I know that for committee purposes that Liberman is important. But I think that if there is a way the D's should look at a way of turning him loose. I think his only interest is with the power of being with the majority, he doesn't deserve it.

He just loves the word "mighty": It reeks of a worldview formed by Superman Fights Hitler comic books.

So Joe says "None of us like war, people suffer from it."

I wish you really meant that, Joe.

What James Wolcott said.

But what Lind, Larry C. Johnson, and Timothy Garton Ash perceive is that the groundwar dynamics have shifted into endgame gear, outracing the rhetorical cornmeal of a Lieberman or McCain and raising alarms that the political-media establishment is refusing to heed. What will it take for their hair to catch fire?

Lieberman wants a long term US military presence in the Iraq/Iran theatre. He believes that is the only way to insure the long term survival of Israel.

Since this is also a part of the neo-con philosophy then Lieberman will a part of the neo-con team.

Ya know, people seemed to mock Wesley Clark for lobbying to stop war with Iran. Had the attorney purge scandal and immigration not weakend Bush, we might have been in Iran by now. People seemed to think that Clark was pushing StopIranWar.com for a potential presidential run, but he's been right about a lot of things that have happened in the middle east. Too bad we don't pay more attention to him.

(Disclaimer: I'll volunteer for Clark if he jumps in.)

SeeDee
Every time Lieberman projects his special brand of anti-Americanism, which is now his stock in trade, I come to two conclusions:
(1) How in the world did Al Gore 'choose' him for a running mate in 2000?
(2)In retrospect, how fortunate Gore (and America) were that Bush, Baker and the GOP crooks on the USSC stole the election and installed our current corrupt regime.

Given the depth of deceit and depravity exhibited by Lieberman these past five years and his stance of America Second, Israel First, Gore would probably have been an assassination victim within 18-months of his inaugaration had he been declared the winner some 6 years ago.

Before the howls erupt, let me say there are many other Congressional names (Feingold, Schumer, et al.) whom I would gladly suport as either presidential or VP candidates.

Joe Lieberman is a piece of human excrement.

What makes Lieberman so scary is his absolute, complete confidence that he is right. In that sense he is a lot like Bush. Neither of them will ever admit that they are wrong or could even be wrong. It is just unfortunate that Lamont couldn't beat this guy.
Mrgavel

Iran is fighting across the Middle East through proxies?

Like Israel, for instance, when they use us, Joe?

What a flaccid penis this Lieberman is.

JP
http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com

SeeDee
Actually, it seems his brain has turned to jelly, too....a process for which the only remedy is in the hands of the voters of the Great State of Connecticut.

I wonder how the Dem. voters in Ct who supported Lieberman feel about him now.

You are assuming that the Democratic Party insiders/managers have a problem with Joe Lieberman and the things he says. I strongly suspect that they don't; the standing ovation was the first clue. Lieberman certainly guards the DC Dems' right flank, and I suspect that the things he says about Iraq and Iran are what many of the big-time boys (and one girl) actually think but can't say outright themselves.

sPh

But Lamont DID beat him. LIEberman simply found a loophole to continue to the general election and got all the CT Repubs to vote for him, along with just enough sycophant Dems.

I'm sure CT is happy to have Lieberman.

Could be.

I would love to see a poll but it would not surprise me if, in fact, a majority approved of this odious clown.

Best, Terry

But . . . But . . . But . . . Yo! Joe!

Would it not be CHEAPER to fight them over here AND we'd have the home court advantage! AND if they never farging show up here, we win by default.

Well, let's take Joe on about a few points:

1) He says it won't be an invasion and we won't target civilians.

Why should Joe trust that the people who will actually be running the war will do as he says? The whole story of Iraq is that Democrats who supported the "use of force," were then treated to see that use of force spiral entirely out of their control. Joe... the White House just wants your vote of approval. Once they get started, how you think things should go will not matter. They want your consent, not your counsel. That's what happened in Iraq.

2) He answers questions about our capabilities by calling the military "mighty."

Yes, they're mighty. I don't want to fight a Marine who's 10 years into retirement. Our military is full of tough, tough, men and women. But, you do see that wasn't what you were asked, right? We have a mighty, well funded, fully equipped military. But you were really asked if it could fight three wars at once. The military is mighty, sure... but you seem to think it's omnipotent. The criticism that we don't have the troops necessary to deal with Iran by force isn't a criticism of the might, bravery or willingness of the military. It's a question about how much we'll have to sacrifice in order to add a third war to the roster.

3) You say if we hit one of their bases, they might retaliate.

Hmmm... Seems the opposite of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. You're now saying that by starting a fight with them there, we'd better put up our dukes over here. Do you realize you just threw all of your foreign policy ideas into a fatal contradiction? Are you suddenly trying to fight them there in order to pick a fight over here?

4) You say you hate war, like the rest of us do.

You could express that feeling by refraining from trying to start new wars.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

You think with the way that the DLC operates, and the way the democratic party is funded that Gore had any real choice in the matter... Personally I think not.

Uh...yes, I think the nominee pretty much has absolute discretion as to his VP pick. It's his first "appointment."

My understanding is that Gore's pick of Lieberman was based on his debt to AIPAC, which provided over 80% of the funding for his failed 1988 presidential campaign. Are you saying Bradley, or any other Democrat, would have picked Lieberman, too? Highly doubtful.

I don't get your point. Gore's choice was predicated on HIS debt to AIPAC, not the DLC's. Lieberman was Gore's choice, which your first response denies was really his.

It was still his judgment, or lack of it, that gave us Lieberman. Why is his judgment better now? There's no reason to think it is. Politically, he's a hopeless clod.

Well, it WAS his choice. And really, Gore was so much a part of the Dem leadership, the distinction between him and the DLC is sort of fuzzy. And besides, what would the DLC have done if Gore had nominated Bob Graham (who would have won him Florida?) or maybe Evan Bayh (who could have won him Indiana?) Campaign for Bush?

But I still believe Gore's core commitment to AIPAC was to nominate a Jewish running mate should he ever get the nomination, and that it dated from his wretched presidential bid in 1988, when the vast majority of his funding came from AIPAC. Either way, it was his bad judgment that resulted in the choice of Lieberman.

I still shudder at the memory of that Lieberman/Cheney debate. Joe was practically holding Cheney's coat while Cheney punched him in the stomach. He didn't lay a rhetorical glove on Cheney. He was awful...didn't campaign one day a week, and really loafed the rest of the time. Yuck!