them is.

    Or am I off base here and they have been throwing flowers and welcome their "liberators" with cheers and welcoming tears and hugs?


    Parent

    The Iraqi people (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    are such ingrates, aren't they Pancho?

    Why, they even have the gall to bristle at being killed. Go figure. Some people just have no appreciation for you, do they?

    Inside The Surge

    U.S. KILLING 10,000 IRAQIS EVERY MONTH? OR IS IT MORE?    
    These thousands of patrols regularly turn into thousands of Iraqi deaths because these patrols are not the "walk in the sun" that they appear to be in our mind's eye. Actually, as independent journalist Nir Rosen described vividly and agonizingly in his indispensable book, In the Belly of the Green Bird, they involve a kind of energetic brutality that is only occasionally reported by an embedded American mainstream journalist.

    This brutality is all very logical, once we understand the purpose and process of these patrols. American soldiers and marines are sent into hostile communities where virtually the entire population is supports the insurgency.



    Parent
    I don't believe (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    for a second that U.S. troops are killing 10,000 Iraqi civilians per month. Are you lumping in all the victims of suicide bombings and such that you feel are the result of our presence?

    There are plenty of cases of abuses by our highly streesed and targeted US troops, but these don't come close to the civilian murders by the insurgents.

    Parent

    READ the article. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    You'll look less foolish. If that's possible.

    Parent
    I read the article, (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    but I don't believe everything I read; do you?

    Parent
    If you read the article (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    your question makes no sense. But that is nothing new for you. You believe everything that Bush and the WH tells you, or we wouldn't be differing here.

    Nice try... well, actually, no... not even a nice try. Go back to troll school.

    Parent

    My question stands alone (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    as a question to you. Why can't you just answer it?

    Parent
    Sorry Panch. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    You are are troll. Do it somewhere else.

    Parent
    A huge part of the problem with liberals (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:37:19 PM EST
    is that you operate on the assumption that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

    I'm certain that you have all read this rant, and agree with , and I am just as certain that your only response will be to call me  a troll.

    Parent

    I have to tell you (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    that I find it to be highly amusing and childish that you feel the need to rate everyone of my postings a "1". You truly are like a group of little girls on the playground.

    Parent
    A Childish taunt, followed by serious questions (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    Isn't it a bit funny that he also gave a 1 Rating to your comment complaining about his 1 Ratings to your Comments?  

    Almost as funny as your attempt to play the skeptical, read-against-the-grain Reader.  

    Tell me, did you nod along (always with a serious look on your face) as they kept outlining perpetually morphing reasons, and justifications for this invasion?

    Did you get misty eyed back in the day when they said Iraqis would dance at the arrival of, and throw flowers at the feet of, our soldiers?  

    Did you swell indignant when they screamed about the threat of WMD's?

    Did you feel like a visionary, and sigh at Dubya's ideological bravery despite being so misunderstood, when they said that now Saddam is gone, they were going to install democracy in the heart of the Middle East?  As though such governance were just another Olive Garden?

    Do you now nod along when they cheerfully fortell the day for drawing down to pre-surge troop numbers?

    Don't play the skeptic here, please.  Have some self respect.  

    Parent

    It really (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    simplifies things for you to paint anyone with differing opinions with such a broad brush.

    I did not complain about his rating; I merely pointed out the childish behavior of rating everything that you disagree with a "1". If it makes you feel good, have at it.

    As for your other presumptions about my thoughts, you are again falling into that liberal trap of painting anyone who disagrees with you in any way as an idiot.

    I happen to think that invading Iraq was a mistake and I never wanted to invade, but in the days and weeks leading up to it I never heard a word about how hard it would be to maintain peace afterwards. All I ever heard from people like you was that we had no legal right to invade, and I did not agree with that assessment. Your idiotic slogans like "Bush is the world's biggest terrorist" and "No blood for oil", should have been replaced with thoughtful explanations of how difficult it would be to keep peace afterwards, if in fact you saw this coming. I'm sure you can google an example or two of these warnings, but the idiots carrying the "Bush is a terrorist" signs got the attention of the press and of the people on Main street who actually call and write letters to their representatives.

    Parent

    Rebuttal (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:08:06 PM EST
    There is much to rebut in what you say, and here's the place to begin, so enfolded in it is the rest of your post.

    but the idiots carrying the "Bush is a terrorist" signs got the attention of the press

    This is false.  Blatantly so.  Know what got the "attention of the press"?  Night in, night out?  

    WMDs.  WMDs.  WMDs.  And surrounding the chant of WMDs (an acronym everyone in the country suddenly was using, as if it had been around all along):

    The cable news networks leading with those ridiculous montages of Saddam waving the big cigar, shooting the rifle, wagging his finger defiantly.  The ominous music.  The grave faces of anchor after abchor after anchor, bloody handed sycophants that they wre and still are, talking about what we were "confronted" with in Iraq.

    That Pancho is what got Press, that is what got shoved down the throat of Main Street.  The occasional feed on CSPAN of a protest rally does not quite cut it as "press coverage," given this context.

    Had yopu been interested in hearing it, therefore, you would have needed to look a bit.  But yes, many all aloing were saying, if you break it you buy it.  You can't just go into the middle of biblical level hostility and say hey wait a minute folks, try McDonald's, jerry Falwell,  and Angelina Jolie instead.  

    You speak of "idiotic slogans."  How huge your balls must be to write that with what I can only imagine is a straight face.  The whole was from the beginning through now was an absolute study in sloganeering. No need for me to repeat the slogans here, we all know them by heart.

    Anyway.  Son't take this the wrong way.  What I find most inane about your post is is summarized by this:

    I never heard a word about how hard it would be to maintain peace afterwards

    This fact, everyone but idiots and ideologues could have figured out by putting only a minimal amount of real thought into the matter.  I invite you to try it now.  When, in the history of human civilization, was ever modelled tghe imposition of a democratic government by an outside party which blithely left after all the purple fingers had dried.

    Pat yourself on the friggin back for how mature you are as much as you want, Pancho.  'Twill not wash the blood from your hands.

    Parent

    Et al (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    Sorry for the spelling errors.  Sigh.  The density against which we struggle, when we encounter the bloody apologists, sometimes inspires a loss of cool.

    Parent
    You're right (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:08 PM EST
    most of the pre-invasion talk was of WMDs

    Parent
    Sad (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:43:14 PM EST
    That you missed the point.  The point is, WMD's was what was getting the coverage.  Not protestors, not counterarguments.  It was all WMDs all the time.  I never said the Democrats weren't complicit in the drumbeating.  I only wanted to remind you of the drumbeating.  Capiche?

    Meanwhile, your claim at this late date that nobody knew post-invasion Iraq would be a the disaster it is, makes me sad.  Really and truly sad that you'd rather perpetuate an outright falsity than acknowledge the obvious scope of the screwup.    

    What's sadder than your comment, though, by far, is that the people who predicted flowers at the soldiers' feet are still considered experts.  People still think Cheney knows what he's talking about, for example.  Who knows, they may even be able to convince the media to sell another war for them, before it's over.  

    There is blood on your hands.      

    Parent

    No, you missed the point. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pancho on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:30:38 AM EST
    Of course most of the talk on the one side was of WMDs. I believed it and can't think of any reason why I should not have, but as I said before and you chose to ignore, I never was in favor of invading Iraq. I was paying attention to the debate and my point is that on the no war side all I heard was talk of how we did not have legal authority to invade without the approval of the U.N. I never subscribed to that notion, because the U.N. is grossly corrupt. The pre war debate became all about whether we had the right to invade and I believed that we did. That is entirely different from believing that we should.

    I never said that no one knew that post war Iraq would be a disaster, but whoever these people are(maybe you can provide links) they were drowned out by the "Bush is a Terrorist" crowd. With all the bloggers here, I'm sure you can provide links to all of your own prewar predictions of how post war Iraq would turn out.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:21:52 PM EST
    Of course most of the talk on the one side was of WMDs.

    No.  Not on the "one side."  That was the talk period, because that's what the Liberal Media funneled into living rooms continuously and without the slightest skeptical shred.  Anti War rhetoric was carefully kept on the furthest margins.

    But argument over this could go on and on.  But you can hardly expect to be taken seriously by thinking people if you argue it came as a surprise (even a shock!) that you cannot treat export forms of governance like chain stores.  Isn't this the kind of basic truth you'd expect the people running our country to grasp as self-evident?

    Politics aside, is it possible that you believe when Cheney said flowers at the feet of the soldiers, he spoke from anything resembling reality.  That you believe Bush's declaration that the heart of the Middle East was ripe for democracy made evben a modicum of sense?  

    Again, all politics, all heartfelt snarking aside, surely you are not surprised that these platitudes were never grounded in reality.  

    Moreover, surprise that the platitudes were not grounded in reality was and is reserved for only a ever dwindling coalition formed between the truly ignorant and pure ideologues like Charles Krauthammer, William Cristol, and the like.

     

    Parent

    I really don't think we are that far (none / 0) (#43)
    by Pancho on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:56:03 PM EST
    apart on this, but you have twisted my words and projected thoughts onto me that are some sort of caricature of an evil right winger. Why must everything be so black and white here?

    One simple example:

    You claim that I am shocked to find that post war Iraq is a mess. That is a complete distortion of what I said. What I said is that I heard little or nothing about the possible post war problems in the time leading up to the war. Did I need that spoon fed to me? No, but you sure as hell won't get very far with most of the country by telling them that the reason we cannot invade Iraq is because France and Russia don't approve. That was the gist of the anti-war message.

    I know that you think I'm an idiot, but I think that all of you leftists need to consider how you plan to ever change any minds on your issues by treating anyone who disagrees with you like an idiot.

    Parent

    The seriously, what will be the excuse next time (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:18:16 AM EST
    If there wasn't enough explanation that you can't import the government you'd like to see in another nation/region, it sure is being rubbed in the faces of the American people now.

    And yet,  look at the subject of this very thread  The very same people who pushed the Iraq War, and who have since been proven to not know what they were talking about, are now pushing that we "do something" about Iran.

    And so.  When the next round of saber rattling begins, when the next Mission is Accommplished, and when once again the metaphor of the tar baby is proven to be this nation's biggest enemy: when this all takes place, will you once again blame the "leftists" for not correctly framing their opposition?

    I don't think you're an idiot.  I am p.o.'d at you and others like you who continue to approach those who made the war with kid gloves, and reserve your sharpest critiques for those who rightly opposed it.  

    What I and so many others would like to know is simply this: At what point do the people resonsible actually get saddled with the responsibility?  

    That's what I'd most like to know.  Perhaps you can tell the answer.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#45)
    by Pancho on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:47:34 AM EST
     When the next round of saber rattling begins, when the next Mission is Accommplished, and when once again the metaphor of the tar baby is proven to be this nation's biggest enemy: when this all takes place, will you once again blame the "leftists" for not correctly framing their opposition?

    Am I blaming the leftists (I guess you probably prefer "progressives") for starting the war? Of course not, but do you really think that the opposition was framed correctly?  

    I don't think you're an idiot.  I am p.o.'d at you and others like you who continue to approach those who made the war with kid gloves, and reserve your sharpest critiques for those who rightly opposed it.  

    I have no sharp critiques for the people who rightly and thoughtfully opposed it- absolutely not. I do have sharp critiques for those who compare Abu Ghirab to a Gulag and suggest that our troops are killing 10,000 innocent civilians a day. That is exactly the type of rhetoric that leads people to reflexively take the other side. As for approaching those who made the war with kid gloves, I am much more concerned with what to do now, than with what we should have done then.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    more concerned with what to do now, than with what we should have done then

    And so are almost all the rest of us.  But as we consider where to go from here we need to remember the series of government and media screwjobs that got us here.  And while properly scathing Democratic complicity, we very much need to remember it was the Republican Party that took us here.  

    And those responsible need to be saddled with that responsibility, not only in the name of simple justice, but perhaps more importantly, so that their arguments with respect to future actions in Iraq or anywhere else are not taken seriously.  So that we don't fall head over heels into another call for adventure.

    Largely on the strength of what has transpired, for example, Leiberman's question ought to have been responded to with wide-ranging scorn.

    One other thing.  You off-handedly dismiss the Gulag comparison.  But the government's use of torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere--Gonzales' legalization of torture stands out, and will continue to stand out in the eyes of history, as one of the defining elements of this entire situation.

    It is a big deal, the Bush Administration's openness to the use of torture.  We as a country need to ask ourselves if this is really the road we want to be going down.    

    Parent

    reply (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pancho on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    And those responsible need to be saddled with that responsibility, not only in the name of simple justice, but perhaps more importantly, so that their arguments with respect to future actions in Iraq or anywhere else are not taken seriously.  So that we don't fall head over heels into another call for adventure.

    Fair enough.

    I am not a fan of torture, but I think that many are far too quick to dismiss the violence that is associated with radical Islam all over the world as trivial. The fanatacism of many who are held in places like Guantanomo will not end with their release. If you cannot see a pattern emerging; I think that you are in denial.

    Parent

    To be against torture (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    is in fact wholly in line with condemning the radical Islamists.  

    Indeed, the ones suffering almost unspeakable dissonance are those who speak of making "room for discussing torture in certain circumstances" while at the same time puffing their chests indignantly at the atrocities committed by Muslim radicals.  These pundits and politicos need to be watched out for and ridiculed with passion.  And with the exception fo Lieberman and a precious few others, these are Republicans.

    Parent

    pathetic (none / 0) (#5)
    by ksh on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:10:10 PM EST
    time to visit the connecticut blogs again and see if any still supports this pantload as their senator.

    Does anyone know of any recent polls regarding Lieberman taken of CT voters?

    Ask them in 2012 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:14:25 PM EST
    It's so beside the point now.

    Parent
    Worth checking this site for the (none / 0) (#10)
    by mattes on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:51:54 PM EST
    Lieberman video alone.

    They all have been given their talking points.

    Pat Buchanan said on McLaughlin that the MSM has been given the talking points for going into Iran. And all you have to do is listen to CNN. Like little soldiers.

    Lieberman Asks For War With Iran; Petraeus Turns Him Down | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment