Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007669" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110007669</a> >>The debate over Iraq is getting nastier, if that's possible, and the new target of antiwar Democrats isn't even President Bush. It's Joe Lieberman, the Democrat from Connecticut and 2000 running mate of Al Gore, who has dared to suggest we must and will win the war. "I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there," Senator Lieberman wrote on these pages November 29. "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will [in Iraq]." When that policy substance was ignored in Washington, the Senator repeated his case last week in the political language the Beltway press corps could finally comprehend: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The media, and his fellow Democrats, seemed agog. And it's true that in modern, polarized Washington, such bipartisan sentiments are unusual. But as Mr. Lieberman also noted last week, they have a historic parallel from the early days of the Cold War. Then a Democratic President, Harry Truman, was trying to build alliances to resist Communism amid ferocious criticism from many Republicans, including their Senate leader, Ohio's Robert Taft. But a GOP Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, stepped forward to support Truman, and the bipartisan "containment" strategy was born. Forty years later it would result in victory under Ronald Reagan.<<
Originally Posted By idleHands If fellow Dems haven't gone after him, they should. To quote Marc Maron: "Lieberman is Hebrew for 'Republican.'" 'nuf said.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan (I'm just wondering because, well, that's the title of this thread, see, so I expected to see vicious quote after vicious quote from Democrats attacking Joe Lieberman.)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is the sub-title from the Wall Street Journal... >>Democrats assail one of their own for backing the war.<< and more from the article... >>So it's revealing of the party's foreign policy condition that his fellow Democrats are now training their guns not on the enemy in Iraq--but on Mr. Lieberman.<< >>Democratic Chairman Howard Dean also took a public shot at Mr. Lieberman, and his brother Jim Dean, who runs something called Democracy for America, is ginning up a letter-writing assault on the Senator. "It is disturbing enough that Senator Lieberman remains one of the President's biggest cheerleaders. But his call for opponents of the President's failed policy to keep quiet is outrageous," Jim Dean wrote last week. Meanwhile, at the fever swamps of MoveOn.org they're talking about a primary challenge to Mr. Lieberman in 2006. We're confident the Senator would whip all comers in Connecticut. But this liberal animosity toward him speaks volumes about how far left Democratic foreign policy has shifted since Bill Clinton's Presidency. The same Senate Democrats who voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and for the war in Iraq in October 2002 are now claiming they were duped and it was all a mistake. Even the supposedly serious Democratic policy voices are offering mostly criticism without any positive advice or counsel. Senator Joe Biden doesn't advocate withdrawal--"I'm not there yet," he says--but he too has been consistently negative, predicting the January elections would be "ugly" and now insisting we must "change course" to succeed. Yet the actual policy advice he offered in a recent speech consisted of the Bush strategy dressed up in different rhetoric.<< >>This is all a shame, because President Bush's conduct of the war could have used a more constructive opposition. There's no question the U.S. was terribly slow in training Iraqi troops, far too slow in transferring sovereignty to Iraqis, and far too cautious in pursuing insurgency strongholds in Fallujah and elsewhere. But those criticisms all came from the right, or from Iraqis, not from American Democrats. Which brings us back to Mr. Lieberman, whose recent candid support for the war surely means the end of his Presidential ambitions. But if Democrats are smart they'll listen to what he's saying about the defeatist message they're now sending about Iraq, and about U.S. foreign policy in general. The Taft Republicans of the late 1940s never did make it to the White House; Dwight Eisenhower won in 1952 as the heir to the GOP's Vandenberg wing. Smart Democrats who want to win in 2008 aren't going to do it as the party of pessimism and retreat. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And for those who don't know... Here is the definition of the word assail.... <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assail" target="_blank">http://www.thefreedictionary.c om/assail</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So it looks like the only Democrats they came up with were Howard Dean (who, rightly or wrongly, was against the war from the start) and his brother.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Bear in mind...Republicans have think tanks that come up with their ideological statements. If a big-name Republican says something, unless it's immediately condemned and anathematized by the Party, it's considered legit by a tacit imprimatur. The fact is, the Democrat party doesn't operate the same way the Republican party does, so a couple of Democrats saying something, even big-name ones, doesn't necessarily speak for the Democrat party.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan LOL! So the big "attack" on Joe Lieberman is from... drum roll please... HOWARD DEAN'S BROTHER??? In other words, this thread title and the article itself is nothing but hyperbole and wishful thinking and the samme old Republican talking points. Check. When you find an actual verbal "attack" Darkbeer, be sure and post it here, 'kay?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's see what the New York Times is sayiong... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=a05a3618d4469a01&ei=5094&partner=homepage" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12 /10/politics/10lieberman.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=a05a3618d4469a01&ei=5094&partner=homepage</a> >>Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, Mr. Reid's aide said.<< >>Mr. Lieberman, who remains immensely popular in his home state, is aware of the hornet's nest he has stirred. "Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war."<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What's really going on here is that a majority of Americans, Democrats included, actually agree with Lieberman's moderate stance. Any "attacks" would be coming from the far left of the party most likely. Yet, it fits the Republican message better to portray this as "Democrats attack Lieberman" as if he is the lone voice of moderation among the party. The more the right can paint Democrats as a wild, fringe group of way out hippie Liberals, the better it makes them feel. And we wonder why people get cynical from the childish spin. Aye yi yi.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Moveon.org, which owns the democrat party according to them, are trying to find someone to beat Lieberman in the upcoming election in Conneticut. Lieberman has veered off the liberal rule of attack Bush at all costs no matter how much it screws the country, the world, or the military. He is more than welcome in the GOP where the adults run the country.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>which owns the democrat party according to them<< According to "them." Exactly.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey, moveon.org dictates what the dems do. They HATE Lieberman as do most liberals in America. Why would they hate a guy who went to Iraq 4 times who said the military was doing a great job, we were winning, and that we need to finish the job? Because he broke the democrat rule of not slamming Bush. It's that simple, it's that pathetic, and it's that petty.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yet, you've still provided no evidence that Democrats are attacking Lieberman. But that's not really on you this time. Darkbeer started the thread.
