Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Did Lieberman really say Rummy should resign?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:24 AM
Original message
Did Lieberman really say Rummy should resign?
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:26 AM by ProSense
Found here: Did Lieberman really say Rummy should resign?

That's interesting, specifically the "three years ago in October" part. That would put us in October 2003, wouldn't it? But here's Joe Lieberman writing in May of 2004, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal (ed. note: Perhaps Lieberman appeared on Face the Nation in October '04, and really meant to say two years ago in October? I'm certainly not going to waste anytime googling to find out, as this isn't really meant as some 'gotcha' post, but rather just to point out Lieberman was quite the Rummy defender post Abu Ghraib generally. P.S. See update below):


Most Democrats and Republicans, including President Bush and Sen. Kerry, agree that we must successfully finish what we have started in Iraq. Now is the time for all who share that goal to make our agreement publicly clear, to stress what unites us. Many argue that we can only rectify the wrongs done in the Iraqi prisons if Donald Rumsfeld resigns. I disagree. Unless there is clear evidence connecting him to the wrongdoing, it is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. I have yet to see such evidence. Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq. (emphasis added throughout)


UPDATE: A reader clarifies:

When Lieberman says he called for Rumsfeld to resign in 2003 he's referring to this 10/26/03 Face the Nation appearance:

SCHIEFFER: Do you think this means that perhaps the president ought to change secretaries of Defense?

LIEBERMAN: Well, look, ultimately the buck stops at the president's desk. He's the commander in chief. He has to take accountability if things don't work well. I'll tell you this -- that Secretary Rumsfeld told the truth in that private memo, that they haven't been as trusting of the American people to tell us the truth about the fact that we're not doing as well as they -- that we should be doing in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. And the worst thing about Don Rumsfeld's time at the Pentagon, the uniform military feel deeply that he doesn't respect them, doesn't listen to them. That's not the kind of relationship that we need between a secretary of Defense and the military.

Judgment about whether he stays or not is up to President Bush, but if I were president, I'd get a new secretary of Defense.

SCHIEFFER: You would?


So, for the record, the bidding looks like this. Way back in October of 2003, Lieberman said if he were the guy in the Oval Office he'd can Rummy (different than calling on Bush to do so, of course, which is more forceful, and not in keeping with the deferential war time mores we're admonished to follow). Then, after the massive debacle of Abu Ghraib, some seven months after this interview, Lieberman sees it fit to pen an op-ed in the WSJ urging Rummy not be sacked--lest we "delight foreign and domestic opponents". And now fast-forward to these heady times rife with challenges from the likes of Ned Lamont, and it's OK again, I guess, to risk delighting our foreign foes with calls for Rummy to go. Rather on the lame side, I'm afraid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe Lieb wants his job.
Or maybe Lieb knows Republicans view him as a team player on Iraq so they'll allow him to parade a white... narrative, before CT independents and liberals to seduce them into supporting Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. "You're undermining the credibility of the President."
That's what Joe said when Murtha spoke out against the war last December.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's a flip flop flip. Time to bring out the Zory's as we used to call
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Wolf Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Sounds like standard Lieberman brand Bullshit to me!
Plays it safe and tries not to rock the boat at first, defending status quo. Then, when your ass is on the line come election season, take the popular stance to try desperately to cover your ass and show you're a liberal. As open as a book and as moronic as waxing your ass crack. As for actually Googling this, I've tried. Barely any mention of his appearance on "Face the Nation" in '03 or anything else about him asking Rumsfeld to resign. Just different articles and blogs about this recent incarnation of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. No, someone else said it, but they had their hand up Joe's ass
Here's my latest work all about Joe LIEberman's ridiculous run as a "Party of One", which reminds me of "Army of One" (which gives ME a mental image of a guy stuck under fire in a foxhole, looking around and saying, "WHERE the hell IS EVERYBODY!!") :) -- Makes about as much sense in a marketing vein. Party of One, Translates into "Party of NONE" when it involved LIEberman, might as well be saying, "Party of ME", eh?

This flash also incorporates the fact that the Terror Lockdown on Liquids, etc came so close on the heels of Joe's Smackdown by Lamont as to not be considered credible - even today they are confirming that people will walk FREE because they don't have the evidence to hold them, let alone that there were NO Explosives in their possession, they hadn't even made reservations, etc, etc..

Meanwhile they talk about charging a PREGNANT woman for having some water, and a face wipe - this flash addresses those concerns as well, the fact that WE are being used as PUPPETS in a The Politics of Terror.

Remember, a republican said they'd ride this last nonThreat all the way into November. Let's prove them wrong.. Let's VOTE for Lamont, as we all know this last Primary was a referendum on Bush and his faked "war". The Nerve of LIEberman to shit all over the Democrats. It's like using a girlfriend to get you through medical school and then snatching up the Trophy Wife once you've graduated. How can we ever trust this Puppet again?

One of my best Flash works ever, and to the Tune of "Masters of War" by Mr Bob Dylan, and no truer words were spoken in our time.

Have a look at:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. Let Us Have Faith': Why Rumsfeld must stay. BY JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN
Let Us Have Faith'
Why Rumsfeld must stay.

Friday, May 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Looks like he gets to have it all three ways:
1. If I were president, I'd appoint someone else.
2. Rumsfeld should stay.
3. Rumsfeld should resign.

That should make all voters happy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jan 20th 2018, 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC