Remember Clinton's statements the other day that enraged so many

[Dover]

Dems (when he suggested that Bush's use of the 16 words was an understandable mistake)? Well it was reiterated by Lieberman today.

"There's a danger that in expressing the justified questions about the 16 words in the State of the Union, about the stunning lack of preparedness by the Bush administration for post-Saddam Iraq, that we obscure the fact that this was a just war," Lieberman said.


*****

And while I think this may be a misguided strategy to show Dems as tough, by calling this a "just war" the Dem establishment is saying they support our foreign policies that got us here in the first place...one that allows for CIA induced regime changes and the seizing of another's resources. Don't place all your anger on Lieberman and miss the significance of the policy endorsement by our party leadership. Lieberman represents the Dem establishment.

Lieberman, who strongly supported the war, said, "Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom."

Seeking to emerge from the pack of nine Democratic contenders, Lieberman of Connecticut said he felt he represented his party's "mainstream position," saying "being strong on defense is part of what it means to be a Democrat."

[the masses against the classes]

1. Fuck Lieberman

and anyone else who thinks 16 words that deliberately misled the American public mean nothing...

[robcon]

21. Lieberman makes sense.

Lieberman is exactly what the country needs. A president who is strong on defense, but socially liberal. As I've written before, he'll make a great president.

[oasis]

24. Joe doesn't have the guts to lead, as the Enron hearings revealed.

:thumbsdown:

[BurtWorm]

2. Clinton didn't call it a just war

He implied that since we're in it, for better or worse, it has to be done right. He did not say the Bushists were doing it right. He implied that the UN should have a role.

[Tom Kitten]

10. Straw Man argument...

I think Lieberman is toast, he has no chance, hell, nobody takes him seriously on this forum, and if somehow he got the nomination then we're looking at another GOP landslide because it would be the virtual death-knell of the Democratic Party. Not to be flippant, I honestly believe this.

As far as Clinton, well he has no chance of becoming President again does he? I must say I enjoyed Charles "Ich ein der Krauthammer"'s column yesterday quoting Bill as a voice of reason defending the current Mob in power...They're grasping at anything, desperately, and I think most people who are going to vote have a different opinion...

My Dad, a Korean War vet, who loves Pat Buchanan, and loves to cuss, said to me yesterday that Bush was a fucking idiot and Clinton was a great President compared to him! No small task!

:)

[BurtWorm]

12. I honestly hope Lieberman is toast

My point is, he's much more of an Iraq hawk than Clinton. I think DUers have been unfair about Clinton's remarks on Larry King. I did not take his words as supportive of Bush's policies. I took them as dismissive of the "16 words" controversy, specifically, not of the whole challenge of Bushist WMD-hyping. It seems to me that Clinton was focusing on the fact that we are where we are, so now what do we do about it? Personally, I think the 16 words are a symptom of a much worse disease that I'd like to see cured: Bushism. But the other disease--US in Iraq--is not going to go away by itself.

[Code_Name_D]

20. The criticisms of Clinton's "he made a mistake" comment are proving to be

The criticisms of Clinton's "he made a mistake" comment are proving to be well founded.

Because we now see Leabermen trying to gain mileage from them, and it will have some effect as Clinton is still quite popular by most of the Sheepel. And when the Dems endorse Bush's policies in such a blatant way as Clinton has "endorsing lying or open deception before congress and the American people) then what are they suppose to thing?

[ewagner]

3. Troubling thoughts

I heard Lieberman's speech today and then I picked up on the evening talking heads shows. Division among the democrats has replaced or as a minimum mitigated the problems of the Bush Administration in the headlines.

Worse yet, the opening story line for the 2004 election is now :DEMOCRATS DIVIDED!

Lieberman is a lot of things but he isn't stupid. He knew/knows full well the damning impact his words will have on that precious 40-50% who are not politically commited. It's almost like he's trying to throw the election. I could really get into the tinfoil hat routine here, but I won't. I just think something is seriously wrong when an experienced Democratic politician throws poison into the well.

I am personally trying to understand not WHAT Lieberman said, but WHY he would say it. At this point I can only suspect that something "most foul" is afoot here.

What do you think?

[Pallas180]

5. I heard commentators say why vote for Lieberman when he's saying

the same thing as bush, people will just go ahead and vote
for Bush.

Lieberman is a fool. That kind of reparte got the SEnate
and House fully turned Republican.

I have begin to think his problem is that he is actually
a Neo-con himself.

[ewagner]

8. tin foil hat time

...have the party elite decided that 2004 is a write-off so they're sabotaging it so their FAVORITE candidate can run in '08?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Robin Hood]

4. If this was a just war?

Then where the fuck are the WMDs? Huh?!! Where are they?!! Why weren't they used? Why haven't they been used yet?


Lately, They have been talking about how this was a just war, but conveniently over look the fact that there are no WMD.

[bluestateguy]

6. Lieberman: The gentrified George Wallace of 2004.

By the time Wallace ran in 1976 the conservatives Wallace was courting in the Democratic Party were largely gone. They are even more gone in 2003-04. Joe Lieberman will learn that in the upcoming primaries.

[quinnox]

7. If Lieberman represents the Dem establishment

then who does Kerry represent? I thought he was the establishment candidate.

[Dover]

18. Kerry is too. So is Gephardt......n/t

...

[redeye]

19. Kerry represents the establishment and the DLC mainstream...

...Lieberman represents the right-wing portion of the DLC, the Republican wing of the Democratic party, and the fundies who support him for the exact same reason I hate him, namely his hatred of atheism and permissiveness.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. In dissent of Lieberman

Support for the invasion of Iraq may show that one desires a strong defense, but it doesn't prove anything about one's ability to achieve that goal. Indeed, support for the invasion proves bad judgment.

This was not a just war. It was fought not to liberate the Iraqi people, but to seize their natural resources. It was a colonial misadventure. Moreover, the war was fought against a weak enemy that had no connections with al Qaida, posed no threat to any state in the Middle East or to the United States and had been contained long ago.

This war should not have been fought and did not need to be fought. The occupation of Iraq is currently tying up half of the army's combat brigades. And our fighting men and women are unwelcome in that country. They are a hostile occupying force. They will continue to face the hostile acts of a people who desire their liberation from foreign rule.

The reasons stated for the invasion were refuted even before it began; any reasonable person not convinced of the truth before the war should now conclude that the reasons given by members of the Bush junta to justify the invasion were lies. Insofar as that is so, support for the war suggests gullibility. That is not a good quality in a president.

Having opposed the invasion does not prove that one is weak on matters of national security. Those who supported the war may try to portray those who opposed it a knee-jerk pacifists. In some cases, this may be justified. However, it may also be the case that one simply examined the facts and found that the junta's case for war did not add up. Such opposition to the war was based on informed opinion and sound judgment.

No matter how Senator Lieberman or his allies in the Progressive Policy Institute and the DLC want to spin the events of the last several months, the "Blair Democrats" failed the test. The judgement of those who opposed the war has proven to be no worse than theirs and possibly much better.

[whirlygigspin]

11. it's just a war...

...and the're only killing rag heads?

what a complete asshole :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Dover]

13. Kinda missed my point DUers.....wasn't looking for another Lieberman

flamefest. My point was that Clinton AND Lieberman are on message...the same message...for the DLC/DNC. The FOREIGN POLICY that has gotten us here which we are calling our 'war on terrorism' (but in fact began several decades ago in Iran) and those who are supporting this policy still, need to be brought into the light. I hope this policy is the focus of our anger more than the individuals who are delivering the message. If those who signed the War Resolution from both parties are supportive of this policy and they remain in a leadership position in this country (regardless of party) then we are in big trouble.

[sandnsea]

22. A DLC Foreign Policy Quote

"A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues U.S. global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force."

Sound sort of familiar? Using military force as just a defensive action is apparently no longer an American doctrine. Both the PNAC and the DLC have policies to change the terms of using military force.

[ewagner]

23. tried to raise the same point yesterday

The platform is erily like that of the current administration. Frankly is goes against almost everything progressives stand for..

[farmboxer]

14. Democrats Need To Quit Bowing Down To Bush

and his pals!

[kainah]

15. I know a just war when I see it, Joe

Iraq was NOT it.

But, Dover, you're right about the significance of this statement by Lieberman. I'm always surprised to see people who worship Clinton bash the DLC. They're the same crowd, folks!!! Clinton is the original successful DLCer. Without him, they wouldn't have nearly the power they have today.

On edit: but, Dover, I don't think that a DLC'er would have INITIATED this war, as the bushistas did. However, I may be wrong about that.

[Dover]

17. Well I think they may have a problem with Bush's methods, but not his

goals. I think they want similar things from Iraq and follow the same basic foreign policies...a policy change that first began with the coup in Iran. Bush's version is more aggressive, but is basically the same thing. I think there are extra-political powers at work.

I'm not entirely convinced that attacks on Clinton's presidency were purely the work of the Right either. The "leftist" press sure were quick to join the attack on Clinton (just as they have turned on Bush now).
I think there are other powers at work than just partisan politics...entities (both in the financial and corporate/energy sector as well as the military complex) who have major interests in Iraq's resources who may have lost patience with Clinton's "weaknesses" in achieving their foreign agenda.
Not sure, but I do think the Dems movement to the Right over the last several years is an indicator that there is an agenda coming from outside politics.
At any rate, it is this pre-emptive type war policy that permits our country to invade, manipulate and seize the resources of other countries, that needs to be the BIG issue that is pressed, rather than getting too wrapped up in attacking individual political personalities. And perhaps a change in Foreign Policy ought to be the litmus test for our leadership.

[w4rma]

16. "Just War — or a Just War?" by President Jimmy Carter

Read Carter's Nobel Lecture, delivered in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2002.
Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war (December 10, 2002)
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War (January 31, 2003)
Carter: Iraq threat does not justify war (January 31, 2003)
Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (February 1, 2003)
Carter Urges More Diplomacy on Iraq - Ex-President Blames Neglect of Mideast for Anti-American Mood (Feburary 25, 2003)
Just War — or a Just War? (March 9, 2003)