Will Joe Lieberman Oppose John Bolton?
Will Joe Lieberman Oppose John Bolton?
In 2005, the Bolton nomination passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but ran into a filibuster on the Senate floor. It appears likely that his re-nomination will proceed on a similar path. All indications are that Sen. Joseph Lieberman will play a crucial role in determining whether the Bolton nomination will ultimately pass the Senate.
Lieberman was part of “a tiny group” of Democrats who voted for Bolton to become Undersecretary of State in 2001. In 2005, Lieberman reportedly was “considering voting for Bolton” had a vote come up. His spokesman Matt Gobush elaborated:
Senator Lieberman remains undecided about Mr. Bolton’s nomination. As a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases. The senator is studying the issues raised by the committee to determine whether this is one of those cases.
Reports indicate that the White House is “trying to take advantage of the current crisis in the Middle East to gin up support for Bolton, an aggressive defender of Israel, among Jewish organisations, despite the fact that most of their members traditionally vote for Democrats.”
A source tells ThinkProgress that Senate moderates will be looking to Joe Lieberman, a long-time advocate for Isreal, before deciding how to vote. A stance against Bolton could weaken the White House’s strategy and embolden moderates to fight the nomination.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
78 Responses to “Will Joe Lieberman Oppose John Bolton?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Don’t hold your breath… Lieberman’s a wanker.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pmUnlikely.
Bolton will be confirmed. Such is the contempt for the UN at the White House and Congress.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pmJoe Lieberman is going to beat Ned Lamont in the primary!
July 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pmHe’d have to remove his lips from W’s backside to vote against Bolton. It’s probably not going to happen.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pmHendler,
Nice non-sequitur there. You are a Bush follower, aren’t you?
July 27th, 2006 at 1:21 pmGuess again, assclown:
Poll: Lieberman Trails For First Time
July 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2006/ 07/ 20/ politics/ main1823685.shtml
Lieberman just can’t help but succumb to the sexy ’stache of Bolton.
Those fascist whiskers are hard to resist for any law-and-order republicrat.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pmhis spokesman is “gobush”
his spokesman can be replaced by his spokeaman’s last name.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pmSenate moderates will be looking to Joe Lieberman, a long-time advocate for Isreal, before deciding how to vote. A stance against Bolton could weaken the White House’s strategy and embolden moderates to fight the nomination.
So in other words, the WH is looking to Lieberman again to provide cover for their far right agenda. And he rarely disappoints.
THAT is why people are supporting Lamont.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pmKeep on comming with the bullsh*t Jason, it’s so much easier to ignore you…
July 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pmOld Joe is a turncoat who works for the Bush Regime, so he will vote for Bolton unless told to do otherwise!
July 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pmIf history is any sort of a teacher, Joe will back Bolton. If it was a anorexic, drug addled, TV personality with a penchant for saying that America should invade other countries, Lieberman would support the presidents choice. In short, Joe Lieberman would support Ann Coulter as the US representative to the UN if Bush nodded in her direction.
The guy doesn’t have the balls to do anything but nod when the president says something. He is like one of the advisors who couldn’t admit that the emperor had no clothes.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pmHEY NEW YORKERS - PLEASE HEED THE CALL TO OUST HILLARY - PLEASE!
her opponent:
On Israel, We Must Never Be Silent
July 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pmby Jonathan Tasini
When I announced that I was entering the race for the US Senate, I began with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.†I am not a professional politician whose sole goal is to accumulate power, so I have the freedom to speak my mind and I will not be silent.
I take it Think Progress and “unnamed sources” are stumping for Ned Lamont….
July 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#14: I take it Think Progress and “unnamed sources†are stumping for Ned Lamont.
I don’t quite get that from this piece, although I wouldn’t mind if they did support Lamont explicitly. Ned Lamont is a much better candidate than Joe Lieberman.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pmSo far Bolton can count on Liberman, Clinton, and Shumar for votes. Are you reasy for another lopsided vote 60+? One by one the “progressive” agenda is being shown to be lacking and flushed down the toilet of history. Wait I will help you with your rebuttle: “You just wait until November, we are going to take back everything, impeach Bush, and install a Liberal Democracy under Nancy Pelosi.” Wait hell I want the election TODAY.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI’d be embarrassed if I were one of these so-called Senate moderates. If I have to take ques from another senator on how I should vote, I would think maybe its its time for me to go home because if lost my spine. Nevermind the fact that the senator I’m looking to for guidance may lose in a primary. Talk about a weak party!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pmPost 13 > thank you for the link to Tasini > he is a good person, and I wish he could take down Hillary in New York, because like Lieberman she is a vile warmonger and a hypocrite as well!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:07 pminstall a Liberal Democracy
Wow … you’ve realised your living in a one party state, and you appear to like it.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pmRetired Republican Soldier,
I understand just about anyone can sign up for the Army these days. You can probably unretire and continue to serve your country, instead of wasting your time on progressive message boards.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:10 pmJay - I was going to vote the opposition to my senator Cantwell - but she somehow swayed the progressive candidate I was all ready to vote for to join her campaign. Disappointing, but the man that must be beat is another corporate shill, so I sort of understand the strategy.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:16 pmoff topic but DAMN funny.
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg&mode=related&search=Fred%20Phelps
July 27th, 2006 at 2:19 pmPost 21 > If at least Lieberman is taken down in the primary, then it will send a message to other Democrat Senators to wise up fast! Hillary Clinton has massive connections in New York, which seems strange because she should be a Senator for Arkansas > NOT New York! The fact that she can ridicule Tasini over Israel blows my mind, because he is Jewish and lived in Israel, so he knows far more about Israel than Hillary ever possibly could! Hillary is a fraud!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:23 pm#16 - See! Even Retired Republican Soldiers can’t wait for the Democrats to take back the House and Impeach Pres. Bush! :-)
Don’t worry. There’s a possibility that the Democrats won’t take the majority, but there’s no doubt that there will be fewer Republicans in the House and Senate come 2007. The average American voter is getting sick and tired of the same old lies that Republicans rode to power on in 1994.
I guess “borrow and squander” doesn’t work as well as the elected Republicans thought it would.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pmWhy is there even any doubt about this? Lieberman will no doubt vote for Bolton, and then admonish those who disagree with him, citing how dangerous the world is right now. And an aside: much as I’d like to see Lieberman beaten, I don’t think it’s going to happen. The robo calls and ads are flying thick and fast now.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pmPost 25 > Lieberman will lose the CT primary, if the election is run honestly, without any cheating to keep Joe in office! If fraud is used to keep Lieberman in the Senate, then Dems are going to take to the streets to punish every DLC member in DC! We want Joe out > PERIOD.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pmPost 26: I guess it’s all going to depend on who votes on August 8. If it’s just highly motivated people (which seems entirely possible), then Lamont wins. If, on the other hand, the rank and file Democrats are influenced by Clinton’s visit, and Clinton’s voice telling us what a fabulous Senator Joe is, then, Lamont will be in trouble. BTW, the robo calling with Clinton’s voice wasn’t all that easy to understand. Another Lieberman campaign misstep?
July 27th, 2006 at 2:43 pmAs a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases.
UN Ambassador is not a Cabinet-level position in this Administration.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pmDon’t hold your breath.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pmThe vote will come later in August and even if Joe loses his primary to Lamont, he will still be the one casting the vote.
Do you think the reason for the August vote for Bolton whose term expires in January might just be because the current crop of senators will still be in place?
C’mon Think Progress. You should know by now how Joe is going to vote. Its a no-brainer for this Bush enabler.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pmNO Not unless Bush tells him. Bush is Bolton’s ticket to the job and Joe follows Bush’s orders.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pmThe “most extraordinary cases”? You mean like Bolton chasing another diplomat down the hall?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:21 pmWhether or not you agree with Sen Lieberman’s stance on the war, I think this stance is refreshing:
I agree with this, regardless of the party of the President.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pmJoe (uncle Martin the Martian, Mr.Hand) is out of touch with most everyone but Shrubco. and Israel. Now go get a big juicy wet one from W you pathetic imposter.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:37 pmChase,
I think that’s a no-brainer regarding the Cabinet. But the UN ambASSador is not a cabinet position, right? So isn’t that a moot point?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pmAs a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases.
The UN ambassadorship is not a cabinet, nor a cabinet-rank position. At least not nominally. Check the White House website to get a full list of cabinet positions.
In theory, the US mission to the UN is -for its very nature- an office within the Department of State, which would make John Bolton a direct report to Sec Rice.
My two cents…
July 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pm#35 - I would extend the courtesy to ambassadors as well.
Let me try and think this through:
1. Cabinet - Senate gives most deference; only in the most extreme of cases should a nominee be denied
2. Ambassadors - Senate gives a great deal of deference; only very extreme nominees with either past or current positions that are completely unreasonable
3. Judges - Senate gives consent as default position; rejects a nominee only when demeanor is crude, held positions are unreasonable or experience/credentials are lacking
I may want to tweak this before I commit it to ink.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:50 pmWhy must you “Progressives†always caveat an election with “If it fair� I have heard a lot of hot air, some really silly conspiracy theories, and a really good lesson in fuzzy math but I have yet to see even a inkling of proof that any of the past elections were anything but fair. Does it help Liberals/Progressives sleep at night by chanting that the 2000/2002/2004 elections were stolen in some large or small way? Let me toss out another say crazy theory for you to digest over the say four months: Maybe your side is losing elections because maybe less people support your ideas? And I hate to break this to you, there are far more “Former Liberals†ready to vote Conservative than there are “Conservatives ready to vote Liberal. I despise the idea of Senator McCain becoming president but I would vote for him long before I would vote for any Democrat/Progressive/Liberal and trust me I am not super conservative like some people are. Besides we have all the electronic voting machines rigged. ;-)
July 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pmI despise the idea of Senator McCain becoming president
Thank God someone else thinks that. RRS, who so far on the right interests you?
July 27th, 2006 at 4:04 pmFrom Article 2, Section 2 of US Constitution:
[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Where’s the provision for giving deference or the Senate providing consent “by default”? If anything, the text of the Constitution provides “deference” only for “inferior Officers” as the Congress may decide. In other words, the appointment of higher “Officers”, Ambassadors and Judges merits less deference to the President and rests more on the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. Such power of the Senate cannot be waived by law, but only by Constitutional amendment.
Any Senator who wants to weaken the constitutional power of the Senate is violating his/her oath of office and should look for another occupation.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pmMimir - I think our history has shown this deference to the Executive in granting (mostly) unfettered ability to select his cabinet, advisers and ambassadors. The Cabinet and Ambassadors, under the authority of the Executive branch, serve at the pleasure of the president - that is, he can fire them whenever he wants.
It is the nomination of judges and justices (particularly because of their lifetime tenure) that necessitates greater involvement by the legislative branch.
When I say the “default” position should be for confirmation reflects the belief that “elections have consequences”. By that I mean unless there is a “good” reason the nominee should not be confirmed (such as those I listed above), the Senate should acquiesce. Obviously when the government is divided, the nominee would need to be a little more “centrist” (again, reflected the “elections have consequences” idea)…
July 27th, 2006 at 4:31 pmChase - I agree with the historical trends. But this President and his rubber-stamping Congress has broken a lot of rules and unwritten understandings that tended to support the deference in the spirit of comity (remember the blue slip rule?). Without comity, the historical practice is not sustainable. The only place left that provides hard rules is the Constitution itself, and when confronted by an Executive hostile to the concept of the balance of powers, the Senate needs to assert its given powers.
Cabinet officials and Ambassadors sill have to take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and not to do as the President pleases. Some past officials took that point to heart (remember Archibald Cox?). Even under the American system, it is not unusual to have a President with Cabinet members and Ambassadors who are not friendly to the President, but are to their Senate sponsors. The President fires them at his/her peril.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:51 pmJay Randal
#26 “We want Joe out > PERIOD”
You could make a full list of your desires, I’ll see how I can help.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:53 pmSimon Bolivar
I don’t get it.
If you are not law-and-order, then your platform would be …
let me guess …
lawlessness-and-disorder?
What country do you like to live in? There is a plenty to choose from.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pmRetired Republican Soldier
“Why must you “Progressives†always caveat an election with “If it fairâ€?”
Well, that’s because we always lose big.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pmDNC liberals want Joe out and a few other republican wanabes as well. Joe knows this, if the votes for Bolton, its a slap in the face to the party and Clinton. He’ll be finished as a democrat.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:01 pmDear ONE Jew - On another thread, KKKJay (Randal) thought Joe Lieberman and I should pack it up and head to the Land of Milk and Honey, being Bushco Jew neo-CON Zionists. Can you imagine depriving that poor nebish of authentic “hood wearing” time???
July 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pmmighty aphrodite
#47 Hi, mighty.
So, he did take the KKK membership? That is so unfair! He was suppose to give me his credit card first…on-line…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#37: 2. Ambassadors - Senate gives a great deal of deference; only very extreme nominees with either past or current positions that are completely unreasonable
I think Bolton clearly fits this category. He is clearly opposed to the very existence of the United Nations. He has made no effort to reform the U.N., only to undermine it. That’s an extreme position when one considers he’s supposed to be the U.N.’s ambassador. He should be an advocate for the U.N., not an opponent of it. Can you imagine appointing an ambassador to Israel who opposes the very existence of Israel?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:59 pmmighty aphrodite
I’m on
International Relations VIDEO: Bolton
it’s getting interesting…
July 27th, 2006 at 6:10 pmJim
#49 “I think Bolton…”
You do not need to think. Ambassador Bolton follows established by The Administration course on the need to reform UN. That is - he is doing his job.
This course reflects the opinion of majority Americans.
So, what’s your problem? Democracy?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#51: You do not need to think.
I don’t doubt that you prefer not to think. Thinking is important to me, however.
Bolton follows established by The Administration course on the need to reform UN. That is - he is doing his job.
Bolton has made no effort to reform the U.N., only to undermine it. That’s a very important distiction.
This course reflects the opinion of majority Americans.
The majority of Americans want the U.N. to be a vibrant and fully functioning body. Bolton wants the U.N. to cease to exist. Bolton does not represent the mainstream view.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#51: So, what’s your problem? Democracy?
I support democracy. And since you’re such an enthusiastic supporter of democracy, I know you’ll join me in supporting legislation that gets rid of Diebold voting machines and provides a paper trail for every vote, that harshly punishes anyone who tries to suppress voter turnout, and that makes the partisan gerrymandering of election districts a felony.
Can I count on your support, you tireless advocate for democracy?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:27 pmMinir - I agree that the Congress should be exercising its constitutional responsibility of “advice and consent”. It would be foolish to transform the relationship of Congress and the Executive, particularly given that a healthy percentage of the Congress members will outlast the current president in office. Given that, preventing the spread of the ill-will I see growing between the branches now should be a goal of the leadership in both parties.
I am sympathetic to complaints about the Bush administration’s push to consolidate powers. Personally, I don’t feel as threatened to some on TP but I am keeping a keen eye on it nonetheless.
What I’m not suggesting is that Congress should give in to his every request, but a respect for the institutions themselves never hurts.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:46 pmJim:
I know you’ll join me in supporting legislation that gets rid of Diebold voting machines and provides a paper trail for every vote
Diebold is not the problem. They are just a vendor. The problem, as you suggest, is the lack of an audit trail with DRE voting. If you are interested in the topic, I highly recommend you take a look VerifiedVoting.org. I think this is a non-partisan issue that deserves immediate attention. What we don’t need are Luddite-esque calls for a return to paper ballots and punch machines. We have the technology to move forward with verifiable DRE machines that produce an audit trail.
In the meantime, I would advocate parallel testing in every county that currently uses DRE machines.
that makes the partisan gerrymandering of election districts a felony
I would like to see a redrawing of every district line in the country to match existing geographic, man-made or political boundaries to form compact, more reasonable districts. I think the state legislatures should elect bi-partisan commissions to review the boundaries after every Census. This might mean loosening the “one-man, one-vote” restrictions (that is, one district might be 150,000 and the next 163,000 in size). I think a situation like that is much preferable to the one we have now, where districts are virtually equal in population but are shaped like impressionistic artwork.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:57 pmIT’S LIKE CHOOSING, TWO-THUGS… TO “RAPE” THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER…AGAIN.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:09 pmJim
#53 “I support democracy…”
Wishful thinking. You support something different. Democracy among other things means tolerant.
#52 “Bolton has made no effort to reform the U.N., only to undermine it. That’s a very important distiction.”
“The majority of Americans want the U.N. to be a vibrant and fully functioning body. Bolton wants the U.N. to cease to exist. Bolton does not represent the mainstream view.”
Says who? You? Well then, we all have to listen to what you have said, because thet’s how democratic you are.
“Thinking is important to me,…”
O-o-o-oh, you are such a darling….. Do you actually do anything besides thinking?
July 27th, 2006 at 8:13 pmdo dah do dah
July 27th, 2006 at 8:44 pmddfdd do dah do dah…
July 27th, 2006 at 8:47 pmits “Israel” not “Isreal”
July 27th, 2006 at 9:57 pmThis paragaph from the IPS article TP linked pretty much says it all.
“One would think that Israel and members of the American Jewish community would want someone helping to steward their concerns in the UN who was actually good at achieving stabilising results that can stand the test of time,” he noted. “Bolton blows things up, and we’ve had enough of that in the Middle East.” (END/2006) “
July 27th, 2006 at 10:02 pm#
HEY NEW YORKERS - PLEASE HEED THE CALL TO OUST HILLARY - PLEASE!
her opponent:
On Israel, We Must Never Be Silent
by Jonathan Tasini
When I announced that I was entering the race for the US Senate, I began with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.†I am not a professional politician whose sole goal is to accumulate power, so I have the freedom to speak my mind and I will not be silent.
Comment by madashell — July 27, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Excellent! If I were a New Yorker, this guy would for sure get my vote. A truly decent human being.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:31 pmWhen the chips are down, Lieberman votes with Republicans, so the odds are now in Bolton’s favor. But what will that mean for Joe in the D primary? That vote should move any remaining fencesitters over to Lamont.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:55 pm#57: You support something different. Democracy among other things means tolerant.
Okay, I’m curious. What, exactly, do I support, if not democracy? And in exactly what ways am I intolerant? And how are you such a skilled mind reader? I’m, like, so impressed.
Says who? You? Well then, we all have to listen to what you have said, because thet’s how democratic you are.
You’re free to decide whether or not you should listen to me. It’s pretty clear that you’ve made your decision. But what I said was true. In a Pew poll, 92% of Americans said that strengthening the U.N. should be a foreign policy goal for the United States. The poll didn’t ask if people think the U.N. should be dissolved (Bolton’s position), but it couldn’t be higher than 8%.
you are such a darling
Thank you.
Do you actually do anything besides thinking?
A variety of things. Are you actually curious? I didn’t think so.
Interesting, too, that you were silent on my proposals for improving democracy in the United States. Should I take that as a silent acknowledgement that your rhetoric about “democracy” is actually a lot of hot air?
July 28th, 2006 at 2:03 am#55: Diebold is certainly a problem. When the CEO of the company that tallies votes (with no paper trail, mind you) says he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,” we have a problem. We will never know if Bush legitimately won the 2004 election, since we cannot ever verify the vote tally. The exit polls suggest that the vote may have been tainted. But we will never know. That is a very serious problem.
But I am happy to say that I agree enthusiastically with your proposed solutions. I do worry a little bit about there being a wide disparity in populations between election districts, but I wholeheartedly support the spirit of your idea. Election districts should not be shaped like plumber’s wrenches or miniature statuettes of liberty.
July 28th, 2006 at 2:10 am#54: What I’m not suggesting is that Congress should give in to his every request, but a respect for the institutions themselves never hurts.
Maybe you could define what you mean when you refer to “respect for the institutions.” Under extreme circumstances, for example, I wouldn’t consider a filibuster to be a violation of “respect for the institutions.”
July 28th, 2006 at 2:17 amWell, Joe’s concern over keeping his job may have some influence on how he might vote this time. Given that he needs every Democratic vote that he can get, pissing them off even more by supporting Bush again, just days before the Primary election, would be a risk he might not want to take. That said, if that was not the case, OF COURSE he would vote for him. If Joe keeps his job, he will make it up to them on some other vote.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:43 amOne Jew
O-o-o-oh, you are such a darling….. Do you actually do anything besides thinking?
Do you ever actually do any thinking whatsoever?
July 28th, 2006 at 7:38 amI think Bush will be able to depend on Lieberman. He is as dependable to Republicans as Tom Delay was only Lieberman’s huge financial resources actually come from corporations and his policy positions directly from AIPAC. Don;t hold your breath waiting for Lieberman to take a position that puts the US interests ahead of Israeli interests.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am#64 Jim
“Okay, I’m curious. What, exactly, do I support, if not democracy? And in exactly what ways am I intolerant? And how are you such a skilled mind reader? I’m, like, so impressed.â€
Good. These are all good questions. Importantly – you started asking yourself these questions. Being self-critical is a pre-condition to true healthy constructive critical capacity.
“In a Pew poll, 92% of Americans said that strengthening the U.N. should be a foreign policy goal for the United States.â€
Right.
“The poll didn’t ask if people think the U.N. should be dissolved (Bolton’s position), but it couldn’t be higher than 8%.â€
Read my other posts on
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 07/ 27/ bolton-sudan/ #comments
Bolton is not dissolving UN. Neither do Condy or George W.
“A variety of things. Are you actually curious? I didn’t think so.â€
I do.
“Interesting, too, that you were silent on my proposals for improving democracy in the United States. Should I take that as a silent acknowledgement that your rhetoric about “democracy†is actually a lot of hot air?â€
No.
It is a big, big issue. It’ll take a long, long time to see a change from status quo.
Please, see my post #299 #121 For Truth on
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/armitage-mideast/
Thanks, Jim. You are very interesting party to talk to. Later, I hope.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:00 amWell One Jew > I see you are a pal of MA on here, so you, MA, and Lieberman can all move to Israel the land of Zionist fascists!
July 28th, 2006 at 10:47 am#72: Bolton is not dissolving UN.
No, but he has repeatedly said that he opposes its existence. In a now-famous speech at the World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that “there is no such thing as the United Nations.” He added: “If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
Neither do Condy or George W.
It’s somewhat unclear what Rice’s or Bush’s views are on the U.N. They both show contempt for it when it doesn’t do what they want, but when they get into a tight spot, they enlist the help of the U.N. They don’t have a coherent position.
You know, you haven’t addressed any of my questions about your accusations of my being un-democratic. I consider this a serious accusation, and I expect you to justify yourself.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pm#70: Please, see my post #299 #121 For Truth on http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/armitage-mideast/
I don’t think I understand your position. Your solution to solving the ills of American democracy is to elect people like John McCain and Joe Lieberman? You know that these are the people already making the decisions, don’t you?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pmWhy would Lieberman back down on his principles? Every time he is presented with an opportunity to show his loyalty to bush, he does so brilliantly.
July 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pmJay Randal
“Well One Jew … and Lieberman can all move to Israel the land of Zionist fascists!”
Why try to prove your reputation, babe?
You do not think it’s known broadly enough?
Go Hollan Heights, get an AK, sit and wait. When IDF comes to clean up the place, you’ll argue all the way till Damaskus. If your bottom still shake that is.
July 28th, 2006 at 5:22 pmJim
“No, but he has repeatedly…”
Check your sources. I’m not gonna waist my time digging what else did you miss or teach you how to read the news.
“It’s somewhat unclear…”
“…to Jim” would be accurate end of this sentence. Learned English at school?
“You know, …”
I do. You provide a false information. Or, testimony is it called in a Court of Law?
You see, I did not learned English at shcool.
Did I spell that right?
July 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pmOut.
July 28th, 2006 at 5:31 pmJoe Lieberman has always been a Zionist racist first and an American second. It’s time to get rid of this lack luster Lieberman and put him into permanent retirement where he belongs.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:28 am