Cynical Nation

I always liked Lieberman. Now I know why. He might just hold the lunatic fringe in check.

I hope Lieberman jumps ship and joins the republicans. It is much better to be in the minority without him than in the majority with him. Lieberman is a neoconservative extremist that has no place in the democratic party. He can not be allowed to define the agenda of the democrats.

Oh, and Bailey, congratulations for liking Lieberman. Sometimes I suspect that you are a right-wing troll, and this in a way, supports it.

Well Blue, you're wrong, this time for mistakenly assuming that everyone who disagreees with you is "Right-wing."

Neither Liebermaqn, nor Barely is remotely "Right-wing" or Conservative.

Lieberman is an extremely Liberal Democrat (voting aqainst the tax cuts that halved the deficit over the past couple years, against any and every GOP economic proposals and in favor of race/gender based preferences) who happens to know there's no retreating from the current WoT.

If anything, the events of the past six years have put our enemies in that region in an uncompromising state. Most Sharia-adhering Muslims want America destroyed, not negotiated with.

The sooner the rest of the Dems recognize that fact, the better. I'm betting most will, and in short order...my only hope is that the naive folks on the extreme-Left don't go blaming the intransigence of the Muslim world on Bush's "cowboy policies," as though there's any reason to believe they'd have been more amenable to negotiation absent American military intervention.

As for Barely, he ain't "Right-wing," he's just dopey.

He has no greater guiding principle than whatever he perceives most benefits Barely - thus the xenophobic, ethnically and religiously bigoted, protectionist stance.

It's a childish scream, "I WANT MORE PIE! SO, F#*K EVERYBODY ELSE!!!"

Not at related to this post, but I thought you might appreciate this Tom Toles comic.

Heh, funny, in a sad sort of a way. :-)

"Neither Liebermaqn, nor Barely is remotely "Right-wing" or Conservative.

Lieberman is far right wing, but you can not see it, because you are the same :) Thats the problem. But you are a good guy, despite that:)

As for Bailey, all I wrote is that he may be a right-wing troll pretending to be anti-Bush. For a simple reason: You can not be anti-Bush and like Lieberman. Lieberman has been a rubber stamp for the Bush administration and a puppet of the far right. Anyway, I dont think Bailey is a troll and he may have an explanation. But his positions contradict each other.

I understand your confusion BW, you mistakenly feel that only a "rabid Right-winger" could support the wars in the Mideast, especially Iraq, but any war, as you seem to feel the military option was uncalled for.

What can I say?

You're wrong.

I know your wrong becaue I know some of the reasons that people like Joe Lieberman (a devout Liberal opposed to Bush's tax cuts and approving of over 92% of the Liberal Dem agenda) approved of this war, why Hillary Clinton (another devout Liberal), among others, has done the same and why only the most naive and the most nefarious people claim to believe that "war was unnecessary" and the "negotiation was the right path."

The fact is that we're not going to see the end of the war with "radicalized" (actually Sharia-based) Islam any time soon...not going to happen.

Even if we move to partition Iraq, which I'd supported since Saddam was captured ("topple Saddam and partition Iraq"), the larger war won't end...in fact, we most likely increased both its duration and intensity, as will be seen shortly.

When some folks like you are eventually confronted with that reality, you'll cling to another naive belief, that "the cowboy policies of the Bush administration eroded any chance for a negotiated settlement."

Don't believe that Blue. It's NOT TRUE.

There was never any chance of negotiation with the Sharia-world...and there never will be.

We'll probably have to eventually intervene to save Europe from the cancerous Sharia-adhering Muslim menace within, as we continue to fight Sharia-based Islamists in various venues around the world.

Lieberman has voted with the misguided Liberal Democrats a whopping 92% of the time. That means he's voted WITH "the Bush administration" a measley 8%!...on only two major issues - against ESCR and in favor of the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq.

And Barely...he's not a troll, just a dope.

"Not at related to this post, but I thought you might appreciate this Tom Toles comic." (K)
(K)


What's sort of ironic about the Toles comic is that it was Bush Sr and his administration that left this mess to fester...again fearing that toppling Saddam would only further destabilize that region, embolden Iran, create a "Kurdish problem," etc.

Hussein had been a tenuous "friend" to the U.S. during the 80's, a willing pawn against the Soviets in the Iran-Iraq war.

When Kuwait slant-drilled across the Iraqi border in 1990, in effect stealing Iraqi oil, Hussein came to the U.S. for help, and was told by the Bush Sr administration, "We don't get involved in petty border disputes."

Rightly or wrongly, Hussein took that as a greenlight to "fix that problem himself," and he promptly invaded Kuwait.

The U.S. acted "stunned" at this "rape of Kuwait" and DID get involved in THIS "petty border dispute," emasculating and humiliating Hussein in front of the entire Arab world.

He hence became the leading state sponsor of international terrorism and a sworn enemy of America and American interests (oil & Israel).

Bush Sr's leaving Saddam Hussein in power exacerbated the war waged against America over the next ten years, until the current administration had UN Resolution 1441 passed, which Hussein refused to comply with, resulting in the U.S./U.K. coalition invasion in March of 2003.

The Hussein regime had to go. It could be argued that we didn't have to engage in all the post-Saddam nation-building and "democracy-forging," (I've supported a quick strike removal and a partitioning of Iraq, post-Saddam), but it's much harder to arge against Saddam's ouster, though it probably should've been done back in 1991!

A possibly more apt cartoon would've had the evangelicals spanking Bush Jr, as fully thirty-one percent of them crossed Party lines this time to vote for folks like Heath Schuler (the evangelical from NC), Bob Casey (the pro-life Pennsylvanian), Tester, Webb and the Indiana and Kentucky delegations and other such candidates in places like GA, TN and KS.

THOSE are the guys that really spanked GW last Tuesday.

Bush Sr, James Baker & Co deserve to be slanked themselves for the festering mess they left behind.

I am a registered Republican and a conservative.

I don't pretend to hate Bush, I really DO hate him.

Bush is not a conservative. Neocons are not conservatives. Neocons are trying to achieve through the right what they failed to get through the left: totalitarianism.

As Bush is fond of saying, they hate freedom. They start fake wars and lay claim to wartime powers. They immediately attack constitutional rights and degrade them under false pretenses. They attempt to end oversight, checks, and balances on their power.

Neocons are all about concentrated power in the hands of a few -- THEM.

As they once led the left to the horrors of Soviet communism, so they are ready to lead the right to absolute power. The neocon philosophy came directly from frustrated, failed leftists.

I am a patriot. I believe in America for individual and free Americans. It is not for foreigners or other cultures. It is not for corporations or the priviledged few.

It's sad that this is so hard for you on the left and the right to grasp.

William Crystal and Norman Podhoretz are the two leaders of the modern Neocon Movement.

Those folks, like the great David Horowitz turned on the Stalinist Left in America and abandoned that group, throwing them under the bus, as it were, in the early 1970s and blaming "misguided Leftists" for all the ills of the 1960s.

As far as the WoT goes, thankfully we're already set on the course for war...probably and of course sadly, a long, and arduous war.

There's no negotiating with Sharia-based Islam, there's no converting them either, so we'll be fighting this war for perhaps another quarter century.

There are indeed war powers that have, to date, thankfully all been used to "bring terorrists and terrorist sympathizers to justice."

The current administration and American Law Enforcement hasn't even used these powers against hardened domestic terrorist groups like ALF & ELF.

That's one thing the Liberal Dems will have to be scrutinized over, given their track record. Janet Reno used such powers against peacable Americans - Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians.

Will some Liberals try and use them against American evangelicals, or even Militia members in the near future?

If they do, THEN it'll be time Barely. It'll be time to "smoke these anti-American Libruls out and bring'em to justice."

Damned if we didn't let that crazy, parkinsons riddled bitch Reno off the hook - I'd have supported hastening her demise via Capital Punishment for her crimes against America.

Well, we owe'em one brothers & sisters!

We sure as hell owe'em one, for that.

Most of us haven't fogotten those atrocities of the dark days of Reno.

Bailey,

I understand your position. But how can you like Lieberman? He is absolutely a neocon himself. In fact, he has been for a long time the representative of neoconservatives in the democratic party. He has also been a Bush puppet on Iraq. So, how can you like him? Thas what I dont get with you.

Blue, everyone is not a single-issue voter. The war in Iraq obviously defines how you view everything and everybody, but just because you're like that doesn't mean everyone is.

Barry, for a long while when I was younger, I was also pretty much a single-issue voter with race/gender preferences as my primary issue.

Believe it or not, it was a big issue from about the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.

It, along with their inane stance on crime ("violent criminals are victims of society") and guns (what I've called "the war on self-defense") kept me from voting Democratic on a national level for decades.

As I've said local Dems (like my cousin Mike) always run on the Democrat & Conservative lines...just like all those New Democrats out West & down South!

Suffice to say, I'm no longer a single issue voter. Hell, I've even voted for pro-life candidates and I'm pro-abortion (even mandated birth control) if not so much pro-CHOICE...those who can't afford to care for children shouldn't be given the "choice" to have them, in my view.

I take an overall view of both candidates and generally lean with the most Conservative of the two...sometimes the more Libertarian/anti-government action of the two.

Still, I don't get Blue on Lieberman at all.

Lieberman's been a very loyal Democrat, even opposing the wildly successful "Bush tax cuts," and virtually every Bush judicial appointment.

He's held pretty much the same view that Hillary Clinton has on BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't see Blue reviling HC nearly so much!

Perhaps it's because Lamont initially got the "netroot crowd's" hopes up.

Yup, maybe it's mainly dashed hopes.

" Blue, everyone is not a single-issue voter. The war in Iraq obviously defines how you view everything and everybody, but just because you're like that doesn't mean everyone is."

Barry,
Sure, I understand that, BUT Bailey is calling the neocons and Bush "traitors". How can you call a group "traitors" and then say that you like one of their top representatives (Lieberman)?

The neocons are generally Conservative on issues like taxes (low), Trade (Free), they tend to support more Conservative Jurists, they tend to be Supply-Siders economically...ALL things that Joe Lieberman just ISN'T.

Lieberman supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, for that matter, did Hillary Clinton...and a whole raft of Democrats.

In fact, Lieberman voted WITH the Dems 92% of the time. Harold Ford Jr voted with them only about 84% of the time, and yet you claim to have supported Harold Ford Jr over Corker in TN.

Except on the issues of the wars in the Mideast and ESCR, Joe Lieberman is a very Liberal Democrat. Look at his voting record. Other than those two issues, you won't find many, if any non-Liberal stances.

He opposed the Bush tax cuts that have halved the Deficit in two years.

He opposed the Bush SC nominees.

Voted AGAINST ending the Democratic fillibuster opposed to various provisions of the Patriot Act.

"The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the filibuster and a "no" vote was a vote to continue a filibuster.

Voting "yes" were 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans and one independent.

Democrats Yes

Johnson, S.D.; Nelson, Neb.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore. "

http://newsmine.org/archive/security/legislation/dissent/roll-call-vote-on-patriot-act-filibuster.txt

He's opposed most of the Bush agenda.

Lieberman is a Liberal Democrat, who happened to support the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Oh, JMK, you ignorant slut. [/Aykroyd]

You said:

"William Crystal and Norman Podhoretz are the two leaders of the modern Neocon Movement.

Those folks, like the great David Horowitz turned on the Stalinist Left in America and abandoned that group, throwing them under the bus, as it were, in the early 1970s and blaming "misguided Leftists" for all the ills of the 1960s."

First of all, it's William KRISTOL, and he is NOT one of the "fathers" of the modern neocon movement. That would be his father, IRVING Kristol.

And the sons, useless pantloads both, have followed in the steps of their old men, dancing in tune with idiots like Dinesh D'Souza, who thinks that if we just turned the U.S. into Taliban Afghanistan, those mean old terrorists would leave us alone.

I had the dubious "honor" of working for the man who edited books by all of these nimrods during the Reagan years. He was a very nice man, I never understood how he got involved with this bunch. And he had only liberals working for him. Go figure.

That's right...it was Irving (his father)...the point is that these ("neocons") were largely former Liberal (socialistic) Jews who saw the light and embraced soe of the tenets of Conservatism.

It has become a "Big Government Conservatism," as in Giulianism (a favorite candidate of that group), but for many, the security-conscious kind of "law & order" Giuliani-styled Conservatism ("the Daddy-state")is preferable to "Big Government Liberalism" ("the Mommy State").

I saw the Bratton/Giuliani policies up close for eight years in the South Bronx and they worked.

In fact, they not only worked, they took a city riddlerd with "Liberal cancer" under Dinkins (a murder rate that topped 2,000/year) and brought it under control.

Taming and Disneyfying Time Square and making most of NYC a safe haven for Yuppies, Buppies and other assorted "Uppies" - the upwardly mobile.

"And the sons, useless pantloads both, have followed in the steps of their old men, dancing in tune with idiots like Dinesh D'Souza, who thinks that if we just turned the U.S. into Taliban Afghanistan, those mean old terrorists would leave us alone." (Jill)
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

EVERY person naive enough to still believe that there is some path to a negotiated settlement should see that documentary.

Michael (Imperial Hubris) Schuer is right, "The problem with our current WoT is that we are simply NOT killing enough of the enemy."

OK Blue, I'll explain why I like Lieberman, but you won't like it.

Lieberman is, as JMK clearly documents, a fairly typical Democrat. He opposed Bush on almost every issue except the war.

Lieberman is a Jew. He has dual loyalties to both the United States and Israel. This isn't hard to understand. He wants Israel to survive. Who can blame him for that?

Lieberman supports the war not as a Neocon, but as a Jew. Saddam was lobbing missiles into Israel not so long ago. It's a tiny country. One nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon could devastate a large percentage of what is left of the Jewish population in the world.

My prediction would be that Lieberman would support a preemptive strike against Iran. If we don't do it, Israel might have to.

I don't think this makes him a traitor because he sees Israel and the United States as having strongly tied interests. I think he is a good man, overall.

Since I'm not Jewish, I don't care about Israel any more than I care about Jordan or Lebanon.

In my view, we are better off without Israel. The Jews can all move back here. We'll give them a State of their own if they really want a homeland.

Hell, let them have Michigan. It even comes with an Arab minority to oppress.