AP reports Lieberman's attack on Lamont over British terror plot, omits Lieberman's description of such attacks as "unacceptable and un-American"
SUMMARY: In an August 10 article, the Associated Press quoted Sen. Joseph Lieberman's use of the recently foiled terrorist plot in Britain in his attack on Ned Lamont, but the article omitted Lieberman's statement that using national security issues for political purposes is "just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American."
In an August 10 article about Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's attacks on Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont, the Associated Press quoted Lieberman's use of the recently foiled terrorist plot in Britain to bash Lamont, but the article omitted Lieberman's statement, made at the same appearance, that using national security issues for political purposes is "just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American."
From the August 10 Associated Press article:
He [Lieberman] seized on the terror plot in Britain to criticize Lamont's opposition to the war in Iraq.
"I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.
"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out [of Iraq] by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."
Lieberman's attacks on Lamont closely resemble comments made by prominent Republicans. For example, according to the Los Angeles Times, Vice President Dick Cheney said Lamont's primary victory over Lieberman "might encourage 'the al-Qaida types' who want to 'break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.' "
The Associated Press did not note the similarity between Lieberman's rhetoric and that of Republicans like Cheney. And, despite being an article about a political campaign, it did not note that Lamont's views on Iraq are more popular with the American people than are the views shared by Lieberman and President Bush.
Most incredibly, the Associated Press omitted from its report another comment Lieberman reportedly made at the same Waterbury event. In that comment, Lieberman harshly denounced the use of national security to score political points -- something that he himself did in his attack on Lamont.
The New York Times' Empire Zone blog reported:
Asked by a reporter about warm praise that Mr. Lieberman received yesterday from Vice President Dick Cheney, the senator tried to underscore his independence in politics.
"I'm not saying we shouldn't have healthy disagreement and discussion about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football, it's just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American," he said.
Isn't a Democrat he is for the party of one, the Joe party. He is turning out to be more and more the best friend of the GOP.
show did a segment on this last night of course. Samantha B said if Joe loses his bid in November he is going to form his own senate.
Thought it was a brilliant piece.
Joe's new party is called the Liebercan party and it is a party of one, himself.
Liebercan rhymes with Republican.
One color: red.
That way, you can't clearly see all the blood America has spilled in the name of "democracy" and "freedom".
He is a neo-con. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Even Pat Buchanan knows that. Read this. [link to www.wnd.com]
The neo-con's unintended effect may be to bring conservatives and liberals together.
Another thing you'd think a real reporter would ask is-- exactly what does this alleged terror plot have to do with Iraq? It's British nationals of Pakistani descent, from what the news reports say. If Joe Lieberman wants to explain how the war in Iraq helps prevent that sort of thing, I'd love to hear it.
But reporters just go ahead reporting like the war in Iraq is stopping terrorism, like anyone who thinks the war is a mistake is aiding terrorism-- when the truth is, Iraq has diverted all our troops (and many of the UK's) and hundreds of billions of dollars AWAY from a fight against terrorism.
I thought we were fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them over here! Remember that? The Flypaper Theory? If Iraq is helping our national security in that way, then why do we have these foiled plots at all? These guys should be in Iraq instead of London to begin with! Very, very strange...I just don't understand...
You just shot yourself.
That’s your best shot! You are weak and pathetic! Now say something intelligent that will support your cowardly position on the global war against "Islamofascism"! [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Lieberman isnt right, neither are you. See how easy it is to make these baseless assertions. Take a gander around. Your bloodthirsty, warmongering, I hate American soldiers and want to see as many of them dead as possible insanity isnt selling anymore. Your desperation is showing and your blatant stupidity is funny. You are a charicature, we are all enjoying a laugh at you while you embarass yourself
i almost laughed up a vital organ when i heard Duhbya try to pronounce 'Islamofascist'.
I cannot believe how the Democratic Party sold this man out!! I think the powers of the Democratic Party would also seel their mother for a buck if it thought it would help them. (Just like many Republicans) This man has served for 18 years on the Senate and for fellow Democratic senators to pretend liek they don't even know who he is just shows me how shallow they can be.
I guess free thought is no longer allowed in the new Democratic Party!!
I do believe in a two party system. I hope the democrats party survives. The democrats have lost there sole. They have been taken over by the extreme left. Democrats like Lieberman made the party legitimate. I actually voted for Democrats in the past. Never again, Its now a party that eats its own. God save the Democrat Party.
While I do feel like the Democrats are eating their own, I feel like the Republican Party isn't too much better! They are not sacraficing their own but they are abandoning there support. Personally, I'm sick to death of politician who want to fede me a line a crap and go to DC only on self interest. Both parties need to be shaken up and remember what they are supposed to be there for!!!!!
Boo hoo poor Lieberman. Serving elected office is a privilege, not a right. If you feel so bad for Joe, ask him to lead your friggin party.
Which is either a fish or the bottom of your foot or shoe. I am begging you, between bouts of laughter, to rent a brain cell. I would most assuredly die of lonliness but at least you would know what it was like to have one. I pick things off the sole of my shoe which exhibit more higher brain function than will ever have on your best day.
Please define at least 3 extreme left ideas.
"This man has served for 18 years on the Senate and for fellow Democratic senators to pretend liek they don't even know who he is just shows me how shallow they can be."
Who cares how long he's served? He's not entitled to his seat. If his views no longer correspond to those of the voters, then they did the right thing in voting him out. And he wasn't ignored by his fellow senators. He was backed by many. But now, after he's lost, they're going to back the winner. What's your argument they shouldn't do that? "He's been there 18 years"?
Free thought isn't allowed in the Democratic party, because of this? Huh. So I guess if some Republican lost because they disagreed with 60% of the electorate on an extremely important issue, you would say the same for them? That would be the party "eating their own"?
Give us all a break.
And later you note:
"Personally, I'm sick to death of politician who want to fede me a line a crap and go to DC only on self interest. Both parties need to be shaken up and remember what they are supposed to be there for!!!!!"
Interesting, considering that by running as an independent (which he said he would do before he lost, remember), Lieberman blatantly ignores the will of the people (what they are supposed to be there for!!!!!) for his self-interest. We knew this before the primary, yet you are upset that we "sold him out". Please. Lieberman has sold out his own party with his blind loyalty to these neoconservative ideas and his lack of loyalty to the democratic process.
You're assertion that the Democratic Party sold out Joe Lieberman is ridiculous. He was supported by his Democratic co-senator Christopher Dodd. He was endorsed by Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chairman Charles Schumer and DSCC Vice Chairman Ron Wyden (Ore.) He was supported by President Bill Clinton.
The only place that he lacked support was with the rank and file members of The Democratic Party of Connecticut. Joe Lieberman lost his last chance of winning the primary by saying before the election that he would probably run as an independent in November. With his statement he effectively burned all of his bridges in the Democratic Party.
If you have a problem, it's not with the Democratic Party but with the wishes of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.
I as well was a registered Democrat. But the likes of Nancy Palosi, Barbra Boxer, and the relentless display of ultra-tolerance here in the stink hole California turned me off! Never, have I heard such a winy crowd.
As well, to the opposite side, never has there been a worse administration than the Bushites. I did not vote for him, never been a fan of the man, or his father.
The display of non-tolerance on this blog is to say the least, is overwhelming. You do not sound like the kind people Liberals claim to be. I notice, you rarely argue the argument, just rather belittle the hate mongers – with hate. Funny…..
"and the relentless display of ultra-tolerance here in the stink hole California turned me off!"
"The display of non-tolerance on this blog is to say the least, is overwhelming."
Wow, so ultra-tolerance is bad, but so is non-tolerance. At what point does the capacity for tolerating people go too far?
"I notice, you rarely argue the argument, just rather belittle the hate mongers – with hate."
Nonsense. The vast majority of people address the arguments here. However, when the arguments are stupid, we will let you know.
Nonsense. The vast majority of people address the arguments here. However, when the arguments are stupid, we will let you know.
Fair enough
Though it is a great place to live with the worlds 8th largest economy, then chide us for a lack of tolerance. Your stupidity is growing daily. IF by the kind of liberal who doesnt roll over for your insults and say please sir can I have another you are right, I for one at least am not that kind of liberal. As much as you cretins WISH that you had the exclusive right to insults and personal attacks that day is over. Get over it. Planet Wingnut rules do not apply here.
Of course we make arguments. We shred the conservatives here with good arguments day after day. WHEN those conservatives decide to throw in gratitous insults they get them back. It MAY be we are a bit sensative after years of the right calling us un-American and traitors and terrorist sympathizers because THEY have no cogent argument but those conservatives that ARE reasonable and refrain from such juvenal attacks are usually treated respectfully here. Its you crybaby conservatives that in the very post you toss insults snivel that we insult you back that are treated, well the way you deserve.
I used to be a democrat until those the party marginalized the Wellstones, Kuciniches and Pelosis and put Lieberman on the Presidential ticket. At that point I figured real liberals had no voice in the party, and people like me were being taken for granted since I was not a threat to vote for anyone resembling Bush. I felt I my concerns were not being addressed. So if they lost YOU because of a recent swing toward the left that is not yet apparant to me. They have a likelihood of getting me back if they really DO swing to the left. I wonder who they need more. The slightly left of Atilla the Hun vote or the lefty even for a liberal vote. I guess they need to decide that.
what about the 1994 republican contract on america? those term limits? after 18 years you should want lieberman out of there.
TO RAYFER -- Yes you as a conservative and republican support Joe Lieberman because JOe Lieberman is so far out of the mainstream.
It is Joe Lieberman and George Bush who cut and run on Osama Bin Laden to live out the neocon fantasy of invading Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did it have WMDs in 2003. But do you know who in 2002 called for regime change in Iraq? Yes, Osama Bin Laden. By removing the Sunnis from power in Iraq, Bush has aligned Iraq with Iran and the ayatollahs. Now Al Qaeda operates in Iraq which it did not do prior to Bush's invasion.
And to You SHANNON - Free thought is always allowed in the democratic party. No two senators agree with each other all the time.
How anybody could be against getting rid of bad apples is beyond me. Voters often claim that politicans are hacks, liars, sell outs, etc... Well, voters of CT removed the biggest liar and sellout of all. Also, in Georgia, democratic voters replaced Cynthia McKinney in a primary with Hank Johnson Jr. McKinney was perhaps the most far left member of Congress so are you going to criticize dems for voting her out?
Getting rid of Lieberman went well beyond Iraq. He's a crook, a liar, and lost touch with his constituents on dozens of issues. That's what voters of BOTH parties should do to an incumbent who puts himself before the public.
If you want credibility to your statement, I'd suggest you leave Mckinney's name out of it!!
He brings up a perfectly valid point about McKinney, and you can't answer it. And he's talking about getting rid of "bad apples", so I don't see where he was endorsing McKinney anywhere. But I guess you have to pretend that by just mentioning her name he loses credibility.
Such weak responses don't give you any credibility, Shannon. If you can't refute the points in some meaningful way, you're better off just letting it go.
This is not a war against Osama Bin Laden. This is where you show your ignorance. Osama was responsible for the attack against the US on 9/11. But that was not the first attack by the members of Islam that want to impose Sharia Law ([link to en.wikipedia.org] on the rest of the world. The Islamofascists have been attacking the west for decades. Not all of Islam - Just the wacky ones who want to kill me, you and ever other person that they consider infidels. The battle in Afghanistan was our first battle. The battle in Iraq is our second battle. The battle in Lebanon is now the third front in this world wide war against Islamofascism. God bless Isreal.
You should be on your way to the enlistment office to join the fight in Iraq. Exactly what have you, yourself, done to serve this country? We are being led into eternal war by a group of self serving Chickenhawks. Can we place your name along side your other heroes, like bush, Cheyney, Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?
You really are an idiot. I would guess you are an expert on ignorance due to the vast experience of your own life. So tell me if the war is on Islamofacism exactly how was that advanced by attacking the most secular Islamic country in the entire middle east? Its always a lark to see a resident of Planet Wingnut tell us how we are ignorant, every time they do something monumentally stupid inevitably follows and you didnt dissapoint. Good for you
The Islamofascists have been attacking the west for decades. Not all of Islam - Just the wacky ones who want to kill me, you and ever other person that they consider infidels. The battle in Afghanistan was our first battle. The battle in Iraq is our second battle. The battle in Lebanon is now the third front in this world wide war against Islamofascism. God bless Isreal.- rayfer
------------------------------
Hey Rayfer, now's a good time to enlist in the Israeli Defense Force, they accept Americans with an itchy trigger finger. I suggest, however, that first you learn how to spell the name of the country to improve your chances of getting an opportunity to kill as many humans as you want.
60% of Americans want us out of Iraq like Lamont. almost two-thirds of Americans are pro choice like Lamont About 80% of Americans are pro environment like Lamont. 90% support strong trade protections like Lamont. About 75% oppose govt interfering with Schiavo like Lamont. 70%+ support Lamont on universal health care
By your definition of "far left" America is a country in which a supermajority of its citizens are far left.
Then again, Lamont is mainstream and it is the Hannity's and Coulter's of the world who are being exposed as shrill, angry, and extreme.
And Rayfer, you can find your sole at a fish market because you will have a hard time finding a soul inside a FAr Right Republican.
Lets see what percent votes for Lamont in November - LOL
60% of Americans want us out of Iraq like Lamont. almost two-thirds of Americans are pro choice like Lamont About 80% of Americans are pro environment like Lamont. 90% support strong trade protections like Lamont. About 75% oppose govt interfering with Schiavo like Lamont. 70%+ support Lamont on universal health care
Unlike Lamont, most Americans do not want AMNESTY for the illigal aliens. I am all for social programs that the dems are known for, but I am not into handouts. If the Dems could prove to do something about it, they will get my vote. So, Lamont would never have recieved my vote.
"I do believe in a two party system. I hope the democrats party survives. The democrats have lost there sole. They have been taken over by the extreme left. Democrats like Lieberman made the party legitimate. I actually voted for Democrats in the past. Never again, Its now a party that eats its own. God save the Democrat Party."
I expect to hear you say the same things about the Republican party with that primary going on in Rhode Island. Man, Lincoln Chafee actually made the Republican party legitimate by being a moderate and now he's being challenged by some right wing extremist. I might have actually voted for Republicans before, but never again. Republicans really are a party that eat their own. I would say that Republicans have lost "there sole" but I believe that happened a long time ago for most of them. In addition, I wouldn't want to offend a nice type of whitefish that I often have for dinner. (sole, for those Repubs out there)
Shannon has managed to make a remark that is almost as stupid as our friend Rayfer here. Hey Shannon, most of the Democratic leadership actually supported Lieberman in his race. Then the Democrats of Connecticut chose Lamont as their representative to run in the general. That's how democracy works. Once Lamont was chosen, the Democrats backed him because THE PEOPLE OF CT CHOSE HIM TO REPRESENT THEM.
We have come to expect the finest vintage of stupidity from Shannon, its just what she does and who she is. Ray is a new brand of ignorance and insanity.
You are one of the most tolerent people I have ever come accross! You make a fine Lib.....Cheers.....
I am what I am, and thats all that I am. I am tolerant when it is called for and for those who slander and malign people like me I dish what see being dished. If you dont like mud, dont throw mud is my motto
you are so condescending and it is really appalling.
I just dont stay up nights worrying about what you think of me. Isnt it just a shame that you guys dont get to be the ONLY ones that toss out rude baseless assertions. I guess you think its more fun when you do. I am not comfortable with that.
Dave, Dammit, you stole my "sole" joke. Gotta be quicker on the posting I guess.
Does anyone else find it hard to dignify arguments from people who use the word "there" in place of "their", or "sole" in place of "soul"? Maybe I am alone in my far-left intellectual word-snob world...
Yes - attack the person - not the issue!
In your posts you have called us cowardly, weak and pathetic, said the Dems have lost their sole ( at least good for a belly laugh, by the way, I can smell your soul rotting through the moniter screen.) and ignorant. I know you pathetically delusional rightwingnuts from Planet Wingnut think God has given you an exclusive franchise on personal attacks but this is Planet Earth. Here in the reality based universe it is just dumb to insult people then snivel like a six year old girl when they treat YOU like you are treating them.
sniveling six year old girl and brain cell's and blah, blah, blah. You used that one already and it's old. Was that a personal attack? I wonder if the real "Solon" would have done the same?
These guys dont rate originality. When THEY come up with something new so will I. And by the way. This may come as a shock to you but you dont get to tell me what to do. I mean you can try but it only gives me a laugh. I will decide what and how I post and you havent got the slightest hope of changing that in any way
Nope, your not alone but is expected from libs to look down from their perch. You could spell words right all day long and call yourself an intellect but still be wrong. So THERE.
The right wingers have no idea what fascism means. Their ignorance is astounding. They need to read Dr. Lawrence Britt's 14 characteristics of fascism.
[link to www.oldamericancentury.org]
To learn about fascism, all one needs to do is look at George W. Bush, the dumbest world leader in the history of mankind.
As for Lieberman, the man is a disgrace. Why would any Democrat vote for a man who supports the worst President this country has ever seen? We liberals are going to vote against those who support mass murder. Anyone who still agrees with the war in Iraq is no different from the terrorists themselves. They are supporters of state terrorism and Bush Fascism!
Call it what you like - but argure the point. For the sake of clarity - I am using the term "Islamofasicim to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century Organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. To refer to them as terrorist is like calling World War II the war against kamikaze.
Terrific...everyone wants to fight extremists that want to kill us. But the whole issue is that experiments like Iraq don't do anything to diminish that extremism.
Everyone has the same goal, we're just not buying the method they're selling. There's no reasonable no explanation for why it would possibly work, no evidence this sort of thing has worked in the past, and no evidence it's working now.
Your previous post about Lieberman (ridiculous) was clear although I disagree.
This post "Call them whaterver...." Is not so clear. Yes we all want to fight extremists that want to kill us, but do I understand you correctly when you say "experiments like Iraq don't do anything to diminish that extremism" - do you maintain that Iraq was not part of the extremism?
I know Sadam was not one of the extremists but he supported them and this can be backed up by facts.
The real war has always been and will continue to be. The West against the Islamo Extreamists. Or - The US against Iran. Or - Isreal (supported by the US) against Hezbollah (Supported by Iran). They are all the same - a clash of cultures.
If you agree with this - we have clarity!
"Your previous post about Lieberman (ridiculous) was clear although I disagree."
Feel free to respond to it. I'm curious what argument you think you might be able to forward.
"do you maintain that Iraq was not part of the extremism?"
This is based on Saddam's funding terrorism against Israel? If the idea is to take out every government that hates Israel, then it's a monumental task indeed. And if that is the idea, then giving democracy to Iraq doesn't seem to have helped, has it? After all, the new constitution is based on Islamic law and the new power structure has strong ties to Iran (which is on your list of our enemies, of course). And of course, there was a huge protest in Iraq calling for the death of Israel and the USA. So after all this, what is there to suggest that Iraq will be even indifferent towards, much less an ally of, Israel?
Does that help to clarify? The motive may be to fight Islamofascism, but the methods are difficult to justify if that is the actual purpose of Iraq. Sort of like if you have the hiccups and someone hits you in the head with a hammer, and you still have the hiccups. They can say "I was just trying to help" and mean it, but you have to wonder how they thought they were actually helping.
A war with Iran could only be won, by a massive invasion of ground forces. Although we see the extremists on the news ranting and raving about the US & Israel, they are not the voice of the majority in Iran. BUT, the majority of the people in Iraq will gladly go to war to defend their country. They are a very nationalistic country.
Are you old enough to remember The Iran Iraq War? The The Iran Iraq War was the longest lasting conventional war of the 20th Century. There were more than one million casualties. A lot of the fighting was at close range. The Iraqis held their defensive positions on the Iraqi side of the border. The Iranians formed human waves to attack the Iraqi forces. Many times the Iraqis ran out of ammunition as they slaughtered the approaching Iranians. The Iranians kept coming. Very few wars have been as ferocious as this war. There were reports that the Iranians even used waves of unarmed children to attack the Iraqis. The Iranians used their children to clear minefields.
I can't imagine Americans fighting under those circumstances. We presently don't have that kind of commitment. I pray that we never do.
Be careful what you wish for.
your posts are interesting, but not very to the point. I am at least glad that we agree that the US was wrong to attack Iraq in the first place, as it is not part of your list. Secondly, it is a war against AQ, which was labaled war against terror because these people are to be found in more places than one, and because governments (not only GOP) like to use big labels.
And the US has certainly never been interested to fight islamic terrorism. the US focussed on Russia and after that had nothing to de. The CIA itself confessed that it never had a real hold on terrorists: there were no (or only a few) spies/agents in that field. Other countries were especially affected by the terrorists (eg Isreal) and attacks on Americans have been relatively sporadic.
However, instead of concentrating on AQ first, that war seems to be neglected. The war against against terror only exsists on paper! Further, the GOP has never been concerned to overthrough regims that support terrorism. Actually, the GOP wanted to be less involved in world politics and world peace (as a world police officer) than the former administration. 9-11 changed that. Suddenly the attack was there, which had to be avenged without taking out the major players. However, instead it was used to sell a preplanned war on Iraq, leaving every other things on the second plan.
Germany and Japan where nation states with the capacity to manufacture weapons of war comparable to the U.S. , Britain, and Russia. In contrast the "islamofacist" do not have a means of production and are not associated officially with any nation state.
The point that many have made is that we are fighting this war wrong. Not that we should "cut and run" but that we should be more surgical. As has been demonstrated the occupation of a nation has not deterrent affect on global terrorism.
American and Britain is so "on it" when it comes to exposing terrorism; they both knew of a plot to explode planes in mid air but could not do a dam thing until they busted the so called Pakistani bombers. So, right after the plot to explode plains in med air have been exposed, the terrorist alert is out and the now comes the obvious spin game.
One obvious questionable fact is the alert for this terrorist plan was escalated when they found out the so called bombers were making attempts to book flights. The press was clear to point out NO FLIGHTS WERE BOOKED, so why would the Bush administration raise a terrorist alert after they stopped the plot and placed the would be terrorist in jail? I know why; does poll numbers and November elections stand to increase with such a report? Spin baby Spin and there is no one who knows how to Spin like the current administration and the Republican Party. In fact, the way in which the right wing press reported this was made to order for the President's ailing poll numbers. The overplay for this so called plot is so big it may backfire on the paranoid right. At the time of this post, there was talk that the Governor of California was talking about enlisting the National Guard to help with Airport security -- the only place the terrorist are allowed to attack from. I feel so safe.
At a time like this, the press really shows its greedy colors. With the sensation button in one hand and the made of order special professional guess at the ready, the press launch a ruthless parade of endless, "what ifs," political and one sided scenarios dedicated to educating and misleading issues their target audience want to hear. The sad part of all of this is the truth gets buried and very hard to distinguishes from the hypothetical. It is no wonder this countries get so many issues wrong when trying to find solutions; we need only look at our process for gathering information verses our unconscious need to be sensationalized while our Politicians try to gain political "one up man ship."
Joseph [link to readingitreal.blogspot.com]
Rayfer,
Your jingoistic tirades about Islamofascism and the proverbial 'clash of culture' syndrome cannot withstand the scrutiny of history. The very idea of Islamofascism would necessitate the formation of a uniform , sovereign and autonomous state whose main charter would be to align a consortium of fractious, ethic and religious driven sheikdoms(Saudi Arabia) military dictatorships (Pakistan), ALL coordinated into a united FRONT whose basic tenets would be to instill a corporate-military alliance, WHICH is the very DEFINITION of FASCISM. If such a political and social paradigm exists today, then the US has been instrumental in bringing this to fruition by arming and being allied with these two nations.
The assumption that a scattered assembly of 'jihadists' spread throughout the world as represented by your statements can be correlated to a modern and monolithic 'Caliphate' aligned against the West is sophomoric to a fault. Furthermore, any belief that the Arab nations are acting as a cohesive and unified force is tenuous indeed. Witness, the lack of uniformity and coalescence in their current stance as Lebanon is reduced to ashes.
You have a very shallow and circumspect understanding of history. Turn off Rush and Hannity AND get a grip. War against Iran??. Have you been watching Russia's Putin lately? Russia is going full throttle to ensure it remains a significant player in the Mideast and today is building a deep water port off the coast of Syria in addition to providing state of the art SAMS which cannot be stopped. At any one time, there are 10,000 Russian Technicians and Engineers who are servicing the Iranian Nuclear reactors on the ground and underground. Not only that, but China has just signed a long term contract to refurbish existing Iranian oil refineries. Incidentally, all targets. Thus, any preemptive aerial assault on Iranian targets will result in the foreseen killing of a lot of Russians and Chinese. So, unless you are willing to role the dice or perhaps engage in a game of Russian Roulette, I would advise you to heed the wise and astute advice of Worrierking" "Be careful what you wish for."
You have allowed your thinking to be distorted by a NeoCon agenda of grandiosity towards remaking the Mideast, all cloaked in a subterfuge of deceit, chicanery and self-serving interests which are weakening our international reputation, our military preparedness and OUR abilitity to conduct foreign policy according to the dictates of reality.
Best to return to your reading of Harry Potter!!!
Between your sensible words and those of other well-thought-out posts here, I am freshened by realism as opposed to the despicable tactic which Lieberman has stolen from the Karl Rove handbook. Our gov't is responsible for rooting out terrorists but the politicians (and their media allies) are irresponsible for exploiting the news for political advantage. (I thought Olbermann's show, "Countdown", last evening presented the terrorist foiled plot and airport security changes very well as he had intelligent analysts who could separate the seriousness of the threat from political exploitation.)
To witness this across-the-board smearing of Lamont and the Democratic party by means of these low-down politics of terror is an outrage of public trust. The Dems can be as strong if not stronger than the current deadwood in office by recementing rapport among unbiased intelligence gatherers and analysts.
Lieberman does us no favors by engaging the type of polarizing he projects onto his opponents. Independent candidates are welcome to breathe fresh air into elections, yet in this case, Lieberman chooses to run as an Independent not as a statement of independent thinking or positioning, but as stale status quo.
Go Lamont!
Pick,
Thank you for your kind accolade. As I have attempted to continously state while posting here at MMFA, I TRY to call'em as I see'em.
Navy
It is obvious many still don’t get it. Lieberman and the supporters of this administration’s policies live in LaLa land. The majority of the people do indeed realize the seriousness of the problem that is why they are speaking out about these policies. The majorities are living in reality and are cognizant enough to realize the “just kill ‘em all” plan isn’t viable when you are talking about terrorism and terrorists. Our best bet is to take away the support of the people. You don’t do this by attacking and killing their support because that will have the opposite effect of increasing recruitment. We need to protect against these attacks. It is a little hard to do this when the attention and dollars are going into these failed military actions. It is a little ridiculous to hear that they can’t put effective screening machines in the airports because of the expense when you look at the bill we are running up in Iraq. We need to cut off their abilities to arm themselves and garner state support. You don’t do this by cutting off communications with the very states that are providing these arms and support. We need to be able to get the cooperation of the international community to present a united front in working against these groups. You don’t do that by exposing your arrogance and insulting and condescending to the very same international community. You don’t legitimize these groups by making them into international icons and giving them the same status that you give nation states. You treat them like the common criminal they are…we are not at war against them…that puts them on an equal plane…these terrorists are criminals…treat them that way. Yes, the threat is serious and it is time we had serious policies to protect and contain the threat. It is time this administration and its supporters wake up and live in the reality based world.
great post, EXACTLY the crucial point. I only wish voices like yours were being listened to in the seats of power. You should teach political science
You treat them like the common criminal they are…we are not at war against them…that puts them on an equal plane…these terrorists are criminals…treat them that way. Yes, the threat is serious and it is time we had serious policies to protect and contain the threat. It is time this administration and its supporters wake up and live in the reality based world +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As you said ill conceived military actions makes us less safe because it diverts attention and money from real security. Just imagine if all that money that was spent for the Iraq war and occupation had been instead used for technology and human resources to beef up homeland security.
Bexter asked for three example of extreme left ideas, and since none of the Democrats ever mention such positions let me offer some so that conservatives can understand that universal health care and avoiding preemptive wars are moderate positions. 1) Taxing religious organizations 2) Nationalizing the oil industry in the U.S. 3) 100% inheritance tax
It would be informative for those using the term "Extreme Left' to clarify. Some might define "Extreme Left" , as you stated, as National Healthcare and avoiding preemptive wars but also. Public education, unions, minimum wage, and public transportation. The list goes on. But the point is that most Americans don't want to be labled "Extreme Left". So it would be interesting for those shouting ""Extreme Left" to then give examples and then see what their followers think.
My point here is that the three ideas I labeled as extreme positions are never discussed by the Democratic Party or the MSM. Polls have shown us that the majority of people in the U.S. don't support the war and think that we should offer health care to everyone. Calling the majority's opinions extreme is pure nonsense.