Is Joe Lieberman a traitor? Is it just because of his position on Iraq?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.html?ei=5088&en=346aa183fc9fb789&ex=1291870800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1134197525-Htm0YVZbptxK/nSQdWgGgA

Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
and WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: December 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Five years after running as the vice-presidential nominee 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.

****************************************************
END OF SNIP
****************************************************

To me, he is a traitor to the Democratic Party.

The reasons extend beyond his positions on Iraq to his support of PNAC, in his voting record, and to his support of undemocratic and unconstitutional Laws that strip Americans of their rights.

His comments to the Democratic Party members about recognizing W as the president and falling in line with W for the next three years are insulting, but not the basis for my argument, though I realize they are much more appealing as a reason to work to unseat him to others than my argument.

His position on Iraq persuade us that he is a Neo-con enabler, but his voting record on issues of War and Peace actually demonstrate that he fully supports PNAC principles and that he may, in fact, be an actual Neo-con rather than just an enabler.

Look here for a glimpse into his voting record on War and Peace:

http://www.peacemajority.org/dia/organizations/PeaceMajority/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=344

Is Joe Lieberman a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Consider this:

U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman has voted with the Republicans to enact laws that demonstratively have denied certain civil rights, rights to privacy, rights against unlawful imprisonment, rights against illegal search and seizures, rights to free speech (after receiving a "person of interest" letter from the FBI), and rights of Habeas Corpus, and he may soon vote to deny public accountability for electronic voting machines, though he might not need to if the Republicans can muster a majority of the U.S. Senate without his vote.

Some examples of specific votes you can find in the above link are:

Joe supported the Patriot act!

Joe supported the bloated military budget!

Joe supported secret detentions!

Joe supported Blank Check Funding For Iraq War!

Joe supported Helms Amendment - Opposing International Law!

Joe voted against Judicial Review For Detainees!

Joe voted against Iraq Exit Proposal!

Joe voted against Blocking Funds For Guantanamo Prisons!

Joe voted against Durbin Amendment - On Imminent Threat Before Iraq War!

Joe voted against Levin Amendment - On Pursuing UN Inspections/Resolution Before Iraq War!

Joe voted against Byrd Amendment - Opposing Pre-emptive War!

Joe voted against Byrd Amendment - Limiting Authority for War!

Joe voted against Warner Amendment - Against International Law!

Folks, this guy is eligible to be a member of PNAC strictly on the basis of how he votes on matters of War and Peace.

I am not trying to fool you. Just open your eyes and read.

If Joe votes in favor of laws that strip Americans of their Constitutional rights, then how can it be argued that his liberal votes on most Democratic Party agenda, such as right to life, are more valuable to the Democratic Party than the Constitutional rights listed above?

In essence, I am arguing that Joe's continued support of the Neo-con agenda in matters of War and Peace shall further erode Constitutional protections to the point that the basis for the Democratic Agenda that he otherwise supports shall be so eroded that it will be certain to fail.

In other words: He is a hypocrite and is voting for and against the same things, but his votes against are becoming laws and his votes for are not!

To assist you in determining whether or not my claims are correct about PNAC, just go their website and see for yourself:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Look at the company Joe keeps in terms of his voting record on issues of War and Peace.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Yet, I have become aware after reading through opinions in threads here at DU that there are DU'ers who support Joe because, as one DU'er claims, he is popular in CT with a 70% approval rating in polls, he is unopposed by a Republican candidate, and he votes with Democrats on most of their agenda, such as right to life.

I ask you, if my claims are true about Joe being a Neo-con, or a wolf in sheep's clothing, then which is a more compelling argument to you?

the israel first crowd ...is america's biggest enemy

all the while he happily slimed Clinton all through the Lewinsky thing.

yep, he's a traitor all right.

I'm sure nobody read the damn thread to the end or they would have caught that!