Lieberman to call for Rumsfeld resignation

[PageOneQ]

US Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will appear, momentarily, on the Ed Schultz show, a nationally syndicated radio program on which he will call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, RAW STORY has learned.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Lieberman_to_call_for_Rumsfeld_resignation_0804.html

[sabra]

1. that sounds familiar...

:sarcasm:

[msanthrope]

2. Joe is Scared. n/t

[Phredicles]

5. Hey, if he gets any further behinds in the polls,

he may even be down for censuring Bush!

[Zhade]

23. The lower his polling, the more he wants accountability.

So DON'T vote for him, or he'll lose the desire to hold the criminals accountable!

[The Deacon]

3. Why?

If we start expecting people in the Bush Administration to resign for incompetance, who would be left?

[Lautremont]

4. Well that's it. I'm voting for him.

[closeupready]

9. LOL

:D

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Ha ha, that cracked me up. n/t

[PlanetBev]

17. That was funny!

Good one, Lautremont...

[Hand]

32. Har har har!!!!

:rofl:

[cliss]

38. LOL

Me too.....

not

[movonne]

6. I thought he was happy with the way the war was going..what a jerk..

I guess he thinks that will get him a couple more votes..

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomInTib]

8. This wouldn't be poll-driven, would it, Joe?

Too little, too late

[LSparkle]

10. First Hillary, now Joe ...

Did Bill sit them both down and tell them they need to change their positions on this??????

[gratuitous]

11. What's next? Lap dances for voters?

You're just embarrassing yourself now, man. Go home. Sober up. Sleep it off. You had a decent run, and you never have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, Mr. Lieberman. But as far as a political career is concerned, you're finished.

[mikeytherat]

12. Holy Joe lets loose an (ironic) "Hail Mary"

Joe wants an Immaculate Reception! Joe is anti-war and anti-Pentagon! Joe ALWAYS hated the war!

Jeez, he must really hate the troops something fierce to question our military leadership at such a critical time in our nation's history...

mikey_the_rat

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Joe has NEVER been at war with Eastasia...

:rofl:

[mikeytherat]

24. Always double-plus-good against the war, yes siree Bob!

Always gets in his Two Minutes Hate against this president, he does!

I see your :rofl: and raise you :rofl: :rofl:

mikey_the_rat

[northernsoul]

13. *yawn*

Too damn little, way too damn late, Joe. Time to spend more time with your family... if they can stand you anymore.

[PlanetBev]

14. Nice try, Joe

just a tad late...

[Bretttido]

16. Great news, first he pisses off the Democrats

and now he pisses of the Republicans. He'll have no chance of winning the GE!

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Oy, gewalt...

:eyes:

[mike_c]

20. Lieberman wants Rumsfeld's cabinet post...

...where he can continue to be Bush's pet democrat.

[Zhade]

25. DING DING DING!

You get a cookie for your astute observation!

</cookie>

[IndianaGreen]

40. Give that man a cigar!

Lieberman to DOD!

:party:

[Gully Foyle]

21. At this point

does it really matter.
I read this today
http://billmon.org/archives/002627.html
But there's one big problem with all this hyperventilating: It wildly exaggerates the anti-war fevor that Ned Lamont supposedly represents. Oh I know Ned says he's anti-war, but he only means the war in Iraq. The war in Lebanon, on the other hand, is just fine by him. And he's already pledged he'll be just as staunch a friend of Israel and the Israel lobby in this war as Holy Joe ever was or ever could be. So bombs away.

Of course, standing by Israel in war time is politically mandatory in a Connecticut Democratic primary -- particularly running against this incumbent, who doesn't have to wear his pro-Israel credentials on his sleeve because they're monogrammed on his shirt pocket. Under the circumstances, I don't really blame Lamont for feeling he has to be more Catholic than the Pope.

But Lamont's stance also reflects a glaring contradiction in the emerging Democratic consensus on U.S. policy in the Middle East (a consensus which is about to make Joe Lieberman a man without a party). Politically, it's a position that won't be sustainable for long. And as a matter of policy, it's a recipe for an even wider and more destructive war -- one I fully expect most Democrats, including Lamont, will end up supporting, despite the consequences.

The contradiction is between the growing sentiment among both grassroots Democrats and party leaders in favor of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. military forces (or at least ground forces) from Iraq, and the effect such a withdrawal would have, both on the overall strategic balance in the Middle East and on Israel's war against Hizbullah.


Take the time and read the WHOLE post.

[mike_c]

30. frankly, I see Lieberman's troubles in more one dimensional terms....

I admit my one dimensionality. Actually, I embrace it. Proponents of the war against Iraq, and later apologists for supposed "opposition politicians" who voted for it, have long maintained that opposing the IWR was political suicide, notwithstanding the fact that many dems DID oppose it. Lieberman's political travail validates the courage of those who voted "NO," and it sends the message that the apologist logic was completely wrong. In fact, opposing the war against Iraq hasn't hurt anyone, but favoring it was the real political suicide for dem leaders. Watch for a stampede of anti war legislators if Lieberman is defeated and if the dems take back at least one house of congress in November, or even if the repigs simply do as poorly as predicted.

[FogerRox]

22. Wise decision... Joe needs somehting to run on, afterall.

[IA_Seth]

26. Why not on Colbert?

That skit was hilarious.

[demnan]

27. Ha-ha!

The man of principles is just a scared little bunny!

[Hand]

34. Hey! That's insulting to bunnies! nt

[zanne]

28. Talk about getting liberal in a hurry! nt

[dweller]

29. didn't happen

he repeated his previous message, 'Rummy serves at the pleasure of the *pResident' (which sounds kinky enough alone) and then said 'if HE were the president, he'd replace him' .

not good enough.
dp

[MrCoffee]

31. I love the smell of politics in the morning

I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.
-Radiohead

[leesa]

33. That is just pathetic.

[w4rma]

35. Good.

But, too late.

[UrbScotty]

36. Happy election season! (nt)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

37. Well it wasn't that dramatic.

Ed almost had to pull the words out of him, and then it was more like, "Do you think Rumsfeld should resign?" "Ah, well, I think the president should ask him to resign." "Senator, let me ask you again, do you think Rumsfeld should resign?" "Oh. Oh! Yes, yes I think he should."

[krkaufman]

46. My lord, was it really that weak of a statement? n/t

[David Zephyr]

39. Even in defeat, he is shameless. What a fucking jerk.

He is shameless.

[ryanmuegge]

41. What a man of principle...

Obvious sarcasm.

[Star]

42. Of course

First, he called * and told him "only kidding, don't take it seriously. Just need to get elected, you know".

[MGKrebs]

43. It's easier to say now since someone with balls has already said it.

:o

[corporatemedia]

44. You're talking about Hillary, eh?

[sandnsea]

47. I would hope the hell not

Others have been saying it for years. Hillary and Joe are so late to the party that it's moved to Denny's for breakfast and they're still stumbling around in the dark.

[Imagevision]

45. Joe! --> just leave, would ya?!!!!!

[Telly Savalas]

48. It's not appropriate for him to challenge the President during war.

He said so himself.

[Joe Bacon]

49. Hey, Joe, go eat the Coco Puffs.

C'mon Colbert has them waiting for you. }(

[joldnir]

50. too little too late

I think that he is responding to the news today that Hillary is not affected by her vote for the illegal war. IMHO opinion, he is just trying to save his ass and will do anything, even if he does not believe in it.