NYT and Lieberman think Hillary has skated on wrath of anti-war crowd.

OH, THE IRONY!!!

After I picked myself up off the floor after convulsing in laughter for about a half-hour, I thought I'd pass this gem onto DU. There is so much wrong with this piece. Mostly, it dispels the notion that the netroots are responsible for sweeping Lieberman out of office with allegedly pro-war Hillary anihilating her opponent at 79% to 12% currently. But I found Lieberman's whining about Hillary funny nonetheless.


NYT: Unlike Lieberman, Senator Clinton avoids voter anger on war stance



Ron Brynaert
Published: Friday August 4, 2006

Excerpts:

Unlike Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton has largely avoided voter anger on her war stance, according to a front page article slated for Saturday's New York Times. Also, Lieberman tells the Times that he was "surprised at all the attention to Senator Clinton calling for Rumsfeld to resign," claiming that he had done the same as far back as three years ago.

The latest poll for the Connecticut Democratic primary race for Lieberman's Senate seat shows the incumbent falling ten points behind challenger Ned Lamont. Meanwhile, a recent poll for New York's primary shows Clinton crushing anti-Iraq war activist Jonathan Tasini by 79% to 12%.

The article outlines some of the differences between the two Democratic senators.

"Unlike Lieberman, she joined 38 fellow Democrats last month in backing a resolution, defeated by Republicans, that called for American forces to begin exiting Iraq this year, without setting a withdrawal deadline," writes Kornblut. "Last November, Clinton voted for a Democratic amendment calling for a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq; Lieberman opposed that measure as well."

As reported earlier today at RAW STORY, Senator Lieberman told syndicated radio host Ed Schultz on Friday that if he were president he'd get rid of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "I had to laugh at -- I don't mean laugh, but be surprised at all the attention to Senator Clinton calling for Rumsfeld to resign," Lieberman said, pointing to comments he had made as far back as 2003 indicating that if he were president, he would ask Rumsfeld to step aside," reports The Times. "But Lieberman never demanded that Bush take that step," Kornblut notes.

As blogger Atrios at Eschaton points out, Lieberman opposed ousting Rumsfeld as late as May of 2004 in a Fox News interview. "We're in the middle of a war — you wouldn't want to have the secretary of defense change unless there's really good reason for it and I don't see any good reason at this time," Lieberman told Fox News.

full story at http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Unlike_Lieberman_Senator_Clinton_avoids_0804.html
with link to NYT article (must register)

I don't like Hillary either... but she doesn't get my hackles up like Lieberman does.

after the sotfu and give a big ol' wet one. lieman can thank his idol for the kiss of death.

I, for one, would NEVER support Hillary Clinton, even for her Senate seat if I were a New Yorker, specifically because of her support for the war against Iraq.

Can you imagine the look she'd produce if he tried it? :rofl:

And they think we have 5 minute attention spans. I'm really not surprised that both sources don't have a clue as to who we are.

He just finished begging Bill to come help him out and now he's jealous of Hillary...LOL

He really thought he could support Bush and the GOP policies, work as an in-Congress supporter of the Lobby, put all kinds of other things, people and nations ahead of his constituents and then thought they would still be stupid enough to vote for him.

What part of the "Clean Break" is Lieberman fulfilling?

:)

I'd have no problem voting for her -

but that is true of any Dem running against the GOP.

decades of dirty dealings that armed Saddam with bio and chemical weapons. I also understood that Saddam was losing his sanity knowing that he was a target for assassination by Bin Laden and Islamic extremists, so regime change IF PEACEFUL would be the best course.

The problem is that Bush lied every step of the way and his actions made certain that the IWR would not be administered honestly. The Downing Street Memos were proof of that, so when they were revealed it changed everything. But, honestly, do you think Blair didn't discuss what was in those memos with Bill in REAL TIME?

Anyway, to CONTINUE supporting the war effort, especially now when it is no longer a fight for freedom, but an escalating CIVIL WAR, well that does matter. The Dem withdrawal plans submitted are laid out to achieve the most success the US can expect while fully considering the reality of that civil war. She needs to support them.

the idea.

frpm the New York Times this week

Unlike Mr. Lieberman, she joined 38 fellow Democrats last month in backing a resolution, defeated by Republicans, that called for American forces to begin exiting Iraq this year, without setting a withdrawal deadline. Last November, Mrs. Clinton voted for a Democratic amendment calling for a “phased redeployment” of United States troops from Iraq. Mr. Lieberman opposed that measure as well.

to start withdrawal sooner. I haven't heard her position on this - I did hear that Biden is now for withdrawing because he is finally admitting there is civil war in Iraq.

It remains a pull out/phased redeployment - same as Clinton's position earlier.


http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/July06/IraqPlan.html

UNITED HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP PUT FORWARD CONCRETE PLAN FOR CHANGE OF COURSE IN IRAQ
Monday, July 31, 2006

Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C.—With violence exploding in Iraq, there is little evidence that the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq. Thousands have been killed in sectarian and insurgent violence in recent months, and now the American people have been told that thousands more U.S. troops will be redeployed into an urban war zone in Baghdad. The President's current approach is not sustainable. Today, the Senate and House Democratic Leaders and ranking members from the key national security committees wrote to the President calling upon him to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces before the end of the year, to transform the U.S. mission, and to launch a real diplomatic and reconstruction effort to help stabilize Iraq. These concrete recommendations draw upon the Levin/Reed Iraq policy amendment overwhelmingly supported in the Senate. Simply staying the course behind the President's failed policy is not in the interests of our troops, taxpayers or national security.

Quotes from the letter:

"While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy."

"Far from implementing a comprehensive ‘Strategy for Victory’ as you promised months ago, your Administration’s strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat."

"Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions."

"In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained."

"Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit."

"Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction."

The text of the letter follows below:

July 30, 2006

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive “Strategy for Victory” as you promised months ago, your Administration=s strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the “United States Policy in Iraq Act” enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of “significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq=s reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/democrats.iraq.ap/index.html

Key Democrats united on Iraq withdrawal
Letter calls for the start of a 'phased redeployment' by year's end

Monday, July 31, 2006; Posted: 6:43 p.m. EDT (22:43 GMT)

Key congressional Democrats have called for a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Key Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have united to call on President Bush to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, citing an overtaxed military, billions of dollars spent and ongoing sectarian violence.

In a letter to Bush released Monday, the Democrats backed a plan for the "phased redeployment" of troops.

An earlier split
Democrats had previously advocated reducing reduce troops levels in Iraq, but were split on the precise approach. During a recent floor debate in the Senate, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin proposed legislation that would require troops to be out of Iraq by July 2007.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and other Democrats backed a measure that called for a phased redeployment to begin by December 31, but did not set a deadline for all troops to be home.

The recent letter, dated July 30, is significant because -- signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs -- it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season.

The letter also was signed by Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, his House counterpart.<snip>

Prior 6/06 efforts:

Top Democrats united on Iraq exit

The amendment would:

Begin the "phased redeployment" or pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006.

Require the administration to submit a plan by the end of 2006 for continued phased redeployment beyond 2006.

Transform the role of troops left in the country to a "limited mission" of training and logistical support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and targeted counterterrorism operations

Senate Democrats push phased Iraq redeployment By Christina Bellantoni THE WASHINGTON TIMES June 20, 2006

Top Senate Democrats, who last week voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, yesterday introduced a measure to start a phased troop redeployment by the end of the year.

=======================================================
Feingold's Iraq deadline gets cold shoulder in Senate
Democrats seem to prefer looser alternative
By KATHERINE M. SKIBA
kskiba@journalsentinel.com
Posted: June 20, 2006
Washington - The Senate today plans to debate a new proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold to have most U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.

I hadn't heard yet whether she supported it or not.

And what is her explanation? She says Bush misled her, yet she says her husband had the same intelligence - which is it? She doesn't oppose the war, just its execution. She won't renounce her vote for the war, she just wishes they ahd done a better job of it. She doesn't mind the lies, just the incompetence.

"If you're going to kill thousands in an illegal, immoral war based on lies, at least do the proper planning first" - THAT seems to be her position.

She's a strong woman - is that it?

Did you dislike her when her husband was President too? I'll bet you did.

Sheesh - she's a Democrat. So she's not 100% progressive. This attitude is what kills us at the voting booth every single time.

about Hil. Clinton.

eom

:woohoo:

I think they'd make a great team. And President Clinton would be a FABULOUS Secretary of State - he would restore America's reputation in the world community.

Translation: It's a good thing.:woohoo:

I have the function that makes smilies move turned off, so it looked like a 'what the eff' symbol!

Sorry!

why didn't she oppose this war? She's too smart to have believed Bush's lies. Except for the sheeple, many in the public didn't believe him.

She would be one of our worst bets in the 2008 general election. So my opinion has exactly nothing to do with her gender or her ideology (though her vote for the war does not endear me to her much).

I have no love for Hillary, but at least she hasn't been caught playing doctor with Chimp.

that's all I can say. Ugh.

TC

like a flaming, spent bottle rocket.

I predict she won't make it out of Iowa in more than third or fourth place. She won't do squat in South Carolina and Tennessee and Virginia and she'll flop in Arizona and New Mexico.

win back in 68 - and that may be the way she gets the nomination - or not.

Two years is a long time.

I see her buying the nomination, but I could be wrong.

TC

Senator Clinton does not

And it wasn't Sen. Clinton who was the first to jump out of her seat during Stupidhead's State of the Whatever Speech. No, that was Sen. Lieberman.

Either Lieberman is clueless or he's being willfully stupid, because the last six years of his political career have been spent assiduously padlocking the stable door the instant the horse is gone from the paddock. His immediate statement about allowing military votes in Florida that didn't conform the law undercut his and Gore's argument in 2000, and the campaign never recovered, never was able to articulate a coherent theme or message about the patent illegalities of the Florida voting. Lieberman consistently blocks Democratic initiative (witness his leading membership in the so-called Gang of 14), eviscerating one of the few tools the Democrats have to fight against Republican hegemony, then voting for cloture on the administration's nominees. Once the nominee gets to the floor vote, the Democrats don't have a chance to stop them, and Lieberman knows that. His impotent "no" vote is nothing more than craven ass-covering, and the voters seem to have figured it out.

What seems to bother the media cheerleaders for Mr. Lieberman is the fact that the voters in Connecticut have figured out Joe's little games without their say-so. Nobody in the media points out Lieberman's deceptions and duplicities, but voters discerned it all on their own, and they've decided that they'd prefer a real opposition party candidate in the Senate, rather than a toadying lickspittle who will provide crucial "bipartisan" cover for the worst of this administration's nominees and policies.

A pleasure to read.

Senator Clinton supported the Iraq war because she felt she had to for her political career. Liberman supports the Iraq war because he's a war mongering neo-con.

And instead most of them sat silent in fear of their political careers as he lied about WMD, sacrificed our soldiers for his personal ideology, and continued his assault on our Constitution. I have been saying all along that they should have shouted from the rooftops and instead stuck their finger in the air to determine the political sway before speaking. Cowards all. Bush may have sacrificed the soldiers for ideology, but the dems sacrificed the soldiers to maintain their political career.

And the kicker: "in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril" An attempt to stifle dissent. One step too far.

I bought a book of poetry by CALVIN TRILLIN after seeing him on Jon Stewart:

THE LOYAL OPPOSITION
The Senate Democrats sat mum
Like doves afraid to coo
So history will soon record
This war as their war too.