"We must have troops in Iraq so we can fight the terrorists in Britain."

Huh?

apparently Christopher Shays is trying to line up Republican donors for him, to go with all those endorsements. Did anyone point out to this moron that the plottes were almost all British born ethnic Pakistanis, and that the only effect Iraq has had on al Qaeda and similar groups is to give these people a recruiting tool? Or would the use of facts be shrill and leftwing.

This just goes to show that no one on earth is less serious about actually stopping terrorism than Joe Lieberman. Voting for him would have been a tremendous victory that would strengthen the people who think that starting civil wars and sponsoring elections won by terrorist groups in the Middle East is the best way to stop British citizens of Pakistani descent from blowing up airplanes.

I'm glad the Democrats of Connecticut have more sense than their lame duck Senator from the "It's All About Lieberman" Party.

Sore Loserman. He'll be out by next weekend or be the de facto GOP nominee. Sad to see him end his career as a whiny, deluded miscreant.

I find this talking point very disconcerting for the image it implants in people's mind. Just like Reagan's "welfare queens" (he never did say what race they are, but we all got the picture), this is painting withdrawal as a completely political operation. Like the day after the election Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary are gonna fly some C-130s over there and say, "Hop in, boys!"

No. The political decisions are made, but then the large bureaucracy that is the United States military takes over the operation. And they're not going to be hasty or sloppy, but do withdrawal right, if they must do it.

If it is to occur, there has to be a plan for withdrawal. No, there will be a plan for withdrawal. And maybe, to clarify, that's what Democrats need to say. Forget "timeline" -- say "plan." Because we all know Bush has no plan. And I think that fact infuriates voters the most about Iraq.

Personally, I disagree with withdrawal. I opposed this invasion with all my heart, but we broke it, we bought it. I think we owe it to Iraqis to make it safe. I do sometimes question whether we are capable of doing so, but I am still more inclined to believe it. And that's why I am joining the military.

But Bush, Cheney, and politicians like Lieberman have acted despicably to sell this war in Iraq. And in doing so they've tainted the greater struggle. I hate it that there's no credibility to the wider fight against Islamic extremism because Bush just had to link it with Iraq at every chance he got. But this is the government we have, and there are good kids out there sacrificing for it. They really deserve better.

Interesting -- have we yet heard Joe criticize his *other* opponent in this race? You know, the Republican candidate? Or is he perfectly happy with that guy?

I look forward to Ned's response. The man is bright and articulate enough to finally drive a stake through this meme.

Keep talking, Joe. Just keep talking. At the rate you're going you'll be out of the race by next Tuesday.

I love how Lieberman/Bush take credit for a foiled terror plot in another country. It is O.K. for you to listen to my domestic phone calls now, just so long as it allows the British government to foil terrorist plots in their own country... glad we could help out with that.

By the way, what was it that Lieberman said during his "concession speech" the other night? I think it was something along the lines of, "The old politics of partisan polarization won today." It sure doesn't get much more polarizing than implying that if you vote for people like Lamont, America will get overrun by terrorists... hopefully he sticks to these lame tactics so he can have the unique distinction of losing as both a "Democrat" and an "Independent Democrat" in the same year.

Are you talking about semantics or my personal opinion?

I agree with Wes Clark when he says we never had enough troops there to begin with. You even see it with veterans' families trying to get benefits -- there was a political decision made to minimize costs as much as possible. We made a very expensive mistake, and our leaders are trying to hide the costs. We have to face facts and realize that we are lowballing everything: troop levels, body armor, benefits and much more.

 No, there will be a plan for withdrawal.

There can be no plan for withdrawal without Congress VOTING for it.

Lamont should say he will VOTE for a withdrawal Plan...cause he has not been KISSED. Send me to Washington because I promise to vote for withdrawal and a plan to secure the peace.

What is Dodd's position on withdrawal?

I appluad your sense of duty Jack, and wish you the best on your military adventure. I have wondered myself, many times, whether the American men and women who are being killed or kept in Iraq by this President's policys don't justify me joining so that one of them can come home.

In the end, I have decided that so long as George W Bush is commander in chief no amount of well intentioned recruits can change Iraq. I also intend to join the military but not until we have a commander in chief worthy of the honor (or at least not so criminally incompitent that my help can only hurt).

We can have a positive effect, but not under the current leadership.

And that's why I am joining the military.

Wow. I missed that in my first read/scan.  What branch? Please say Navy. Good luck to you and may God keep you safe.

This keeps getting censored by the Lamontster scrub out the truth squads.. he has to protect his propagandists for hire, as he's too chickenhearted to let the CT voters decide for themselves 

The GOP are making public claims of this to help the Lamont campaign, because it's their only way of getting a republican from CT in that senate seat.

BTW, why is no brave blogger writing about Jerome Armstrong's (mydd.com founder) SEC violation for securities fraud, ripping off investors? A payola scheme similar to the one he and Markos of Daily Kos run in democratic races? Pay for protection.. ie, either cough up huge sums or we'll slander you and your candidacy?

Armstrong can't comment because he signed an agreement admitting his wrongdoing, but Koss attempts to paint Armstrong as only being a poor young grad student who was tempted.. despite the fact that at the time Armstrong was in his 30s.

Here's the url for the SEC charge

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm

and as an aside, Armstrong's conviction on weapons charges from when he was 29

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/mar/ armstrong.html

If the GOP felt Markos and Armstrong such a threat to them, they'd crush them easily, instead their blogging helps the GOP fend off what was a increasingly unpopular republican majority.

Good luck, man. Be safe.