Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 14, 2006, 12:38:15 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/14/lamont.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
Skip to the bottom part "Lieberman urged to drop out".
They're wrong. They're dead wrong. While I'm not sorry to see Lieberman lose the DNC endorsement, I think the Feingold and the DNC are full of ****.
It might be bad for the Democratic Party if Lieberman runs but it's certainly not bad for the people of Connecticut. We need more races like this. More options. Less polarization.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Feingold...
didn't read article... but if that bastard is involved it is wrong, bad, evil, and disgusting
I am embarrased that weasly little ****** is from my state. total sweetheartbag waste of a person.
-
This is news? :p
-
Haven't there been some polls showing that if Lieberman ran as an independent he would win in a three-way race?
-
Wouldn't it drive the Conn dems nuts if a repub won the election because the dems split their votes between two dems? :aok
-
The only Republican candidate has dropped out because of a gambling scandal.
I just checked on google...a number of polls show Lieberman trouncing Lament in a three-way race....of course, a lot of that support for Joe would come from Republican voters.
-
Most americans do not want to see the US pull out of Iraq unilaterally, leaving behind such a mess that we helped make. The war of terror truly is a war of Islam fighting Islam and we need to stick this thing out for decades if we are going to have any hope of influencing the more evolved moderate islam to gain global prevalence over the 14th century fundamentalists. The democrats sticking by their fringe guns think they have a chance on the "withdraw from Iraq now" card. The liberal democrats are helping elect conservatives, again.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Wouldn't it drive the Conn dems nuts if a repub won the election because the dems split their votes between two dems? :aok
what would be funnier is when they trot out the old liberal standby "THE ELECTION WAS STOLED!!!!!!1111" when Lieberman wins.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Wouldn't it drive the Conn dems nuts if a repub won the election because the dems split their votes between two dems? :aok
I think I heard Rove say that the Republican cantidate wasn'
t going to remain on the ballot in CT. It was something to the effect of.....
We're not going to run there and won't do anything to hurt Liebermans chances at all. They wouldnt encourage repub. to vote for him , but wouldn't do anything to harm his chance.....
Something like that.
-
I'm not a Democrat, obviously, (I'm not a Republican either, actually), however, I have no desire to see the party collapse, if for no other reason than it provides some measure of balance. Unfortunately both parties have drifted towards the extremes, although to me it appears the Democrats have drifted much further. Nothing really good is going to come of all of this. I'm hoping Lieberman wins, and it is a major wake up call to the DNC. They went way off plumb when they picked Dean, and they've gotten worse since then. The "lesser of two evils" is getting really old. The worst of it is that the greater of the two evils is so intolerable as to make choosing them an option that just isn't viable, even in hopes of pushing the lesser of two evils to perform better.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Unfortunately both parties have drifted towards the extremes . .
if you mean the dems are now in far far left field, 2 degrees from insane in most cases, while the republicans have drifted too far left towards center field, I agree with you
-
The thing is, Joe is quite the liberal...he just has a different view on the war. I have to give him kudos...he *went* there and *saw for himself* what its all about. He wrote an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal about it!
But his kook fringe party decided that was enough to shove him off the plank.
I knew they'd go off the deep end once they got Dean on board. Now its almost funny to watch these guys self destruct.
-
Link (http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249384)
Our Troops Must Stay
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
By Joe Lieberman
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the last 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
The progress in Iraq is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily *****e south remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad on the East, Tikrit to the North, and Ramadi to the West, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way to a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam “revengists,” Iraqi Islamic extremists, or al-Qaeda foreign fighters, and know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. They are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war that will produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making in the Islamic world. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud, self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians, and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that Iraq now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new Constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they vote for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community which, when disappointed by the proposed Constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign going on in Iraq and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes in Iraq would have happened if Coalition Forces, lead by the U.S., had not overthrown Saddam Hussein. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment to Iraq. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While public opinion polls in the U.S. show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will, and in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America’s military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security, and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those ten thousand terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground in Iraq. The administration’s recent use of the banner “clear, hold, and build” accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of Coalition Forces in every Iraqi fighting unit which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in “clearing” and “holding” is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul, and Talafar and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and Coalition Forces are now jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to “lead the fight” themselves with logistical support from the U.S. and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could be able to begin to drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Amb. Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan—Provincial Reconstruction Teams composed of American economic and political experts working in partnership in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service, and the private sector. That is the “build” part of the “clear, hold, and build” strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future and why the American people should be too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive, and inspirational: “I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates.”
Thank you, General. That is powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation’s history. Semper Fi.
Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The thing is, Joe is quite the liberal...he just has a different view on the war. I have to give him kudos...he *went* there and *saw for himself* what its all about. He wrote an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal about it!
But his kook fringe party decided that was enough to shove him off the plank.
I knew they'd go off the deep end once they got Dean on board. Now its almost funny to watch these guys self destruct.
What does Dean have to do with the voters in Connecticut?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What does Dean have to do with the voters in Connecticut?
his type must be what the ct dems are looking for if they gave ole Joe the boot
-
Aside from being the DNC Chairman? Probably not much.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
[url] It might be bad for the Democratic Party if Lieberman runs but it's certainly not bad for the people of Connecticut. We need more races like this. More options. Less polarization.
Do you live in Connecticut??? Because I do, and this is not a good thing...Now Ned Lamont actually has a shot at winning...I dont think he will win, but you have to be a realist, and admit he does have the opportunity of a life time...
but anyways...sandman, im sorry but I disagree...Argueably the most extreme liberal would-be-senator, with zero political experience is NOT a good thing for Connecticut, or her people
-
Lamont won his nomination 52-46....That is by no mean's a mandate of the people, and since this race has come down to a single issue; war...Does that mean 46% of Connecticut democrats support the war? :noid
-
Really... you would prefer that the Republicans and Democrats continue their stranglehold on our political process?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Really... you would prefer that the Republicans and Democrats continue their stranglehold on our political process?
Oh please....and all was well with the universe when the Dems had it for 30-40 years?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Oh please....and all was well with the universe when the Dems had it for 30-40 years?
Not particularly.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Really... you would prefer that the Republicans and Democrats continue their stranglehold on our political process?
I am not sure if this will change that. Even if Joe gets re-elected, he's really still a Democrat for all intents and purposes. Of course, as I said earlier, the question is what will it do to the party.
-
Hell just look at the 8 years of Clinton...
Oklahoma City
World Trade Center 1
Somalia
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia- US Military HQ
Dharan, Saudi Arabia- US Military Barracks
East Africa- Embassy bombings
USS Kole
Bosnia and Kosovo...
No, life wasn't so peachy
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I am not sure if this will change that. Even if Joe gets re-elected, he's really still a Democrat for all intents and purposes. Of course, as I said earlier, the question is what will it do to the party.
I think Lieberman will still continue to inherintly vote democratic for the most part...All the democratic party has done is shown their true color's for the world to see, and lost Lieberman's guranteed party line vote when needed...
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Do you live in Connecticut??? Because I do, and this is not a good thing...Now Ned Lamont actually has a shot at winning...I dont think he will win, but you have to be a realist, and admit he does have the opportunity of a life time...
but anyways...sandman, im sorry but I disagree...Argueably the most extreme liberal would-be-senator, with zero political experience is NOT a good thing for Connecticut, or her people
The only experience needed to be a career political hack like Lubeaderm, is frontal lobe & genital removal. Plus he looks like a mummy.
What happened to a govt of 'the people', do regular Americans act & talk like these nimrods in Washington? when is the last time Lubeaderm paid a parking ticket, register his car or had to actually deal with the Govt he helped create? when is the last time he had to shop at the market or the last time he spent a day as a regular American... the people he's supposed to relate to?
He is the problem, nice and cumfy in his hack job, far removed from the daily life of the average American... he's been a robot so long he cant even see he's a robot.
What I find really sad is that this Ned dude is obviously a party hack, and clearly a fk'n loon for appearing with assclowns like Jesse Jackoff and Al Sharpton... seriously here, WTF is going on in the USA when two total losers like these are the only choices?... maybe because anyone with enough intestinal fortitude and integrity to do whats best for the USA, not for their party backers, is too broke to compete with the "ruling class".
I dont live there, ergo could really care less.. looks like you, like most everyone else, will 'lose' no matter who 'wins'... but I do love to see fat dumb and happy career hack mummies get shown the door.
-
sandie... there is no alternative except republicans.
I know you would like to see a libertarian get in but that is not gonna happen in our lifetimes.
There is no democrat who won't do democrat things once he is in... just like there is no republican who won't do republican things once they are in.
The best we can hope for is the judical branch... that is the real good thing about the republicans... that and the fact that they are more beholding to the second amendment crowd and believe in god given rights.
Bush put in two good supreme court justices and a bunch of other judges and john bolton in the UN. That is enough to make me voting for him the right thing to do.
The republicans are walking toward socialism but the democrats are running toward it. A libertarian with any sense has to see that the greater evil is the democrat.
lazs