Lieberman Officially Endores Escalation in Iraq
Lieberman Officially Endores Escalation in Iraq
Last month, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he was “open” to increasing troop levels in Iraq, and a few weeks ago he wondered why Donald Rumsfeld had not included the possibility of escalation in his outgoing memo. Today, Lieberman voiced his strong support for pouring tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq:
President Bush may not be certain he wants more troops in Iraq, but Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is.
“After speaking with our military commanders on the ground,” he said Wednesday in an e-mail, “I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad.”
In the American Prospect yesterday, Larry Korb and Max Bergmann from the Center for American Progress explained why “sinking U.S. forces deeper into Iraq based on a gamble we are sure to lose” is such a bad idea:
- “Ground forces have already been stretched to the breaking point. … Adding 50,000 troops would only exacerbate the situation.”
- “Our increased presence would result in an even greater level of violence, further fueling the insurgency and strengthening the militias.”
- “Additionally, this operation would severely undercut the Maliki government. Sending additional troops would be the equivalent of a no-confidence vote in that government and the Iraqi security forces, and could lead to the government’s collapse.”
The “least bad option” available to Bush is the strategic redeployment of our troops out of Iraq to countries like Afghanistan. “This, combined with regional diplomatic initiatives and an Iraqi peace conference,” they write, “could help stabilize Iraq and the region. More troops will not.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
143 Responses to “Lieberman Officially Endores Escalation in Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I guess he's not all bad afterall :)
December 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pmThanks Happy Pie.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:23 pmYawn.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:30 pmhey happy guy - you posting from anbar province? didn't think so. when are the democrats gonna do what they should have done last summer: cut joementum off at the knees and strip him of senority. he's a cancer on the party. who knows? maybe olympia snow or gordon smith could be tempted to pull a jeffords. better 50/50 than to let this schmuck keep his act up...
December 21st, 2006 at 3:30 pmDoes this make Joe Lieberman a "surge protector?"
Just asking...
December 21st, 2006 at 3:32 pmWhat happen to you #2 post "ForTruth". Did they pull it because it was as Anti-Semitic as it gets?
December 21st, 2006 at 3:33 pmNot allowed to say anything about Traitor Joe being affiliated with I----L on here!
December 21st, 2006 at 3:34 pmWow, this website is censoring more and more each day.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:34 pmLieberman serves his masters well -- not his constituents but his masters. I agree with the poster who said the Democrats should cut him off. His head has grown way too big and he thinks he is an infallible power-broker. We've already got one of those "bubble-boys"...his name is GDumbya.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:35 pmAnd we should be surprised at this????
His head is so far up Dubya's ass, he can give the Chimp-in-Chief's a full prostate exam. And Barney and Prozac Laura are getting VERY jealous!
December 21st, 2006 at 3:35 pmHow do you talk to people that use innocent people as shields and blow themselves up in the hope of killing as many civilians as possible. I guess we could just offer up some Jews.......
December 21st, 2006 at 3:36 pmPlease stop putting offensive comments in the thread, and please stick to the subject matter at hand - Sen. Lieberman's support for escalation.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pmJay,
So if I mention Jimmy Carter's book, it'll be deleted?
Just asking.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pm#5
So, when you say "Happy Guy", you mean "Gay" right? Fly that rainbow flag proudly young man, we all support your life choice and your freedom to be who and what you are.
Oh, but making false and entirely fabricated malicious claims about another is slander, and when published it becomes and issue of libel.
I would recommend that you go back to your "church" and continue performing fellatio upon your "pastor". That seems to be your strength.
Happy Chanukah!
December 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm#11 Kevin,
December 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pmAs George Bush. That is what he is doing with our troops. I'm glad that you are seeing the light.
Gee, I guess he wasn't talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What would they know about troop levels anyway?
December 21st, 2006 at 3:44 pmYou are right for the wrong reasons.
More troops into Iraq is a wrong not for any practical considerations, but because invading and conquering another country is a crime.
If the Iraqis fell meekly into submission, and Bush's junta could maintain control with only a skeleton force that never got shot at, then it would be an even bigger crime, and even more imperative that they be forced to get out.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:44 pmAhh General Pippy Longstocking AKA Micheal AKA IHL moved to another thread as he was called out. Heh.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:45 pmGeneral Pippy Longstocking, (credit For Truth)
Please stop posting the same tired comments on every thread.
Give us some facts to support your ridiculous claims, or go away.
Would you care to hear my preference?
December 21st, 2006 at 3:46 pmGeneral Pippy,
You had to cut and paste your posts to multiple threads, like it was enough of a task for you to produce one thought. You keep proving how much of a stupid moron you really are, Micheal.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pmA journalist or one of these Fox tv pundits should ask Lieberman if he is thinking about sending his kids as part of this 'surge' to Iraq that he is advocating.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:48 pmI think I have figured out who The Space-Bar Challenged Multiple-Personalitied One is. Phil Hendrie (google/wiki him) recently left the airwaves and has some time on his hands to fool around.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pmHappy Guy,
They totally pulled my post. You use the old Anti-Semtic accusation if anyone sez BOO to Isreal. Its just a fact. Folks from "that country" are just as bent to see the death and destruction as the Muslims are. It takes at least 2 to have a war.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:55 pm#17, are you saying our troops are using innocent people as shields and killing as many civilians (on purpose) as possible? If you truly believe that, then this is a dark day.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pmIn lieu of a Zionist comment which could get deleted........
December 21st, 2006 at 3:57 pmMaybe Lieberman has stock in SURGE laundry detergent...
#17, are you saying our troops are using innocent people as shields and killing as many civilians (on purpose) as possible?
I think he's saying that the Bushies are using our troops, who are basically innocent people, as shields, and killing lots of civilians on purpose.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:01 pmWhy do we have to tip-toe around Isreal so much? I'm not anti-semitic. I have friends from that persuasion. Isreal is a big part of this equation, we must consider their involvement in instability and war-mongering.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pm#27 Kevin,
No, I'm saying the commanders (especially the CinC and SOD) are using innocent people as shields and converting our troops into suicide bombers killing as many civilians as possible.
And if you truly feel it is a "dark day" then perhaps you should finally realize it is because your bulb is so dim.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:05 pmI bring up Isreal, because I give them enough credit to be civilized and able to assist in bringing peace to the middle east. I don't give the rest of the middle east that credit.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:05 pm#29 ForTruth,
The answer to your question is simple, actually. Research who funds this site.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pmWho the hell is General Pippy?
December 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pm#29....
December 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pmI believe the military/drug/oil/security corporate capitalist masters find the state of Isreal to be a very convenient excuse for their desire to control the worlds resources and labor.
So what's LieberWhore's agenda? Why can't he see that even adding 100,000 more troops wouldn't make a difference? Unless he and "his" administration really don't give a rat's ass about Iraq or it's people and Iran is the prize. I can't help but feel that Joe, of an orthodox persuasion is acting on his religious allegiances! And that means using our military to do his "other" country's dirty work! Not only should he be cut off at the knees but he's a traitor in my book and should be deported!
December 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pmSo you are saying the troops are ordered to kill unarmed civilians for fun. You really believe that. That if the insurgents stopped fighting that we would keep on killing for the fun of it. That we are blowing up markets in the middle of a busy day just to see people run for there lives. You know…..for fun….
December 21st, 2006 at 4:11 pmCongratulations, Connecticutians.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmZooey,
December 21st, 2006 at 4:17 pmA name given to the troll by ForTruth.
Full name: General Pippy Longstocking!
See the thread below.
And if you truly feel it is a “dark day†then perhaps you should finally realize it is because your bulb is so dim.
Hee hee. Great line there.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:18 pmLIEberman.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:18 pm#36,
You think this is fun? There are over 600,000 dead unarmed Iraqi civilians who would challenge you on that. If they weren't dead that is.
Nobody thinks this is fun. Short of Bush and his bunch who actually JOKE about it.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:19 pmDoesn't it just gall you, Tuber, when Bush does that stupid laugh, usually when talking about the war?
December 21st, 2006 at 4:21 pmSo you are saying the troops are ordered to kill unarmed civilians for fun.
Huh? No, I think the troops are ordered to kill unarmed civilians to eliminate resistance to the occupation and conquest.
I don't know who sold you the mind-reading helmet, but I'd ask for my money back if I were you.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:21 pmWTF are you talking about. You should love this guy, he has been backing Bush since day one. Even the other trolls like him. God you are frickin' slow.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:24 pmI don’t know who sold you the mind-reading helmet, but I’d ask for my money back if I were you.
Comment by Gary Kleppe
LOL! I love that line!
December 21st, 2006 at 4:24 pmCan I use it?
;)
#43 trueblue,
Like you would not believe. But what gets to me more is that he is never called on it by anyone in the press. Except Stewart and Colbert, the irony of which is astounding.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pmthe wasting away of America as represented by traitors such as Lieberman whose primary allegiance is not to the country of his birth but to the illegitimate "country" known a Israel.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pmNo the Muslims aren't. If they are, then the Christians are after the same exact ends.
As far as safe haven, you ever heard of that thing called Earth?
You are the minority retard.
Brigadier General Spudge Boy
December 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pmThis is the same Lieberman who, during the campaign, said: "No one wishes to bring the troops home more than I do". Of course, that was when his reelection was in the balance.
Why people fell for it, despite his record of saying and doing whatever is necessary to feed his personal interest, I don't know.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pmI love that line!
Can I use it?
Sure, be my guest.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:30 pmWow, this website is censoring more and more each day.
Comment by Happy Guy — December 21, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
And yet you are still here.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pmyou're right, Tuber.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pmFor once I would like to hear a reporter say to him:"Why is that funny, Mr. President?"
BTW: TO ALL TROLLS. IF YOU POST ANYTHING ANTI-MUSLIM/ANTI-ARABIC, YOU ARE AN ANTI-SEMITE. HERE IS THE DEFINITION FOR YOU RETARDS.
Semite:
Ya see the misnomer part?
December 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Happy Guy, how does it feel to belong to the 11 percent who support escalation? Especially when this number is declining. Does it make you feel boxed in, knowing that you belong to a dwindling group of war criminals and braindead freaks?
By the way, I haven't seen yapping lately about global warming.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pm#56 Good point, Spudge, but it will be totally lost on the trolls. Words and ideas mean nothing to them, so why should intellectual consistency mean anything? We're talking about people who seem to actually thrive on their in-your-face hypocrisy. And you can bet that most of them would turn on the Jews in a heartbeat if that became convenient to them.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:38 pmGod bless CNN's Michael Ware:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_09_atrios_archive.html
Hey Hey, Ho Ho (July 2006)
Harold Meyerson carefully explains the whole Joe thing to his challenged colleagues.
There is another thing, too. I'm really surprised that as far as I know no journalist has ever bothered to follow this one up.
Michael Ware, who was then Time's Baghdad Bureau Chief:
I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting.
-Atrios 9:19 AM
December 21st, 2006 at 4:44 pm#56 Spudger -
December 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pmOh crap, my granny was one fourth Ugarite!
Lieberman is right. We need to secure Baghdad and we need more troops to do it.
I'm not a Dem and I'm not Jewish but I love that guy -- he has character, unlike most of the Dem leaders who shift their views according to polls.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pm#11 Kevin
How do you talk to people that use innocent people as shields and blow themselves up in the hope of killing as many civilians as possible. I guess we could just offer up some Jews…….
1. The administration has already engaged in talks with the insurgents, so ask the White House how it's done.
2. How do you stop a civil war with military might alone, and not engage in diplomacy of any kind?
3. Who, specifically, are you talking about when you say "people that use innocent people as shields"?
4. If you say you can't talk to those people because they use innocent people as shields, how are you going to deal with them militarily if they're using innocent people as shields? Is that when collateral damage suddenly become acceptable?
December 21st, 2006 at 4:48 pmSo 600,000 people in Iraq have bullets or shrapnel maid in the USA. Our troops walk down the street and just open fire on people just so they have something to shoot at. No one ever points a weapon at them. No one ever tries to blow them up. Everyone in Iraq is peaceful and would never think of violence.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm“I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad.â€
Then be a real man like George Washington and lead them into battle yourself on a horse (or in a humvee) right up front.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm#61 Cynicon Implant
Lieberman is right. We need to secure Baghdad and we need more troops to do it.
How are you going to do it? Is that all it takes to secure Baghdad? More troops? How many more? For how long? Why didn't we do it sooner?
You're so quick to agree with Lieberman, I figured you already had the details worked out.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:53 pmHow do you talk to people that use innocent people as shields and blow themselves up in the hope of killing as many civilians as possible. I guess we could just offer up some Jews…….
Comment by Kevin
You dont talk to people like that. This delusion you typed is a straw man. You DONT talk to people like that. You talk to the leaders in a country that are the elders that the people will listen to. You talk to them over and over making compromises and brainstorming win-win situations until you come up with a plan. THEN you let these respected elders go out and talk to their people. THEN those people will listen to them and stop supporting the people that are just murderers.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:53 pmLiving in Australia, a peaceful, multi-racial, multi-cultural & democratic piece of land, I could not understand why American people need a gun at home (except for a few wise hunters...) when the country is so strong, with an adequate police force and with so many yearly gunshot fatalities and accidents, etc... I could not get why the Constitution calls for it (must be big business, hey?).
December 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pmI understood then America was a Republic... not a Democracy.
Sometimes I cannot help thinking as if the next war America is going to fight is another civil argument... to the next democratic level.
Oh God, make sure the next Congress allows for $100 billions in plastic toy guns... like in Hollywood!
Kevin is assembling straw men so fast that even he can't knock them all down.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:56 pm#63
Hmmm. Who is it that doesn't know to leave a space after punctuation? I've seen that person posting under a different name before.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:58 pmJoe Lieberman, the War Monger! No war monger has a chance in hell of being elected as President in this country which is definitely flexing it's anti-war muscles!
December 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pmhe has character, unlike most of the Dem leaders who shift their views according to polls.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — December 21, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
So Lieberman has character? Yeah, right, lots of character.
Folks, this illustrates a point I have made here again and again: a common trait among the 30 percenters (or should we start referring to them as the 11 percenters?) is terrible judgment concerning character. Of course, many of these hypocrites are lacking in character themselves, so I suppose we shouldn't expect them to recognize or understand good character when they see it.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:00 pmConsidering that our very presence in Iraq is illegal and is not just us trying to fight our way to Osama then we have no right telling any Iraqi what to do in their own home land.
If any of you "thinkers" put yourselves in THEIR shoes you would say the exact same thing. The only reason you are able to go on and on about how we need to kill more "insurgents" aka "iraqis in their own home land" is because you refuse to ask yourself what YOU would do if you were put into the exact same situation. Last I checked George Washinton and his insurgents started shooting and killing and blowing up Western Civilization British people when they came over here uninvited.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:01 pmComment by jean bourgeot
Why have guns? Have you ever read anything about human history? Things change...and not always for the better.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pmComment by little birdie
Who gives a crap about you or unbelievable? Are you stalking her or something?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:04 pm#56......
December 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pmI have a whole box of Ammonites I found in the gravel pit behind my house......
chimpeach - The 11%ers like my idea of stationing a squad of troops in each household.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pmThat's the only way we'll have lasting peace and freedom in Iraq.
Make sure granny isn't pouring kerosene into bottles and momma ain't stashing RPG rounds in the dirty clothes hamper.
Hey Gunny, tell us here and now, what was your last unit of command you phony ass chickenhawk!
December 21st, 2006 at 5:06 pm#61 Cynicon
So, maybe we should do like we did in Vietnam while I was there, they said we would have to destroy the ville to save it. Think that might be a good idea for Baghdad?
That war had about the same amount of adult leadership as this one does, and both were illegal and immoral.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:13 pmzzz
December 21st, 2006 at 5:15 pmBest fire up the time machine, too, Joe, so they'll actually get there in time to do some good!!
December 21st, 2006 at 5:16 pmI support escalation, if that is what it takes to secure freedom for the Iraqi's. If you really believe in something, it doesn't matter if you are one of 1%, 11%, or 100%. Some things I think are important to re-iterate in the face of the continual drumbeat of opposition to the war here: we didn't declare war on terror until after 9/11, the war in Iraq is a front on the war on terror, there is a significant portion (10-15% of the worldwide Islamic population of 1.3 billion) that support jihad, and this jihad ideology is obviously incompatible with western culture. I am not happy about the war on terror, but it was not our choice to make. (unless you consider continually sacrificing your cultural identity to appease Islamic fundamentalists a choice). Surrendering Iraq to Islamic fundamentalist theology is one step towards putting the freedoms and liberties that we value as westerners in jeopardy. I see that happening with the terror attacks, the incident with the pope, the canceled German play, the Danish cartoonist incident, and many others. I believe that the supporters of the war in Iraq see the threat that opponents don't yet see.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:16 pm#61 - [ Lieberman is right, we need to secure Baghdad and we need more troops to do it]. Ya, Military general Lieberman said it...and you agreed with him...didn' they try to secure Baghdad last year?.....what happened? ..things escalated so bad beyond repair. Baghdad and its surroundings is the home of almost 1/3 of all Iraqis..it has millions of Shiate,Sunnis,Kurds and other groups,with population over 7 millions. What is the word securing Baghdad means?. We have been in this war over three years and 9 months..and the words are the same...WE ARE WINNING, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED..etc. I bet you if Lieberman's son is in baghdad or his daughter he will not be talking with ease about escalating this war.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pmMcCain and Lieberman are both playing a video game, McCain just got one on Lieberman.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:20 pmIf you really believe in something, it doesn’t matter if you are one of 1%, 11%, or 100%.....I believe that the supporters of the war in Iraq see the threat that opponents don’t yet see.
Comment by paul — December 21, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Paul, the war is an issue at the forefront of current events. Everyone knows about it and there is lots of information about it in the public record. It is not some obscure thing like string theory. In light of this widespread knowledge of the war, shouldn't you be at least a little worried when 90% of the population disagrees with you about escalating? No? Then what about 99%? Will you comfortably dismiss the beliefs of 99% of the population? I know I wouldn't. But then again, most of us don't "see" the things that you imagine seeing, just as we don't hear voices.
As for the rationale given in your post, it is just a string of disconnected talking points put out by the Bush administration to sucker simpletons and bedwetters like you.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:25 pmI expect to see a surge of enlistments coming out of conn since those tools reelected him.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:27 pmAnother point, Paul: doesn't it bother that many military leaders and security experts disagree with you about escalation? Are you saying that the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't see the threat that you see?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:30 pm#76. General could you clarify something for me? Why do the Joint Chiefs hate the President?? (they do not support the notion of a new "surge" of troops to Iraq.)
December 21st, 2006 at 5:30 pmOf course you love him, he is a republican.
The reason you guys lost in November and will lose again is because you DON'T listen to polls. You know, a collection of opinions of the American public, the guys who fall under "of the people, for the people and by the people"
Moron.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:32 pmPersonally, I don't like those runty little, pug-faced dogs - give me a good bloodhound or collie any day of the week.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:33 pmSince this is a progressive site, it is impossible for a progressive to be a troll. Do you even know what that term means, idiot?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:34 pm#84 paul
I think this time, the American public is onto something. If we were talking about 55% vs. 45%, you could say the majority could easily be wrong. But, when it's down to only 11% that agree with you, and the Joint Chiefs and divisional commanders are against you, it's time to pull your fingers out of your ears. Or, at the very least, you need to present a damn good reason for going against the majority. Bush has no reason and no plan. It's simply a case of an emotionally immature individual who can't ever admit that he might be wrong and he can't allow others to help him, because he's ashamed.
Ten years from now, if the situation were still the same, what would be your justification for wanting to keep sending more troops in? Or is there a point in time between then and now that you might say "Okay, this has really gone on long enough and things aren't getting any better. It's time to pull them out." Because, the justifications given for sending in more troops are based on nothing more than imagined effectiveness. There's nothing in the way of experience that tells us it would do any good. And we have commanders on the ground saying, in their expert opinion and based on their experience, that it wouldn't help.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:34 pm#84
What we are seeing is a threat/reaction we created with our insane foreign policy, our quest for oil, and our willingness to support whatever vile person or group we deem is most expedient, as we did bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Shah in Iran (and oh -- I forgot, we used to support Hussein when Reagan and other proto-neocons thought that was convenient).
Iran would be in the hands of peaceful reformists by now, except that we keep re-inforcing the strength of the extremists by refusing to address the Middle East in any intelligent fashion. Iraq would'nt be a "front" in the war on "terra" if we hadn't made it one.
The enemy of the United States, at its most funcdamental levels, is the greed and visciousness of our leaders. That other leaders may exhibit the same qualities doesn't excuse it in our own.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:37 pmWho gives a crap about you or unbelievable? Are you stalking her or something?
Comment by ggibson
Actually there has been some creepy ass perv who seems to follow around a few of the women here. He comes up with info from a while ago, he lurks and masturbates in the shadows.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:37 pmIt doesn't matter if you live in a dictastorship, but America is a democracy where the majority decides. You know like the 88% who are against escalation.
I will give you credit for calling "surge" escalation. At least you aren't trying to hide the Vietnamification of Iraq.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:44 pmBush has no reason and no plan. It’s simply a case of an emotionally immature individual who can’t ever admit that he might be wrong and he can’t allow others to help him, because he’s ashamed.
Chimpeach, you are absolutely right with this characterization. I would only add that the same characterization applies to many of Bush's remaining supporters.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:49 pmBush has no reason and no plan. It’s simply a case of an emotionally immature individual who can’t ever admit that he might be wrong and he can’t allow others to help him, because he’s ashamed.
Chimpeach, you are absolutely right with this characterization. I would only add that the same characterization applies to many of Bush’s remaining supporters.
Comment by VerbalKint
Well this is like a drug addict then. Cant someone do an intervention where they tell Bush they love him, but they cant support his destructive behavior any longer and just want to help him change... and will stand by his side and hold his hand as they walk together in a different direction? I mean come on... isnt there even a few senators (R) & (D) that can do this? IF he hasnt gone totally insane yet from being backed into this corner surely something like that would help... talk to Laura Bush first see if she can help soften him up or something.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:54 pm8 Marines charged in Iraqi killings
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Eight Marines were charged Thursday in the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians last year in a bloody, door-to-door sweep in the town of Haditha that came after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb.
In the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths to come out of the Iraq war, four of the Marines were charged with unpremeditated murder.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:54 pmHere's something I haven't heard discussed anywhere. Our troops are stretched to the limit - physically, mentally and emotionally. When they are sent into the pressure cooker of Baghdad, they are likely to snap. They've been well trained, but sooner or later, when you put the human psyche under the strain of door-to-door, hand-to-hand combat, somethings IS going to give. I fear that what we'll see (if the gov't allows the information to surface) will make Haditha and My Lai look like a walk in the park. Our soldiers deserve better. Our Country deserves better. Truly, the inmates are running the asylum. How can we endure two more years of this insanity?
December 21st, 2006 at 6:12 pmHow about a former army sergeant vs phony marine general war?
December 21st, 2006 at 6:25 pmYou chickenasshawk!
Lieberman is an asshole...gode bye and good riddance to trash like him.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:27 pmIt's your party, and you can cry if you want to, cry if you want to, cry if you want to ....
I told you that you were prepping the way for the Hill'reh / Lieberman wing to ascend, and I never had to leave my couch ....
December 21st, 2006 at 6:28 pmThere is no god. Get used to it.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:01 pmVerbalKint, chimpeach, and Spudge_Boy, How's it going? I will admit that I don't support escalation if it doesn't improve our chances of securing Iraq. "I support escalation, if that is what it takes to secure freedom for the Iraqi’s". It may be to simplistic, but you can see why people might have the belief that putting more effort into something might improve the chances for a successful outcome. What I am worried about is a lack of will on the part of the American people and others in Europe. I came across this quote from Thomas Paine last night. It was December of 1776. Many Americans began to wonder if it had been a mistake to break away from Britain. Thomas Paine - the author of Common Sense, in another pamphlet wrote "These are the times that try men's souls." If history had turned out differently, Paine would have been considered (if considered at all) a 'stay the course' nutcase. I wonder sometimes if our problems in Iraq today, as in the Revolutionary War, a question of will.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:17 pmI told you that you were prepping the way for the Hill’reh / Lieberman wing to ascend, and I never had to leave my couch ….
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Golly, I am so glad the glorious Mr. Hendler has graced us with yet another one of his, "kickin' back on the couch" predictions. His record is impeccable.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:07 pma question of will.
Comment by paul
Thanks for taking the time not to be .. "neocon" ...
This argument you make is a good one, however I think if you shifted the target of the accusation of "requiring the will" to the Iraqis then I would buy it.
It is not a matter of "will" for me. After 911 I was ready to give up my career along with lots of other people as they get called up by the government to join in a WWII style attack on Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
I was greatly shocked when they acted like it was no big deal (go shopping) and started talking about Iraq.
It is a matter of guilt and desire to undue the smear on Americas "moral authority". When I think about what I consider to be a red line not to cross from my understanding of what Jesus had said and what America was suppose to be the example of I can not... I will not ... support anything that violates that. And it angers me greatly when the rest of you people vote for people like you did in 2004 after all the evidence was out there and did these things in MY name and AMERICAS name.
You shamed America. And that makes me want to stop you not find the "will" to let you continue on. America should be a country of people that call it as it is. If it pisses Russia or Saudi Arabia off then we shrug and explain to them why we feel we must say it as we see it and are not just being purposely hurtful.
It is the Iraqis that must have that burning desire inside them that makes them shake with anger when they think of what is being done to them. If they showed the same feriosity in the years before the invasion that they are showing now they could have freed themselves from Saddam. America sure did. That guy you qoute Thomas Paine. You should read all his writings. Where is the Iraqi Thomas Paine? George Washington? Jefferson? Adams?
We should not leave tommarrow... but we sure as hell should be trying to get an agreement from many people in the reagon that the shiites will not commit a mass murder on the sunnis and if they try we will bomb them back into the south east. And THEN leave. And that should NOT be used as a chance to prolong this situation for the Bush EGO. I would feel guilty if we let them get slaughtered and not do anything. We should make every effort to look the leaders of the people in the region straight in their eyes and figure out a way to keep all these people from being killed WITHOUT trying to get some kind of advantage out of it for ourselves. We got enough already.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:11 pmOh brother! Paul, please consider the following and question Fox news once in a while:
December 21st, 2006 at 8:27 pm1. We are not fighting in Iraq for the "freedom" of Iraqis
2. Iraq did not decide to have us invade them to create their freedom
3. The people we are fighting in Iraq ARE Iraqis and they are fighting us because they don't want us there!
4. This "war on terror" is an abstact and keeps Americans scared. Who is terror? Lets call a spade a spade and call it the "war on Muslims that we've pissed off because we've invaded their countries for oil"!
4. Iraq is a tribal society and foisting our style of democracy WILL NOT WORK on the majority of the Iraqis. Sorry to say but Iraq was doing a lot better being ruled by an iron fist! (Saddam)
5. The reason Bush won't even entertain pulling troops out is NOT because he cares about Iraqi women's rights or "freedom". It's because Bush has several assignments from his backers: secure the oil, carry on some kind of Christian/Muslim crusade and put our military close to Iran.
queek. Okay. Let's say I agree with everything you are saying. We surrender in Iraq and come home. What happens next? All this concern about terrorism and jihad just goes away and we can live life like we used to. Maybe you are right. Maybe if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq, Islamic jihadist wouldn't have blown up the world trade center. Oh, yeah, that happened before we went to war in Iraq.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:40 pmWe surrender in Iraq
Comment by paul
In what possible way could we EVER surrender in Iraq? What POW camps will the Iraqis put our soldiers in? Will we Americans have to get on planes and go over to Iraq to be imprisoned with our soldiers? Can we maybe beg the Iraqis to let the women and children of America stay behind in our ex-Home Land?
You dont seriously believe that lame crap do you? We got nukes. Dont be stupid. America will NEVER have to surrender ever again.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:47 pmI think we're looking at the beginnings of a McCain/Leiberman ticket in '08.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:14 pmI think we’re looking at the beginnings of a McCain/Leiberman ticket in ‘08.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Aaarrrggghhhhh!! My eyes! My brain!!
Heh.
Man, I hope you're right. :)
December 21st, 2006 at 9:26 pmAmericans voted against this war.
Liberman, hypocrite in a long line of hypocrites:
more old men blithely sending young men to die.
May he rot in hell.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:50 pmI hope all you people in CT who voted for this gas bag are happy.And you will of course be happy, afterall you have no consicence or moral courage, the young Americans dying in Iraq means nothing to you.They are just a name on paper instead you see vitrue in a politician who has no qualms lying ,injecting racial bigotry in a campaign and taking bribes from a political party he once opposed as a VP nominee.How many more must die?
December 21st, 2006 at 10:18 pmYou who voted for this shameless gas bag are just like him without conscience and shame.
If I truely posted what I think of Traitor Joe Liberman on here, then TP would have it deleted. Old Joe is paid-off GOP agent and _____________
December 21st, 2006 at 10:21 pm__________________. ( Use your imagination of what I think about him.)
lets play hangman, jay.
____ ____ ____ K ---- ____ ____ ____ K ____ ___
how am i doing so far???
December 21st, 2006 at 11:24 pmis z here?
earth to z....earth to z....
December 21st, 2006 at 11:25 pmLol norm > could get in trouble doing hangman on here.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:29 pmGeneral Gunnysack and the Little Birdie are the same guy... BORING.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:32 pmwell, i just was guessing what the blanks were...
those are nine letters i would use to describe old
joe 'stinky fingers' lieberman...
December 21st, 2006 at 11:33 pmI thought Macaca was spelled with 2 "C"s?
December 21st, 2006 at 11:40 pmSk,
it rhymes with cork-knocker
December 21st, 2006 at 11:45 pm"Bu-Bye Lieberman"!
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 amI don't understand why the people of CT return the defective Lieberman and hold fresh elections? The product does not deliver the promised and advertised results.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 amHow was our friend 'Terminator Arnie' put into the high chair?
Right. Recall. Total Recall.
Recall Lieberman and anybody else that has lost his/her marbles on the way to where important decisions are to be made.
Recall Lieberman. Impeach the others today, not tomorrow.
Reads:
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 amI don’t understand why the people of CT don't return the defective
sorry...
War is just funny. Look at MacKain and the good times he has.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 amThose people are irresponsible monsters and should all be 'beamed' into outer space.
Blasphemy.
This is defenitely what gets me most: The absolute carelessness in regards to life. Remember when they wanted to pull the plug on Schiavo? The whole country was in uproar. Now our soldiers are dying and more will die, Iraqis are dying, but they don't really count, because they are brown or muslims. People are dying here at home because medical treatment and equipment is not available, thanks to the war.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 amNo thanks to the people who are responsible for this war. Those can be identified by getting amused about what's happening right now.
James Ri[ss]er aka. little birdie,norm,No smelly Bush,others-is a banned troll.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 amTwo things instantly come to mind:
Jimmy Cliff
The harder they come -
the harder they fall
Bob Marley
We're sick an tired of your ism-skism game -
Dyin 'n goin to heaven in-a jesus name, lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)
Get Up Stand Up Stand Up For Your Rights
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 amSomeone needs to check the voting machines in Connecticut
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:16 amPaul, I don't have a clear answer for how to pull out, perhaps we propose reversing what the British did years ago and redivide the country? In any scenario we have to get someone capable in our military to manage the the build up of their's. If leaving Iraq now means "surrender" then this can only mean we invaded them with the purpose of never leaving - Leaving means "Mission Accomplished" if we hand the controls over to Maliki.
Going after bin Laded in Afghanistan seemed to make sense and we could have accomplished the mission of capturing him, but then Bush had to take care of what appeared to most of the world as unfinished business in Iraq.
What obvious is that we are creating more anti-American sentiment than ever before that will eventually come here in the form of violence and staying in Iraq is not doing anything except putting us in the position of killing innocents and getting our soldiers killed.
I am not sure if it was called the "jihadist" movement, but if it was in fact bin Laden who did 911 he and his ilk have a hatred for America that has roots tracable back to the 50's when we installed the Shah of Iran (to make their oil available) and then into the 80's when we were suppling Saddam with arms to fight Iran and at the same time we were selling arms (Iran Contra) to Iran. The 80's were busy - we were also funding Bin Laden who part of his brother's gang fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. There is a good time line at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/. (Then there's our mostly blind support of Israel's policies, a thorn in the side of every Muslim world wide, but that's a hot topic for another day)
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:26 amI strongly believe military commanders know more about this stuff than Lieberman. They know adding troops is useless. They also know there aren't enough troops being recruited since the start of this unholy war. The latest was that the US embassy in Iraq had only 6 employees who could speak Arab fluently. Like Rummy said: You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish to have. And these lunatics are prepared to sacrifice any soldier, no matter how ill-equipped. As if they are putting more wood onto a fire they decide with a stroke of a pen that your son will fight and risk his everything for nothing. Nice president.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:56 amFighting a war for Israel. Perpetual war and strife is the way of these blithering idiots.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:16 amSurprised? Ah, no.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:35 amThese warmongering bastards don't care what we the people or the
military commanders think about ending these illegal, immoral, and un-
just occupations of both Iraq and the mostly forgotten Afghanistan.
So the escalation of the troop levels will most certainly end the violence
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:40 amand win this mass murder war, right? Give me a frigging break! As Rep.
Rangel has called for, institute the draft again and see how fast these
criminal politicians want to have perpetual wars with their children and
their constituents children called for action.
We can only pray that your duly elected President can be effective on this War on Terror as Amerika's War on Drugs. God Bless from Kanada
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 amJoe's family's karma?
Kaput!
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:09 amThe main reason for escalation of troop levels is so our military will be positioned and ready when we (under Israel's sway) attack Iran.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 amOur troops are merely cannon fodder to this administration- nothing more. 9-11 part II, The Justification- coming to a town near you, is probably being fashioned by retiree Rumsfeild as we speak.
Well it certainly does not surprise me that Sen. Joe Lieberman is going to back more troops in Iraq.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pmHe is Jewish, and will back the wants of Israel, as Bush does, before he backs what is right for America.
He hawked for a war with Iraq from day one.
If you will check Sen. Joe Lieberman's record, He has consistently backed Israel in Congress.
I'd still like to know why these two spent so much time hanging around with bank swindler Chalabi.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:23 pmWhen the Twin Towers were hit people around the world were horrified and outraged. We all supported the US when she went after the the Taliban and Al Qeida to punish them for their collusion and crimes respectively. Then Bush stepped up to the plate and declared a war on terror and proceeded to apply the same terror tactics against the Iraqi people, innocent Canadian, German and British citizens and others around the world. It is as if your demented administration is concerned more about creating enemies and unseen nightmares to mobilise the basest instincts of the American people than to bring peace. I know for a fact 90% of Americans I have met are the decent and humane. Now the likes of the bejowled Lieberman announces his profane willingness and support for sending more of America's young into the mayhem of Iraq. Soon enough the draft will be brought in and some rich, spoilt and incompetent future Dubya will use his father's influence to dodge the draft. The only maimed, dead or ruined solldiers will be from the poor, and disenfranchised.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:15 pmqueek. good post. I can agree that much of the hatred of the west and America comes from our nefarious involvement in the middle east over the past decades. And you can debate the blind support for Israel. But, even when you take that into account, I am not willing to turn my back on the threat that is present today, just because many think we deserve it. The threats to America and the west are real, because the world has changed. I part ways with most here, because I don't believe that walking away from this threat is good for our security in the long run. A war on terror may not be the best answer to these threats, but it seems more plausible to me than anything else that has been offer sofar. The world has changed and we are being forced to address it whether we want to or not.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:29 pmAt least Leiberman is not a wishy washy Demoncrat
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
Quote:
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Quote:
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.â€
Quote:
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€
Quote:
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.â€
Quote:
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.â€
Quote:
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.â€
Quote:
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.â€
Quote:
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.â€
Quote:
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
December 22nd, 2006 at 6:15 pmAl Gore > December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…â€
What is good for Israel has always been good for Lieberman. Unless the democrats remove him from his currenr ranking, he will be a major stumbling block in the peace making process of the Middle East.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:46 pmYou can't say Israel?
Censorship lets you know exactly WHO the guiltY ARE...and they are the worlds foremost censors of logical observation.
In the US THIS should be unacceptable to freedom honoring Americans.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:26 pmSorry, TP. I am not a fan of the AIPAC conspiracy theories but this is Lieberman!!!! Knock off the censorship!!
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:59 pmAnd again, ban the overly wordy joes(non)logic.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 pm"Lieberman officially endorses Eugenics" That would be about as surprising, though I don't think droopy dog would make the cut.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm[...] Others have given their full support to the move: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “After speaking with our military commanders on the ground, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad.” [Hartford Courant, 12/21/06] [...]
January 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pmJoe is a traitor.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm