NYT: Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=a05a3618d4469a01&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Five years after running as the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket and a year after his own presidential bid, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has become an increasingly unwelcome figure within his party, with some Democrats seeing him more as a wayward son than a favorite son.

In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said.

Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, said a senior Congressional official who was told of the call.

I thought I heard this remark on the radio today.

What a turd

I wish there was an emoticon to show my outrage for holy joe.
:argh: :puke:
Ok, I'm better now, oops wait - :nopity: :puke:

I hope Reid gave him a talkin to, but I fear that koolaid joe has had too much. Rehabilitation may not be worth it.
:hurts:

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | December 1, 2005
Iraq and the Vital Center

Yesterday, President Bush unveiled a "plan for victory" to shore up sagging public confidence in his Iraq policies. Though it broke little new ground, the president's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy did provoke an unfortunate reaction from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Rep. John Murtha's earlier call for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We share the widespread frustration with the Bush administration's utterly inept handling of Iraq's post-conflict rebuilding. But too much is at stake in Iraq for America to simply give up and come home. What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253638

And then today on the front page of NDOL:

Statement of Al From on Senator Joe Lieberman

There's currently an orchestrated effort underway to make Sen. Joe Lieberman into some sort of a pariah because of his views on the Iraq War. That's wrong. Republicans may try to impose strict litmus tests, but an inclusive Democratic Party should not.

There's plenty of room for debate on how to succeed in Iraq and in the war on terror. We should be a party that leads that debate, not stifles it.

Joe Lieberman is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles, even when they lead him against the popular tide. He is a man who always puts his county above his party or his personal interests. Those are qualities we should cherish, not disdain, in today's far too polarized politics.

We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

http://www.dlc.org/

IMO, the pariah here is the DLC and their corporate sponsored 5th column, whose agenda is destroying the legacy and legislation stemming from the New Deal and demolishing what Democrats have stood for since the days of FDR.

a day late and a dollar short. every left or democratic site on the net for months have written about joe`s ass kissing of the bush klan. it`s a wonder they are still in business...

It's hard to believe that anyone takes NYT seriously any more. I know I sure don't.

In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war."

"It's like a betrayal," Mr. Matzzie said of Mr. Lieberman's stand on the war. "He is cheering the Bush Iraq policy at a time when Republicans are running away from the president."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=a05a3618d4469a01&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The party (or the planet) does not need leaders like warmongering Lieberman, any more than we needed former Democrat and segragationist Strom Thurmond. I hope he goes Republican. He can take Hillary with him, too.

Anyone who thinks warring against innocent third world countries is justified should be linked to the GOP, not democrats.

"Anyone who thinks warring against innocent third world countries is justified should be linked to the GOP, not democrats."

I'm a bit confused by the phrase "innocent countries." Would you say that there can be such a thing as a "guilty country"? Can it ever be the case that, in some country, all people are guilty and all deserve punishment?

Also, what is the relevance of whether or not a given country is classified as "third world"? If we successfully persuade someone that a particular war is unjust or unnecessary, then isn't that enough?

It was my impression that he was pretty well left of center on domestic issues. But that's just a vague impression of mine from having heard a couple of his answers during the past debates. I kind of turned my mind off to Lieberman because the Iraq war was a make or break point with me as far as my support for Democratic candidates. Is he really another Zell Miller or is his disagreement with the rest of the party only on the Iraq war and the Middle East? Anyone out there know him well enough to respond?

handling of Enron execs was enough to convince me where he stood.

He's but a booger picked from the nose of the Democratic party and discarded as nothing more than an unpleasant, useless annoyance.

bushes to rule, a lieberman may think "why not Me then?" This sounds more and more like a play by Shakespeare.

because he's the president? Maybe we should just look the other way concerning their lies, deception and incompetence, because he's the president?

I do wish Joe would just switch parties.

"After much reflection, my feelings of disappointment and anger have not dissipated, except now these feelings have gone beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the president's conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency and, ultimately, an accounting of the impact of his actions on our democracy and its moral foundations.

The implications for our country are so serious that I feel a responsibility to my constituents in Connecticut, as well as to my conscience, to voice my concerns forthrightly and publicly. And I can think of no more appropriate place to do that than on this great Senate floor.

<...>

The president's intentional and consistent statements, more deeply,may also undercut the trust that the American people have in his word. Under the Constitution, as presidential scholar Newsted (ph) has noted, the president's ultimate source of authority, particularly his moral authority, is the power to persuade, to mobilize public opinion, to build consensus behind a common agenda. And at this, the president has been extraordinarily effective."


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_04_digbysblog_archive.html#113392509981027509

ijit

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

And believe me, I'm no Joe Lieberman.

He was always a Conservative, although he may have called himself a "Centrist" at times.

When he ran for the Senate in 1988 against Lowell Weicker, a maverick Republican, William F. Buckley started "Buckpac," to raise money for him and help him.

Buckley has often called Lieberman his favorite Democrat. Many of us in Connecticut detest him, and would like to get rid of him. Unfortunately no Democrat has been willing to take him on. He's just too powerful.

:rofl:

The republicans remind me of a convention of perfume salesmen.

Republicans think Saxby Chambliss is tough. LMAO.

The republican idea of a tough guy is 5-deferment Cheney or Cheerleader Bu$h or Bowtie Boy Carlson.

Democrats have real tough guys like Murtha and Kerry and a lot of combat vets on this board.

not lately.

I think you need to start a new party just as Ariel Sharon is doing. Looks like it's time to call on Henry Kissinger again - to explain why Bush is really a genius and we are really winning. If you guys can fool the American people with this latest round of Elephant shit, you really deserve to be in CONtrol.

Joe and the current version of the DLC seem to deserve each other. Maybe they can start that new party together, maybe call it the Protect Israel Party, and continue their backing of bush/cheney/rove as a third party. I'm sure many neocons would jump ship to join up.

GET OUT OR "OUR" PARTY ALREADY YOU ASSWIPE!

WE DON'T WANT YOU!

All need to be contained first. Then Excised... much like a cancer.


This CANCER IS KILLING OUR PARTY...

and his country is not America!!!

Or...

Lieberman=Wolfowitz

Ever notice how his name begins with a lie?

no limits on the president.

In the last days before the vote - there were several serious bipartisan efforts (with the involvement of sens Hagel, Lugar, Spector and perhaps others) - to write amendments that would put some strings upon the resolution.

The day before the proposed vote... Bush holds a now infamous Rose Garden speech - all rhetoric (now, all known lies), and a show of "solidarity" with leading democrats - including Sens Lieberman and Bayh (and congressman Gephardt). After the "show" - all efforts in the senate collapsed.

Folks seem to forget that very significant role that Lieberman and Bayh played. They could have not participated with Bush, and still voted against the amendments were that their conscience... but instead they undermined the efforts of fellow senators to temper the resolution a bit. His was a very ACTIVE role in getting Bush the resolution in the form Bush wanted. I, for one, can not forget.

Say Joe -- that gov't that knows it can invade other countries and engage in wars at will while remaining insulated from the scrutiny and criticism of its constituents is a gov't that is liable to commit all manner of unspeakable acts. You and your fellow Repugs need to forget about silencing discussion and dissent.

going to get smart and dump him for a real Democrat?

I have a feeling that if Bush had wanted a war anywhere else besides the Middle East, Joe wouldn't be so fervent.

And Al "Squeaky" Fromm and the whole DinoLC can go away as well.

Look at it from Lieberpuke's point of view: here you are, having successfully kept Democrats divided, weak, and on the defensive for years, and suddenly those damn Dems start showing some sign of cohesion. What would Dow and Exxon and Lieberpuke's other nazi masters on the DLC board of directors think? Plainly something had to be done!

The Democrats have enough problems herding the cats to have to also deal with a Bushco collaborator in our midsts.

Thanks be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that asshole didn't become VP.

And now for an array of smilies...


:yoiks::yoiks:
:yoiks::yoiks::yoiks:
:yoiks::yoiks::yoiks::yoiks:
:yoiks::yoiks::yoiks::yoiks::yoiks:
:yoiks::yoiks::yoiks::yoiks:
:yoiks::yoiks::yoiks:
:yoiks::yoiks:

To be sure, the imperial principle is evil--it leads to banditry, torture, and mass murder--yet devoutly he stands by it.

With Ol' Occupation Joe, you always know what you're getting.

A real scuzzball.

Rather than suffer the words of that miserable mouse, read the majestic speech of a lion: our new Nobel Laureate in Literature, Harold Pinter.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1661516,00.html

Provided that country is Israel.