February 22, 2007

Lieberman has his way with the Democrats.

How delicious and apt:
Lieberman says leaving the Democratic Party is a "very remote possibility." But even that slight ambiguity — and all his cross-aisle flirtation — has proved more than enough to position Lieberman as the Senate's one-man tipping point. If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats' national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008. Those stakes are high enough to give Lieberman leverage with both parties no matter how slim the chance of his crossing the aisle. Which means Senate leaders aren't worrying only about whether Joe Lieberman will switch parties. They're wondering what, if anything, he plans to do with the power that comes from keeping that possibility alive.
UPDATE: Lieberman's been reminded that he repeatedly assured voters that he'd stay with the Democrats, and maybe now he's back in his cage.


Steve Donohue said...

I really don't want Joe Lieberman to switch parties.

Sloanasaurus said...

Lieberman is pro war, and a moderate democrat on almost everything else. If he continues to exercise power in this fashion he will be predictable. For example, he should force Harry Reid to get permission from Mitch McConnel to bring up any legislation related to the war. If Reid refuses he should threaten to switch parties. Anything else, Lieberman can just stay a democrat.

Simon said...

He's the new Justice Kennedy! The left despises him, but lives or dies by his vote.

Robert said...


Andrew Foland said...

The Senate Organizing Resolutions for the 110th do not include a "Jeffords Clause" (which was acutally intended as a "Thurmond clause" but that's another story).

If Lieberman switches party, nothing happens--Reid will still be the Majority Leader, and Democratic senators will all keep their committee chairmanships.

Congressional Record
S. 27
S. 28

Compare and contrast to the 2001 resolutions which expressly contained language that any party switches would trigger a reorganization:

S. 7
S. 8

And in case you're wondering--yes, it has happened before (83rd Congress) that the majority party became a minority over the course of a congressional session, yet retained the Majority Leader post and committee chairs.

Anonymous said...

Delicious and apt? How so? He campaigned as a Democrat and that he would never take this step, and now he threatens it whenever he wants another blowjob.

Hypocrisy is rarely delicious and rarely apt.

Though maybe it is in the Bizarro world of Althouse.

Stephen Brown said...

I don't want Lieberman to switch parties either, but I want him to keep stringing them along. How delicious is his keeping the Democrats on their toes. Politics is fun. Wheee!

Anonymous said...

If the Democrats want to ensure success in '08, they should act now to strip Lieberman of his committee memberships and chairmanships.

That would show spine and make it more likely that Democratic (and thereby good) policies would succeed.

Stephen Brown said...

Oh yea, and I'm quite happy living in the Bizarro world of Althouse.

Brian Doyle said...

Wow. Althouse quoting Time writing about Joe Lieberman. That's some tough sledding.

How can any close observer still think that Time magazine has really clear visibility into the politics of our country?

Remember when they told us sagely "Why Bush Will Listen" to the Iraq Study Group report? They're clearly exagerrating the all-powerful Lieberman story because it's easy to understand and "delicious" to his right wing constituency.

The notion that Dick Cheney's favorite independent can derail a Democratic legislative agenda and even holds the 2008 presidential election in his hands is just laughable.

Unknown said...

Yeah, this is pretty lame. Imagine threatening to switch parties over funding for the war against al Qaeda instead of critical matters like dairy subsidies or funding formulas for special education programs...

Brian Doyle said...


vbspurs said...

I really don't want Joe Lieberman to switch parties.

Count me alongside the ones here, who said the same.

It's cheap, rascally, and manipulative.

When Churchill decided to cross the aisle, on point of principle because he was a free-trader not a protectionist as the Tories were becoming, he didn't drag it out, or allowed himself to be courted by his desperate political brethren.

He up and crossed the aisle. That's it.

No lead-up, no wining and dining, nothing.

And there was never a more wiley politician who loved fanfare and being fawned over, as Winston Churchill.


ShadyCharacter said...

Can I be the first to coing the phrase "LDS" - Lieberman Derangement Syndrome, or would that upset the Mormons among us?

Man those leftists hate an apostate! Maybe that explains the deep sympathy leftists display for hardcore Islamists. They honor the ayatollahs of the world for having the courage of their convictions and actually killing those who fall from the One True Faith (tm). American leftists have to settle for namecalling or setting up blogger councils to blacklist heretics.

It fills me with glee to see them turning on their own. Purge! Purge! Purge! Drive the moderates from your ranks!


Brian Doyle said...

Maybe that explains the deep sympathy leftists display for hardcore Islamists.


Brian Doyle said...

Also, shady, moderates are not being purged from our ranks, they're flocking to our banner. You and Joe Lieberman are in a shrinking minority of extremist warmongers.

Also, Saddam's regime was secular, not hardcore Islamist, and our unprovoked invasion was a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

eelpout said...

I think I see the light, I can't believe it took me so long. Igniting a holy war and sticking our military in the middle of it is brilliant. George Bush and Instapundit. They "get it". [Even as I'm typing this, I can feel my blind hatred for our troops leaving my body, and my love of terrorists leaving].

P.S. And Kerry and the Clintons? Sheesh. Don't get me started!

PeterP said...

Lieberman has his way with the Democrats.

OK, so this may just be another case of two nations divided by a common language [my Texan friend never quite recovered from our headline 'How I Beat Off Lord Lucan' - "Gee you guys keep nothing secret"] but is my entendre here the double of yours?

michael a litscher said...

ShadyCharacter: Man those leftists hate an apostate!

He just refuses to partake in their state of denial. It's much easier to revert to a two minute hate session than it is to listen to Lieberman and suffer cognitive dissonance. He's still a lefty on every other score, so he should really stay in the Democratic Party.

I mean, look at Doyle here. How many times have we provided him/her/it with documentation Iraq was repeatedly in violation of the U.N. cease-fire conditions - for years. Or that Saddam financed, harbored, and possibly even trained international terrorists? Or that the Shia and Sunnis have been at war with each other since the seventh century? Or that their so-called "freedom fighters" are the cause of so much of the death and destruction in Iraq by blowing up Shia mosques and shopping districts, and slitting the throats of teachers, reporters, and even leftist sycophants?

But nope, Iraq was a kite-flying peaceful nation until George Bush fscked it up. And totally secular, too - Shia and Sunni aren't Islamic sects, they're secular book-reading clubs, just like on Oprah. Ask Michael Moore, he'll tell you.

They don't get it because they don't want to get it, and they don't want any Joe Liebermans around to remind them of that.

Titus said...

Lieberman needs to throw out the threats that he may "switch" parties in order to continue to get the attention that the neglected senator deserves.
I believe that he just likes to dangle the "switch" out there so the democrats will be scared.

I don't believe he would ever do it. He would never win again in Connecticut if he did switch to the republican party. Also, his fame would wear off pretty quickly after he did it. He would get a couple of weeks of love but then it would be over.

I wouldn't call it delicious though because I don't think it is even honest on Lieberman's part.

Brian Doyle said...

Michael -

I don't know how many times half-assed or untrue justifications for war have been made in this comments section, but I never get sick of reminding people of the two that were actually responsible for garnering majority support for war:

A) a reconstituted WMD program, including uranium, aluminum tubes, and mobile chemical weapons labs.


B) a collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda, as best illustrated by the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague.

Once the war started, the third started getting more emphasis:

C) Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Argument C had the advantage of being true, but without the two phonies we wouldn't now, in 2007, have 160,000 troops in Iraq.

Seven Machos said...

Gosh, reality check, stripping Lieberman of all of Senate committee memberships and chairmanships -- what a great way to ensure that he remains a Democrat. And considering the stellar performance of Ned Lamont in super-duper conservative Connecticut, what a great way to "ensure success in 2008."

Why you aren't the DNC chairperson, I'll never know.

J. Cricket said...

Sorry shady, it's Lieberman Obsession Syndrome. And Don Imus isn't the only one afflicted. So is Annie A!

I guess endless and banal ponderousness loves company.

But anyone who finds anything about Leiberman "delicious" needs their head examined.

Seven Machos said...

I guess endless and banal ponderousness loves company.

I would never visit a website on a daily basis that I found banal and ponderous. Talk about needing your head examined. DO you like to stare at walls and watch the NFL draft, too?

Unknown said...

"Why you aren't the DNC chairperson, I'll never know."

Hmmm. Is it a confirmed fact that Howard Dean and reality check aren't the same person?

cf said...

He didn't run as a Democrat this time but as head of his own Independent Party. Remember? The Democrat was nutrooter Ned Lamone?

Cedarford said...

The sadly misnamed "Realty Check" gives the Moveon.org version of the alternate universe: reality check said...
If the Democrats want to ensure success in '08, they should act now to strip Lieberman of his committee memberships and chairmanships.

That would show spine and make it more likely that Democratic (and thereby good) policies would succeed.

Yep, sure worked for Ned Lamont before those bastard Blue Stater Democrats with insufficient ideological purity (who should also be cast out of the Democratic Party to show a spine) betrayed Noble Ned!!!

All I can say is please please, toss a 90% liberal Jew (90% ADA rating lifetime) out of the Party. Then watch an axis of similarly imperiled by Moveon and Soros moderate Democrats like Salazar, Blanch Lincoln, Johnson, Nelson join Lieberman in a breakaway wing.
As the Democrats inflict a self-made schism on themselves.

M. Simon said...

Lieberman is old he will be 70 when this term is done. Does he need to win another election or would he be better off retiring to the rubber chicken circuit at 50K a pop?

BTW Joe is an avowed capitalist. He thinks a roaring economy is good becaues it provides the $$$ for the welfare state.


You left out A.Q. Kahn, Libya, Iraq.

Do a search. You might be forced to remember something you forgot.

kmg4 said...

The loss of Lieberman is symbolic of the long-term decline of the Left.

They can't even keep a moderate in the party. At the same time, moderates in the GOP do quite well (McCain and Giuliani are poltically very close to Lieberman).

Terry said...

Minor point: Lieberman could caucus with whoever the hell he wanted and Senate control still wouldn't flip.


Better luck in 2008 guys!

Terry said...

Aw, that link didn't work. Certainly showed me.

Maybe this will work better.

Joe Dees said...

Switching parties wouldn't change the way Lieberman would vote. Thus, Cheney wouldn't get to break any additional Senate ties.

Ideologically, aside from Lieberman's pro-war-on-terror position, the two Maine senators (Collins and Snowe) would fit better as Democrats than Lieberman would fit as a Republican (not that I, as a pro-war-on-terror social liberal, see anything wrong with his pro-WOT stance, or their stances on domestic social issues).

The fact is that Al Qaedans are in Iraq now, and those who would otherwise aspire to be terrorist/"martyrs" striking at the Great Satan within its own borders instead travel to Iraq from all over in order to fall like cordwood jihading against the US military (mainly in Anbar province). I'd much rather our armed and alert troops mow mujaheddin down there than have them come here and mass murder unarmed and oblivious US citizens simply pursuing their lives and livelihoods, as they did on 9/11. As long as they continue to flock to the Anbar flypaper, we will remain there too, in order to punch their tickets to their coveted 72-virgin paradise far from our shores, rather than have them come infidel-hunting here.

Chris O'Brien said...

Bottom line: Lieberman practiced thoughtcrime and..well..just between you and me, that is double plus bad. I have no problem with dissention in the Democratic party, until someone actually, ya know..disagrees.

richard mcenroe said...

The Democrats were delighted to let Lieberman catch a bucket of slop from Kos and Loser Lamont. He's indulging in a little payback...? Aw...?

Just another unexpected lesson for the Democrats that loyalty is a two-way street.

Brian Doyle said...

No one's accusing Joe of a crime, which is more than can be said for the now majority of Americans who oppose this war. Joe likes to suggest that they are traitors (in the strict "aiding the enemy" sense).

Having been on the right side of many issues over his Senate career does not excuse that. He is beneath contempt, and Bush followers' fawning over him just goes to show how desperate they are for support.

Balfegor said...


I guess endless and banal ponderousness loves company.

Look, no one writes about the Senate -- or, indeed, politics at all -- without an extraordinarily high tolerance for endless and banal ponderousness. Whether it's politicians repeating their talking points over and over and over, or a crowd of activists chanting the usual mindless slogans, or even the Wunderkind Obama whispering pleasant nothings in America's ear, the theater of politics consists almost exclusively of people saying banal things ad nauseam.

Seven Machos said...

Doyle -- If (1) a majority of Americans is against the war, and (2) the Democrats are by and large the party with the anti-war contingent, and since (3) the Democrats now control the Congress, why hasn't the Congress defunded the war?

I think at least one of your premises may be wrong here. Looking at them, we can stipulate that (2) and (3) are obvious facts. It has to be (1).

I know you aren't real good at trenchant analysis, but I hope you'll ponder this one earnestly and see what you can come up with.

Jim said...

No matter what Joe does or what folks think of it if he does go, what this tells me is that the Republicans are just blitzing him behind the scenes with offers to cross over. I wish I could be a bug on the line for those calls....

Brigadier Pudding said...

At the same time, moderates in the GOP do quite well (McCain and Giuliani are poltically very close to Lieberman).

This is patently untrue.

McCain is neither a moderate, nor are he and Giuliani close politically with Lieberman. Lieberman is practically a socialist with his pro big-government policies.

SGT Ted said...

Hey Doyle, how about that majority of Americans who want to see the job done in Iraq? That don't approve of the Democrat unilateral pullout? Do they count too?

TallDave said...

"Also, Saddam's regime was secular"

Yeah, he was so secular he had a Koran written in his own blood, had state TV broadcasting prayers every day, rolled back women's rights on "Koranic" grounds, let Zarqawi receive medical treatment in Baghdad, and gave the 1993 Al Qaedaw WTC bombers Iraqi passports.

Why, he was practically an atheist.

As for the war being a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda: I'm sure the Japanese found our invasion of Okinawa a great recruiting tool too, but that didn't exactly make it a strategic victory for them. And AQ has made themselves real popular, blowing up innocent Iraqis all over the place while getting their asses handed to them on a daily basis. The war's been a real boon for them, yessirree.

eelpout said...

The Democrats were delighted to let Lieberman catch a bucket of slop from Kos and Loser Lamont. He's indulging in a little payback...? Aw...?

Because Lieberman is the loser, and has told his party publicly to STFU numerous times. Speaking of Kos, they supported Jim Webb, who thanked them for helping him get elected. I'll take Webb [who actually knows something about war and terrorism] over Lieberman any day. What a fool.

Brian Doyle said...

Here's some polling questions, Seven:

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

56% Made a mistake
42% Did not make a mistake
- USA Today, Feb. 9-11

"Would you favor or oppose sending more troops to Iraq?"

35% Favor
63% Oppose
- AP Ipsos, Feb. 12-15

Here's my personal favorite:

Do you favor "Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year"

63% Favor
35% Oppose
- USA Today/Gallup, Feb. 9-11

Your favorite is probably this one:

"Would you favor or oppose cutting all funding for the Iraq War?"

29% Favor
68% Oppose
- AP Ipsos Feb. 12-15

I believe this is because most people imagine this having the consequence of leaving troops in Iraq, and simply denying them the necessary supplies, equipment, and arms (which they aren't getting anyway, incidentally). Clearly that's not what anybody wants. The effect would be to force the president to bring them home. Surely he's not so monstrous as to leave them there without funds, is he?

Anyway it is a tough sell politically to use the power of the purse to force the president to end his pet war, but lest you take this as a sign of the American people wanting it prolonged:

"Do you think the war in Iraq is a worthy cause or a hopeless cause?"

39% Worthy
56% Hopeless
- AP Ipsos Feb. 12-15

The complete list is here.

Seven Machos said...

The war was overwhelmingly voted for by the Congress. How is it the president's "pet war"?

Doyle -- Binary polling is a useless instrument in the complex realm of international policy. The Democrats are overplaying their hand as we speak, and cooler heads in the party will prevail, behind closed doors. It would be a disaster for the country if we defund the war, and a disaster for the Democrats to run on a platform of defunding the war, as George McGovern and Ned Lamont and countless other politicians who you don't hear much from any more have demonstrated.

TallDave said...


How about "Is it important the U.S. win the war?" You'll find large majorities want to win, and that's the relevant question.

Al Qaeda, otoh, would like our troops to leave, rather than killing them by the bushel. They've been trying to set up their Islamic Republic of Iraq for years, but our boys keep putting holes in them.

It's not surprising to find antiwar lefties and Islamic extremists agreeing on so much. Those "useful idiots" had to move their sympathies SOMEWHERE when the Soviet Union fell.

The partisan moderate said...

Lieberman switching parties would be a bad move... for him. Currently, his party cannot really due much of anything to him and he has free reign, if he switched to being a Republican (without switching his stance on any issues) he would be just another northeastern Republican who leadership would find a nuisance.

As we saw with Jeffords where the control of the Senate is at stake, switching parties pisses off a lot of people and comes back to haunt you.

Additionally, Jeffords switch was considerably more popular in his home state than Lieberman's would be. I don't think Lieberman is seriously considering switching parties but is just using this for leverage, which in this case is a very bold and possibly smart move.

However, if as the tnr blog points out the Democrats pick up seats in 08 he may lose his committee chairmanship. However, I don't think 08 is going to be the year that pundits are predicting for Democrats.

Lieberman is in a real bind and one where he will have to balance carefully. This was a bold move he made today and I think it had less to do with political calculations as he has a lot to lose by switching parties but more because he is annoyed at his party's position on the war.

richard mcenroe said...

Naked Lunch -- Did Senator Lamont tell you Lieberman was the loser?

As for Webb, aka Murtha the Younger, I'll give his opinions when someone like, oh, say, his Marine kid in Iraq, endorses them.

Brian Doyle said...

Right, Seven, tell me more about "the complex realm of international policy."

I love having it illuminated by people who think an attack made by Saudis harbored in Afghanistan justified the invasion of Iraq.

Andrew Pass said...

Lieberman has never been too far left. He's a social conservative with an incorrect perception of economics. Rather than embracing him both parties should shun him. If the Democrats had been smart in 2006 they would have worked hard for his defeat instead of standing idly by. Oh well, that's the world of politics.

Andrew Pass

Seven Machos said...

Doyle -- And how many times have we been attacked by terrorists since we invaded Iraq?

And how many times has Israel will been suicide-bombed since we invaded Iraq? (Is there a connection there? Was Saddam Hussein paying the families of the suicide bombers?)

And has Iran been effectively checked militarily by the presence of American troops on its two primary borders?

And has Syria been more or less of a goon in the Middle East, particularly in relation to Its neighbor, Lebanon?

And how many Americans are thinking about any of this when they answer a series of binary questions about Iraq?

And regardless of whether Americans are thinking about them, do you really belive that it is good for the long-term health of the Democratic party to be actively against winning a war in which the United States is engaged?

I await your trenchant analysis.

eelpout said...

Like you'd give a shit what Jim Webb's kid thinks if it didn't suit your purposes. Classy. If I have to explain Lieberman, you won't understand.

Seven Machos said...

Lunch -- Like you'd give a shit what Jim Webb thinks if it didn't fit your purposes. Classy.

Unknown said...

Doyle wrote:
Right, Seven, tell me more about "the complex realm of international policy."

I love having it illuminated by people who think an attack made by Saudis harbored in Afghanistan justified the invasion of Iraq.

Oh good lord. How many times to people have to point out that 9/11 and the Iraq war had nothing directly to do with each other? Have you actually read the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq?

Apparently your entire sophistry is based on one point in the resolution, carelessly omitting the other 10:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

As an aside, was this refuted or confirmed by the war and its aftermath? Or did Zaraquawi and his organization spring forth fully formed from the head of Ishtar?

The amount of revisionist history and Orwellian language manipulation surrounding the Iraq war is unbelievable. All because a president of the wrong party was responsible. Had Clinton done this in '98 (as he should have) We'd have Doyle cheer leading for our Humanitarian effort, and the hard right screeching about 'Wag the Dog' wars.

All of you bastards make me sick of your cynical, idiotic, petty foolishness. It would be one thing if this were just another asinine, ignorable day on the beltway. But we're talking about the US military - our sons and daughter, husbands and wives - not to mention the lives of 35 million Iraqis.

Grow the hell up.

michael a litscher said...

And just as I said, Doyle remains true to form, concentrating laser-like on the only two rationales which didn't pan out, while steadfastly remaining blissfully ignorant of all the other justifications for war which DID, in fact, pan out.

Brigadier Pudding said...

Doyle -- And how many times have we been attacked by terrorists since we invaded Iraq?

And how many times has Israel will been suicide-bombed since we invaded Iraq? (Is there a connection there? Was Saddam Hussein paying the families of the suicide bombers?)

I'm guessing you're forgetting about the 2004 train bombing in Madrid, the 2005 bombings in London, the 2005 bombings in Bali, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.

Seven Machos said...

Brigadier Pudding:

Let's see. There's New Madrid, Mo. There's New London, CT. If there are American cities named Bali or Mumbai, I have not heard of them.

So, tell me again about all the attacks in the United States.

Furthermore, if that's the best you can do in responding to all the questions I posted, then this argument is over by default.

Brigadier Pudding said...

Oooooh, I gotcha, machos. I should have figured as much.

Forget the fact that Spanish and British troops have fought and died in this war. Guess the only terrorist attacks that matter are the ones that happen in America and Israel. Silly me.

Seven Machos said...

Brigadier -- American participation in wars is about American interests. The fact that people die in London or Madrid when those countries are allied with us, is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States itself has not been attacked.

The fact that there have been attacks in Bali and Mumbai does little to support your argument and, in fact, hurts it. India is a country with many, many Muslims and Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim nation with a very anti-American leadership. If I were attacking the West or countries that have anything at all whatsoever to do with Iraq, those countries would be very low on my list, somewhere around Fiji and Namibia.

Thanks for playing, though.

docweasel said...

For one thing, Lieberman did NOT run as a democrat, reality check. He lost the primary to Lamont, and ran as an Independant Democrat, a party of his own making, I think the name was Leiberman For Connecticut. The Dems rejected him, he is well within his rights to reject them.

Nextly, that was during the election. He didn't say he would never change parties. He said he had no plans to switch. That's a different thing, far different for example, than both Hillary and Obama promising to serve out their entire terms with 'no plans' to run to prez.

PeterP said...

Leiberman For Connecticut

So who's against Connecticut? Not Bob Dylan and if he likes the place then so do I.

RMc said...

All of you bastards make me sick of your cynical, idiotic, petty foolishness.

You wanna talk cynical, Mikey boy? How about Leftists who claim to moan about "our sons and daughter(s)" and "the lives of 35 million Iraqis" when it's obvious they don't give a hang about any of them; they're just cudgels to bash in Chimpy McHitler's head in some more. You and your kind would just as well see them all slaughtered if it could get those impeachment hearings ramped up. Disgusting.

Grow the hell up.

Shut the hell up.

Seven Machos said...

RMc -- I'm not entirely sure, but I think Michael is firmly on your side.

Unknown said...


Actually, I'm opposed to impeaching a sitting president for any puerile 'reason', particularly when the exercise is principally for partisan gain.

And if you can't infer my position on Iraq since, oh say 1992 based on my post...

But don't let me slow your thunder.

monkeyboy said...


FWIW the Bali attack was also prior to the Iraq war.

michael a litscher said...

Doyle: Once the war started, the third started getting more emphasis:

C) Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Argument C had the advantage of being true, but without the two phonies we wouldn't now, in 2007, have 160,000 troops in Iraq.

From: The Bend of History

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003

"One prominent neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, asserts in a new book that the administration embraced democracy as a cornerstone of its policy only after the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. The issue was seized upon to justify the war in retrospect, and then expanded for other countries, he says."--New York Times, March 17, 2006

FYI, the invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003. The administration's policy of establishing a democracy in Iraq preceded that, left-wing revisionist history not withstanding.

KCFleming said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
KCFleming said...

And now we see the Democrat cut-and-run surrender types, led by the astonishingly does-he-have-Alzheimers stupid Murtha, propose to cut soldiers off at the knees by deauthorizing the war.

Jayzus on roller skates, what can one say but what unpatriotic cowards.

MDIJim said...

FWIW the only time I ever voted for a Republican in my life was when I was young and foolish and living in Connecticut. The sitting Republican Senator, Lowell Weicker, was facing a Democratic opponent, Joe Lieberman, who, I thought, was too conservative. Since then I've come to regret that foolish mistake. Lieberman is a Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Sccop Jackson, and even Bill Clinton at times. It is really sad to see how those CT Democrats who bothered to vote in the primary opted for someone in the tradition of McGovern and Kucinich. It is even sadder to see how quickly senior Democrats sitting in the Senate abandoned their colleague in the general election. I am so happy that Lieberman gets to enjoy tweaking their noses every day. Here's hoping that after 2008 the Democrats will return to their roots.

Don M said...

I would prefer that the Democrats (1) have a "Pro-US" position with the war against Islamicist nutballs, but if they (2) persist in taking a "Pro-Al Queda/Pro-Muktaba Sadr" position, I would like them (2a) at least in the minority, and preferably, (2b) removed from office. If Lieberman jumps, he helps accomplish 2a, if he calls them to their better natures, he accomplishes 1. If they refuse his call to their better nature, perhaps they will become more strident, accomplishing 2b in 2008.

X said...

Brigadier Pudding: check your history book on that Bali attack genius. It was 2002 and was revenge for Australia helping East Timor

Don M said...

The War in Iraq was the farthest thing from unprovoked. The 1993 WTC bombing was an Iraqi Intelligence operation, as shown by the use of Kuwait passports (stolen during Iraqi occupation before the first Gulf War), and they had laced the explosives with cyanide compounds, thus attempting to use WMD against the US.

Yes, Clinton knew, and yes, he kept it secret so he wouldn't have to respond. After all, he was more interested in homosexuals in the military, gun control laws, murdering Christians at Waco, and later, helping Islamic terrorists in Kosovo against Serbia.

Robert said...

This thread has jumped the shark.

M. Simon said...

Did some one say no WMDs?


A.Q. Kahn Libya Iraq

Randy said...

Lieberman has two years to enjoy his power and engage in psychological pay-back of his "friends." That is probably about the right length of time.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Man those leftists hate an apostate!"

Yep; notice how black Republicans are so admired by the left?!

AlphaLiberal said...

So, Joe Lieberman lied to the voters of Connecticut to win election and may have lied further in his intention to stay with the Democrats. All this to support a failed invasion and occupation launched on lies. Or, just to keep Joe in power.

And Ann Althouse loves this? I guess Ann just loves to see Liebermam stick it to the Democrats, regardless of the impact on real people in the real world, or regardless of what he told the voters.

Sick, that. It's all about Joe and it's all about Ann, and damn the consequences.

Brigadier Pudding said...

check your history book on that Bali attack genius. It was 2002

Check your history book again, squirt. There were two Bali bombings, which is why I prefaced it the '05 Bali bombings. Reading comprehension not a strong suit, eh?

Also: more Joementum...

A Care Package For The Media: Ten Examples Of Lieberman Vowing To Stay With Dems

tim in vermont said...

Since you brought up the Prague meeting, could you please explain to me a couple of things?

Let's look at the Attah timeline.

A day or two prior to the sighting in Prague, Attah was seen taking thousands of dollars out of an ATM machine.

He was not seen again in the US until after the meeting.

His cell phone was used during the period in question.

He was the most recognizable of the hijackers, how many other of the 19 can you remember the face of?

Czec security said that believed that they saw him.

The whole case that he did not go there depended on a statement by the Czec interior minister that Attah had not traveled to his country "under his own name." To which he added "why would he travel under a false name since he had not yet committed a crime?"

From what I have gotten from lefties the above statement from the Czec interior minister counts as "proof" that Attah was not there.

There is an earlier meeting with the Iraqis that nobody disputes.

The case is mostly, but not entirely cirmcumstantial.


Do you have a better argument that the meeting did not take place than the one I have outlined above. I would be happy to hear it. I have an open mind, you could change it with facts.

History will judge differently whether the meetings took place.

tim in vermont said...

One other thing, the earlier meeting in Prague, which nobody disputes, probably took place within the planning time line of 911.

Fen said...

All this to support a failed invasion and occupation launched on lies

Uhm, how did the invasion "fail"? And how has the occupation "failed"? And what specific "lies" are you refering too? You lefties are getting a bit careless with your assertions and lies.

I don't care what Joe does. I oppose most of his views, but respect him. I do support his position on Iraq. He appears to be the only Democrat who understands why we're in Iraq and what the stakes are.

Randy said...

Alpha Liberal, it seems to me that Lieberman can pretty much do whatever he wants to. I don't recall you complaining about Jim Jeffords abandoning the GOP. I doubt you minded Wayne Morris leaving on party for the other either.

It has always been a senator's right to do what he or she wants when in office. This may surprise you to learn, but senators change their opinions about things all the time. They are especially prone to doing this once their party assumes or loses power, but that is another discussion entirely. IIRC,, it has always been true that, if the voters don't like it, they'll have their chance to express their opinion

As far as the voters of Connecticut themselves in the last election go, even you must have figured out by now that not too many of Lieberman's votes came from registered Democrats.

Even with all that, my bet is that Lieberman will stay a Democrat despite holier-than-thou lock-step regimentation proponents such as yourself. At the same time, he has every reason to enjoy tweaking thought-control advocates like you.

tim in vermont said...

Doyle won't respond to your "specific lies" challenge, because there are no lies. Just differences of opinion. To the left, stating an incorrect opinion is called lying.

He won't rise to your challenge just as he wont rise to mine, despite the fact that he "never gets tired of reminding us" how wrong we are.

X said...

what's your point point brigadier moron? The 2005 bombings were a continuation of the 2002 bombings.

I guess all terror after Iraq is caused by Iraq. very nuancey.

Dewave said...

If the Democrats want to ensure success in '08, they should act now to strip Lieberman of his committee memberships and chairmanships.

That would show spine and make it more likely that Democratic (and thereby good) policies would succeed.

Why stop there? How about kicking Lieberman out of his senate seat entirely?

Oh wait. That little jihad failed. Miserably. In a very pro-democrat anti-war setting.

I think the anti-Lieberman crowd is about the last one the dems should listen to in order to make plans for '08.