Lieberman: Backlash against him shows lack of civility in Washington...

Lieberman said the backlash against him deepens a concern that he has harbored for much of his political career: the lack of civility in Washington. In war matters in particular, he said, "politics should stop at the water's edge."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901934.html

The article pretty much sums up L's stance on a variety of issues...worth a read.

his critics will put their balls and spines back into the closet and apologize

should we just sweep all that under the rug?

Seriously, LIEberman, have another glass of Kool-Aid® and stop the spin, please, for the good of our republic.

it's everybody else who is treacherous and vile.

He has friends who are neocons and wants to work with them and their agenda but yet still claims to be a democrat. I wouldn't trust him either and his agenda. People are probably worried that they'll be screwed over by him.

Shut up Lieberthug. You don't really believe any Dems are listening to you anymore do you?

We all know what you are: an ally of the Coward and his band of criminals. You have a delusional view of how important it is for you to protect Israel, and you have lost sight of the conflict of your positions vs. the security of the USA.

what the fuck?!

how do expect someone to react who can PROVE our soldiers are dying for a lie?

they are not dying to defend the country -- there was never anything to defend against from iraq.

who is deaf to the concerns of the majority of his constituents but also knows that there are no consequences to be feared bedause his wussy party leadership lacks the cojones to slap him down.

Go Cheney yourself, Joe.

support OR disagree with him!! There were some VERY obvious Repukes who called in praising Lieberman to the hilt!! It was just so evident and some other callers commented on it.

Lieberman may have always been "hawkish" and he may be ignoring HIS current Party affiliation and fellow Democrats, however I personally think he's crossed over to Zell Miller land!!!

Too bad, and I signed the petition yesterday letting him know how I felt. Told him either put the "R" behind his name or QUIT his Love Fest with The Idiot!!

I think that petition got many many signatures, but will we EVER know???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901934_2.html

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

What was that? Asserting people who question authority are putting the country in danger? Isn't using the issue of national security to stifle debate a rightwing tactic? Isn't it also an ultra-rightwing tactic?

But unnecessary death, destruction and miscellaneous mayhem kind of gets my Irish up. Add in the wholesale emptying of our Treasury into the overstuffed pockets of the merchants of death, the absolute refusal of this corrupt administration to acknowledge any error or miscalculation of any sort, the unending stream of bodies coming through Dover AFB, the thousands of wounded folks coming back and not getting proper medical or mental health care, the increase in world tensions directly due to American military imperialism, and your sycophantic agreement to every last bit of it, and yeah, I get a little hot under the collar.

Now, you were saying? And this time try it without the bullshit, because you've been peddling it by the fucking case lately.

As well as the lives of our soldiers. His duty is to question the Bush agenda and fight against the misuse of American lives.

It is one thing to support the war (although I cannot understand why he would) but it is another to attempt to stifle dissent.

He is acting based on what he thinks is right and politically it makes him a pariah in his own party. The Republicans are saying nice things about him because of his stand on this issue - but they are not really his friends. I find some of the comments in these articles disturbing, because I dislike the claim that Democrats all need to be on the same page is as bad as the Republicans being lockstep behind their leaders.

I liked Kerry's comments on the fact that a 6 yr Senator said he had never seen anything like Voinivich breaking ranks over the Bolton nomination. He mentioned that Senators standing against party policy because they disagreed was once commonplace. Senators working in a bi-partisan way
seems far more healthy.

But Lieberman's comment on dissent is close to un-American. If the Congress can't question policy, who can? (Also, both Lugar and Kerry have used the comment on politics ending at the water's edge to implore the President to use the SFRC to help create foreign policy. Dr Rice was there last month (for such a short time each Senator just got 10 minutes) for the first time since April.

If Lieberman felt it was necessary to be the first Democrat to condemn Clinton's behavior (with Monica) shouldn't other Democrats who think Bush's actions in Iraq are far far worse be able to dissent?

Hey, I'm just saving the few folks here who would pull out the anti-semite card the trouble. :sarcasm:

He loves to stifle debate like a rightwinger rather than talk it out.

nm

author of "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" and "A Death In The Family."

something tells me I should use the Preview feature a bit more often.

...our losing an election WE WON, and in handing over ever-increasing consolidation of power to jackals and criminals. Sorry, if I practiced that kind of civility in my day-to-day life, I'd presently be taking it up the ass in some back-alley for a five dollar vial of "pleasewontsomeoneloveme".

That's not our fault. We're not supposed to do what Joe wants, Joe is supposed to do what we want.

"In war matters in particular"

sums it up.

is the one being hit?

I'm not sure what that means, other than maybe he's hired Peggy Noonan as a helium tank for his speeches.

The politics should have stopped before they used the lives of our soldiers for their own political agenda.

Johnson's "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

:rofl:

what a whore

, I didn't leave them"

War IS political.Always has been. Always will be. You can't separate the politics from the military act of going to war. It's just not possible.

Iraq is an illegal war waged by a corrupt and illegally selected administration - by war criminals. To support such an act and dare claim it's uncivil to attack such a position shows just how corrupt - yes, I said CORRUPT, Lieberman is...

Only the corrupt support a war crime. Only the corrupt dare label dissent treasonous or harmful to our nation.

gefilte (sp?) catfish!

Civility is the second casualty of war, right after truth. So the only thing I can say is: don't let the door hit your ass on the way out Joe.

...process where the GOP attempts to deflect accurate and probing questions by asserting that those questions cross some line beyond which decent folk do not travel. I believe Bush's first campaign made such assertions. The administration certainly used this method during other times, like the during the nomination/confirmation processes for the missing supremes. It is astonishing how much dignity and civility the GOP seeks when they, themselves, are the ones being questioned.

It also is astonishing how easy it has become to actually consider Lieberman to be a card-carrying member of the GOP.

was anything but civil.

cokesacker wasn't he? We couldn't wait not to see him in Iowa anymore.

And now things are more acrimonious than ever. It's not a general lack of civility, it's a win-at-all-costs mentality in which smearing veterans (Max Cleland, John Kerry, John McCain) is A-OK, as long as it obtains the desired results.

Read Tom Daschle's memoir, "Like No Other Time," to get a feel for how Bush treats members of the House and Senate. Daschle is very, very low-key in the book, as he is in press events, but the description of Bush's behavior was quite disturbing. Bush will casually humiliate or accuse someone in the name of decorum or leadership.

I have no use for Ronald Reagan, but the legend is that during the Reagan years, Tip O'Neill and Reagan could violently disagree and still put all that behind them when public events came up.

Bill and Hillary Clinton also made a point of being nice to their opponents, from what I could see.

The current GOP leadership doesn't take that approach at all. During the Clinton years, young Republican congressmen didn't even want to socialize at presidential events. The GOP devoted an entire convention to bashing John Kerry (to be fair, McCain didn't stoop to that).

If things are uncivil, it's because the powers that be have made them that way.

most people want "politics to stop at the water's edge," but his buddy Bush doesn't play by the same rules.