Quiz: Who's Speaking, Lieberman Or The White House?
Here's a little Friday afternoon entertainment: A quiz to see if you can tell Senator Joe Lieberman's rhetoric on the Iraq War from that of the White House. Below are half a dozen statements on the war. Some are taken from a Lieberman statement (via Think Progress) rebutting Majority Leader Harry Reid's contention that we have lost in Iraq. Some are quotes from White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino in Reuters and Associated Press articles. Read after the jump to take the quiz.
So let's get started. Who — Lieberman or Perino — said the following:
A
"It's disturbing that some on Capitol Hill believe they know more than the commanders on the ground."
B
"This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed."
C
"Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there."
D
"His comment is in conflict with the senior military advisers who are implementing the Baghdad security plan, working to calm the violence and to protect the innocent men, women and children of Iraq who are being victimized by a vicious enemy."
E
"Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq."
F"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war."
Answer Key (To View, Highlight With Your Mouse After The Colon): A. Perino, B. Lieberman, C. Lieberman, D. Perino, E. Lieberman, F. Perino
Feel free to post your scores.
Oh, my score would have been about at chance, because I guessed Lieberman for all of them.
You could have included the "Those who criticize our country" blah, blah, blah--
Why is he still getting attention?
Or, why isn't he getting MORE attention for his statements?
And for everyone who wants to suggest a recall drive, we can't recall a senator.
April 20, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha. Fun!!!
I got em all wrong, except C, cause I knew Lieberman was talking about his former Majority Leader.
I have a better name for this game: Name That Failed Policy Apologist!
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
April 20, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
got 3: a, b, f
April 20, 2007 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. Lieberman and Perino are different people?
April 20, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite agree with the sentiment expressed - why even bring up Lieberman? He's become a second-tier Senator whose only role in the media is the go-to-guy for critical comments towards the Democratic Party.
Hasn't anyone noticed that as the current Administration crumbles that Lieberman has become far less visible, or for that matter, relevant?
Let him wither away on the vine. That means no more references to, or quotes from, the Junior Senator from Connecticut.
April 20, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually got them all right (as would enough monkeys at typewriter), but my first reaction to the quiz premise was, "What's the difference".
April 20, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got 5 out of 6. The only one I missed was "C." My decision principle was to define the longer statements as Lieberman, the shorter statements as Perino. Lieberman is almost as long-winded as the White House is terse and nasty.
However, the most interesting comment was Perino baiting Harry Reid about ending funding for the war.
"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war."
First, the White House and the Congressional GOP define defunding of the war as a "dare line" for the Democrats to cross. Then, they bait the Democrats for not having "the courage of their convictions" needed to cross it. This is another way to tease the Democrats for not having any principles or guts.
But the Democrats are gradually coming up to the issue of de-funding the war and one of the things pushing them is statements like Perino's. The White House might end up losing their war for lack of money.
April 20, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of me wants the people of CT to confront just what they've done. Like when you stick the dog's face in the poop. But that's just mean. You're right, we all wish he'd go off silently into the night...
On a more positive note, every GOP Sen. that jumps over to our side on Iraq, and Snowe just did today, pushes Lieberman closer and closer to the completely irrelevant point.
(Never stuck my dog's face in poop. Just for the record.)
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
April 20, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had a terrible thought!
What if the U. S. Marines win the war and stabilize Iraq!
Bush and Lieberman would look smart and loyal to their country and Harry Reid wouldn't win another election, ever!
Whew! That explains why Harry Reid can't afford to have the U. S. win in Iraq.
Remember Harry was for the war after 9-11, then against it when it looked like the most voters opposed it? After the next 9-11, Harry will be back voting for a renewed war effort in retaliation.
April 20, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the diff? They are both moral midgets and finalists for the 2007 Goebbels Prize.
UA
April 20, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
5/6, missed D. Seemed like the "vicious" qualifier (along with the moralizing tone) was more Lieberman than Perino.
April 20, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went with, 'What's the difference?" and only gave the questions a perfunctory read.
Lieberman is such a loyal Bushie that, had he lost the election, he doubtless could have got a job at DoJ.
April 20, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we not?
April 20, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Score 5 out of 6. I missed statement F.
Statement E was the easiest. Only Lieberman is that clueless and foolish enough to make that statement in public. Statement E was Inhofe - esque in its blunt stupidity and ignorance.
April 20, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right. Really likely. We're just about to turn that corner that we've been just about to turn since the insurgency started. Just give it another couple of years, or 10, and we'll be victorious. Who cares about the money or lives lost or anything else? We've got to stay!
April 20, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just noticed Unmitigated Audacity's comment about a Goebbels Prize.
Great idea. A monthly Joseph Goebbels Award for blatant, boneheaded propaganda.
April 20, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
April 20, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then we would have made Iraq safe for Iranian hegemony.
If we win, we lose. If we lose, we lose.
That is precisely the reason that Reid is right.
April 20, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed only "D."
Perino loves the word "disturbing," because it implies, rather than commits, to whatever she's trying to characterize.
I find her disturbing.
April 20, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, flippant Nazi metaphors won't be accepted. Please stop.
April 20, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, as a full blown member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, Kiwi is blogging over here, instead of serving over there...
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
April 20, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Bush, this is a man with blood on his hands.
Like Bush, he seems to live in a non-existent past.
Like Bush, Democrats on the hill still treat him somewhat warily--in his case because of a razor-thin majority.
And unlike Bush, he won't get to go to a ranch in Texas in January 2009. He is going to have to sit there and be spit upon by 55 or so other Democratic senators.
As far as his words are concerned, looks like Joe Bent 'Em.
April 20, 2007 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I mean, look at the user name...
:-)
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
April 20, 2007 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! If Lieberman realizes he's outed and formally joins the publicans, there goes the majority.
Let the loser speak! Let the losers who voted for him learn what they wrought! But DON'T let Lieberman know that WE know he's a republican.
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Jan
April 20, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Kiwi isn't even over here.
I heard today that hundreds of people held in New Orleans for drug charges are being relieased after two years in jail because there was no money for them to get attorneys to represent them. I wonder what a couple of billion of the dollars that are thrown away every few weeks in Iraq would do for New Orleans.
Bush is still (essentially) getting a free pass for his utter incompetence in managing every phase of our country and government. What problem has he solved? What good has he done?
Heckuvajob, Bushie! Ironically, if the publicans had not impeached Clinton and thereby made dems afraid of the "payback" accusation, and also made Americans loathe to suffer through another impeachment, Bush & Cheney would rightfully have been out at least a year ago.
Is anyone else as depressed as I am over this continuing debacle? How are they continuing to get away with their crimes?
Jan
April 20, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure they are part of the same Bush borg. Does it matter which one is talking?
April 20, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
5/6 missed A
A fine eye for JoeMentumSpeak
April 20, 2007 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and what if cows could fly?
Tom
April 20, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew.
Please elaborate as your warning implies that "serious" Nazi metaphors would be acceptable.
April 21, 2007 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the "people of CT" include thousands of us, like myself, who worked our butts off for Ned Lamont in order to kick Joe Lieberman off the Democratic Party line. Lamont's victory in the primary arguably showed the national party that criticizing this awful, criminal war would resonate with the American electorate.
In other words, the "people of CT"--or at least a substantial cohort thereof--played a key role in ousting the GOP from their control of Congress.
Yes, it's a drag that a plurality of CT voters--many of whom believed Lieberman's lies that he wanted to get out of the war--returned this accessory-to-war-crimes to the Senate. But I'm tired of posts here that tar the whole state over that. The progressive voters of CT turned the tide of Election 2006, showing the punditocracy and the timid Democratic Party hacks what it took to win.
April 21, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we have a "forget" drive instead? I'd like to forget Lieberwho, but people keep reminding me of him. :-)
aMike
April 21, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
... and what if cows could fly?
Kiwi would find a way to blame progressives for the fact that the big heavy beasts couldn't stay airborne!
Jan
April 21, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd blame the cows if they were less accurate in leaving presents on statues than pigeons are, and I'd kick in $5.00 for a practice statue of GWB for them.
aMike
April 21, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I misspoke when I said that Bush might "lose" the war for lack of funding. Like those who replied, I agree with Reid that the war is already lost. It would have been more accurate for me to say that the war might end this summer for lack of funding.
April 21, 2007 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect.
As I feared, after Lieberman won the senate seat back, people have forgotten what Lamont's primary victory actually meant.
Lieberman was meant to be a shoe-in as the party nominee and yet he had to run outside of the party. His supporters will claim that he "ran for all the people in Connecticut" but the general election results and lack of a Republican challenger to Lamont are proof that Lieberman really ran as the "right of center" candidate and that he was elected by "right of center" people in his state.
Viewed that way, it's no surprise that his views on Iraq are so close to the White House views that a quiz like this has any meaning.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfair quiz! Lieberman basically IS Perino.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 22, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Andrew.
No need to bring the Nazi Goebbels into this, ever.
And besides, Goebbels was a much better propagandist than these dunces.
I'm thinking something more along the line of a Orwell prize might be more appropriate.
April 23, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink