The far left, the moveon.org crowd have won their first victory in trashing what most consider a good moral man that is Joe Lieberman. Lieberman didn't toe the party line and he is now toast, dammit.

Lamont won the vote on the sole platform of being against the war.

This could be a pivotal event in history. The Iranians, the North Koreans, Hezbollahs, the Bin Ladens are all counting on having politicians here in the U.S. whose only actions against the increasing terrorist threats we face in the West will be going to an impotent U.N. and "negotiate."

The fall elections could be pivotal, dammit.

Good. The man doesn't understand freedom. I can never be a proponent of someone who is pro-censorship in any form.

Senator Leiberman votes with the party 90% of the time. There are 17 Democrat senators who vote with the party less than he does, but they aren't being targeted because they toe the anti-war line.

Not since the Democrats still cared about abortion has a party been so one-issue.

PS - Leiberman's going to win in November as an Independent.

PS - Leiberman's going to win in November as an Independent.

I hope you're right about this...we need more Independents in office.

"The Iranians, the North Koreans, Hezbollahs, the Bin Ladens are all counting on having politicians here in the U.S. whose only actions against the increasing terrorist threats we face in the West will be going to an impotent U.N. and "negotiate." "

Terrorist threats?
BOO... scared you!

I hope you're right about this...we need more Independents in office.
We need fewer people who don't understand the First Amendment in office.

This could be the death knell of Democrat hopes for the presidency. With the defeat of Joe Lieberman, a man who just six years ago was considered good enough to be nominated for the second highest office in the land the Democrats have moved further to the left than they have been since before Bill Clinton took office.

This could be the death knell of Democrat hopes for the presidency. With the defeat of Joe Lieberman, a man who just six years ago was considered good enough to be nominated for the second highest office in the land the Democrats have moved further to the left than they have been since before Bill Clinton took office.
Or more libertarian. The man does not understand the First Amendment. He supports censorship. He doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher, much less Senator.

Or more libertarian. The man does not understand the First Amendment. He supports censorship. He doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher, much less Senator.His pro-censorship stand must not be that severe since it wasn't even a campaign issue.

His pro-censorship stand must not be that severe since it wasn't even a campaign issue.
It's not very important to a number of people. It's extremely important to me.

He lost on one issue and one issue only, his support of the war effort.

The most liberal wing of the Democrat Party, the wing represented by Dailykos, those who posted Lieberman in blackface, the Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democrat Party won this election. It may be the victory most sought by the Republicans. It now allows the Republicans to paint the Democrats as surrender monkies who want to pricipitously pull out of Iraq with no thought for the consequences. This election in Connecticut may be just the thing that wins the presidency for the Republicans once again and allows them to keep The House.

It now allows the Republicans to paint the Democrats as surrender monkies who want to pricipitously pull out of Iraq with no thought for the consequences.

They've been doing that for a awhile now.


This election in Connecticut may be just the thing that wins the presidency for the Republicans once again and allows them to keep The House.

You've been sipping too much cooking sherry Frogger. I'd be willing to bet that most voters won't even be aware of the results of this primary, and even if they are they'll give it the importance it deserves. None.

The way the Democrats treated Lieberman, the fact that they mounted a jihad against the man who just six years ago had been their standard bearer shows voters just what the Democrats stand for. Nada. Zilch, Nothing. Nil. Other than surrendering and getting out of Iraq that is.

Remember, those who voted in the Connecticut Democrat Primary are not the general voting body. They are Democrats and more than that they are the activist wing of the Democrat Party. That is one of the truths of primaries; the more activist members of a party are those who tend to vote and they usually do not represent the will of the majority of the people. The same thing happens in Republican primaries. That is one of the reasons the two party's platforms tend to be further to the extremes than the general electorate. The Democrats, by voting for a one issue, get out of Iraq now candidate have placed themselves to the left of the general electorate and will again be viewed as the party of the far left.

oh thank god, its good to see a rich white guy with perfect hair have a chance to make it to the US senate

the Iraq war just happened to be the high-profile issue and by itself should be enough ... 60% of americans are against the Iraq invasion ...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

He basically lost for enabling the republicans on nearly every one of their issues of republican agenda.

The Iraq invasion (already mentioned), his support to intervene in the Schiavo case, his opposition to universal health care, his refusal to back democratic fillibusters (the only weapon the dems have left) against extreme republican appointments (especially Alito), his support for Dubai taking over our ports, his relentless support for everything Israel at the expense of american tax payers, his support for Bush's amnesty program for illegals ... and on and on.

Other mistakes that cost him votes was his support for school vouchers (buh-bye teacher votes), his questioning of affirmative action (buh-bye black votes) and the biggie ... his 100% support of Bush shredding the constitution and taking away citizen rights -- particularily the 1st ammendment.

And he didn't help himself by letting his campaing workers, his poll workers and the talking heads accuse Lamont supporters of being terrorists, Jihadists and anti-semitic. Contrary to what Joe believes -- this is not the United States of Israel -- at least not yet.

This could be a pivotal event in history. The Iranians, the North Koreans, Hezbollahs, the Bin Ladens are all counting on having politicians here in the U.S. whose only actions against the increasing terrorist threats we face in the West will be going to an impotent U.N. and "negotiate."

The fall elections could be pivotal, dammit.

Yes, but Iraq was never about terrorists - it was about WMD. Iraq is a major fuck up beyond all imaginations. Being against the Iraq war at this stage seems to be the only sane position to have.

Lieberman would have won if he hadn't french kissed Bush

the Democrats have moved further to the left than they have been since before Bill Clinton took office.

I don't think you can extrapolate the opinions of democrats from one (fairly liberal) state out to represent the opinions of the entire party. There is a definite battle between the far left and moderate wings of the party.

I don't think you can extrapolate the opinions of democrats from one (fairly liberal) state out to represent the opinions of the entire party. There is a definite battle between the far left and moderate wings of the party.

There has been a dem divide since before Clinton ... DLC Vs. DNC.

At least the dems realize they aren't making any headway by staying the present course and are now changing their direction.

There is a guy I know on Pennsylvania Ave that should be doing the same thing but he's hell-bent to stay the course until he goes off the cliff like Thelma and Louise.

The only reason so many Republicans are talking about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is, is that they really want him to run as an independent. They hope he will split the Democratic vote allowing a Republican win. If Lieberman had won the primary they'd be painting him as an evil liberal. That is because to all to many people it's all about power and winning. What is good for the country runs a distant second.

The only reason so many Republicans are talking about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is, is that they really want him to run as an independent. They hope he will split the Democratic vote allowing a Republican win. If Lieberman had won the primary they'd be painting him as an evil liberal. That is because to all to many people it's all about power and winning. What is good for the country runs a distant second.

Not much of a chance Lieberman will split the dems. The CT dems will be out in force to vote for Lamont. Joe jumped the shark with all the bad-mouthing of the CT dems. No one likes being bad-mouthed and insulted.

when Rove is brought in to take over Liebermans's campaign it will spell the end.

Buh-bye Joe

I don't think you can extrapolate the opinions of democrats from one (fairly liberal) state out to represent the opinions of the entire party. There is a definite battle between the far left and moderate wings of the party.

And the far left seems to be winning. There is joy at the Republican National Committee this day.

dop, those who vote in primaries are usually the more activist members of the party. Among Connecticut Democrats those activists tend to be liberal. In the general election everyone will be eligible to vote. There are Lamont Democrats and there are Lieberman Democrats. They will split the vote. Things are looking up for Connecticut Republicans.

dop, those who vote in primaries are usually the more activist members of the party. Among Connecticut Democrats those activists tend to be liberal. In the general election everyone will be eligible to vote. There are Lamont Democrats and there are Lieberman Democrats. They will split the vote. Things are looking up for Connecticut Republicans.

Republicans have Zero chance of taking the CT senate ... 0. Their guy is polling at 13% (last I saw) so even if the 2 dems did split ... he would lose.

It's between Lieberman and Lamont with Lieberman probably pulling out before November.

King said the Connecticut primary has no bearing on his re-election race because "fortunately, the Third District is not composed of the left-wing bigots who went after Joe Lieberman."

Representative Peter King R-NY

taken from this article ..

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-limeji094845223aug09,0,2735331.story

This is why Lieberman is going to lose ... CT voters are going to quickly tire of being called bigots, terrorists, anti-semites and jihadists by Joe and his proxies in the republican party.

""You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.""------General Wesley Clark

The only reason so many Republicans are talking about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is, is that they really want him to run as an independent. .... If Lieberman had won the primary they'd be painting him as an evil liberal. That is because to all to many people it's all about power and winning. What is good for the country runs a distant second.You are sounding like Dop (no offense). The fact is that most Republicans supported Joe Lieberman over Lowell Weiker (Incumbent Republican) when Lieberman first ran. The effort was lead by William Buckley.

The Republicans won't start painting Lieberman as anything. They never have before, and they like him. It's not about power, it's about a decent politician.

He basically lost for enabling the republicans on nearly every one of their issues of republican agenda.He votes with the Democrats in the Senate 90% of the time. There are 17 Democrat senators with a less Democrat record than that.
This is about one issue from a one issue party.

If Lieberman runs he will probably win because everyone who will vote for Lamont in November already did so yesterday.
Lieberman only lost by 4% without the help of Republicans and moderate Dems who didn't vote in the primary.

The Republicans won't start painting Lieberman as anything. They never have before, and they like him. It's not about power, it's about a decent politician.
Russ Feingold is an excellent person and one of the very, very few politicians whom I like. Republicans tend not to like him. Just a thought.

The only reason so many Republicans are talking about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is, is that they really want him to run as an independent. .... If Lieberman had won the primary they'd be painting him as an evil liberal.

Absolutely dead-on accurate, Imagineer.

Great point.

Lieberman was down by 8 points nearly statewide. One area, Naugatuck Valley (?), a hotbed of Lieberman-dems pulled out all stops to bring Joe back to within 4.

Bottom line ... Joe is a 18 year incumbent senator and 30 year Connecticut politician that lost to a completely unknown rookie by 10,000 votes. That has only happened a few times in U.S. history.

He lost his home town and worse yet, he lost his home precinct which means even his neighbors voted against him.

He has nowhere to turn for donations now that he is running as an Independent with the real posibility of being managed by Rove and the already prevailing situation of being supported by republicans, including Melman who refused to endorse his own republican candidate today on Hardball.

The CT'ers that had been donating to him will no longer do so as they watch Joe spend their donations to run against the democratic party ... the party of Connecticut.

It's embarrassing to watch his petulant and petty attitude and even harder to listen to his extreme right wing rhetoric such as he refuses to accept last nights results as if he is unwilling to let the CT voters decide their party candidate and the way he enables his campaign workers and friends in the media to label the 52% of CT dems that voted for Lamont as being anti-semitic, terrorists and bigots.

Between now and November, if the dems are smart, they strip him of all committee assignments and no longer allow him to caucus with the dems.

Lieberman, party of one

Absolutely dead-on accurate, Imagineer.
Great point.Based on what? Republicans got him elected. Do you remember when he debated Cheney? He was always treated with respect by the Republicans.

(I know. You'll find a website from someone's cabin in Idaho dissing Lieberman to prove me wrong)

....with the real posibility of being managed by RoveI don't even keep track of your predictions anymore.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that the Republicans --back when Gore/Lieberman were running a presidential campaign-- relentlessly painted him as LIEberman.

Republicans got (Lieberman) elected.

They did?!?!?

I'm breathless with anticipation to hear this one.

Do you remember when he debated Cheney? He was always treated with respect by the Republicans.

Rush Limbaugh is a leading light of Republican ideology. He savaged Lieberman on a daily basis when the election was in progress.

1. Based on the fact that the Republicans --back when Gore/Lieberman were running a presidential campaign-- relentlessly painted him as LIEberman.
2. They did?!?!? I'm breathless with anticipation to hear this one.
3. Rush Limbaugh is a leading light of Republican ideology. He savaged Lieberman on a daily basis when the election was in progress.
1. I don't recall this, but if you say so. And if that's as bad as it got at the height of a presidential campaign, that's pretty respectful.

2. "It is a bizarre truth, but one that American voters need to know, that National Review founder and "Catholic" fascist William F. Buckley made the Senate career of Democratic Presidential threat Joseph Lieberman."
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2928buckpac.html
Daily Kos: The Buckleys were able to deliver a substantial bloc of votes to Lieberman in 1988 to purge Lowell Weicker,......
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/2/22655/76485
William Buckley formed a PAC to raise money for Lieberman and later Jack Kemp called him "one of us."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/28/231854/127

3. I think rush Limbaugh criticized Lieberman's shifting stance on Social Security. But I have a hunch you didn't listen to Rush enough to really back up your claim.

Obviously Karl Rove forget to tell Diebold to fix the election for Lieberman. An uncharacteristic screw up.

Dead With Ned
Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006, at 3:33 PM ET

Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.

The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded, well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal. Ned Lamont, a preppy political novice from Greenwich, got the idea to run last year when something he read in the Wall Street Journal made him gag on his breakfast. It was a hopeful analysis of Iraq by Lieberman. As a candidate, Lamont was less a fleshed-out alternative to Lieberman than a stand-in for an anti-war, anti-Bush movement. His campaign was made plausible by Web-based "Net roots" activists who cared principally about the war in Iraq and badgered Lieberman mercilessly about his support for it.

Lieberman's opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Just about everyone now agrees that the sooner we find a way to withdraw, the better for us and for the Iraqis. The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know this because we have been here before. The Lamont-Lieberman battle was filled with echoes and parallels from the Vietnam era. Democratic reformers and anti-establishment insurgents weren't wrong about that conflict, either. Vietnam was a terrible mistake for the United States. But like Iraq, Vietnam was a badly chosen battlefield in a larger conflict with totalitarianism that America had no choice but to pursue. In turning viciously on stalwarts of the Cold War era like Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson, anti-war insurgents called into question the Democratic Party's underlying commitment to challenging Communist expansion. The party's Vietnam-era drift away from issues of security and defense—and its association with a radical left hostile to the military and neutral in the fight between liberalism and communism—helped push a lot of Americans who didn't much like the Vietnam War into the arms of Richard Nixon.

Joe Lieberman can be cloying and sanctimonious. Connecticut is uncharacteristically liberal, even for a blue state. The primary was held in August, when many voters are away on vacation. But despite these mitigating factors, the warning from Democratic history is plain. Consider the parallels to Connecticut's 1970 Senate election. That year, the two-term Democratic incumbent was Thomas J. Dodd, the father of current Sen. Christopher Dodd. A classic Cold War liberal and pillar of the establishment, the senior Dodd was challenged in the Democratic primary by the Rev. Joseph Duffey, an anti-war minister whose youthful supporters included Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham, and one Joe Lieberman. Facing defeat, Dodd dropped out of the Democratic primary and declared as an independent, much as Lieberman now plans to do. By splitting the Democratic vote, Dodd helped swing the election to the Republican nominee, Lowell Weicker.

This time, Connecticut Republicans are probably too weak to capture Lieberman's seat, even with the help of a Democratic division. But as in 1970, the real significance of the Connecticut race was what it says about the party nationally, and what it portends for the next presidential election. In 1972, the Democrats repudiated their flawed Cold Warriors and chose as their standard-bearer a naive and honorable anti-war idealist. It was not George McGovern's opposition to Vietnam but his larger tendency toward isolationism and his ambivalence about the use of American power in general that helped him lose 49 states to Richard Nixon. In a similar way, the 2006 Connecticut primary points to the growing influence within the party of leftists unmoved by the fight against global jihad. Nixon had the gift of hippie demonstrators and fellow-traveling bluebloods like Ned's great uncle Corliss Lamont as antagonists. Today's Republicans face an anti-war movement with a different tone and style, including an electronic counterculture of enraged bloggers and callow entrepreneurs like Ned himself. Yet the underlying political dynamic is not altogether different.

Whether Democrats can avoid playing their Vietnam video to the end depends on their ability to project military and diplomatic toughness in place of the elitism and anti-war purity represented in 2004 by Howard Dean and now by Ned Lamont. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for 2008, is trying to walk this difficult line, continuing to express support for the war in principle while becoming increasingly strident in her criticism of its execution. As the congressional elections approach, many Republican candidates are fleeing Bush's embrace because of his Iraq-induced unpopularity. But Lamont's victory points to a way in which Bush's disastrous war could turn into an even bigger liability for the Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/

Obviously Karl Rove forget to tell Diebold to fix the election for Lieberman. An uncharacteristic screw up.

I don't know if you said that tongue-in-cheek but FWIW -- CT uses the old lever machines (but they do count with optical scanners).

Jacob Weisberg is a Jew -- of course he's going to paint a rosey picture for Zell Lieberman.

I don't recall this, but if you say so. And if that's as bad as it got at the height of a presidential campaign, that's pretty respectful.

I see.

First you make the claim that ""Lieberman was always treated with respect by the Republicans"".......now you have the gall to claim that the Republican machine repeatedly driving home the point that Lieberman is *a liar* equates to their having been --"pretty respectful"-- of him.

I wonder really, just how much more intellectually dishonest you could possibly fucking be..........

Also, although I no longer do so, in the past (before I got XM radio and was able to recieve Air America) I was a daily listener to Rush.

The way I kept myself from puking while listening to his bilge was to play a game......I would try to predict each day as the opening bumper music played how long (in seconds) it would be before Limbaugh told a lie. Not a half-truth. Not a little white lie. Not a fudge or a 'sort of' a lie. But an outright, damnable, bald faced, demonstrable 100% falsehood.

Avaerage time was around 30 seconds.

GOP republican web site puts Hitler mustache on Howard Dean at expense of Ned Lamont ...

http://derenegade.blogspot.com/2006/08/im-sure-theres-reasonable-explanation.html

Anymore questions on why Lieberman will lose?

And BTW: Zell Lieberman only votes 50% with the dems.

Yes, but Iraq was never about terrorists - it was about WMD. Iraq is a major fuck up beyond all imaginations. Being against the Iraq war at this stage seems to be the only sane position to have.

Lieberman would have won if he hadn't french kissed Bush

It was about preventing terrorists from getting wmd.

Republicans have Zero chance of taking the CT senate ... 0. Their guy is polling at 13% (last I saw) so even if the 2 dems did split ... he would lose.

It's between Lieberman and Lamont with Lieberman probably pulling out before November.

He's polling in the single digits now. The repubs will vote for joe.

GOP republican web site puts Hitler mustache on Howard Dean at expense of Ned Lamont ...

http://derenegade.blogspot.com/2006/08/im-sure-theres-reasonable-explanation.html

I searched and searched and could find no Hitler mustache. I do remember Dean calling a Republican Hitler though. That was right about the time he called for an end to divisivness.

Lieberman was down by 8 points nearly statewide. One area, Naugatuck Valley (?), a hotbed of Lieberman-dems pulled out all stops to bring Joe back to within 4.

Bottom line ... Joe is a 18 year incumbent senator and 30 year Connecticut politician that lost to a completely unknown rookie by 10,000 votes. That has only happened a few times in U.S. history.

He lost his home town and worse yet, he lost his home precinct which means even his neighbors voted against him.

He has nowhere to turn for donations now that he is running as an Independent with the real posibility of being managed by Rove and the already prevailing situation of being supported by republicans, including Melman who refused to endorse his own republican candidate today on Hardball.

The CT'ers that had been donating to him will no longer do so as they watch Joe spend their donations to run against the democratic party ... the party of Connecticut.

It's embarrassing to watch his petulant and petty attitude and even harder to listen to his extreme right wing rhetoric such as he refuses to accept last nights results as if he is unwilling to let the CT voters decide their party candidate and the way he enables his campaign workers and friends in the media to label the 52% of CT dems that voted for Lamont as being anti-semitic, terrorists and bigots.

Between now and November, if the dems are smart, they strip him of all committee assignments and no longer allow him to caucus with the dems.

Lieberman, party of one


lieb raised over 8mil on his own, spent about 1/2. lamont raised @4mm of which 2.5 was his and blew his wad. If joe got 8 on his own i'm sure he'll be able to drum up another 4-5 without too much trouble.

And then the 'if you're not with us you're against us that kos so regularly employs. he mocked bush for it and now employs it himself!

lieb raised over 8mil on his own, spent about 1/2. lamont raised @4mm of which 2.5 was his and blew his wad. If joe got 8 on his own i'm sure he'll be able to drum up another 4-5 without too much trouble.

And then the 'if you're not with us you're against us that kos so regularly employs. he mocked bush for it and now employs it himself!

That was when Joe was a democrat. Now he's a republican. Do you really think the dems are going to support a republican candidate?

[QUOTE=Lungdop Philing]GOP republican web site puts Hitler mustache on Howard Dean at expense of Ned Lamont ...

http://derenegade.blogspot.com/2006/08/im-sure-theres-reasonable-explanation.html

I searched and searched and could find no Hitler mustache. I do remember Dean calling a Republican Hitler though. That was right about the time he called for an end to divisivness.

Maybe you just don't want to see it.

He's republican because he supports the war in Iraq?

He's republican because he supports the war in Iraq?

I don't recall congress declaring war.

Why not simply answer the question rather than constantly splitting hairs over what amounts to semantics?

Why not simply answer the question rather than constantly splitting hairs over what amounts to semantics?

Because being a vet, you should know better yet you use the word war intentionally every time, over and over again because it's the right-wing talking point.

I'm not ducking you or your question -- try premising the question correctly and I'll be glad to answer.

And BTW: Zell Lieberman only votes 50% with the dems.Congressional Quarterly says it's 90%.
What's your source, tough guy.

Yes, but Iraq was never about terrorists - it was about WMD.

It was about preventing terrorists from getting wmd.

It was??

I must admit that I have never heard anyone make that claim before, waldo.

What else to call it? (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-33,GGLG:en&q=iraq+war). Follow this link & you'll find some 420+ million topics listed.

The Korean Conflict was officially a UN sanctioned police action. Vietnam was a unique situation. However, to anyone serving during those times & in those places sure as hell felt like they were in a war, one every bit as bad as any war their grandpas or fathers told them about. Despite whatever political tag civilians and historians may label those with, to those in-country, it was a more realistic view.

What else to call it? (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-33,GGLG:en&q=iraq+war). Follow this link & you'll find some 420+ million topics listed.

The Korean Conflict was officially a UN sanctioned police action. Vietnam was a unique situation. However, to anyone serving during those times & in those places sure as hell felt like they were in a war, one every bit as bad as any war their grandpas or fathers told them about. Despite whatever political tag civilians and historians may label those with, to those in-country, it was a more realistic view.

You might try calling it what it is ... an illegal invasion of a sovereign country based on lies.

To answer your question ... Lieberman is now considered a republican. He has dropped off the democratic side of the poll, gaining strength from republicans in the polls (today's rasmussen), talked with Karl Rove which was reported by George Stephanopolis, vetted by many and not denied by the white house and endorsed by Ken Mehlman on Hardball as the republican candidate by virtue of him refusing to endorse the real republican candidate, Schlesinger.

I'm not buying the illegal invasion part of it. The Iraqi Idiot had to go. He'd thumbed his nose at your beloved UN for over 10 years following his own invasion of Kuwait. General H. Norman "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, Jr. should have come home with Saddam's head on a platter, but he didn't. (For me, that's one of the great screw-ups - along with not allowing MacArthur to go to China and not allowing Patton to go to Moscow ... but that's a different story.)

I'm not buying the illegal invasion part of it. The Iraqi Idiot had to go. He'd thumbed his nose at your beloved UN for over 10 years following his own invasion of Kuwait. General H. Norman "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, Jr. should have come home with Saddam's head on a platter, but he didn't. (For me, that's one of the great screw-ups - along with not allowing MacArthur to go to China and not allowing Patton to go to Moscow ... but that's a different story.)

I agree that in hindsight the Saddam question would have best been handled in GW I, but for Macarthur to go to China, or Patton to go to Moscow would have required nuking both countries.

1. First you make the claim that ""Lieberman was always treated with respect by the Republicans"".......now you have the gall to claim that the Republican machine repeatedly driving home the point that Lieberman is *a liar* equates to their having been --"pretty respectful"-- of him.
2. I wonder really, just how much more intellectually dishonest you could possibly fucking be..........1. No, my one sentence reply was that in the context of a hotly contested presidential campaign, if liar (I'll believe you because I can't prove otherwise) is as bad as it got, that's way nicer than opponents are normally treated.

"...now you have the gall to claim that the Republican machine repeatedly driving home the point that Lieberman is *a liar*..." - thanks for putting words in my mouth

2. Isn't it kind of juvenile for a man in his 50's to curse so much?



PS - anything else to say about the Republicans helping to elect Lieberman 18 years ago?

2. Isn't it kind of juvenile for a man in his 50's to curse so much?
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer

1. No, my one sentence reply was that in the context of a hotly contested presidential campaign, if liar (I'll believe you because I can't prove otherwise) is as bad as it got, that's way nicer than opponents are normally treated.

You made the assertion that the *Republicans have always treated Lieberman with respect*.

You were shown how untrue that was, and now you wiggle frantically trying to make it seem as if that was not what you claimed.

Isn't it kind of juvenile for a man in his 50's to curse so much?

I don't know. I was not aware that using the word *fuck* was juvenile.

For me, it is merely a manifestation of seething anger and abject loathing for the Rightwing coming to the surface.


PS - anything else to say about the Republicans helping to elect Lieberman 18 years ago?

Yes, absolutely.

Firstly, your prior claim was not simply that *the Republicans* "helped to get him elected".

You stated = "Republicans GOT Lieberman elected."

I was under the impression that you were talking about a significant effort on the part of *the Republicans*, as in the Republican Party, or at least some elected Republican politicians.

The single reference you had was for a private individual (William Buckley) who happens to vote Republican who (admittedly) gave him some assistance.

YOU may equate that to *Republicans got Lieberman elected*, but it seems to me quite a bit of an overstatement to put it that way. YMMV.

I'm not in a position to argue with you on my own squirming since you appear to be quite adept yourself.

I'm not in a position to argue with you on my own squirming since you appear to be quite adept yourself.

LOL. I have no need to *squirm* in this discussion.

You made the assertion that the *Republicans have always treated Lieberman with respect*.

That was exposed as false.

Then you dug the hole deeper, and made the assertion that *Republicans GOT Lieberman elected*.

Keep trying to misdirect though. It's very illuminating.

I'm not in a position to argue with you on my own squirming since you appear to be quite adept yourself.
Wow, FT sure showed you.

If someone helped get someone elected, that means they wouldn't have been elected otherwise.
These articles claim that Lieberman won his first election thanks to the efforts of Republicans.

Looks like the republicans are bringing in their green candidate to make it a 4-way and there are now rumors that Schlesinger is gonna be pulled as the republican and replaced by a stronger candidate.

CNN labels Lamont as Al Quida ...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/11/headline-news-lamont