Is Lieberman's support a clear signal that the Bushies want to run against Hillary?

[tom_paine]

Here is a recently posted article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21553970/

I will not profess to guess that I understand why that would be. Maybe they think they can get enough votes against her to make it close enough to steal again. Maybe they know she will not roll back any of their advances in tyranny (though there can be no doubt that a Clinton Imperium will be far better for America, Americans, and the World than a NineElevenani or ThomBush Imperium) and they can later pick up where they left off under Ahnold or Caligula P. Bush. Who knows? But the whys and the details are not the point here. The Big Picture is.

Now, I think most of us DUers dislike Mr. Lieberman for any number of VERY valid reasons, starting with his pathetically laughable performance against Ruthless Dick in the 2000 VP debate that couldn't have been worse if he was TRYING to throw it.

Cheney told lie after lie after baldfaced lie and Lieberman meekly accepted his frames every time.

In 2000, his cowardice pushing pushing PUSHING for Gore to give in to Lil' Boots, and his allowing the Bushies to get away with both suppressing Democratic military ballot (they were easy to target, because a majority of the Democrats in the military are African-American...the usual Bushie disenfranchisement story, while allowing the Bushies their criminal campaign to get military ballots cast AFTER ELECTION DAY and requested by the Bushie Machine counted...and they were counted, thanks in large part to Mr. Lieberman's clueless cowardice. Or was it? I do not know, I merely ask, for this is AGAIN a case where Mr. Lieberman behaved AS IF HE WAS TRYING to harm the Democratic Party and America...but maybe he is just that naive and ignorant (is is possible for a man to gain such a position and be that clueless, I wonder).

Anyway, I trust I have made two of the many points, two of MANY very valid reasons why most DUers dislike Lieberman.

To come full circle: If Mr. Lieberrman is either a) A Bushie Mole or b) a Useful Idiot of the German Social Democrat of 1933 mold, the effect is the same.

What it comes down to is that many people believe, from reasons ranging from mundane to :tinfoilhat: , Joe Lieberman and the Bushies speak with one voice on many things (maybe most or ALL things), and therefore my question.

I'll ask it again, since this post turned out to be pretty long.

Is Lieberman's support a clear signal that the Bushies want to run against Hillary?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I will 100% be voting for Hillary if she is the Democratic Nominee in 2008. No ifs ands or buts about that, if anyone feels it necessary to question my motives in this poll.

[Basileus Basileon]

1. Yep. Joe Lieberman is a secret mole,

who sabotaged Gore in 2000, and who now is engaging in double-secret-reverse-psychology in hopes of swaying the nomination in Hillary's favor, or possibly weakening her, or maybe both, or maybe neither.

Oh, sure, he could just be a domestic-issues liberal and a foreign-policy-slash-national-security hawk who believes that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for 2008--and who wants to stay in the good graces of the future Clinton administration. But that's clearly not as much fun.

Oh, and to answer your question? Yes.

[tom_paine]

3. Or just a clueless Corporatist douchebag more concerned with his own power & privilege

Seems like there's a lot of that going around in our Democratic Leadership these days.

One more thing to add, your evident dripping sarcasm notwithstanding. You think I think this is FUN?!? You think being in a nation in which the information streams have been so poisoned and parasitized such that one cannot tell what is true or not is FUN? Yeah, like reading the greasy mimeographed sheets of Russian Samizdat in the 1970s must have been oodles of laughs.

You think that NOT having a Free Press, or at best a hollowed out, blow-dried celebrity-obsessed shell of one, and that is being generous in the extreme, is FUN?!? A "free" press in which a person can't have any confidence that wrongdoing will be exposed, not that would harm the Imperial Family or their Inner Circle, that is.

You think I wouldn't give up a lot to live in a country (America pre-Bush with all it's checks and balances in place will do) where one could have a reasonable certainty that the goverment was not run by criminals murderers and madmen spoutin "World War III" talk in a nuclear-armed world is FUN?!?

You've got a strange definition of fun, pal, but it sure as hell IS NOT MINE.

[Basileus Basileon]

8. That I'd agree with, to an extent.

I think he's endorsing Hillary out of pure self-interest--but transparent self-interest. I think he just wants to make sure that President Clinton knows that good old Holy Joe had her back.

[tom_paine]

9. Maybe so. But for me Lieberman's endorsement is a huge minus for Hillary in my eyes.

And I would certainly agree that your explanation is quite plausible.

I want to be clear here to everyone, actually. I intend to vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee.

[Basileus Basileon]

10. Completely seconded there.

Seeing that was a wince moment.

[BayouBengal07]

2. Hmmm...

"Lieberman explained, “I thought it was so direct, factual, based on evidence the U.S. military has given us of the involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in training and equipping Iraqi extremists who… have been responsible for the killing of hundreds of American soldiers.”

“How can you vote against a request that the administration impose economic sanctions on a group that the U.S. military has presented us ample evidence is a terrorist group killing American soldiers?”"

So, is the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group because it arms Iraqi insurgents, or because, in the next paragraph, Lieberman claims it is "killing American soldiers?"

If they are arming insurgents, (1) that's not directly "killing American soldiers (although I admit I don't know the laws and whether arming is indeed tantamount to active involvement), and (2) We need to brand more regimes and institutions in the region as terrorist groups if arming extremists equals terrorist activity.

[tom_paine]

4. Plus, it's what WE did in Afghanistan, what the Russians did in Vietnam

and what the regional powers usually do to some degree or another in every local-regional conflict, since the dawn of politics and warfare, for Chrissakes.

I'm not saying that makes it right, but I am saying it is a fairly common practice that we Americans were doing not 20 years ago.

But, since history is rewritten every day, and the barrier between truth and lies has been utterly shattered by the Bush Party-Loyal Sub-media and Lie Laundry, and the parasitized and degraded MSM that suck down the flatulent fumes of it's wake, no one with a microphone large enough to reach millions will be allowed to utter this DoublePlus UnGood UnHistory (except maybe Keith Olbermann and even he I doubt would be allowed to say that by his Corporate Paymasters).

You make a very good point.

[Bluebear]

5. 'want to run against Hillary than Lieberman' - I don't get it?

[tom_paine]

6. Yes, it was poorly worded. I think I fixed it.

n/t

[Bluebear]

7. Got it! :)

:toast:

[Solly Mack]

11. Lieberman wants a cabinet position

He's just being himself - for Joe, of Joe, and by Joe

[2rth2pwr]

12. Yes, Liebermans really a Kucinich guy. nt

[Balbus]

13. I didn't think Bush or "Bushie" could run again...

So why the fuck would he care about who Lieberman chooses to support or doesn't support? :shrug:

[tom_paine]

19. You really think the bush Imperial Family is about one presdidency. Like the Mafia they are

long-term.

ON EDIT: It appears as if you are unfamiliar with the term Loyal Bushie (sounds like Loyal Nazi, doesn't it?) which is the term revealed by the e-mails turned over to the Democratic Congress by the Department of Justice (they must have missed erasing that one, thinking it had no relevant info, but it did...it told us what gang members called themselves) in which the fired US Attorneys wer mentioned as being undesirable and that "Loyal Bushies" were needed to fill that role.

In retrospect, it now appears as if the Bush Crew was a smaller faction when Nixon ruled the cime family (like Carlo Gambino, in the "old-style").

Continuity is supplied, among other things, by Bush Crime Family capos Cheney, Rumsfeld, and once-underboss (now boss or "boss emeritus" :evilgrin ) Poppy Buhs, supply a direct line of influence as the presence and growth of the Gotti Crew which ultimatley became boss of the Gambino Crime Family.

But these Young Turk Mafiosi/Bushisti have no respect for the old ways, and no respoect for the delicate balance of the "game" that left innocent bystanders unruffled.

Dubya, is reminiscent of the mad Little Nicky Scarfo of the Jersey mob (here the analogy breaks down, as Scarfo was head of a semi-autonomuous satellite of the Gamibino operations, not boss, but "World War III" Bushler is much more mad than the mand the ananlogy would have fit...John Gotti.

Anyway, my point is that history shows (Samuel, Prescott, George HW, Lil' Boots) that the Bush Crime Family has been an influence of corruption for multiple generations, likle the Gambino Family.

Hell, Prescott even helped to try to overthrow FDR in 1934, and you don;t get anymor criminal than that.

Don't believe me? Please, check out what that notoriouly unreliable :sarcasm: BBC has to say...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

Oh no, Bushies have ruled America or served the WASP Mafiosi/American Aristocracy since long before any of us were born, and they will continue to rule, especially if their chosen successor and patsy, himself allied with the REAL Mafiosi thorugh Bernie Kerik, steals his way into power (with the help of his powerful Bush Crime Family Capos de Tutti Capis, Poppy and Cheney).

You think I am exaggreating? Only to the degree that the Bushies HAVE to be "kinder and gentler" than their Mafiosi counterparts, although anyone can see the old rules against distuirbing the marks, just like in the Mafia as it approached the 21st Centruy, are falling away.

So, I have said my piece, and I will say one last time: If you think the end of the Bush Imperial Term means the end of the influence of the Bush Crime Family, then I would submit that the imprisonment of Carlo Gambino's son Thomas, meant the end of the Gambino Crime Family's and Mafia power in NYC.

But it just ain't so.

[aquart]

14. Yeah. They make real smart choices.

[tom_paine]

24. When it comes to doing what the WANT to do not have to reluctantly pretend to do

they are very efgficient and competent. Can you not see that?

Here is a short list of some things the Bushies WANTED to do and were trying to do:

Steal 3 elections '00, '02, '04, and maybe they didn't bother as much in '06 to let us peasants "blow off some steam" and knowing that it didn't matter anyway because our legislature was now as dysfunctional as Mussolini's was in 1922.

Erase the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and do it in such a way that was "legal", and also deliver a powerful message by doing it openly and in plain sight.

Enact PNAC's agenda. Reprogram the essential nature and decency (for all the errible things we, like all peoples, have done, we have done far more good than most and less evil than most...welll before 2000 that is) of the American People.

Redirect trillions of ill-gotten monies to aristocratic allies

HERE is a short list of things the Bushies had to reluctantly pretend to do but had to pretend nonetheless, and but on a bare-minimum show.

Hurricane Katrina response, or as I like to call it "Louisiana goes Red Forever"

Catching their friend, ally and possible employee, Osama Bin Laden.

Catching their employeee the Anthax Assassin.

Creating good-paying jobs.

I no longer believe the incompetence bit. You don't seize the greaest nation in human history for use as your own personal piggy bank and toy soldier box against the wishes of roughly 225 MILLION PEOPLE woith being HIGHLY COMPETENT.

[deacon]

15. Lieberman support is a fine reason not to support her.

[RC]

16. Don't forget gwbu$h's endorsement of Hillary...

Or has that disappeared down the memory hole already?

[tom_paine]

17. I guess it has. Can you provide a link?

n/t

[librechik]

18. OK, bets on the table--who is Hillary's future VP choice?

it wouldn't surprise me this time, like it did with Gore...

[Enrique]

20. bullshit lying push-poll

Liberman didn't endorse Hillary.

[ThomWV]

21. Maybe he's looking for another shot at VP

[mmonk]

22. More likely intersecting connections and interests.

A liberal hawk is still a hawk.

[RiverStone]

23. you left out a category...

"I don't give a shit about Joe Lieberman."

That is where I voted.

By the end of this election cycle, Joe will be 100% irrelevant.




peace~:)

[tom_paine]

25. LOL. Sorry about that. Too late to add it.

I only hope that you are right.

"One thinks that all one has to do is say 'Liberty' and all the walls will fall flat..."
--Emperor Clauidius in the fictional "I, Claudius

[malaise]

26. Never forget that Bill Clinton publicly supported

Lieberman against Ned Lamont.