Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Well, this didn't take very long

Senator Lieberman, true to form, decreed today that if we begin to withdraw from Iraq any time in the foreseeable future would be a disaster of such unimaginable magnitude that it staggers the mind. Or something to that effect.

Joe was the same guy who said, repeatedly, that "nobody wants to end the war more than" he...well, I'm starting to think that by "ending the war", Joe means either when the entire Middle East will be a smoldering pile of charred rubble; or when the entire populace of Iraq will suddenly put down their weapons and immediately embrace Western-style Democracy and wave U.S. flags with wild abandon (and go against centuries of culture and religion).

From CNN.Com (h/t to Matt Browner-Hamlin over at MLN)
Lieberman: Withdrawal would be a 'very serious mistake'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, may have agreed to caucus with the Democrats in the next congressional term, but the Connecticut independent made it clear Wednesday he would not hold the party line on a call for phased troop withdrawals.

"Both general Abizaid and Ambassador Satterfield were quite clear and to me convincing, that for congress to order the beginning of a phased redeployment, a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq within the next 4 to 6 months would be a very serious mistake and would endanger ultimate the United States," Lieberman told reporters after the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who is to become the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee when Democrats take control of the chamber in January, said Tuesday a phased withdrawal is the only way Iraqi forces will take responsibility for their country.

Lieberman's comments are a sign his defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary has not weakened his hawkish stance on Iraq. Connecticut Democrats voted Lieberman out of the party in August, opting for vehement antiwar candidate Ned Lamont. Lieberman, running as an independent candidate, defeated Lamont in the general election.
So, anyone who voted for Joe because they believed him when he said he wanted to get our troops home safely, well...those ain't HIS kids dying over there.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob, your implication that the Senator cares nothing about this soldiers is obviously you trying to be a jerk. You also don't seem to recognize that if we just pull out now it will lead to the slaughter of millions not to mention embolden Iran to move into the area to help the other Shi'ia Muslims. You do not seem to recognize this as a threat.

And since this is now my third comment on here and all the others have been deleted, you should stop proclaiming free speech and start saying people who agree with me.

harriet said...

Right, the Joe voters are saying "what war?" Reid and Levin are going to have a huge fight on their hands with Joe, and it kind of serves them right! However, I think if this Democratic Senate doesn’t do the voter’s will and start seriously withdrawing our troops – it won’t be just Joe that Sen. Reid will have to worry about! There will be a huge anti-war population going for his throat!

CT Bob said...

anonymous, no, it's not my implication; it's my completely overt statement that Lieberman cares NOTHING for our soldiers, OK? He's a spoiled child who couldn't WAIT to fuck over the Democratic party which gave him such a difficult time this year. Joe LIVES to "even the score". He'll stay in Iraq until EVERY soldier is dead, just to prove HE'S RIGHT. Because to Joe, revenge is MORE important than these kid's lives.

Happy?

Gary said...

Take it easy. Let Lieberman be Lieberman. We can endure it. He doesn't have the last say. He is one among the rest of our senators. He may have a strong opinion and a big mouth, but I don't think he has more power than the party leaders.

Anonymous said...

Well I wish before the election voters were able to realize Joe's true colors. Could those be RED? I have taken a week to depress from what should have been a slim win by Lamont. Basicly the numbers don't add up. I am looking for the 100k votes Joe was able to earn to win this election at all. I think an investigation should be looked into.

Anonymous said...

What a bitter little man.
God, I'd pay to see him actually have to face real soldiers and families of the fallen.
UptownNYChick

Anonymous said...

Joe holds the party line. The best question is 'which party'? What did democrats in the Senate expect?

He's a bag of trouble. I hope the senators who are gleeful over his win have to defend him on a daily basis!

Adam said...

your statement proves how immature, naive, ignorant, false, uneducated, brainwashed and absolutely stupid you and this blog truly are. I hope all the readers can understand this.

Even though this is just a small nothing of a blog you do have the responsibly as a journalist to tell the truth. GROW UP

Adam said...

pervious comment was directed to B.A.

gchaucer2 said...

Wow, adam -- if this is such a "small nothing of a blog" how come you spend so much time posting here?

I'd respect Lieberman if he had a smidgeon of honesty. Did he tell his "constituents" prior to election that he wanted to send more troops? While Abizaid didn't approve of redeployment, he also didn't approve of sending more troops. Not a very comfortable commentary since that means status quo -- which is clearly not working. 45 dead American soldiers so far this month. How many families of those who sacrificed thier sons and daughters has Lieberman visited? How many times has he been to Walter Reed to visit the injured?

Adam -- if this "small" blog raises your ire so much, why not find one that supports your ideology?

@Bob -- you look like a grown up to me.

Anonymous said...

this blog, this comment string, everything about this dialog reveals the fundamental flaw with the hardcore lamont supporters (personified by ct bob). Why do you feel like your opinion is right all of the time and that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It reeks of arrogance. It sounds like your saying that there is only one solution in Iraq, your solution, and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. You all need to stop demonizing joe lieberman and everyone else that disagrees with your narrow worldview, and start discussing.

gchaucer2 said...

@anonymous 10:37 -- Umm, it's CTBob's blog -- not yours -- start your own if it makes you happier.

Neddy Lamonts said...

From MSNBC
"Three influential US senators on Thursday stepped up the pressure on George W Bush over climate change, demanding mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2007.

Senators Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman and JOSEPH LIEBERMAN wrote to Mr Bush to say that the outcome of the mid-term elections meant he would face renewed calls for a federal system of emissions caps."

Something Ned Lamont would never be able to do in his fist year as a Senator.

Anonymous said...

gchaucer2, thank you for illustrating my point. your essentially saying, if you don't agree with us go elsewhere. How is this blog and others like it anything but an echo chamber for people who agree 100% on issues and think anyone who diverges from thier worldview is a traitor to the democratic party or a brainwashed republican?

Adam said...

gchauer2,
anonymous 11:08 could not be any more correct. The reason way I spend so much time on this blog is to fight the propaganda that this blog loves to dish out. Just doiung my party to help our country

Anonymous said...

annon @ 10:37 -- I don't believe getting out of Iraq is a narrow worldview. In fact, I believe it is the view of over half of Americans, it fueled the turn over of the House and Senate and is shared by any people across the globe.
Ned Lamonts @ 11:03 That's wonderful Joe has lent his name to such a worthwhile effort, but it would have gone forward without him too. Still, I don't think it counteracts the Energy bill Lieberman supported that is basically putting a floating bomb off the coast of Connecticut and Long Island.
UNC

gchaucer2 said...

@whichever anonymous you might be and adam -- I welcome discourse -- and I have had my mind changed when the discourse is intelligent. It was not I who said this was a "small" blog. CTBob, Kirby, et al. have made it clear what the focus of the blog is.

If one has an opinion, I generally think that person thinks his/her opinion is right -- as do you. Are you saying that the opinions you post here are not solidly your ideology? Both of you get so hyped up, I concluded you would be happier elsewhere. Since Joe doesn't allow discourse, his site is out. If you like it here, however, expect feedback. And have a nice day.

Adam said...

gchaucher,
I have no problem with opinions, thats why I come here. I do have a problem when one of the authors of the Blog (B.A.) writes comments like this
"He's a spoiled child who couldn't WAIT to fuck over the Democratic party which gave him such a difficult time this year. Joe LIVES to "even the score". He'll stay in Iraq until EVERY soldier is dead, just to prove HE'S RIGHT. Because to Joe, revenge is MORE important than these kid's lives."

I'm sorry but there is no point that is trying to be argued here just immature name calling like a 4th grader. the major problem with this is that people search IceRocket for political information and they come across this. Some might be smart enough to realize the author is a little sick but other might think it is true and base judgments on it. So I'm just trying to keep Bob from negatively influencing people with is dirty mouth and twisted propaganda

gchaucer2 said...

@adam -- thanks for your response. While I try to avoid the "f" word in posting, sometimes folks who are thoroughly involved with political contortions get wound up and have to vent. Frankly, the comment you quote is rather tame compared to what I have seen on other blogs, both left and right.

I believe the frustration here revolves around the fact that Lieberman never raised the issue of adding to the troops prior to the election -- that would have been quite damaging. Whether one believes in the stay-the-course, increase-the-troops or gradual redeployment, the electorate should be fully informed prior to casting one's vote.

Personally, I have nothing to offer regarding what to do in Iraq now. It is such a gigantic quagmire, I fear that we will either repeat Vietnam strategy -- a decade of senseless death then full retreat, or we will redeploy some troops and see if the Iraquis can get things under control. Either way, thousands more will die.

As I was firmly against this war from the get-go, critical of the manner in which it was conducted -- I am without a clue as to how to resolve this mess.

I'm not preaching, but have learned that blogsites dedicated to political discussions, generally are volatile. I'd like to hear from those of you who agree with the current approach as to how it will work so that we can consider it a success. Thanks.

mui said...

Someone sent me this pithycartoon.
It just about sums it up for me. Enjoy!

Adam said...

gchaucer2
"As I was firmly against this war from the get-go, critical of the manner in which it was conducted --I am without a clue as to how to resolve this mess."

This is the most intelligent statement to come out of this blog. I couldnt agree more

gchaucer2 said...

@adam -- just guessing that your last sentence may smack of sarcasm, just want to say -- I've never suggested any idea of how to resolve the war. A) I'm not a politician; B)I didn't start the mess; and C) I'm an environmental attorney, not a war historian, strategist, etc.

I consider the current situation as similar to cleaning up a hazardous waste catastrophe without any scientific analysis. (see, for instance, the ongoing tragedies related to Agent Orange and indescriminately placed land mines). It was decades before historians could unravel the fabrications of Westmoreland, et al.

gchaucer2 said...

@mui -- thanks for the cartoon -- sums it up for me too.

Adam said...

gchaucher2,
you missed understood me I wasnt being sarcastic. I also havent the slightest clue as to who to solve this war/nor should I, you or any else on this Blog. I think the war should be solved by the Generals incharge not the politicians or the American public. I think this realization is the first step to a solution.

gchaucer2 said...

@adam -- thanks for clarifying and I apoligize for misinterpreting. I believe that I remember from one of your previous blogs that we are of the same generation. What I fear is a repeat of the Westmoreland/McNamara fog that deceived the American public. I do hope that there are some astute folks out there who can divorce themselves from the political types and fashion a solution. This solution must include reasonable minds in Iraq.

I've heard pros and cons on partition of Iraq but I didn't hear from the Iraqis involved. Coming from a very strident Catholic Irish background, I am very attuned to the devastating consequences of religious and tribal mentalities. It seems that in the long run, economics drives a solution. Also, weariness that comes from watching sons and daughters die.

Neddy Lamonts said...

TIME magazine wrote about you

"Liberal bloggers and their readers helped to swing the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, raising expectations that the midterms would turn this new generation of online activists into kingmakers. Yet in the midst of a Democratic wave, the netroots candidates failed to sweep, causing some pundits to claim that the netroots' influence continues to be overstated"

So do you think you are overstated? I guess the election proves how you just couldnt get the job done

Anonymous said...

theres something i dont get, bob. you have a lot of interesting facts, but you choose to ignore some important facts. in october 2003, lieberman asked rumsfeld to resign. ill write that again. in OCTOBER 2003, lieberman asked rumsfeld to RESIGN. this was just the beginning of the war, and lieberman wanted new leadership. imagine if we had listened to him...
now on this "lieberman doesnt care about human lives" statement, that is just pure idiocy. i know you dont like lieberman, but it doesnt take a genius to figure out what hes trying to say. he wants the troops home more than anyone because he voted for the war. he is partially responsible for them being in iraq, so he knows this is partly his responsibility. he believes taking out troops can lead to more deaths of iraqis and terrorists can influence the unstable state. i know bob thinks he is very, very, very intelligent, but maybe he can be wrong on this one thing.

kirby said...

Hi Folks,
Have had a crazy couple of days and not able to get the time to post. Adam, you say to let the military commanders decide what to do, but what happens when they are silenced and vetoed? Commanders on active duty cannot publicly state their opinions. Those who retired have almost unanimously said we need to get out. The last Gallup poll I saw said 81% of Iraqis see the US as occupiers -- not liberators or helpers. If 81% want us out, and retired active military with first-hand knowledge say we need to get out -- it seems to me we should get out.

CT Bob said...

gchaucer2 - you rock.

gchaucer2 said...

Hmm, I see little neddy is here and, oh, my, quoting from Time Magazine, the bastion of intellectual thought. Yikes! I also see that anonymous choses to pick only one of Lieberman's flip-flops regarding Rumsfeld. Some folks just like to regurgitate the script from Blankenbrainer.

Can't vouch for my short-term memory but my long-term is pretty solid and I lost friends in that miserable war that Westmoreland said was going fine and we were going to win. Abizaid has become Westmoreland's clone.

Bob and Kirby, I have the utmost respect for your continuing the fight -- I can't thank you enough for staying involved and creating a forum for pros and cons.

Hopewellian_Magi said...

For Thanksgiving, I'm sending Lieberman a military enlistment form and telling him to sacrifice his kids to that hell hole he helped create in Iraq. It would be the moral thing for him to do, especially since he want's to sacrifice other people's loved ones in that no-win situation in Iraq.

And I'll send him that form at least once a month until we are out of Iraq.

And to all the pro-Lieberman posters on this blog, here's the link to the military enlistment form http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf . Anyone who supported Lieberman should immediately sign up and demand to be sent to Iraq.

Anonymous said...

hopewellian,
So you are saying you want the majority of Connecticut go to Iraq

I voted for Lieberman and I'm agaisnt the war, yea many people who did vote for Joe are against the war. The war isnt the most important issue to Connecticut residents, when will you understand.

If you tell me to go enlist because I voted for Joe who supported the war, its like me telling you to join Al-Qaeda because you voted for Ned and supported terrorists.

things arent that Black and White. People voted for Joe for dozens of other reasons, not just the war. But it sounds like you and your friends voted for Ned soley because of the war and thats your choice.

gchaucer2 said...

@hopewellian -- kudos to you.

@anonymous 10:47 -- Lieberman is the one who wants to send more troops. Did you know that before you voted for him? If you and others who voted for him did know that, then yes, sign up family members to supply the needed soldiers. And your Al-Qaeda reference is sheer Rove and basically dumb.

Folks voted for Ned for a number of reasons -- honesty and accountability were high on my list.

CT Bob said...

Keep in mind a majority of voters voted AGAINST Lieberman. He pulled the most votes, but he didn't win by a majority. 49.8%, I think it was. It takes one more than 50% to have a majority.

Anonymous said...

gchaucher2,

of course my statement about Al-Qaeda was dumb. But from my point of view it is the exactly the same as what hopewellian stated.

I'm sorry B.A 49.8% is very close to 50.1%. but considering how low he was on the ballot I'll give him the majority

Seriously people when will you execpt that most people disagree with you and understand Lieberman is the right person for the job.

Ned Lamont wants to run for the board of the Round Hill Country Club get your blogs ready he needs your support, but if you are black or jewish you will have to sit this one out

CT Bob said...

You can't "give" anyone the majority. You're just showing your total lack of sense.

Stop with the race-baiting. You know you're wrong.

Anonymous said...

id bet on my life lamont isnt racist or anti semetic. belonging to an all white country club and standing of the podium with jesse jackson and al sharpton makes lamont look bad to blacks and jews, respectively.

CT Bob said...

Listen stupid, the club isn't "all-white"; even waterboy Gerstain had to admit that when his lies were exposed. There are minority members; they happen to be very wealthy (that's pretty much a given if you want to join) and the only color they care about up there is green.

And since when do you speak for all African-Americans and Jews? Who died and made YOU the racially-sensative spokesperson for all minorities?

Plus, Lieberman begged Al Sharpton to give him his endorsement; Rev. Sharpton laughed at Joe and backed Ned. Why do you think Joe suddenly hated Sharpton so much?

Just like when Lieberman made a big thing about of Lamont owning some Halliburton stock as a part of an investment fund, and it turned out that Lieberman (the accuser) himself owned many times the amount that Lamont did.

How about I send you a dollar so you can buy yourself a clue?

Anonymous said...

bob you are incredibly stubborn. you would argue lamont to the death that lamont was a perfect candidate. i know many minorites who didnt like that. jesse jackson is a racist so hes not appealing to whites and non liberals. his country club was for the rich and in GREENWICH, CT. it doesnt take a genius to figure out this club was very, very, very white. by the way, wasnt lamont the anti-war candidate? so why would he have stock in halliburton if he was so against the war?

Anonymous said...

* i meant you would argue to the death that lamont was a perfect candidate.