Why Bush Needs Lieberman

[connecticut yankee]

Excellent article by Sidney Blumenthal


Senator Joe Lieberman's defeat in the Democratic party primary in Connecticut is unprecedented in US political history for a politician of his stature. Never before has anyone who appeared on the national ticket of any party been rejected in a primary. When you consider that he was running mate to Al Gore in the presidential election of 2000, in which the Democrat won the popular majority by more than half a million votes, Lieberman's ouster looks even more stunning.

The alpha and omega of Lieberman's trouble is not that he voted to authorise the invasion of Iraq. Nearly all of the Democratic senators voted for the Authorisation for the Use of Military Force bill in the belief, as they were told by the administration, that Saddam Hussein possessed dangerous weapons of mass destruction and was developing nuclear ones. Since then Lieberman has strained to support Bush in every twist and turn in his Iraq policy. He even delivered a now notorious floor speech in the Senate chastising his fellow Democrats, who offered criticism of Bush's glaring failures and absence of strategy: "We undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

--more--


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/08/why_lieberman_is_essential_to.html

[yurbud]

1. great except for the line about why Democrats supported war

anyone old enough to have lived through the Cold War would know that even if Saddam got his hands on a couple of dozen nukes, he wouldn't dare use them on us or give them to someone who did because we have enough to not only burn Iraq off the map, but every other country on earth as well.

Retards and people with short memories don't get elected to the house and senate, with the possible exceptions of Dan Quayle and Rick Santorum.