Secretary of Defense Lieberman?
By on Dec 4th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Would serve him right the little quisling. Rumsfeld thought he was on the path to glory and Lieberman would think that, too. You want to be written up in history as going down in flames, go ahead.
I’m all for it.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:14 pmMy answer for Lieberman is-
W-I-M-P! He’s a republican in Democratic clothing.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:14 pmTypical flip-flopper like McCain.
Wouldn’t Osama Bin Laden be a better choice? Could we call on Bagdad Bob? He had a better grasp of the situation in 2003 than Joe has of it now.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:25 pmThat means we are rid of him!
December 4th, 2005 at 6:26 pmHurray!
Go Joe, go!
I heard that today…yeah right, I know bush want’s to surround himself with those who agree with him, but a democrat (by name only) he is too simple for this, his world is too black and white, i hope a real democrat in the great state of connecticut will run against lieberman
-Chris in AZ (born & raised in CT)
December 4th, 2005 at 6:27 pmThey’re all missing Libby so much, they’re gonna
December 4th, 2005 at 6:50 pmcall him Liebby.
Lieberman is completely unqualified to run a 400 billion dollar corporate welfare and imperialism program, which is what the Pentagon is. His whole career life, except for a few years as a lawyer, has been in politics.
However, this appointment, if it happens, would be a shrewd move on the part of Bush to gain another sycophant, this one with strong connections to the Democrat Party and to Israel. It would solidify the idea that US imperialism is a product of both political parties (which it is) and serve to isolate the Sheehan/Murtha/Pelosi faction.
What will the generals do now? We’ve never had a military revolt in this country, but we’re coming closer to one.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:59 pmJoe was Gore’s biggest mistake. He could have won with Hillary or Bill. Remember ‘Every Lieberman begins with lie’.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:00 pmYea! Go Joe, don’t let the door
December 4th, 2005 at 7:03 pmhit ya on the way out.
This is wonderful news (If true)
for the Left.
Go Joe, Go.
Could “Commander Codpiece” be that
stupid?
Sure he could.
Go Joe, go!
what a positively nauseating thought… and the toadying bastard would probably accept it if offered… that would probably also put hillary in line for something, i would think… oh, wait… she just decided the other day that maybe she wouldn’t support the war any more… tough luck, hillary… you coulda been a contendah…
—————-
SCHIEFFER: …because there’s a lot of talk. Last night–over this weekend, I had four different people tell me that the White House is thinking if the secretary of Defense goes over the next year–and a lot of people think that he will, that the president is thinking of nominating Joe Lieberman to be secretary of Defense. If he did that, would you support Lieberman?
Sen. KERRY: Of course, I’d support Joe Lieberman. He’s a friend and he’s a very capable guy.
—————–
and of COURSE kerry would support joe lieberman… of COURSE he would… loser…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
December 4th, 2005 at 8:02 pmCould we do much better than Lieberman? Sure. Could we do any worse than Rumsfeld? No.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:19 pmIt’s so nice to see you liberals celebrating diversity like this.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:27 pmRumsfeld has been a great SecDef. Two countries have been liberated from tyranny on his watch.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:28 pmYeah, wwallace, as a conservative, I would almost agree you.
But it doesn’t surprise me that Bush would pick someone like Joe Lieberman, with no military experience to draw from, to take over perhaps the most important job during a time of war: to head up the United States military. That’s just simple-minded Bush-thinking at its best. Like Brown, the former FEMA director.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Joe ought to fit right in with Cheney, Wolfowitz, and nearly all the rest of the Bush Administration, draftdodger turned “warhawk” Joe Lieberman managed to get two draft deferments to keep his ass out of the Vietman War.
As I say, he’ll fit right in with the Administration.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:40 pmJoe Sixpack, but Bush served in the military, and so did the current SecDef Rumsfeld. In other words, your an ignoramus. ROFL
Incidentally, Cheney received legal deferments, he did not dodge like Clinton did.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:42 pmGo Joe, go!
December 4th, 2005 at 8:55 pmWe really, really love you man, but
I’m sure you will fit better with
“Commander Codpiece” than with real
patriots.
Go Joe, go!
Why do Democrats, like afterthought for example, always question the patriotism of those they disagree with?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:05 pmWallace, you live in such a cloud, please remeber to eat sometimes so you don’t just starve to death.
Saying Bush was in the military is like saying Martha did hard time. Here’s a scan of the document showing that Bush was grounded during his “service”. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
There’s just so much to be proud of.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:08 pm“It’s so nice to see you liberals celebrating diversity like this.”
Joe Lieberman is Republican Lite. There is no diversity if Bush just appoints another boot licker.
“Joe Sixpack, but Bush served in the military, and so did the current SecDef Rumsfeld.”
Bush was National Gaurd flying a deomissioned plane that never would have seen action in Vietnam. Rumsfeld never served. Ever.
“Incidentally, Cheney received legal deferments, he did not dodge like Clinton did.”
Cheney received 5 deferments due to a boil on his ass. He got that boil fix as soon as the war was over.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:09 pmwwallace says:
“Rumsfeld has been a great SecDef. Two countries have been liberated from tyranny on his watch.”
Certainly not the US and Iraq! Both of these have come under tyranny on his watch.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:10 pmJoe will really like being on the
December 4th, 2005 at 9:12 pmBushCo team. Why, it is almost like
he has already been playing on
the republican team.
Go Joe, go!
morgan, the majority of people who serve in the military never serve in combat. For example, about 160,000 are currently serving in Iraq, out of around 1.5 million who are currently serving overall. So in round figures, between 85% and 90% of the military are not in combat. You insult all of them. People like you help keep the men and women in the military voting solidly Republican, so please keep it up.
http://www.wingmenforbush.com/
December 4th, 2005 at 9:12 pmSpudge, #19, will obviously lie about anything. What an idiot.
http://www.defense.gov/ news/ May2002/ n05202002_200205202.html
December 4th, 2005 at 9:15 pmDid Joe’s dad pull strings to get him into
December 4th, 2005 at 9:16 pmTANG too?
I really don’t know, but wondered how well
he would fit in as a chicken-hawk.
He seems to have the dialog down.
Only someone in great need of psychological counseling would ever say something as obviously stupid as this:
December 4th, 2005 at 9:16 pm“Rumsfeld, who served as a Naval aviator”
Oh, cool. DId he fly a decomissioned plane like Bush did?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:17 pmHas Joe got his H5N1 shot yet?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:18 pmIt would be a good time since he will
be with chicken-hawks all the time.
Spudge celebrates diversity by calling those who disagree with him “boot lickers”
December 4th, 2005 at 9:18 pmSpudge lied when he claimed Rumsfeld didn’t serve.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:19 pmOh wait. Can chicken-hawks get H5N1,
December 4th, 2005 at 9:19 pmor are they just carriers?
Spudge is now reduced to juvenile epithets. Wait, that’s nothing new, never mind. ROFL
December 4th, 2005 at 9:22 pmwwallace’s favorite thing.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:23 pmWallace, I insult nobody but Bush. His military record is his own, his own responsbility.
Here’s the wikipedia entry for Bush’s record: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
If you can read that with a straight face and say he fulfilled his reponsibilities then more power to you. How you winguts just try warp reality and history to fit your hero worship and idealogy is a gift. Steve Jobs could take lessons from you.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:23 pmWhy did they call TANG a “champaign” unit
December 4th, 2005 at 9:23 pmwhen Chimpy seemed to prefer Coke?
Just asking.
“Spudge is now reduced to juvenile epithets. Wait, that’s nothing new, never mind.”
Nope, nothing new. I don’t think my view that you are a stupid fvck head will ever change. Sorry b!tch.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pmmorgan, Bush served honorably, as those who served with him can attest:
http://www.wingmenforbush.com/
December 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pmI wonder how hard it was to get your
December 4th, 2005 at 9:26 pmkid into TANG if you were “connected”?
Oh well, I guess it doesn’t matter now.
“morgan, Bush served honorably, as those who served with him can attest:”
The swiftboaters gonna back him up? Sweet!
Cheney discusses the size of wwallace’s brian:
December 4th, 2005 at 9:31 pmComment by wwallace:
Only someone in great need of psychological counseling would ever say something as obviously stupid as this:
“Certainly not the US and Iraq! Both of these have come under tyranny on his watch.â€
Oops, I found the truth. Trolls abandon thread! Stop the blasphemy!
December 4th, 2005 at 9:31 pmThe Swift Boat Veterans didn’t serve with Bush, they told the truth about Hanoi John Kerry.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:32 pm#38,
That is the first picture of Cheney I
December 4th, 2005 at 9:33 pmhave ever seen when he is not sneering.
Did they use a high-speed camera to catch it?
How popular on the left is Walt’s opinion that Saddam and the Taliban were not tyrannical?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:33 pmSpudge lied when he claimed Rumsfeld didn’t serve. So now all he can do is call names and post pictures.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmJoe for the GOP ticket in 2008!
December 4th, 2005 at 9:35 pmRun Joe, run!
#41
He is sneering, he just has his head tilted so you can’t see it.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:35 pmMy God - did I mention Afganistan - sorry.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:35 pmSpudge and Wallace:
Please don’t use this blog as a forum to hurl insults back and forth at each other. If you want to debate the substance of an issue, fine. But the incessant back and forth chatter makes the thread useless for everyone else.
Thank you.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:35 pmwwallace is a dipshit that has nothing to add to any conversation. So, now all he can do is be his dumbass self.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:36 pmThat would be great if wwallace ever added anything other than insults on these boards Judd
December 4th, 2005 at 9:37 pmIf all wallace is doing is insulting people, there is no reason to respond to him.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:38 pmCan we switch to a registered site with an “ignore button”?
I’d pay money to not have to read posts from these trolls.
If they are going post lies and propoganda, we can’t just let it sit here unchallenged.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:39 pmWallace, so you simply choose to disbelieve the facts of his record. It must be nice to pick and choose what’s the truth. Just like the administration chose to disbelieve the pre-war intel. Anything that doesn’t fit into the conservative ideology doesn’t exist.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:40 pmAll liberals here ever do is hurl insults Judd. Your blatant bias is obvious.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:41 pm#51 - SpudgeBoy,
December 4th, 2005 at 9:41 pmWould be nice, but the RNC would find us with the help of the Injustice Dept.
Judd wants us to stay on topic. Let’s see if that is possible or if the trolls will derail the converstaion again.
So, Lieberman is a republican lite. Do you think that this rumor could possibly be true?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:41 pmjust to follow up:
“Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan, has reviewed the payroll records and concluded that they indicate that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result.”
-wikipedia
Come on wallace. Even a Reaganite says Bush didn’t fulfil is obligations.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:43 pmmorgan, the fact is that Bush served honorably in the US military. You’re the one ignoring the facts.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:43 pm“All liberals here ever do is hurl insults Judd. Your blatant bias is obvious.”
See Judd. You clearly told both of us to stop and he says you are biased. That is the crap I would like to see go away.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:44 pmSo you’re saying the Assistant SecDef for Reagan is wrong?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:46 pmmorgan, anyone can post anything on wikipedia. President Bush met his Guard service requirements.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:46 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
December 4th, 2005 at 9:49 pmWallace answer the question. Here’s a US News and World Report article talking about the SecDef commments: http://www.usnews.com/ usnews/ news/ articles/ 040920/ 20guard.htm
Bush did not fulfil his obligations.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:50 pmDon’t worry Spudge. Commenters who use this blog to harrass others violate the terms of use. Anyone who consistently violates the terms of use will be prohibited from posting to this blog. This applies to everyone, no matter what their political point of view.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:50 pmmorgan, I already proved that Bush did meet his obligations.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:51 pmJust to include it here. The relevant passage is as follows:
December 4th, 2005 at 9:51 pm“A review of the regulations governing Bush’s Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year “military service obligation,” he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush’s own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush’s service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.”
Holy Joe looks like a shoo-in to me:
“”What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.”
He sure knows his famous phrases. Too bad he couldn’t find time when he was, oh, 26 or so, in 1968, to get to Nam and put that one in the bag for the old U.S. of A. Oh well, he was busy doing his lawyer thing, you know how it is. Like Cheney, he had other priorities.
Well, never fear, Joe, our corporate-controlled bipartisan political leadership — get that, leadership — doesn’t seem like it’s about to lose its will. Difficult though it may be, they’ll suck it up like the crafty pols they are and vote the funds for more 500 pound bombs, napalm and white phosphorous, to support the troops, don’t you know, who are just dying to get their support.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:51 pm“This applies to everyone. No matter what their policial point of view.”
Yeah, right. ROFL
December 4th, 2005 at 9:52 pm#55,
It seems odd even if Joe is a closet republican.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:54 pmI suppose since CT Gov. is Republican, they
gain a senate seat, at least temporarily,
but why would Joe want this?
Running for Prez. in 2008?
It would seem that he would have to run
as a republican, no?
Pretty weird, but if this is true, I
will be glad to be rid of him.
It’s pretty funny Don, liberals used to call Vietnam veterans “baby killers” now they claim only Vietnam veterans are allowed to have an opinion. Pretty hypocritical.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pmIf Joe goes, who will Faux get as the
December 4th, 2005 at 10:00 pmnew turn-coat?
Any guesses?
“Don’t worry Spudge. Commenters who use this blog to harrass others violate the terms of use. Anyone who consistently violates the terms of use will be prohibited from posting to this blog. This applies to everyone, no matter what their political point of view.”
Sounds good to me.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:03 pm#71, Good question. Zell Miller if he can get a weekend pass from the funny farm.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:03 pm#70
How about Hillary? Or Kerry?
Oh wait, they are finally starting to come around now that the rest of the entire party is. But, they sure do drag their feet.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:05 pmCome on wallace, where’d you go? Can’t face facts? Can’t stand up to the truth (and not “the truth” as told by the Right)?
December 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmWallace,
Is sarcasm too difficult for you? The point is that chicken-hawks like you are too willing to sacrifice others for your own sick agenda.
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
This country is now being mis-managed by chickenhawks, with the enthusiatic, cowardly support of thoughtless people like you.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:18 pmwwallace has a style that reminds me of many extremes.
In the first (not ww),
“You’re sister is really cute, could you fix me up on a date with her?â€
In the second (drifting towards ww),
“I hear that you’re sister is really hot, send her over to my pad.â€
In the third (almost ww),
“My friends tell me that your sister does it for a fiver, where’s she selling?â€
And finally (ww),
“I want to screw your sister.â€
The end result may be the same, but there is a matter of couth.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:19 pmComment #75 by Don clearly violates the site Terms of Use.
Comment #77 by Ryan clearly violates the site Terms of Use.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmI posted the facts Morgan. President Bush served honorably in the US military.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:31 pmComment by wwallace:
“I posted the facts Morgan. President Bush served honorably in the US military.”
Spelling correction ww:
I posted the fakes Morgan. President Bush served honorably in the US military.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:43 pmWallace,
I did not not “threaten, insult, abuse, intimidate or harass” you. I merely described people “like you” as cowardly and thoughtless.
You, collectively, are cowardly and thoughtless because you favor the loss of life of tens of thousands of other people, and the physical and psychological maiming, of tens of thousands more to satisfy some whim of yours for which you have not evidenced one whit of personal sacrifice. That makes you, collectively, cowards of the highest order. Chickenhawks.
Thoughtless, because if you ever seriously thought about the consequences of your cowardly impulses, the fact that they are contributing to the death and suffering of so many people, and the impoverishment of our country for generations to come, and are making us to be hated throughtout the world, especially the arab world, then as a person with any sense of morality you couldn’t possibly maintain your views and defend your positions.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:47 pmBUSH SERVED HONORABLY??? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
How can you prove it? They could not verify his records, remember? Also, I CHALLENGE you to find ANY information about his DD-214 that PROVES he served!
I can get JFK’s, Kerry’s, Murtha’s, hell I can even get MINE…But NOT BUSH’s? So proving he served will require more than an accomplice statement or a photo of him getting in some ficticious plane!
Here’s more proof!
The DD-214 is the form the government provides to those that have successfully completed their military service — a form that Bush apparently is unable to provide. I guess the driver thought that we deserve the truth about Bush’s military service. So do I.
http://www.sddt.com/ Commentary/ article.cfm?Commentary_ID=169&SourceCode=20040825tza
December 4th, 2005 at 11:11 pmDon,
IGNORE IGNORANCE and do not SATISFY STUPIDITY!
The clear fact that wwallace comes on this site and posts ignorant, racist, useless and outdated information to justify his/her/its position, ONLY PROVES that he/she/it gets a rise from showing their limited intelligence…RYAN consistently shuts this FOOL down and all they can do is call you names from across the playground…But when YOU do it, they run and tell the teacher! Sounds familiar?
How would someone who endorses BUSH know about the terms of use and what they mean. The current administration has the Constitution as a guideline, and you see how much they have distorted that document…
December 4th, 2005 at 11:17 pmThat’s even worse that Surgeon General Frist.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:32 pmThats one better than Surgeon General Meir.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:37 pmryan - you’ve probably heard of this: a substantial monetary reward for anyone who can vouch for bush’s guard service, anyone who served with him that is…i do believe no one has spoken up as yet…interesting…not?
December 4th, 2005 at 11:40 pmIraqvet,
Once a salesman, always a salesman. If these people have any sense at all, and we give them the facts (and, yes, question their manhood) then perhaps some of them can be neutralized or even turned around. Think progress.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:53 pmI think there should be some sort of requirement that a Secretary of Defense have some military or police background. Is that too much to ask?
December 5th, 2005 at 12:00 amWait, wasn’t this tread supposed to be about Lie-be-man?
December 5th, 2005 at 12:07 amFriendship, friendship, what a perfect blendship
*************
October 26,2003
Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Lieberman said Friday that if elected president, he would tap Republican Sen. John McCain as defense secretary.
************************
March 10, 2004
“John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years,” McCain said today when pressed for comment about a Kerry-McCain ticket. “Obviously, I would entertain it.”
December 5th, 2005 at 12:32 amAnybody see this crazy sh!t over at Crooks and Liars?
Read that caption down at the bottom. They think liberals are waging a war on Christmas on the Fox News Bulls and Bears financial show.
How frickin’ nuts are these people?
The only reason that people say “Happy Holidays” is because they want to be politically correct and not cause anybody discomfort by sighting the wrong religious holiday.
Business do it because their marketing department wants to sell as much stuff as possible. They don’t want anybocy to feel excluded from the sale or whatever.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:54 amLink:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/04.html#a6179
December 5th, 2005 at 12:58 amI thought the war on economic Christmas was led by the Christians who are pushing the ‘reason for the season’ and ‘put the Christ back in Christmas.’ There’s the real potential for economic disaster. But I wouldn’t expect Fox to know that or report it if they did.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:06 amLet’s get rid of this clown. Let this moron sign on to a broken Army, 2 effed up “wars”, a corruption of gov’t departments like I’ve never seen, and having to answer to DICK Cheney for every move.
Seriously, wouldn’t this appointment be like taking the CFO job at WorldCom or Enron? Who would want to be a part of this absolute disaster? Why would Joey L want all the soon-to-hit-the-fan crap splattered on him? This makes no sense. I can’t even see RepubliCANTS wanting this gig…
December 5th, 2005 at 1:13 am# 98
December 5th, 2005 at 1:21 amThe logic escapes me, liberals are shop keepers, and conservatives are corporate moguls. Charles Dickens outlined this in “A Christmas Carol”. The inverse should apply.
There is no “War on Christmas.” I just love how people like Gibson and O’Reilly turn it into some big grandiose secular-backed plot. Similar sounding religious plot outlined by Hitler over Jewish people.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:28 amRepublicans wage a war on christmas every time they pretend jesus was a war mongering bloodthirsty source of hate in order to justify their psychotic breakdowns.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:38 am#101, Punchy,
There is a neocon agenda beyond Iraq. Israel has a problem with Iran, Saudi Arabia might be on the table, and Syria needs to be Americanized. Rummy’s tired, and he’s starting to speak off-script. Joey’s fresh, he’s a good friend of Israel, he’ll have all those generals to order around, and he might want to set himself up for a lucrative corporate sinecure in a few years. These people look at things differently than you and I do, and power and money are two big reasons.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:39 amWwallace you are a reversed polarized self injected twit of toroidal proportions,reticulating your inert propaganda uselessly, tell your ‘master’ to pull your OFF switch. -Aj
The other part of that Blog Went ON: above?, so agaiin
William C. Bradford has resigned as an associate professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, effective Jan. 1.
…
Bradford, 39, maintained that two left-leaning professors were leading the charge for political reasons. They disliked him because he was an Army veteran who supported the war, he said.
…
Donnelly had long been suspicious of Bradford’s background, he said. What really piqued his attention was the Silver Star claim — “it is a pretty high award for valor, and not many were awarded in Desert Storm.”
Independently, Donnelly and I requested Bradford’s service record from the Army. It showed he was in the Army Reserve from Sept. 30, 1995, to Oct 23, 2001. He was discharged as a second lieutenant. He had no active duty. He was in military intelligence, not infantry. He received no awards.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:46 amOnly in America do we use the word ‘politics’ to describe the process so well: ‘Poli’ in Greek meaning ‘many’ and ‘tics’ meaning ‘bloodsucking creatures’
Bush-Blair-Sharon: L’ Axe du Mal -Aj
December 5th, 2005 at 2:04 amBob,
Do tell, yet another republican lying about their ‘military credentials’ while trying to smear real military people who disagree with them? Now where would Donnelly have gotten the idea that this was a respectable or reasonable thing to do?
*smirk*
December 5th, 2005 at 2:17 am“I posted the facts wwallace, President Bush served was AWOL from the US military, and should have gone to prison.”
Comment by Ryan Neat — December 4, 2005 @ 11:25 pm
Ryan, I took a look a “Wingmen(nuts) for Bush” site, and found a testimonial with the following from a commander of his, who never actually says that he saw Bush, only that he (and most others at the time) hadn’t received any bad reports about Bush - and that is all. In addition I found this classic bit of nuttiness:
“[. . .] I am proud to fully support him and to know that he successfully graduated and went on to serve honorably in the Texas Air National Guard–flying more than his share of cold war missions along the southern border of the United States. His objective was to identify bombers from the Soviet Union who probed our defenses constantly in that area. If ordered, he would have taken offense action against any invading force, a mission that he was fully qualified and capable of performing. Had a war been initiated by the USSR, he would have been in the first line of defense.
So I looked up this supposed “threat”, and found this, from
The Kremlin’s Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces, 1945-2000
[. . .]
“When Krushchev visited the plant to inspect the new [Myasishchev 2M] bomber, he was shown a profile of the bomber’s flight profile against US targets. The final stage of the flight took the bomber over Mexico, where the crew was expected to bail out, on the assumption that Mexico would be neutral. Krushchev rebuked Myasishchev for such a preposterous scheme….”
So George was protecting the border from a lamebrained threat which had never materialized because it had been stopped by Krushchev years before.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:54 amLet wwallace alone, it’s getting its ugly resy.
December 5th, 2005 at 3:26 amThis is nothing but a cynical ploy by Rove et al to pull the Democrats into the whole Iraq debacle. By trying to rewrite the history of how this whole disaster started (as they do every day and no one in the MSM willing to call b*llsh*t on them) the Repukelicans want to turn it around and blame the Democrats for authorizing the use of force. By putting Zell Lieberman in Rummy’s place, he’s just helping cut his own throat. If he gets in there, we can kiss the ’06 mid-terms goodbye which will open the door for more election stealing in ’08.
December 5th, 2005 at 6:48 amwwallace is a paid employee of the administration. He should be ignored since he has no mind nor thought of his own. He has to spout the
December 5th, 2005 at 8:00 amcorporateadministration talking point lies.Andrew Sullivan is a shameless gossip in the Matt Drudge tradition — he’ll say anything now to get attention and promote his website.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:12 amLieberman may be listed as a Dem., but has not shown to be one since he ran for office. For several years he has been a Bush administration and Israel kiss ass. I woulden’t vote for him for any position…Blessings
December 5th, 2005 at 8:32 amSharon, who said the following:
“These are very serious time; we’re facing challenges today at home and in the world the likes of which we have not faced together in a long, long time. It’s a time for change from George Bush, but its not a time for rookies.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that was Joe Lieberman on ABC’s This Week, October 19, 2003. I mean, Lieberman is proving that Bush hasn’t learned a damned thing, even after the FEMA fisaso with Brown being put in charge.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:58 am#109, I was actually wondering about that. While I’m not usually a conspiracy type, it crossed my mind that these are paid moles. Maybe not from the administration, but some right-wing alternate reality group.
Wallace - you are simply wrong about the president’s war record. Are you so ignorant that you can’t read the above articles and realise that? You’ve been manipulated by the WH. Read the facts and use your brain, if you can. But then most right-wing followers are incapable of independent thought.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:01 amJoe Six pack, the quote mark’s are not my quote, perhaps your’s, good but not mine. Regarding what Lieberman said or didn’t, every one with a brain know’s Bush has learned nothing and continues to be a drunken, druggie lier, Katrina ment nothing to this bunch but photo op’s. None of this administration cares about the American public or Iraq. As to Lieberman, McCain and Hillary they all have their flaws. I would of voted for Hillary in the past, not now. The same for Lieberman, not now. I don’t see any of these people getting into office other than the one’s they hold now. Just my opinion, and ofcourse we all know, opinions are like butts, we all have them….Blessings
December 5th, 2005 at 9:19 amLieberman is a fool, a Republican in a Democrat’s Senate seat. Bush/Rove will play him for their own advantage as they attempt to further divide the Democrats. Lieberman has absolutely no credentials for DOD, but politics is paramount, not experience and knowledge. Don, Spudge, Joe, and others have said it all here in earlier posts — this move, if it were to come to pass will simply demonstrate the contempt the Bushites have for the nation, and it will lower even further my estimation of Lieberman, the next Zell Miller.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:44 amVery good Maria, I agree, in fact I think Lieberman should be in the same boat as Chertoff (sp) the FEMA guy. Time for their boat to leave and go back to their home land….Blessings
December 5th, 2005 at 9:49 amHas anyone noticed where Lieberman is in the
New Political Review - Senator Poll?
Republicans start at rank 45 (Barack Obama is first) with only one ‘Democrat’ ranked below any Republican. Guess who?
December 5th, 2005 at 10:07 amYep! your right Plunger….Blessings
December 5th, 2005 at 11:08 amAh, yes, Israel
House and Senate conferees have approved $2.5 billion in assistance for Israel. The approval last week in a voice vote returns the full foreign-operations package to both houses of Congress for final approval before it goes to President George W. Bush for his signature. The package keeps funding to Israel at current levels, but the final votes ‹ likely to take place next week ‹ still could cut foreign aid by an across-the-board percentage because of the cost of recent hurricanes.
The legislation includes an additional $40 million in refugee resettlement assistance for Israel, money that helps absorb Ethiopian Jews, and cuts up to $75 million annually in administrative costs related to the aid, provisions that were included at the behest of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The package also preserves $150 million in assistance to the Palestinians, as requested by Bush, though the money is subject to tough congressional oversight. Also left untouched is $1.8 billion in assistance to Egypt, despite attempts in Congress to decrease the portion of aid that goes to Egyptian military spending and increase the amount used to encourage democracy.
http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/ main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=4344&TM=58.018
December 5th, 2005 at 11:16 amLieberman is the same as our Governor Bredesen. He was installed by the repubs here just in time for TennCare being phased out. He is a simmpering whimp, just like Lieberman.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:20 amSecretary of Defense? isnt he a Mossad agent though? His first act would be to nuke Iran Saudi Arabia etc..
December 7th, 2005 at 6:44 pmDenimbo
great idea!
December 18th, 2005 at 7:13 pmJessica Simpson
Jessica Simpson
December 18th, 2005 at 7:17 pmBrad Pitt
Bred Pitt
December 20th, 2005 at 7:14 pmwiki farm…
Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. Sofia Vergara….
December 8th, 2006 at 4:06 am