• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Get 'em Joe

Red Robin

Well-known member
Sure holds true here among some of our "Moderates"



Lieberman Bashes Paranoid Democrats

Friday, November 9, 2007 9:22 AM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size



Sen. Joe Lieberman lashed out at what he called the Democrats’ “politically paranoid, hyper-partisan” liberal base, which he charges is more interested in opposing Republicans that promoting a strong foreign policy.

“For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general,” Lieberman said Thursday at a forum co-hosted by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the Financial Times.

“In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the president that defined Republicans in the 1990s, even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest…
 

Tex

Well-known member
Lieberman, given his recent election history, is no spokesman for the Democratic party. He is another mouthpiece for Bush War policy, even if it is ineffectual.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
Lieberman, given his recent election history, is no spokesman for the Democratic party. He is another mouthpiece for Bush War policy, even if it is ineffectual.
You're goofy. Even in your criticism of Liberman , you can't keep from mentioning BUSH!
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Lieberman, given his recent election history, is no spokesman for the Democratic party. He is another mouthpiece for Bush War policy, even if it is ineffectual.
You're goofy. Even in your criticism of Liberman , you can't keep from mentioning BUSH!

Joe Lieberman has been the most ardent supporter of the Bush war policy in the Democratic party. He is even bullish on Iran.

I don't know if it has anything to do with this whole armagedon thing, or if Joe is interested in pushing the Israeli war policy in D.C. (not that it matters, but Joe is Jewish).

I have to note that there are many Israelis who don't believe in this policy.

Read about the controversy here:

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/lieberman.htm



# See article list.
# Conact Senator Lieberman.

Introduction - April 12, 2000

Until very recently, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) has never been willing - publicly or privately - to disclose the reasons for his opposition to the release of Jonathan Pollard. Instead, hiding behind a veil of "secrecy", he has been a willing tool of the CIA in its on-going exploitation of the Pollard case to call into question both the reliability of Israel as an ally, and the loyalty of the American Jewish community.

As a close confidant of President and Mrs. Clinton, Lieberman has had a disproportionately negative influence - essentially overruling the concerns of the Jewish community on this matter. In a March 8, 2000 letter to Lieberman, NY Assemblyman Sam Colman pointed out that the excuse that Hillary Clinton had used in a recent meeting for not taking a position on the Pollard case - even though she was knowledgeable about the case and about Pollard's unprecedented sentence - was that "it is not a one-sided issue and, Senator Lieberman, a Jew, is against his release."

Colman continued, "...I feel very strongly that you owe me and the entire Jewish community an explanation... why do you advocate for his remaining in prison? Don't you understand that Pollard was arrested as an American but punished as a Jew?..." When Colman's letter met with silence, he wrote to Lieberman again in April and called on the public to assist with phone calls and faxes to Lieberman's office.

On April 10, 2000 Colman received a reply from Lieberman, dated April 3. Lieberman 's response was stunning in its untruthfulness and in its ignorance of the basic facts of the Pollard case. [See Justice4JP Questions for Senator Lieberman] Lieberman did not address any of the judicial inequities of the case, which include a broken plea agreement, the use of secret evidence, and a grossly disproportionate sentence. Instead, he made the implausible suggestion that Pollard had had his day in court and had enjoyed due process. He also dismissed the entire clemency process by insisting that the courts know best and that legislators should never interfere in the judicial process - not even to rectify a miscarriage of justice. Finally, standing history on its head, Lieberman insisted that it is his "personal rule" never to interfere in the judicial process, either pre or post sentencing, and he said that that is what he is doing in the Pollard case.

Colman replied at once, demolishing Lieberman's response. Colman reminded Lieberman that he already had interfered in the Pollard case when he initiated the "Lieberman letter" which he had 60 of his colleagues sign, calling on President Clinton not to grant clemency to Jonathan Pollard. He reminded Lieberman of the judicial inequities that are part of the open record of the case, and stressed that were it not for judicial interference by Weinberger in the past, and by Lieberman currently, there never would have been a Pollard problem at all. He called on Lieberman to publicly admit his error and to actively make amends, so that justice for Jonathan Pollard may speedily be done. Assemblyman Colman is now waiting for a response from Senator Lieberman. So is Jonathan Pollard.
Think Twice About Joe On Israel
Sidney Zion - August 18, 2000 - New York Post

Disclaimer: Justice4JP does not endorse or oppose any candidate in the Presidential elections. Justice4JP does however see it as our responsibility to the public to reveal how any candidate's position on the Pollard case is a reflection of that candidate's commitment to the truth, or alternately a reflection of his willingness to subvert principles of honesty, justice, and fair play to political goals. See Justice4JP Release 08/16/00.

DON'T let his yarmulke fool you, Joe Lieberman is no great backer of Israel. His Senate record reveals a man who has trimmed his sails more than a little to satisfy Bill Clinton and his pro-Palestinian Jewish advisers in the State Department and National Security Council.

And Lieberman's plan to meet with Louis Farrakhan, who questioned his loyalty to America, plus his remark that Pat Buchanan is "not at all an anti-Semite" made some Jews stop kvelling in their tractates over the first Jew to make a major-party national ticket.

In the opinion of the Zionist Organization of America, Lieberman has been entirely too close to the American Muslim Council, which gave him a top award two years ago. On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Post went front page with attacks from such as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on the Farrakhan-Buchanan business.

When I mentioned some of this to one of Joe's wealthy Jewish friends in this gorgeous Rocky preserve, he blanched and said: "And I thought it was the altitude that made me breathless."

Well, only in America could the Jews finally get one of their own for vice president who counts on anti-Semites as some of his best friends.

"I enjoy Pat Buchanan's company, he's a bright, interesting guy who's been misinterpreted," Joe said on Meet the Press. The few Jews who defend Pat drink with him. Sobriety Joe just likes him for himself.

Here's a touch of Lieberman's Senate record on Israel: In 1994, he voted to confirm Strobe Talbot as Under Secretary of State. Talbot, in his career at Time magazine, was a worthy challenger of Buchanan for the anti-Zionist of the decade award. He compared Israel to Saddam Hussein, and called the Jewish state "a nasty and bitter nation, expansionist, scowling and obsessed with the Holocaust."

Jesse Helms said no on Talbot. Joe said yes.

And Lieberman was all for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem - until Al Gore gave him the nod. Today, Joe shakes off the yarmulke and agrees that now is not the time.

He boasts about his friendship with Yasser Arafat, whom he used to regularly condemn. He stands silent while the Democratic convention has Maher Hathout deliver an invocation. Hathout is a leading Muslim who calls Hezbollah "freedom fighters" - no matter that it's on the official U.S. list of terrorist groups and is credited with the massacre of 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983.

Put it all together, and the only people who shouldn't be worried about Joe Lieberman on Israel are the Arabs and the American anti-Semites.

Not because Lieberman is anti-Israel; of course not. I am sure he loves Israel. All I worry about is his back. Because like most Jews who end up in the highest echelons of our government, he stands the real chance of throwing out his sacroiliac by bending over backwards.

The only question is whether the U.S. Treasury or the Muslim Council should pay for the chiropractor.

Only in America.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex said:
Lieberman, given his recent election history, is no spokesman for the Democratic party. He is another mouthpiece for Bush War policy, even if it is ineffectual.

Though Lieberman has been a reliable vote except in the Middle East area, if the Dems improve their numbers in the Senate next term I think he'll be out of his committee chairmanships. Even though he's officially an Independent, Dems let him keep his leadership positions. But his constant approval of Bush and bashing of Dems is not setting well with some people.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
He's lost his backbone.

He want's to play both sides, both political parties and in DC you can't do that.

He needs to either be Rep, Dem or Liberal, Independent...and STAY THAT WAY!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
He's lost his backbone.

He want's to play both sides, both political parties and in DC you can't do that.

He needs to either be Rep, Dem or Liberal, Independent...and STAY THAT WAY!

I think his pro-Israel agenda is what drives him. I think he wants a strong permanent US presence in the Middle East to support Israel. And Bush's blunders make it look more and more like we'll have that for many years to come. :(
 

Tex

Well-known member
ff said:
kolanuraven said:
He's lost his backbone.

He want's to play both sides, both political parties and in DC you can't do that.

He needs to either be Rep, Dem or Liberal, Independent...and STAY THAT WAY!

I think his pro-Israel agenda is what drives him. I think he wants a strong permanent US presence in the Middle East to support Israel. And Bush's blunders make it look more and more like we'll have that for many years to come. :(

I believe in helping protect our allies.

Unfortunately, the way Bush is doing it, we will have the same problem the Soviet Union had in the cold war---we will spend ourselves to death.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Does it strike you as funny that Red Robin is quoting Joe Lieberman? :lol: :lol: I guess Duncan Hunter hasn't checked in on this subject?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Lieberman, given his recent election history, is no spokesman for the Democratic party. He is another mouthpiece for Bush War policy, even if it is ineffectual.
You're goofy. Even in your criticism of Liberman , you can't keep from mentioning BUSH!
That's very correct, spokespersons for the Democrats are pretty much required to be in favor of surrender....because we just can't win, of course! :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Cal said:
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Lieberman, given his recent election history, is no spokesman for the Democratic party. He is another mouthpiece for Bush War policy, even if it is ineffectual.
You're goofy. Even in your criticism of Liberman , you can't keep from mentioning BUSH!
That's very correct, spokespersons for the Democrats are pretty much required to be in favor of surrender....because we just can't win, of course! :roll:

Even if today we were to "win", whatever that means now, I would still be very, very critical of this war. It has been so mismanaged that victory can not be claimed. We have spent way, way over the amount of blood and treasure that it should have taken. Too many shortcuts were taken (and we knew they were shortcuts) that it has made what should have been a short war to a tin bit dictator into a national and global disgrace disgrace.

At least now it seems we have some competent boots on the ground.

I was listening to one of the generals administering the Afghanistan reconstruction and the weeding out of corruption in the police force in Afghanistan. He seemed very competent and empathetic to the people instead of militant. He told the reporters that one of the reasons for corruption in the police force was the fact that the police were not getting paid. Since they weren't getting paid, they almost had to be corrupt and shake down people to put food on their family's table. He instituted a program to make sure the police were properly paid and then erased the main reason for corruption in the police force.

Just common sense.

Now they can work on systems to deal with the corruption coming out of self interest, not self survival.

We need that general to oversee the govt. appointees that Bush has put over our regulatory agencies.

I was for this war, but the incompetence by the "decision makers" prolonged it and made it cost way, way more than it should have. In the process, we made a lot more enemies in the world and even grew al quaeda.

We wanted to be seen as liberators, but we tore down the social structures that were needed in the country.

Bush can never claim "victory" in this endeavor.

We will be paying for his incompetence for decades. The spin meisters just made up stuff and lied to the public about events like Pat Tillman's (some say he was even executed) death, the rescue of that girl soldier from the beginning of the war, and on and on, and on. Some service men have paid for it with their lives and families. I doubt they will ever be compensated enough--they can't be--we have mortgaged our country to fight the war and there will be little left to do the job adequately.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
We won. We were told the mission was accomplished. We were told we are dealing with the last throes of an insurgency. Those throes have lasted a bit longer than expected, but surely the newly ethnically cleansed police in the newly ethnically cleansed neighborhoods can handle the final throes, can't they?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Texan said:
Tex said:
Texan said:
He places principle over party loyalty - and you think that means he's lost his backbone?

Whose principles?
Draw your own conclusions, EcoTex. The rest of us were discussing Joe Liberman.

When it agrees with you, Texan, it is "principles". When it doesn't, it is some left wing nut idea.
 
Top