I have carried an abundance of water for Liberman over the years

[dsc]

and I did so for the following reasons. 1) He is a good Democrat on many issues. and 2) He clearly believes the war is correct as a matter of principle. But no more. It is one thing to be on the otherside of the war. I don't have any single issue litmus test. But it is quite a different thing to apply one standard to Clinton (criticising his affair with Monica) while applying a more lenient standard to Bush. If it was OK to criticise Clinton when we were at war in Kosovo then it should be OK to criticise Bush now. Liberman is a traitor for this. It is as simple as that.

[Jacobin]

1. Its hard to give up on someone

you have admired and defended. You have done so over the years very ably.

I think you are right to give it up.

Lieberman is beyond help

[Chicago Democrat]

2. Welcome back! (Hugs!) I liked him too...

so sweet, such a face.. Lovely man in person..


THANK YOU! Please support antiwar candidates..


http://www.cegelisforcongress.org/

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

4. Be sure and show us some proof of all this water carrying

"If it was OK to criticise Clinton when we were at war in Kosovo then it should be OK to criticise Bush now. "
So tell us, what did Joe say criticizing Clinton over Kosovo?

[dsc]

9. He said Clinton destroyed his credibility at the height of Kosovo

when Clinton was involved with the Impeachment. On edit search my name and Lieberman and you will see. I was one of his biggest defenders here for a long time.

[MrBenchley]

11. In other words, you have no proof of either claim

Thanks for nothing.

[dsc]

12. You have some nerve

I still, several hours later, have yet to get a link out of you in another thread. But here is the Kosovo quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512100004#2

By the standards of Lieberman's suggestion that "undermining presidential credibility" during a time of war puts the nation in "peril," everyone should have kept quiet about Watergate; after all, the Vietnam War was going on at the same time. But no news organization pointed that out. His statement that Democrats who point out Bush's lack of candor undermine Bush's credibility (rather than that Bush's lack of candor undermines Bush's credibility) could be seen as inconsistent with his famous 1998 floor statement about President Clinton, in which he lamented the damage Clinton had done to his own credibility, both by making false statements and by not sufficiently acknowledging and apologizing for his wrongdoing. Yet the seeming inconsistency in Lieberman's statements presidential credibility also went ignored by the news media.

from the famous floor statement linked at that sight


The president's intentional and consistent statements, more deeply,may also undercut the trust that the American people have in his word. Under the Constitution, as presidential scholar Newsted (ph) has noted, the president's ultimate source of authority, particularly his moral authority, is the power to persuade, to mobilize public opinion, to build consensus behind a common agenda. And at this, the president has been extraordinarily effective.

But that power hinges on the president's support among the American people and their faith and confidence in his motivations and agenda, yes; but also in his word.

As Teddy Roosevelt once explained, "My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my fellow citizens, who are straight and honest, cease to believe that I represent them and fight for what is straight and honest. That is all the strength that I have," Roosevelt said.

Sadly, with his deception, President Clinton may have weakened the great power and strength that he possesses, of which President Roosevelt spoke.

I know this is a concern that may of my colleagues share, which is to say that the president has hurt his credibility and therefore perhaps his chances of moving his policy agenda forward.

But I believe that the harm the president's actions have caused extend beyond the political arena. I am afraid that the misconduct the president has admitted may be reinforcing one of the worst messages being delivered by our popular culture, which is that values are fungible. And I am concerned that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important bright lines of right and wrong in our society.

As to what I have done on this board. I will provide one example of my defending Lieberman only after you have provided the link that I asked for nearly 12 hours ago.

[Cha]

14. Most DUers here believe

exactly what you wrote, dsc. Please, Do Not concern yourself with those who are trying to disrupt with any ol' stupid statements.

I'm really glad you're are seeing lieberman what he is now.

[MrBenchley]

16. I'm right on the money, too...

So your claim that Lieberman criticized Clinton over Kosovo turns out to be:

"In September 1998 Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman took to the Senate floor to condemn President Bill Clinton's marital infidelity"

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/09/03/lieberman/

Nuff said.

[dsc]

18. I didn't say he criticised Kosovo I said he criticised Clinton while we

had troops fighting in Kosovo (or more accurately bombing Kosovo). Lieberman's who point is that any criticism of Bush's credibility harms the Iraq effort. So didn't he harm the Kosovo one by doing this? If not, why not?

For the record here is post 9 where I discuss what Lieberman did.

He said Clinton destroyed his credibility at the height of Kosovo
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 08:08 PM by dsc

when Clinton was involved with the Impeachment. On edit search my name and Lieberman and you will see. I was one of his biggest defenders here for a long time.

Note nothing about criticising Kosovo.

And here is the OP where I mention Lieberman

But it is quite a different thing to apply one standard to Clinton (criticising his affair with Monica) while applying a more lenient standard to Bush. If it was OK to criticise Clinton when we were at war in Kosovo then it should be OK to criticise Bush now. Liberman is a traitor for this. It is as simple as that.


Again, not one word about critcising Kosovo. It isn't my fault you can't read. Though this explains volumes as to many of your posts. My words are crystal clear. Lieberman undermined Clinton's credibiility while we were at war in Kosovo. That is what I said in plain, clear, English. I don't say, not even one time, that Lieberman criticised Kosovo. I backed up exactly what I said Lieberman did. It isn't my fault you evidently can't read English.

[MrBenchley]

19. Yeah, and Nixon was in the Pacific while the bombs were falling.

"On edit search my name and Lieberman and you will see. I was one of his biggest defenders here for a long time."
Then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to pull up one of those posts.

[dsc]

20. You owe me a link first

Sorry, but I am not at your beck and call. I only give links to those who return the favor. Incidently I clearly said that in my post.

[dsc]

21. Incidently I see you haven't answered

the central point, your inability to read posts.

[MrBenchley]

22. Incidentally, Nixon was in the Pacific when the bombs were falling, too.

[Maggie_May]

5. Here is statement from Bush from debate with Gore

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building.

[joeybee12]

6. Lie-berman has bothered me ever since he made his infamous, self-

serving Monica speech. Made Holy Joe famous, and did nothing else.

Glad you don't like him anymore. I'm willing to bet he agrees with me more than disagrees, but it's the hypocrisy that you point out that always has bothered me.

[DELUSIONAL]

7. kick

[Arugula Latte]

8. There is simply NO excuse for the Bush ass-kissing Holy Joe has done.

None.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Lieberman is a moderate right winger nt

[Cha]

13. AND, I just read through an

article on buzzflash that lie-ber-man is Carrying Water, himself, for bush on the "privatization" of Social Security.

"More recently, Mr. Lieberman, a centrist, angered Democratic activists by expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to overhaul Social Security, an effort that ultimately stalled in Congress."

And, lieberman gets "praise" from the Machiavellianmeisters..

"Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush(sic), Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week.

"He is entirely correct," Mr. Cheney said on Tuesday at Fort Drum, N.Y. "On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission."



More lieberman shite..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.html?ex=1291870800&en=346aa183fc9fb789&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[dsc]

15. I was deeply disturbed by the Social Security privitization stuff

but decided to give him a pass on that since it failed. Here, he has gone a step too far.

[Cha]

23. Yeah, lieberman

SUCKS THE BIG ELEPHANT EGGS!!

[MrBenchley]

17. Wow, wonder if Buzzflash meant this....

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001878.html

No, that couldn't be...because Lieberman is defending Social Security there...

Of course, there's that report in the New York Times, which is full of crap from "unnamed Democrats" and "some lawmakers" while puffing up 30 bozos in New Haven.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0307-01.htm

And all it says there is that Joe Lieberman said stuff not a million miles from what THIS GUY said....

"if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now. He acknowledged that while there were indeed problems with the program"

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/24/421d84959299b