Hagel Hammers Lieberman - Again
Does Lieberman never tire of getting slapped around by Chuck Hagel on national television?
Here's another Hagel v. Lieberman rematch. It's a little like watching Chuck Norris kick-box Woody Allen.
Lieberman argues that a Senate resolution opposing Bush's troop build-up in Iraq would be pointless because it is non-binding, and that any Senator who opposes the build-up should reject the resolution in favor of cutting-off funding of the war. Hagel and others have a different view, arguing that a resolution is a meaningful rebuke of the president's policy and a means of perhaps mediating this dispute between two of our branches of government short of a damaging showdown over funding. It would be "irresponsible", Hagel suggests, to proceed directly to the more confrontational approach of a funding cut-off without first attempting to bring the administration to reason by a passing a resolution with significant republican support opposing the escalation.
Lieberman was not always opposed to the concept of non-binding Senate resolutions.
But of course that was 1998. Clinton's dalliance was, according to Lieberman, a real national crisis. Lieberman favored a non-binding resolution, or even censure of Clinton, even though such measures were feckless by Lieberman's own reasoning today."It would be strange,'' said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, if lawmakers could freely pass resolutions stating their views on almost every kind of behavior but not on conduct ''that has ... stirred broad and deep emotions among the American people.''
As I've noted before, the gears grinding behind Joe's political machinations are always pathetically obvious. He loves the war, and therefore characterizes non-binding Senate resolutions opposing an escalation of the war as pointless. He condemned Clinton's behavior, and therefore found non-binding Senate resolutions meaningful and appropriate.
If you are looking for coherent reasoning and a consistent application of political principle, Joe Lieberman is the last place you are likely to find it.
posted by Gator Guy at 9:36 AM
11 Comments:
With more and more tension building in the Middle East I have to start looking ahead at the positions that US will face in the coming years. With Iran and Syria becoming larger threats to Israel with nucular capabilities I do feel that the US will have to become even more involved in that regions problems.
I hate to say it but Iraq is just the start of US military presence in the Middle East. The Arab counties will eventually have a major attack on Israel and American Soldiers will find themselves fighting along side with Israelis.
Although I am totally against any war I have enough reason and education to know that this situation will happen and most likely be sooner-than-later. I truly believe that Joe Lieberman also sees this situation unfolding and understands the importance of Israel and it's continued existence in the Middle East. Therefore the US needs to create peace and an organized government in Iraq now, not only to have allies and supporters in this region but also so US soldiers will not have to fight 2 fronts in this future war.
Nobody wants to send more troops to Iraq (even Lieberman) but to withdrawal from this area in defeat would be disastrous for our future military operations but also it will empower Israelis’ enemies to move against them.
American Lefties have been driving this country for peace (which is a great thing) but we all have to realize the Middle East situation is out our hands and war there is inevitable. The more American casualties today will result in much, much fewer in the future.
Lieberman and coherent reasoning is an oxymoron!
It seems the Iraq War has brought out Joe’s real neocon self and the more he gets protested the more hawkish he becomes! How little people who voted for him understood this side of him. I would love to see a poll done in CT to find out how they feel now.
anonymous, I am afraid that your comment was filled with Joe’s talking points that have no real evidence behind them. "Nobody wants to send more troops to Iraq (even Lieberman)" -- PLEASE, if you are really serious about wanting a reasonable dialog, starting off on such a lie does not help. Lieberman is totally isolated with his “more troops strategy” and buying into his lies is making you his fool.
harriet,
your blind haterd towards Joe has alter your perception of reality. The issues in the Middle East are not Lieberman's talking points they are true fears that are evident in this region. Take a step back from Joe Lieberman and the United States political arena and listen to what the president of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Israelis are saying. Maybe then you will understand that Iraq is just a very small piece this this middle eastern puzzle.
I dont mean to be harsh or rude but it scares me that 15 years from now I will be able to "I told you so"
Hopefully I am completely wrong and I truly wish I am
I strongly disagree with Anonymous's view of our involvement in Iraq and our policy in the middle east. But even if I agreed with him, and accordingly agreed with Lieberman, I would still have to condemn Lieberman's deceit during the campaign, his feigning of support for withdrawal and opposition to troop increases.
Even if I agree with the policy of a particular politician, if he has demonsrated a cynical disregard for the most basic obligation of an elected representative - the obligtaion to be honest with his constitutents - then I have to conclude he is unfit for office. If I cannot trust his word, then his policies are illusory, and my support for them would be nothing more than a misplaced faith that political calculation will not cause him to reverse himself and betray my trust.
I would ask Anonymous to read the posts discussing Lieberman's immediate and complete reversal after the election of his own ten point plan for Iraq, and then tell me: Is Joe Lieberman not a liar?
Concerned,
Joe Lieberman is not a lair. The 6th point is the one in question. I understand your complaint but we have to understand that if we held every politician strictly accountable for everything they say during an election then you would President and I would be VP.
More importantly, Ct voters had 2 options Ned: who was totally against the war and promised to bring troops home in a few months and Joe: who has been for the war along and made it clear he was not for "cut & run". The fact is Joe really didn’t fool anyone and the Iraq war wasn’t the main issue for the people who voted for him.
The only people I hear complaining about Joe's support for surge are the Lamont supporters and they have been complaining from the beginning, so who cares.
As I said before this really doesn’t matter because if Ned Lamont won in November we would still have to fight in this region to protect our allies and our much needed oil
And that’s they way the cookie crumbles
In your attempt to defend Lieberman, you inadvertently referred to another of his lies. Lamont never endorsed bringing the troop home in a "few months." He endorsed the Kerry proposal in summer 2006 that would provided for a phased withdrawal over a nearly 12 month period. Lieberman's repeated insistence that Lamont favored "immediate withdrawal" is another lie, and you believed it.
Your insistence that Iraq was not an important issue is absurd. 60% of Lieberman's votes came from people who characterized the war issue as either "extremely important" or "very important." Furthermore, your focus on the attitudes of only Lieberman voters, as if other voters have no right to be told the truth by candidates, is very revealing of a very warped view of democracy.
You are content to be lied to, and that is your privilege. You are content to be egregiously misinformed, as is confirmed by your false claims regarding Lamont's position on Iraq and the attitudes of Lieberman voters regarding the significance of the war issue. That, again, is your privilege. Lieberman depends on people like you.
I agreed with Lieberman in 1998 when he stated that Clinton had lied. Whether or not you believe Lieberman lied or not regarding troop increases, Lieberman's own standards - the standards he applied to Clinton - condemn Lieberman as a liar. He told us increased embedding would require fewer troops in Iraq, and that increased embedding could be achieved by redeploying troops already in Iraq, not sending more troops. He completely contradicted each of those positions with a matter of weeks after the election. How do you define "lie" if this doesn not fit your definition?
Politicians will indeed hedge and shift in their positions. But this wasn't hedging on vague language about a secondary issue. This was an unequivocal repudiation by Lieberman of specific proposals he made in his Ten Point Plan regarding troop levels in Iraq. He could have remained silent on the issue of troop increases during the campaign, but he did not. He issued an official statement of Iraq policy that rejected troops increases, and then repudiated his own campaign position on the most significant issue in the country today.
You are correct in one respect. Many of us knew Lieberman was lying about his war policy. It was pretty obvious when he tried to tell us in July that progress was being made and then admitted in October that things had gone "heartbreakingly bad" in Iraq since the Golden Mosque bombing in February 2006. Your argument that Lieberman didn't "fool" anyone, an argument you appear to believe is a defense of Lieberman, is of course quite the opposite - it suggests that you too believe that Lieberman is not to be trusted. As you admit, the man has no credibility.
So nobody wants to send more troops to Iraq (even Lieberman), Anonymous?
Anon - a quick Google search from "Lieberman troop increase "surge" brought me 286,000 hits.
Just a quick quote from the Washington Post:
"Mr. Bush's first challenge if he proposes a surge will consequently be to convince the country that the fresh troops would have a vital and achievable mission. Those who have been arguing for the move -- notably, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.)"
and for more tutoring ono the issue of Joe's never-ending contortions, I suggest you read this post from Glenn Greenwald, Anon:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/toxicity-of-joe-liebermans-treason.html
"Lieberman, of course, spent several years warning Americans not to criticize their Leader with regard to the War. Just two weeks ago, Lieberman went on Meet the Press and prompted an angry outburst from Chuck Hagel after Lieberman sat there smugly accusing Hagel and anyone else who opposes the Glorious Surge of wanting the U.S. to lose in Iraq. In the same appearance, Lieberman also looked straight into the camera and said that the U.S. was "attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today" -- a claim so transparently false that even the President long ago abandoned it."
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Anon.
There is no way that we can stablize or bring peace to the region. We destabilized it and have done little to fix anything....we have made things worse and worse, and created terrorists that hate us all over the world....
So, how can this slow phased surge make any difference to what is a downward spiral?
Today Joe was talking about how he will certainly consider voting Republican in the next election in response to the war issue. The video of this is on crooks and liars:
http://tinyurl.com/2mumzz
And also linked on my blog.
Here is the real one issue politician in the flesh kids!...and he is a bold neocon.
Can't we recall him? File a class action suit against him?
Its just so crazy!
Anonymous is just spouting the talking points...
And in any case, besides what we've done, there is no way that we can sweep through the middle east without some sort of unilateral forces along side us....
So sorry that anon has been lied to so horribly and is so misled about this....its criminal.
Sue,
"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Anon. "
So you are telling me Sunnis, Shiites, Hammas, Hezbolla, Isreal, Al Qaeda, The PLO, Iran, Sadam and Palestine are not interconnected
Go look at what happened in 1948 (thats all I have to say)
Post a Comment
<< Home