Lieberman Criticizes Fellow Democrats on Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Monday criticized fellow Democratic presidential contenders who do not recognize the war to oust Iraq's Saddam Hussein was justified and make Democrats appear weak on defense.

Lieberman, who strongly supported the war, said, "Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom."

Seeking to emerge from the pack of nine Democratic contenders, Lieberman of Connecticut said he felt he represented his party's "mainstream position," saying "being strong on defense is part of what it means to be a Democrat." ---

Now Our War Is With Karma

!

Go back to attacking videogames, Holy Joe!

and stay out of our party.

Seeking to replace Cheney?

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

You are embarrassing yourself.

And Joe is as dirty as Bu$h.

in your tag-line. Precious.

As to Joe, what a moran.

Julie

.

Better yet, run for the rethug nomination.

I swear, if this bozo gets the nomination, I'm voting third party.

:grr:

that's me. I'd vote for anyone other than BFEE, and I do mean anyone. Of course, if the Dem winner - gag on the thought - is Holy Joe, I'll be holding my nose while voting for him. At least he's not the environment raper the dimson is.

lark

to envision having to make such a compromise (the holding the nose and voting).

And let him know how we feel.

It'll be most painful if I even have to vote for him- Dean or Kerry over Lieberman ANY DAY of the week.

(Jon Stewart)

nt

it may the real reason why robbedvoter doesn't like him,but dont use ONE poster to judge all posters you dont agree with.Enough with your sweeping generalizations please.

Forkboy, why is it that when people discuss Isreal, Lieberman gets attacked more harshly? Why is it that Lieberman gets singled out more than the other Dem candidates? Why is it that people continue to lie about Lieberman repeatedly even after being shown hundreds of times that their claims about him are false?

to all who disagree...thats my only beef here.Your points aren't wrong,but you're painting too many people with your brush.Many here have very valid reasons for not liking him.

Not everyone who dislikes Lieberman does so for the reasons I mentioned.

But I do think, that for all too many, as in reply #77, which calls for Lieberman to go to Israel, it is part of the reasoning behind it.

and it bothers me too.

I voted for him the last time around (with Gore). I have never criticized him for his views on Israel. If anything I find his views on Iraq a little more 'heartfelt' than opportunistic than some who voted for the war (that is, I believe he believes it). I do not like that he undercuts his fellow democrats on this issue - as he and Bayh and Gephardt did on the eve of the war resolution vote. (And I criticize all three of them on this point).

My criticism of Lieberman goes back a long way and has more to do with his pro-business voting pattern (not in itself a bad thing) that have facilitated an erosion of protections for investors, small businesses, etc over a long period of time. Some of his more socially conservative views (pro-vouchers, support for the faith-based initiatives, etc.) also concern me - but they are not the sole reason for my concerns. In the senate he voted on a number of corporate issues that Clinton, thankfully, vetoed.

I do not bash Sen. Lieberman willy nilly, and just earlier today called someone out who had a "don't bash dems... well except Sen. Lieberman" thread - as that was inconsistent - either one is critical of all or one moves for "unity" but to single Lieberman out didn't seem appropriate. By the way - there were a number of posts, I believe, that voiced similar sentiments.

All of that said, of the current candidates Lieberman is close to the bottom of my list. None of that has to do with the reasons that you implied.

Please help me use a little turpentine to scrub off a little of the paint from the broad brush that you were using.

nt

as well as others who do not fit those posts. Be specific and qualify your complaints when you have them - respond directly to those posters. Don't paint everyone with that brush... it isn't accurate and its starting to look like a Pollack painting...

You did see that didn't you?

Because they want a president whose speaking style is even MORE grating than Chimp's?

---

Lieberman of Connecticut said he felt he represented his party's "mainstream position."

---

Bullshit! Lieberman is a dried-up old prune. The sooner he is out of the race, the better.

Could never understand why Gore chose him as running mate.

They are certainly Joe's biggest champions now.

is that Lieberman did not become vice-president. Because if he did, he would have proceeded to lock up the nomination in '08.

This turd would say anything to get to be president. He evidently is listening to the Christian right wing and thinks this will get him points. Also it will get him in good with the jewish voters.

are a huge liberal demographic, how do you figure "it will get him in good" with them?

The facts don't agree with you.

Nice poll numbers, Joe.

I just don't see how our security or defense priorities are being met in Iraq. Thus, to me, anyone who supports the quagmire of casualties in Iraq is WEAK on defense.

Seems to be where he's headed. Good riddance. (not to trash the DU'ers who would vote for him) but he has a bad habit of sticking his foot in it, purposefully..........

Lieberman of Connecticut said he felt he represented his party's "mainstream position," saying "being strong on defense is part of what it means to be a Democrat."

DEMOCRATIC YEAS 81 NAYS 126 NV 1

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=455

I agree with Lieberman on some issues, but I can't support anybody that openly praises the war.

But drop out of the race Joe. You're finished. We didn't want this war and made it very clear to you. You failed to represent us. You're out.

Lieberman has been consistent in his positions. Lieberman wanted Saddam out, period! Lieberman did not play cutesy games trying to be on all possible sides of the issues, or like Senator Waffle, being against the war by voting for it.

Lieberman is like Ariel Sharon in this way: Everyone knows where Sharon stands on any given issue, and everyone knows when Sharon is playing his cards close to his vest. With Sharon, you know what you get: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Lieberman is the same way! We all know where Lieberman stands on the issues. Can we say the same about Senator Waffle?

Now, while I disagree with Lieberman on the war and the reasons for it, I have to agree with his criticism of the way the Bush regime has handled post-Saddam Iraq. Lieberman rightfully says that Bush should rely on the UN, NATO, and on our allies to bring about stability to Iraq. Lieberman chastizes the bush regime for driving away and insulting long term allies that we need now.

I personally favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and putting Iraq under a UN-mandated administration. This is not exactly what Lieberman is advocating, but what Lieberman is advocating for post-Saddam Iraq is a reasonable position for a Democrat to defend.

He can count on my vocal opposition all the way tot he election if he somehow manages to get nominated.


Click Here For Hard Hitting Buttons — Visit The Cronus Connection

This guy is a PNAC Zionist in an identity crisis. What a sham:hurts:

eom

that this war had NOTHING to do with defense of this nation.

It was Wolfowitz and Crystal and Cheney exploiting an opportunity to scratch a geopolitical itch. They're eating our lunch in Afghanistan, laughing their nuts dizzy at us in Pyongyang, written us off in Berlin and Paris and Moscow, and circling the wagons in Teheran. We are absolutely LESS safe than we were in Jan 2001.

Lieberman is a disgrace, and wrong. Wes Clark should come in and give this turncoat a good spanking.

what party's candidate he might be. He should be charged with false advertising for claiming to be a Democrat.

Pro Iraq war will not win in 2004
(If there is even an election)

you can't recognize an unjust war when you see one.

this is fascinating. lieberman "attacking" bush for screwing up a "just war" and attacking dems for attacking bush for an unjust war. all on the same day. only holy joe has the correct position.

:wtf:

I kind of agree with his position.

I think the war is sad, but not wrong. I think how we went about it was wrong, but if BIll would of done it; i would have supported it.

I don't know, its just my opinion i guess.

:)

of course, but do you really think it's just to "pre-emptively" attack a country based on trumped up mis-information and charges...if Bill Clinton did that, would it be right?

My opinion is that Joe is so right-wing he really ought to switch parties. Wonder if he ever served in the military. Something tells me he's a chicken hawk.

But Bill would never do that :)

...but I know your line... i am not accusing you of being anything but I think you are trying to point out what you is hypocritical... you think that all of us supported Clinton's wars? WRONG! We are multi-dimensional like that, I protested Kosovo like a fiend... in principle it was a lot a like but in reality this is worse. at least Clinton worked the neo-liberal institutions to give Kosovo the APPEARANCE of international good will... he played the system... furthermore Clinton's Kosovo war did not call for the occupation of an entire nation-state... now I know the republican hawks wanted Clinton to invade Serbia from the north via new NATO bases in Hungary but Clinton didn't do that... now I am not giving him credit by any means, he obviously didn't do that to avoid US Casualties... Clinton was a CHICKENhawk whereas Bush is a chickenHAWK. but the difference means a lot in terms of GI blood. But I am not apologizing for Clinton... I did not like his foreign policy one iota... but by comparison it was a LOT better than Bush's

I like Clinton but his foriegn policies were not good. Kosovo was just wrong now I dont know exactly what went on but bombing them for that many consective days.

i applaud you. I just started posting here today and I was a little taken back by lack of consistanct amongst these Dean supporters.

i heard that a lot over at this other place where a lot of conservatives post... how
"at least the people who opposed both wars were consistent, those damn demonrats are hypocrites." are you sure you would have supported this war if Bill would have launched it?

I'd like to think that Bill would have supported the inspectors, and would have been happy with the fact that there were now no WMD, and so would not have started this misbegotten war. That may be a fantasy, but it's mine and I'm sticking to it.

lark

very few died and got the job done ...

started carpet bombing the Serb staging areas with B-52's...
I think I have heard up to 5,000 but that is probably skewed on the side of the antiwar propaganda that i espoused and continue to espouse.

:)

but you are automatically assuming that I don't think we should have gotten involved... we should have gotten involved but not by setting the whole process up so we'd go to war with serbia... the entire peace process was a scam... that ramboulliet(sp) agreement was created so that the serbs wouldn't sign it. it was a total and unnecessary violation of their sovereignty... what was it? "secret appendix b" this is real... that NATO troops would have unfettered access to ALL of FRY... of course we had no intention of going into Belgrade with our NATO tanks but we had to make it so bad that no self-respecting head of state would sign it.

The situations in Kosovo and Bosnia involved the active forced relocation, incarceration and execution of civilians by Milosevic and his military. The atrocities against unarmed civilians, in a European nation, had to stop.

Clinton sought and won the support of Europeans to address a European problem. If the issue was less clear cut than we would like it to have been, we AT LEAST led the European community toward support of the forced ending of crimes against ethnically inconvenient Yugoslavs. I did not support the bombing of Belgrade - but it broke the the spine of Milosevic's plans, it was supported by a large portion of the European community, and it came at little cost to the allies. Earlier, forceful intervention would have saved lives. I fault Clinton for waiting.

Note, as well, the purpose of our military action there was not "regime change", the forced imposition of our preferred political system, but rather the cessation of hostilities against civilians by the Yugoslav military and paramilitary forces. Beyond immediate delf-defense, I believe there is no greater calling than that for our military; protecting the truly powerless.

Had the case been made purely on humantarian grounds, I would have had a harder time opposing Iraq. I DO believe we will be remembered for why we did what we did (stated at the time as 'self-defense', though now retroactively a humanitarian gesture), and I believe the loss of our credibility will be serious and long lasting, amongst friends and foe alike.

Saddam should have and could been removed by his own people, with or without logistical support by us - or, at the very least, a coalition of Arab/Muslim governments. The corruption in Iraq is what kept him power - tyrants as strong or stronger than he have fallen from popular dissent or revolution. Ceacescu, Marcos, the Shah, Somoza...the list in the last two decades is long.

Frankly....here's a chilling thought. The REAL REASON we did this may well be that revolution was indeed quietly stirring in Iraq, and the Wolfowitz/Cheney/Bolton cabal decided it was better to change the regime pre-emptively (thereby getting the oil and the new base after leaving Saudi), rather than risk a Shia' majority antagonistic to the US.

WWGHD (what would Gore have done) and I think both fantasies would share
outcomes.

There are very few moderates here. So that is why Lieberman gets attacked here.

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

That's a pretty classic canard.

Every other Democrat running, except maybe Sharpton, is pro-Israel. Yet it is Lieberman who gets singled out.

And now let's substitue Lieberman with "JFK" and Israel with "The Vatican" and you get something very offensive.

do you?

Let me explain. Everyone here agrees that Saddam is a bad guy. Yet it was these very same vipers in this administration who once helped keep that murderous thug in power because it facilitated their greed.

Now keep up here. Going in to Iraq in such a fucking hurry, and destroying the UN, perhaps NATO as well, alienating our closest allies, etc., etc., etc., could have all been avoided.

Are you tracking? If a wise man was in office, not Uncurious George and his band of theives, but a true leader, we would have let the inspections continue, made them even more powerful, built a TRUE coalition and taken him out in due time with the world as our ally. Then we wouldn't be left there as target practice for any Arab on the planet to come take potshots at us.

You see, this war was used to help them politically. Both to try to turn Americans against Democrats in exactly the same manner in which Liebershit is doing. As well as keeping the public's mind off of their looting of the treasury.

Now, if you think it was a good idea to do things the way Bush and his cabal did them, then you my friend, are dumb as a stump.

That's not cool.

Dad. And I don't think you would know cool if it crawled up your leg and bit your scrotum.

Mr "Nader is God to these people"?

Wait,don't tell me,"I know I'm right"..right?

:crazy:

and had he, I wouldn't have supported it. I did, btw, support Bosnia and Kosovo. Very different circumstances - current ethnic cleansing, vs awful killings at the end of a war (of rebels that the US encouraged to "rise up" after we left in 1991) - but not, to my understanding, on going killings or 'cleansins'. In terms of his brutal regime? Yep no question. As are others (take North Korea, for example). This alone wasn't justification. And it was very clear to many of the external complications that would be caused by this action.

I think Bill, or Gore, very well might have gone into Afghanistan in the same way Bush did. I think they (Bill or Al) would have kept resources in Afghanistan and kept trying to dismantle the terror networks much longer than the attentiondeficitdisorder administration that was off on Iraq and devoting more and more intelligence man power to making the case in Iraq than it did directly on the War on Terror.

If Clinton HAD wanted to do this, I would have supported him. Because it was Bill Clinton...an extremely intelligent man with a real political vision for the world. As opposed to the Bush administration, who were just salivating over the oil. It's a matter of motives. THAT'S the difference. And, the difference in motives would have led to a different handling of the situation.

That will show we are not weak on defense.

I don't agree with what he is saying, but the facts don't agree with you.

Just because he isn't from the far left doesn't make him a Republican either.

that is the point.

Would you vote for him now?

Bill

But in the general election I would vote for him.

You have supported L here for awhile. Going out of your way here. You would now not vote for him in a primary (I'm sure you would have in the past) but he is fit to be president?

What part of your precious economy is going to be left after Bush 2nd?

Oh, Lieberman has a plan for these short wars. OK then.

Bill

But I do defend Lieberman because I do think he is attacked unfairly here a lot of the time.

I have always been a Dean supporter. Other DUers can verify that.

n/t

I would vote for Lieberman in the general election, but I am not voting for him in the primary.

n/t

We all make mistakes.

would be more descriptive ;->

peace

Time to drum "Droopy the Dog" out of the Democratic party. I'm so sick of his bullshit.

JB

Why are you singling out Lieberman regarding Israel when almost every other Democrat shares the same position?

in favor of the war?

If Edwards said the same today would you expect different?

Ya, far left position.

Time to take your bearings. Are we on the left or you on the right? Remember just how far right Bushco are. They can still be a long ways away but on the same side of the fence.

Maybe you're sitting right on it.

Bill

That poster brings in the notion of Israel and Lieberman, who also happens to be Jewish. Put 2 and 2 together.

Heads Up (the war is in the ME - no, Israel has no interest in the situation. Ya, big leap)

Sorry but being Jewish is not a free pass on foreign relations in the ME and supporting invasions on hunches. What are those hunches based upon? Nope, Bush's decisions are in no way rationalized by his supposed faith?

Please explain how that would be prudent?

His faith has nothing to do with todays statement and his position?

And to discuss so is what...?

Ya, I thought so.

Go peddle it somewhere else.

Bill

Why is Lieberman being singled out for his views on Israel when almost every other Democrat has the same position?

Go to the I/P forum. There is a lot of dislike for Israel here. And I do believe that if Lieberman weren't Jewish he would not be getting half of the harsh treatment he gets here.

Has, Edwards (another knob) said as strong?

Dems should support the war even knowing what we know now?

Who has said this?

I think a lot of dems are being criticized for partisan support of Israel. You don't have to be Jewish to give partisan support. In a sense its more understandable and with some moral reasoning. The others just want the support.

Bill

I don't agree with Lieberman's recent comments. But even before that he was getting singled out here for his support of the Iraq war even though BOTH Edwards and Kerry voted for the same resolution.

As for Isreal it does seem that Lieberman does get singled out for his views on the issue. Every other Democrat supports Israel, but it's Liebemran's view on the issue that gets the most attention.

No Democrat is going to run on an anti-Israeli platform. It just isn't going to happen.

Again, who has said similar to what he stated today? No other Dems being bashed for supporting Israel?

What do you expext in this thread?

..which somehow you find anti-semetic in nature.

Partisan blinders

Bill

and if he whips that out he can always bait in a couple passing DU Jews to come feel victimized while he comes to the defense of yet another corrupt DLC politician, don't even bother getting suckered in.

You can't honestly say that those posts would have been written if Lieberman weren't Jewish.

Also see reply #34.

But see, no one is going to say flagrant that "I don't like Lieberman because he is Jewish".

But replies #34 and #77 do bring up Israel and Lieberman.

Substitute those terms with the "Vatican" and "JFK" and you will see my point.

Instead of insinuating? Not got the cojones? :eyes:

Maybe you haven't been following I/P that much. Dean is copping plenty flak for his AIPAC connections.

Lieberman gets harsh treatment because he is freaking hawk. He'd get the same if his name was Joe Bloggs. End of story, unless you care to demonstrate some citations etc to back up your argument.

I don't think he would be getting the same flack he if he weren't Jewish. Both Edwards and Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution, yet it's Lieberman who gets singled out more. And that was before these recent comments.

1) He is copping 90% of his flak because of Iraq, not Israel. That has nothing to do with him being Jewish, simply by definition.

2) Any negative comments about his position vis a vis Israel have to be taken on their merits, and as far as I can see at DU they are. You may have seen otherwise, but if you're only going off of a gut reaction there isn't much point in debating that, is there? You may be right but I see no way for you to seriously demonstrate it. Therefore the discussion is irrelevant, and largely a waste of time.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is a serious charge.

I'd prefer if you had something more concrete to back that up other than "wonderings". Otherwise people will naturally think you're really only trying to throw mud in order to close off the discussion.

On point #1 I disagree with his comments. But even before he said them he was getting more flack than both Edwards and Kerry, who both voted for the resolution along with Lieberamn.

One point #2 that issue is more obvious. Every Democrat running is pro-Israel, with potential exception being Al Sharpton. Within the Democratic Party the platform is clearly pro-Isreali. Every other Democrat shares basically the same position on Israel, yet it is Lieberman who gets called out.

There may be no "serious way" for me to "demonstrate it"--no one is going to say flagrantly that he/she rejects Lieberman because of his religion in the open. If that is the standard then I can't prove it.

But I think I can reasonably assume that his religion does play a role in it when he gest singled out more for doing the same things that his other counterparts in the race have done.

You could reasonably assume that most DU-ers are more pragmatic vis a vis Israel than say, the DLC standard. Such people are likely to oppose the Iraq war and therefore have two reasons to be pissed with Lieberman - the fact he is DLC "pro-Israel" and an Iraq war hawk. Combine the two, you get more flak.

His religion could play a part (as you say), but it just as likely might not. So we're at an impasse.

Further, I don't accept the conventional definition of "pro-Israel" as you're using it. I consider most of those who say they're "pro-Israel" to in fact be in favor of an expansionist, occupying Israel. They're also usually rejectionist as regards the Palestinians. I don't think that is "pro" Israel at all - I think it is very harmful to the people of Israel.

Set him up, and then knock him down.

What a POS!

Not only will he not fight back he criticizes anyone who does! Isn’t there some way to de-frock someone who’s this out of touch? If he were to get the nomination in 2004 he would drag every other Democrat running for office down with him. Like so many others here and other places on the web have said if he’s the candidate in 2004 I will stay home. And I’ll go one further I won’t contribute to any Democratic candidate for any office if the Democratic Party commits the cardinal sin of nominating this man. I am sick of him and others of his ilk and I see no reason to support the Democratic party if they don’t start fighting back.

Wow, I'm glad to see I'm (by far) not the only one who thinks this guy is a wolf in dem's clothing. He's given me the creeps from day one.

why don't ya kiss my ass!!

comments against the Dem who runs against *.

By the way..the little girl in the signature is number one Adorable...
reminds me of my little gal...

Yes, we Democrats should stand for a strong defense, but the pre-emptive war in Iraq is an immoral offense.

I needed a good laugh!

Poor Joe...he's hopelessly confused

I have been expecting a lot of sour grapes from Senator Lieberman since his poll numbers sank like a boat anchor these last months and as all the other candidates got traction. So here it comes. There will be more, folks. It's just the nature of this very petty man.

I have bitten my tounge about this ASSHOLE long enough. So here it is!

Joe Lieberman is a man who is hopelessly a headlines junkie.

Lieberman gave Al Gore an ultimatum to declare for the Presidency or get out of his way so he could "run". Then Lieberman publicly chastised Gore who had gone after Enron for engaging in "populism".

I also fully expect him to be criticizing whoever is the eventual nominee of the Party during the General Election campaign next year as he is very petty and given to jealous outbursts.

However, whether Joe Lieberman stays in the race or not, expect him to begin carping at all the other Democrats and to only occasionally say something critical of George Bush.

Joe Lieberman is a petty, jealous publicity craving asshole who would be a nobody if it weren't for Al Gore...the guy he stabbed in the back.

Is not just that he cannot win under the current circumstances, but what would happen after the election should he manage to pull off a victory against all odds. He only seems to come to life and display heartfelt enthusiasm when he discusses censoring ‘inappropriate’ music or most recently when attacking fellow democrats. Have any of you heard him criticize the administration in the same terms he does his fellow party members? His most recent contribution to our country has been the Department of Homeland Defense, the creation of which he sponsored before the current administration ran with the idea. It amazes me that while he considers himself a representative of the Democratic Party as he seems to hold so few of their historic values.

Perhaps the strategy is to adopt a “Neodemocrat” platform in the same fashion as his closest ideological allies. In many ways, he resembles GWB in his inarticulate manner of speech (his dull edge whine-toned voice is virtually impossible to listen to for more than 10 minutes without setting one’s hair on end) and in the way he represents an insular candidate pushed onto the electorate from the upper echelon party establishment.

Lieberman doesn’t have a distinguished military career like Kerry or Clark, he doesn’t have the ability to inspire voters like Dean or Kucinich, he hasn’t shown any particular gift for debate like longshot Sharpton (who amazingly holds his own in such hostile territory as CNN’s Crossfire, where Lieberman has refused to appear) and he has no history of business or financial achievement. At best, he represents about 10-20% from the middle to middle right of the Democratic Party. He in fact doesn’t seem to have any real skills at all, other than having a good set of well placed friends and excellent timing regarding when to plant a knife. Again, this all smacks of GWB, opening the very real possibility that he will be precisely as disastrous for the left as GWB is turning out to be for the right. Perhaps even worse as he doesn’t have the brain trust of a Karl Rove or the party faithful lined up behind him to support his stance no matter what does or says. The DLC is well advised to drop their leading support for him over candidates like Kerry, the most viable DLC-flavored Democrat or perhaps Dean, the strongest outside candidate currently.

If Lieberman got the nomination and lost, it would be disastrous, but if he wins the presidency it might very well be worse for the Democratic Party in the long run. Without a strong constituency to support him or the skill to stand on his own, Republicans would sense his weakness and the attacks from the right would be merciless and unending. Without Bill Clinton’s extraordinary intelligence and savvy, these would savage a Lieberman White House and obscure the failures of the Bush administration, attaching the current economic woes to the Democrats, turning them into a permanent minority. Keep in mind in this political environment that a strong candidacy needs a good candidate *and* the support of the party faithful not just to win, but to *keep* the presidency.

I beg you!

When he sinks so should this notion along with him. Make a point of this as a popular referendum against idiocy not just Lieberman's unelectability- or will he continue to snipe away at hope like the media lapdogs?

So Joe has only two special personal things: his personal charsima and his issue on the war. Keep them intertwined.

this will endear him to the centrists and the so-called "Reagan Democrats."

What he fails to consider is that given the choice between the real Republican and the Democratic Party Republican - the voters will go for the real thing.

We don't want your warmongering republican light.

Conspiracy Theory:
The WMD proof will appear in July or August of next year.

Lieberman and Clinton know a candidate
will not win
who is seen to be weak on defence.
Will Not Win.



Does anyone suspect a little that Karl Rove has ordered maintaining secrecy on the WMD proof? think now, there are seven miles of documents on Saddam's weapons programs. Seven miles...

I am certain this has occured to Clinton and Lieberman.
Dean? never has occurred to him.
I am also convinced Clinton knows they exist. He sees the trap, either way.

Dean sees squat. Dean has no sense of humor, no tolerance for criticism, a short temper and an uncontrolled mouth. The best thing he should, and likely will do is reveal thaT early.

He managed to create an environment here in Vermont that resulted in a republican governor.
################

committing to a third party accomplishes:

losing
wasting a vote.
four more years of strategery.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To a future Twilight Zone:

FoxNews blurb for 8-03-04:
Condi Rice, still gainfully employed as the highest ranking African American Female in the History of the World,
was praised by the president today for her "heroic strength under fire, for withstanding the withering barrage of worldwide criticism, for showing true character and real family value fortitudinals."

Condi said this at the "We like black folks too" dinner last night:
"In the nations interest, because of concerns for still at large terrorists, we kept this information secret...It was sometimes difficult to withstand the withering barrage of worldwide criticism,
to show true character while feeling the suffering of the soldiers families... It was all I could do to simply not just blurt it out...."

The white house denies that keeping the WMD "smoking Gun" secret was politically motivated.






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

Because the day I realized there wasn't a damn thing over there was when GW Bush parked an Army outside the country and it wasn't blasted with everything they had.

Your conspiracy theory involves Saddam acting like a very nice guy who incredibly believed there was any possible thing he could have done to prevent this war and that is something I don't believe.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Intelligence agencies that reward Hussein conspiracy theory no matter how dubious and punish findings that dispute that Saddam is building the Death Star out there in Babylon because of DNC/RNC politicization of the issue and how convient Saddam was to use to rally the people behind either Clinton or Bush when things went sour.

And Halliburton, and Brechtel ect.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Karl Rove says? It is.

Lieberman is a punk ass. When is he going to realize he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning the presidency.

The guy just doesn't have a clue. He should really consider suicide.

I so look forward to your 5th place finish in Iowa followed by 6th in New Hampshire. I only want Lieberman to drop out after he's been spanked thoroughly.

And I've defended him in the past. This is the straw...

It was kind of strange once those government accesarries who pushed for Iraq war in internet forums turn out to criticize Bush lack of evidence of WMD. Did they change their opinion?

The power group which control US media and politicians have a road map in Mid-east. Their target is oil and security of Israel. Iraq and Iran have oil, and both support Palestinian against Israel. Now one is under US seizure, but there is still another one. Bush, busy for his next term election, seems put his interest at economy more than in another Mid-east war.

That's why he was under attack of WMD evidence. It is an extortion. If he is not obedient to that power, he may lose election due to WMD problem.

It could be a tactic to push Bush for another Mid-east war. Bush, reached agreement with Blair and Belscony(Italy), the evil three would plot another war. That's why Tony Blair said the history will prove he was correct.

Probably in a couple of weeks, there will be another terror attack, or most likely, a WMD surfaced to justify Bush's war. And it propably why Lieberman went out to pro-war. He is an insider of the group who pushed the war and knew what will happen.

...And don't give us this GARBAGE about a JUST WAR!!

A JUST WAR would have meant regime change in SAUDI ARABIA!!!

See if your goofy logic works on the widows (widowers) of 9/11!!

I heard a news bit on CNN that Lieberman was ahead in the polls of Dem candidates, I wish you could hear it , something to the effect ( It seems democrats like Sen Joe Lieberman the Latest polls show him ahead by x% ) in a real up beat happy voice . What a load I thought, nobody likes him lady, quit lying . Trying to sway peoples opinions like that with phony numbers. To many suckers fall this kinda crap with polls, they all want to be with the winner , I'm voteing along with the crowd kind of attitude.
, you would be surprised how many NY Giant fans will wear a Dallas Cowboy hat if they win the Super Bowl and claim to have been a Dallas fan all along. I guess announcing bogus poll results is very easy to get away with.

Justify THIS-

:fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers:

... oh well- i tried.

in other words- "F*ck you... that's all you need to know"

And Joe will have my vote and I will work my black little heart out for him if he is the nominee. Is he my first choice? No. But he is a valid candidate and we ought not trash him so that he is damaged by his own party.

It has nothing to do with Joe being a Jew. He is a wimp and wishy washy. He kissed up to Sharon so much when he went to Israel and betrayed Gore when the election was in question. I don't know what Gore saw in him in the first place. Dead Palestinians and Dead Iraqi's look good to him.

Joe will defend the Republicans to his political death.

Holy joe is going after the pro-war democrat. Now it would be ludicrous to say there aren’t any, but then there’s a reason he’s scoring less than 1% in many polls.

Joe would would sellout faster than Bill Clinton at a strip party..lol. We need someone with the people's voice not some phony bunch of crooks trying to buy votes in their industry.

he's a BUSH WAR WHORE.

BWABWABWABWABWA!!!!!!!!!!!


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABWABWAB!!!!!!!!



:nopity:

I would hate to see this nutcase with nucleur weapons for toys.