February 22, 2007

Joe Lieberman -- Republican?

Well, it could happen if the Democrats make any further efforts to undercut the troops in the field and their commander-in-chief.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President BushÂ’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

Joe Lieberman is and has been a Democrat in the best tradition of his party for many years -- a patriot who believes in a strong defense and the goodness of America. Sadly, this strain has been sadly lacking among the elected officials of that party for many years now, dating back a couple of decades. While Lieberman would certainly be on the left in the GOP, his commitment to this country would make him a welcome addition to my party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

1 He's not going to do it - he's just whining because America doesn't like his and W's optional quagmire.  The reason he won't do it is because it would leave him utterly irrelevant in an increasingly Democratic Senate in 2008. 

I know it's hard for you to accept, but your bungling president and the idiot Rumsfeld have exhausted our country's bloodlust.  He's given up on finding our real enemy, bin Laden, in the greatest strategic mistake ever made by the US of A.  They frightened our brave country into a poorly chosen war on the mistaken belief they could win it "on the cheap".  Sadly, they are still attempting to do just that, by under-arming our troops and by subjecting them to subhuman treatment when they suffer wounds.  If Lieberman wants to stand by that record, so be it.  But he's not stuypid to align himself with a failing party.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Feb 23 14:47:23 2007 (IU21y)

2 Yep, there you are -- a Copperhead through and through. You would have fit well with the various strins of "Peace Democrats", who in the 1860s who wanted to settle with the Confederacy and preserve slavery because the Civil war was too difficult, who from 1939-1941 urged the US to stay out of WWII because it would have put us on the wrong side of Stalin and his ally Hitler,, and who from 1965 until the fall of the Soviet Union opposed American resistance to Communism everywhere int he world.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 24 02:56:41 2007 (XfhvZ)

3 Good work in talking about other wars, run by competent administrations rather than by a corrupt regime.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 24 04:26:38 2007 (IU21y)

4 Good work in avoiding the fact that your position is morally no different than those of the opponents of those other wars -- and in confirming your intentional use of the word "regime" to convey the concept the the Bush Administration is illegitimate and tyrannical.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 24 05:45:55 2007 (pndOg)

5 Are all wars good wars to you? Is all opposition to war equivalent to opposing the Civil War?

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 24 13:02:15 2007 (IU21y)

6 Not all wars are good -- but this one is, as were the others I mentioned.

And given the history of treasonous/near-treasonous activities by "Peace Democrats", I question any opposition to war coming out of that party.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 24 13:35:51 2007 (gLQDn)

7 That's where you're mistaken. Attacking a country on false grounds when it has not harmed our own country, and then horribly botching the job and engaging in torture while creating conditions leading to a civil war does not make a good war.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 24 15:13:49 2007 (IU21y)

8 Every intelligence service on earth believed Saddam was after WMDs. And it was known that he was engaged in atrocities against civilians. For that matter, there was the matter of violated UN resolutions which authorized the US to enforce them. So there was no war on false grounds.

We have not botched the job -- though you and your fellow supporters of terrorism like to make propaganda hay over every piece of bad news.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Feb 25 02:11:52 2007 (NBzjc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0121, elapsed 0.0158 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0125 seconds, 37 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]