Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Lieberman OpEd in WaPo. More troops please!

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 » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 01:04 PM
Original message
Lieberman OpEd in WaPo. More troops please!
Sigh! The Curse of Lieberman strikes again. Holy Joe has come out foresquare in favor of escalating the war by adding 30,000+ troops to the theater of operations in Iraq.

More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.

I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.

The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.

In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.

Another Kerry was Right moment.

Kerry calls Lieberman 'out of step' with voters
Sees Cheney echo in Iraq war stance

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | August 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry yesterday blasted Senator Joseph I. Lieberman over his decision to stay in the Connecticut senatorial race as an independent, saying Lieberman ``is making a Republican case" to voters and is echoing the words of Vice President Dick Cheney in his campaign.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said on ABC's ``This Week" that Lieberman is ``dead wrong" on the issue of the Iraq war, and said he is making a ``huge mistake" by aligning himself with Republicans who support it.

He urged Democrats to coalesce behind Ned Lamont, who defeated Lieberman in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary, based largely on his strong antiwar stance.

``I am concerned that he is making a Republican case, and he is uttering almost the same words as Vice President Cheney, and I think it's inappropriate," Kerry said of Lieberman, his Senate colleague for the past 18 years.

``The fact is, Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut," he continued. ``And to adopt the rhetoric of Dick Cheney, who has been wrong about almost everything he has said about Iraq, shows you just exactly why he got in trouble with the Democrats there."

Kerry was right. Lieberman campaigned on his 'secret plan to end the war' and that secret plan is to place more troops in harm's way because we didn't place enough troops in Iraq in the beginning and now we need to correct that mistake. (Oh and because Al Aqeda and Iran won't be expecting this move cuz nobody expects the US to put in more troops. It's brilliant! Iran will be devastated by the cleverness of putting 30,000 more troops into a country where 70% of the 24 million people think it's okay to kill Americans. Brilliant! This will work. Maybe we can get that 70% number up to 100%.)

When will we ever learn? We should have staked this vampire when we had him up against the wall. Instead, we let him get away and he now thinks he is a the bi-partisan king of all he surveys. What a jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Lieberman has to stay on this course. You wouldn't expect him to change his tune now?
He can't admit he was wrong and he owes Bush and the RW a favor for funding his re-election. Lieberman should serve as a lesson to the grassroots, don't go after someone without thinking it all through first, back a strong candidate, know what the enemy might do when you make your move and stick with your chosen candidate, don't ignore him and figure he can take if from the primary win.
Lieberman is going to be a huge thorn in the side of the Democrats until we gain more senate seats (hopefully) in 08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Lamont got 70%+ of the Ct Democratic vote
As has been chronicled by a few writers including David Sirota, Christy Harden Smith and Tim Tageris, there was a failure by the leaders of the Dem Party to back Ned Lamont. They failed the people of the Democratic Party of Connecticut. John Kerry was one of the few Dems to go all out for Ned Lamont and to take Lieberman on on the issue of Iraq. (Personally, I think this is why Big Dems did not support John Kerry during pronoungate. They were teaching him a lesson about loyalty and what happens when you 'rock the boat' and support upstart leaders chosen by the people over the annointed ones in DC, but what do I know.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh, I realize all of that and certainly Kerry's support of Lamont.
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 02:20 PM by wisteria
And yes, the Dem establishment stayed out of it-mostly. Dodd supported Lamont, Clinton wrote a check. But, I still think the grassroots failed to recognize the political make-up of CT and did even consider the Independent and Repub voters. That was my point- mostly.

We may disagree on the effort to get rid of Lieberman, but we do agree that he is bad news. Not that he isn't entitled to his opinion, but because he expresses that opinion spitefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Lamont would likely have had a better shot
if the Republican candidate were even close to someone who could be elected to a town council. His biggest problem is that the guy was so bad that the Republican party essentially endorsed Leiberman.
I think the Rep ended up with only about 10 % of the vote - which is lower than the amount a major party candidate usually gets just due to party voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Right! The Repubs wouldn't even endorse one of their own. That's bad! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. Neoconservatism is an ideology unto itself. Currently, it has taken
hold in the Republican party but it is not exclusively GOP. Lieberman is a neocon. He completely buys into their radical ideology of democratizing countries under the barrell of a gun. They completely did not learn the lesson of WWII -- that you must have a just war in the first place before you can completely defeat your enemy and then suggest, "hey, what about democracy?". That is why Germany and Japan have been successful democracies -- they were created out of the ashes of a very just war. Vietnam was not just nor is Iraq. That is why it has been doomed for failure.

Lieberman is dead wrong, and as a native Nutmegger, I apologize that my state has sent this man back to the Senate. We're going to need some Republican allies (anybody hear that COLEMAN -- you heard that right -- is opposed to the troops surge. Also that Oregonian senator, too). We'll certainly get them before we'll get Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Great quote on this
From the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajov Chandrasekaran. He quotes an e-mail that John Agresto, who was charged with getting Iraq's Universities up and running, but was not given a budget to do so, sent around when the CPA turned over sovereignty in June of 2003:

The problem with democracy-building is that I think we think democracy is easy--get rid of the bad guys, call for elections, encourage "power sharing," and see to it somebody writes a bill of rights. The truth is exactly the opposite--government by the few, or government by one person is what's easy to build; even putting together good autocratic rule doesn't seem to be that hard. It's good, stable and free democracies that are really the hardest thing.

America's been so successful at being a free and permanent democracy that we think democracy is the natural way to rule--just let people go and there you have it: Democracy. But all the ingredients that make it good and free--limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, calendared elections, staggered elections, plurality selections, differing terms of office, federalism but with national supremacy, the development of a civic spirit and civic responsibility, and, above all, the breaking and moderation of factions--all this we forget about. We act as if the aim is "democracy" simply and not a mild and moderate democracy. Therefore... we seek out the loudest and most virulent factions and empower them... .

We, as a country, don't have a clue as to what has made our own country work, and so we spread the gospel of democracy-at-all-costs abroad. Until this country can find a Madison, it would be far better off with just a good ruler.

Agresto is right. No wonder the Bush Admin failed so badly at democracy in Iraq. They have repeatedly shown that they have no idea what makes democracy work in America and can't export what they don't know. The Bush Admin and his Republican enablers believe in a unitary executive and that checks and balances are for wimps. Sigh! No wonder Iraq is such a disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hey Tay, I tried, and we almost made it!!
I wouldn't trust this guy for one nano second!! The next congress is going to be really interesting. I wish we had a few more Dems in the Senate, for a "cushion" so we could tell JL to go "begot himself" !!!
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 Mon Oct 23rd 2017, 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group 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