Krauthammer misleadingly cited Lieberman re-election to argue 2006 midterms were not mandate for Iraq withdrawal
In his April 13 Washington Post column, discussing the Democrats' effort to enact a timetable for ending the Iraq war, Charles Krauthammer asked: "[I]f the electorate was sending an unconflicted message [in 2006] about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman [I-CT], win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?" In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, exit polls indicate that Connecticut voters re-elected Lieberman in 2006 despite his support for continuing the war in Iraq. Further, in the weeks leading up to the election, Lieberman took pains to portray himself as a critic of the war.
Krauthammer also falsely claimed that "almost no Democratic candidates campaigned" in 2006 on support for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, five out of the six Democratic Senate candidates who defeated Republican incumbents campaigned in support of either withdrawing or redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq.
In his column, Krauthammer criticized the House and Senate for inserting withdrawal provisions in their respective war funding bills, and then argued that Democrats incorrectly perceived their 2006 midterm election victories -- which resulted in the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress -- as a mandate to withdraw from Iraq. Questioning what he claimed Democrats said is their "electoral mandate" to end the war, Krauthammer cited Lieberman's victory and "razor-thin [Senate] victories in Montana and Virginia" by Jon Tester and Jim Webb, respectively:
How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.
Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?
And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.
Lieberman had been a strong supporter of the war since it began in 2003, but after his August 8, 2006, primary defeat by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, he distanced himself from his earlier rhetoric on Iraq, repeatedly emphasizing his intent to end the war and bring U.S. forces home in a television ad and various other campaign activities. Three days before the election, Lieberman stated at a press conference: "None of us wants more war; certainly not me. ... I want to bring our troops home." Additionally, a November 3, 2006, Associated Press article by staff writer Andrew Miga quoted Lieberman attributing his possible re-election to "a lot more reasons than Iraq":
"I will believe that, if this works out and I win, it is because people wanted me to be their senator for a lot more reasons than Iraq," Lieberman said, noting that voters often approach him to say while they disagree with him on the war, they still support him.
Exit polls in Connecticut suggested that Lieberman's views on Iraq were not popular in Connecticut, finding that 63 percent of voters supported withdrawal of "some or all troops" from Iraq.
Moreover, five of the six Democratic candidates who defeated incumbent Senate Republicans supported withdrawal or redeployment from Iraq during their campaigns. Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Tester supported withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, while Webb and Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO) supported troop redeployment plans.
Well, then, I suppose that we can safely assume that South Carolina is a racist state, since they repeatedly elected Strom Thurmond.
CT voters don't support the War in Iraq. Lieberman won because he's been pretty good for the state. Another factor is that the Republican party put their efforts into electing the independent, Lieberman, rather than the candidate chosen by the Republican Party of Connecticut.
Connecticut is one our smallest states but it's also the home of some of our biggest defense contractors. Senator Lieberman has successfully kept the defense contracts coming home to CT.
Klueless Krauthammer's more likely to win the long jump at the next Olympics than he is at telling the truth about anything related to reality at any time at any place.
The man, his President and his thoroughly-discredited governing philosophy and world view are pure scum and pure fiction.
Krauthammer is plain creepy. Some of the righty talkers have occasional moments when they show a likable, almost human side. Krauthammer seems just miserable and 100% dedicated to evil.
Is that too harsh?
I don't think so. Krautthammer's gloomy demeanor (along with his narrow and uncompassionate worldview) are clues to the joyless realm he inhabits.
Bollocks!
That sorry Zell Miller copycat won on the Republican vote, they left the actual republican candidate out to dry
And the Dems turned their backs on that "mandate" and voted to fund the war for another year and gave Bush the green light to bomb Iran when he wants. Such nice people.
Wait a second. Are the Dems funding the war for another year, or are they abandoning the troops without any funding? You guys make up your minds.
Seriously, if you look at this fundig bill, you'll see that the Dems are giving the dimwit-in-chief the funding HE requested with the stipulation that he begin planning the withdrawl of our troops. Numbnuts is holding his breath and stamping his feet over being subjected to congressional oversight. And so far, I haven't heard one single Democrat say they want the idiot to start bombing Iran.
If you want to know what leading Democrats are saying about Iran, you might want to check this out..."The Awful Truth about Hillary, Barack, and John" by Norman Solomon. http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon04122007.html
I don't see any peace-making rhetoric from these people. What I see is a repetition of the Bush admin and AIPAC hard line towards Iran.
And regarding the timetables in the recent war crime funding bill, they are non-binding and no mechanisms exist to enforce them. Leading Democrats are also saying they are willing to "compromise" by removing the language to make sure the bill goes through and our troops stay in Iraq for another year.
Collaboration is not opposition, it's complicity.
There is nothing in that article that says these Dems want to bomb Iran, or that they are giving bush (lowercase intentional) the go-ahead and start another war. These candidates are simply saying that it is not the time to rule out military force.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Dems actually believe that sending our young men and women to die and be maimed should be the LAST RESORT. Neocons believe diplomacy is for pussies, and pre-emptive attacks are the answer to every POTENTIAL THREAT.
WARGASM!!!
These are the same Democrats who continue to support the occupation, who removed language requiring Bush to ask permission to bomb Iran from the recent war crime funding bill, at the request of AIPAC of course, and who wave the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran around as a bogeyman that we know does not exist. Demo-cons, the neo-cons from the other side of the aisle.
"In fact, five out of the six Democratic Senate candidates who defeated Republican incumbents campaigned in support of either withdrawing or redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq"
What exactly is the difference between "withdrawing" and "redeploying" troops?
"Bring 'em home" versus "Keep 'em in the Middle East, outside Iraq"
"Redeployment" is a euphamism for continued occupation with half the force level we currently have. The plan is 70,000 troops in Iraq, not 150,000. Also US forces would use bases in neighbouring countries to bomb Iraq from the air. "Redeployment" is another con game, it just means continued occupation. Another example of Democrat collaboration with the neo-cons.
What a hoot! Not one of you clowns is willing to ask the basic question: "Given the state of affairs in Iraq at the present time, what is the best course of action to pursue here in order to protect US interests?"
There are only two salient points to consider if you lefties are really at all concerned about terorists and what they might do. (1) Abu Al Masri said back in 2006 that he had 12,000 Al Qaeda fighters on the ground in Iraq. We are not talking about Iraqi insurgents here. We speak of real, bonafide, Al Qaeda terrorists. (2) What will those Al Qaeda fighters do if the United States pulls out of Iraq, disengaging hem?
This cut-and-run policy you take as gospel cedes the initiative to Al Qaeda. No longer will the United States choose the field of battle if a withdrawal takes place. Al Qaeda, freed from engagement in Iraq, will then be free to choose the field of battle. Perhaps they will choose YOUR town or city? They may even choose to try to reinstall the Taliban in Afghanistan. Will you lefties be just as resolute in the face of that challenge as you were in Iraq? If you are, then Al Qaeda will win there as well.
Polls and politics are irrelevant to the discussion outline above. What the propagandists you call the mainstream media have convinced a gullible public to accept is not necessarily the best course of action any more than Munich 1938 was the best course of action and the cynical, dishonest Democratic leadership that has been using the issue for political profit knows this which explains why they will preside over defeat before they defund this war.
Al Qaeda, freed from engagement in Iraq, will then be free to choose the field of battle. Perhaps they will choose YOUR town or city?(NL207)
You candy-ass little bed-wetter, Al Qaeda doesn't have an air force or Navy. Once we have a decent Commander-in-Chief, you can have your mommy tuck you in and go to sleep.
G*d D*mn sissy Republicans.
Let's take your "salient points" and see if we can work with them.
You quote Abu Al Masri as saying that he had 12000 AlQaeda fighters on the ground in iraq?
Wingnut logic says that every member of AlQaeda must be killed. In order for us to kill more than 12000 AlQaeda fighters, we would need to have collateral numbers of dead to be at least twice that amount. So we kill 12000 AlQaeda fighters and 24000 innocent Iraqis.
Math is not my field. It doesn't take much calculation to reach the conclusion that after 36000 people have been killed by Americans, there would be at least 72000 Iraqis who join up to fight against the occupiers who've killed their friends and family members. I would guess that many more foreign fighters would arrive to join the fight.
The result is that after we "succeed" our job is going to be twice as difficult. The degree of difficulty grows exponentially.
I'm sorry, you'll sales-pitch for point number two isn't deserving of an answer because it supposes that our side isn't "resolute" enough to face the challenge that could arise in Afghanistan.
We were quite satisfied that we overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan. We were content on prosecuting that war to it's conclusion. The administration abandoned the job in Afghanistan to invade Iraq. In other words, your side cut and ran from the Afghan people. You defeatists chose to fight what you perceived to be the easier war. You don't get a second chance.
At the end, you slipped in a bit of WWII comparison. you open the gate so I can respond to you that this country evaluated what would be necessary to defeat the Axis in WWII. We drafted every man we could. We raised taxes to pay for the war and we mobilized the entire nation to support the war effort through rationing and sacrificing.
I'll support this administration and their war when they say that we stand behind the rules set down in the Geneva Conventions, we investigate each and every case of suspected "war profitteering" and prosecute every single case where evidence shows that corporations earned a profit on the bodies of dead Americans.
I'll stand behind the administration when they say that every American MUST sacrifice, every American MUST pay higher taxes, every American MUST ration OIL and other commodities and we MUST institute a draft TODAY with no student deferments.
I'm not in favor of any of these actions. But if this is the fight of our lives and the greatest danger that this nation has ever faced, this administration should be thrown in jail for fighting the war on the cheap while administration cronies pile up wealth on our brave dead.
We are not occupiers. The government of Iraq has asked us to stay there.
We are still in Afghanistan. We abandoned nothing.
We are following the Geneva Convention. These people are not uniformed affiliated parties and therefore not subject to those rules.
War is unfortunately profitable for cooperations. Some more than others. This has been the case in all wars, it does not mean they are war profiteering.
First this Administration is criticized for a costly war then it it shown that this has actually been the cheapest war in American history and now you criticize him for not spending enough. Make up your mind.
Yes, war is profitable. none has been more profitable than this one. none has has less oversight than this one. none has had less accountability than this one.
We might still be in Afghanistan, but assets were redeployed from Afghanistan to iraq and the Taliban has been able to regroup and regain territory it had lost prior to our redeploying.
You're the one who needs to make up his mind. I'm willing to listen. first, define victory. Second, tell me how to achieve it. Third, implement rationing, higher taxes and institute a draft with no deferments as soon as possible.
We do not need higher taxes or the draft. We are doing fine with the the resources we have now and the all volunteer armny we have.
I agree with you that we should have a change in strategy not an arbitrary time table.
You are right that there has been less accountability in this war in that everyone is blaming the President when the President cannot make the unilateral decision to go to war. Everyone seems to ignore Congress's involvement.
Also what about accountability to Democrats who are wasting valuable congressional time passing through a bill for funding the war that is laden with pork that is unnecessary and has an arbitrary time table to pull out. Not to mention it has no hope of becoming law since they do not have enough voted to override a veto and the President has promised to veto it. They should be working on legislation that will work and not waste time.
It wasnt Congess decision to give Halliburton a no bid contract and YES Bush can veto it. He will also be vetoing the wars FUNDING. If he wants the money, its CONGRESS' decision how that money is spent. That is NOT wasting time.
It is a waste of time to pass legislation that has no hope of becoming law. It was Congress both Democrats and Republicans that failed at oversight if any failure occurred.
Yeah, and the Germans weren't occupying Vichy France either.
The difference being that if that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave tomorrow we would have to, and would.
We are foriegners occupying their country we are occupiers by definition. More than 80% of the Iraqis want us gone. As for the government ASKING us to stay did you buy that argument when the Soviets used it after invading Afghanistan?
We are absolutly NOT following the Geneva convention. Uniformed soldiers are NOT the only people covered I have linked to the relevant part of the GC a half a dozen times and am tired of doing rightwingers homework for them but the very assertion is patent nonsense. The GC says NO ONE is beyond the reach of law Bush says different. The GC says if there is a dispute about whether someone is covered or not a competent tribunal will make that decision Bush says HE will make that decision. Claiming we are in compliance with the GC only shows how little you know what you are talking about. We are NOT. Its that simple.
The cheapest war in history???? Are you insane? We are spending about a billion a week. All I am saying is give REALITY a chance.
Yes, cheapest war in history in that it is costing us less than 1% of our GDP. When compared with as much as 14% for Vietnam and 9% for Korea it is cheap.
I have read through the GC and find nothing in there to cover anything but uniformed regular soldiers. These are nationaless radicals not covered by the GC.
Also 80% want us gone huh? Did they ask every voting person in Iraq or just a handful for that number? Let them hold an official vote and we will see what the results are. And yes the PM has said publicly that he does not want us to leave. If he were to change his mind to tomorrow we would have to leave and he would have broad UN support if we didn't. He would even have mine. To call us occupiers is to insult our soldiers and the United States as a whole.
So we ought to take a self promotion statement by al Queda seriously? General McCaffery says different
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/04/the-illogical-of-war/
The threat we face is huge. More than 100,000 armed militia members and insurgents confront central authorities. A handful of foreign fighters (about 500) and a couple of thousand Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq extremists provoke sectarian violence through murderous attacks on the innocent civilian Shiite population and their mosques.
Al Queda is ALREADY free to target us here. It only took about 20 people to attack the WTC. Nothing is obligating them to attack us ONLY in Iraq, its dumb to think your lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy is keeping them away from the US.
What is the moral justification for making the Iraqis bear the brunt of any war we are having with al Queda? Lets go after THEM not lure them into someone elses house making THEM suffer for OUR war. Iraq was not collaborating with al Queda. This war was NEVER about terrorism. IF the point was the danger posed by extremist Islamic terrorists then attacking the most SECULAR Islamic country in the region was stupendously stupid. Your arguments for continuing the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy are just plain weak. They defy common sense and frankly dont rise to the level of absurdity
There were two Al Queda training camps in Northern Iraq and high level meetings confirmed between Iraq and Al Queda leadership. There were ties between the two. But no we did not go in based solely on terrorism but it has become about since insurgents have flooded into the country from all over the Arab world . We did not make Iraq the fighting ground for Extremist Islam v. The West the terrorist did.
I agree we need a change in strategy just not one that gets us out of there. If we leave it will turn into Darfur.
THe elections were not a mandate from the people to withdrawl from Iraq. There was nothing on the ballot that said "Withdrawal from Iraq: YES or No?" People voted for who they thought would best represent their interest in their districts or home states.
The truth is no one knows what the American people in mass want in reagards to this topic. There has been no vote, just subjective polls that prove the point on both sides.
If the midterm elections were a mandate form the people then Bush was correct that he had a mandate when he won re-election. Either votes are mandates or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.
Polls on the question of withdrawal (majority in favor within 12 months) tend to support your username: you truly are an insane trickster?
Those polls are asked in a way to get the results you want. They are subjective and can be used to support both sides. We won't know what a majority of Americans want unless there is a national vote.
Let's go ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave.
If they want to put it on their next ballot I am all for it.
The polls *I* saw did not appear to be "loaded"; either insofar as the questions regarding Iraq, nor in terms of the range of answers offered (quite unlike, I will maliciously add, the Zogby polling which "demonstrates" that Senator Clinton has a "problem" with perceived proclivity for corruption; loaded questions, loaded choices, and limited choices at that; worse, for a well-respected pollster, even a triple-load couldn't massively deflect the numbers - Hillary still came up clean with 53% of the respondents; and Zogby got hammered on survey-monitor sites.)
More, these surveys appear to match trending of both "all" and "specific-pollster" results; and best of all, even FoxLies polling could not make the numbers less telling. So, I guess the next question is, why exactly do you think those are results not reflective of public opinion?
Because they only question a certain segment of the population. For it to be accurate they should question every citizen. Until that day the percentages only apply to the few thousand asked not the 300,000 person population in mass.
Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of statistics, genius. I suppose, then, that you disbelive virtually every study ever published in any forum, all of which use the same methodology? Just how far up your a** is your head? Can you lick your own bellybutton yet?
First off lets keep this mature.
Secondly, I place little to no faith in statistical information other than used to show past trends like car accidents. If you only survey 100,000 people out of 300,000,000 there is no way you are getting accurate picture of the full 300,000,000.
Excuse me 300,000,000 sorry about the typo.
They typo wasnt the dumb part of that statement. Rather the complete lack of understanding of the methodology of probability and statistics were the astonishingly dumb part of that statement.
The information is not accurate and is ever changing. Just look at exit polls over the past few years. People lie to these all the time. They do nothing but fill up news segments.