In Defense of Joe Lieberman:

I cannot even begin to explain how tired I am of the Lieberman bashing in the GD forum, and others. People are fond of calling Joe a DINO without any proof. Everytime I see this I feel tempted to refute their stupid argument with Joe's voting record, which is very liberal. Joe is not a "corporate whore", nor is he only loyal to Israel. Both of these claims are absolute bullshit, nothing more.

I'll compare Joe's interest group ratings to the interest group ratings of the Senate's only DINO, Zell Miller (by the way, I don't consider Ben Nelson a DINO, either):

Selected interest group ratings for Joe Lieberman:

2003 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in the first half of the 108th Congress, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Yep, that's right, Joe Lieberman is 100% Pro-choice.

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Wow, Joe Lieberman has an excellent civil rights record, too.

2002 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

See how CONSERVATIVE Joe Lieberman really is? Not very.

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Lieberman a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

Joe is for gun control.

2002 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

And very pro-labor, too, no matter how some of you on here (with no idea what you are talking about), will try to spin it.

Selected interest group ratings for Zell Miller:

2003 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in the first half of the 108th Congress, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Zell Miller is 100% ANTI-CHOICE

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 57 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 36 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 58 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 38 percent of the time.

...And his civil rights record also leaves MUCH to be desired.

2002 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 47 percent of the time.

Zell has a 47% rating from the ACU . Just for fun, here is Lincoln Chafee's ACU rating below:

2002 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Chafee voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

See how stupid your arguments are, yet?

Let's move on, shall we?

2002 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

Hmmmm... not as good as Joe's 100%.

2002 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Miller voted their preferred position 58 percent of the time.

58% to Joe's 92%. You tell me WHO stands for labor in this country.

Conclusions:

Your facts are extremely incorrect. You lie and don't even have evidence to back it up. You should be ashamed. And for those of you call him Holy Joe, you should be ashamed at using an anti semitic slur like that. You're no better than the Republicans who attacked Al Smith 75 years ago. I've known for a long time that anti-semitism in this country comes from the far left and far right, and now my opinions have been vindicated. :puke:

n/t

will withdraw from the race in despair over your decision.

{yawn} :eyes:

As someone who's tired of both Lieberman and those who hysterically defend him no matter what, thanks for the laugh!

1) SD's initiating post was not "hysterical". It was filled with facts, unlike your response.

2) One of propoganda's goal is to get people to dismiss the facts (or certain specific facts). The post had a lot of facts, and instead of refulting them, you merely laugh and dismiss them.

I don't regard a compendium of opinions as 'facts' no matter how couched in pseudonumerical bafflegarb. Even "opinion polls" are not fact except to the extent that "people have opinions" is itself a fact.

The inability to distinguish between 'fact,' 'opinion,' and 'belief' seems to be a national plague.

There's a list of Lieberman's ratings from various organizations. That Lieberman received those ratings, and recieved the ratings because of the votes he had taken, is a fact.

If you wanted to refute those facts, you can't. They are facts. However, you could go to the orgs listed, find out which votes they considered in their ratings, and then argue that the ratings are misleading because the votes they considered did not fully convey the candidates position, but then you'd be refuting SD's conclusion/opinion (that Joe has a pretty liberal voting record), and not the FACT that Joe did receive those ratings, and that Joe did vote the way these orgs report.

what others in this thread have done, and point out Lieberman's not-so-liberal positions. The problem with these 'facts' is that they're cherry-picked to present Lieberman in as liberal a light as possible, while ignoring the fact that Lieberman actually holds some fairly conservative positions.

I'm neutral-to-positive on Lieberman, by the way, but I'm hard-core against sloppy or dishonest pedantry.

... about a victim of this plague who cannot recognize their own infection. :shrug: "rating"? uh-huh. Sure sounds like an opinion to me. But that's just my opinion, not a fact. You, however, might wish to point out that my opinion is a fact, huh? Orwellian. :eyes: (Or should I say "Carlosian"?)

These orgs decide which votes were the most important to them (an opinion), and then they find out how the various politicians voted (fact) and use that to calculate the rating.

The only opinions contained in these ratings are their opinion of which votes were the important ones. These orgs do NOT base their opinions on which candidate they like.

May I use it? Pretty pleeeeeeeease. :7

but I think minds are already made up. :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that is just my opinion and I have no evidence to back it up.

Do you have hard evidence of anti-semitism or is it your feeling or opinion?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

REAL anti-semitism.

Holier-Than-Thou Joe is an asshole and would be an asshole regardless of religion.

I had no idea.

Pretty low blow. Got any proof of bigotry here, or are you just like Jerry Seinfeld's uncle Leo?

even so, that's not the right thing to say to convince others to your side.

I'm not for him because he's a simplistic moralist, who goes after strawmen like rock-n-roll, Hollywood, video games, instead of looking at the REAL causes of violence and illegitimacy in our country. Is that anti-semitic?

More importantly, his attacks on the Left-Wing of the Party (I am a progun moderate, but thus far only the Left has shown true opposition to the Bushevik Imperial Steamroller) seem to come right from the Bushevik playbook.

I'll be quite frank about how that makes me see red. Not a liberal myself, but it's goddamned time somebody stood up for them (and they for themselves)

I see Joe, like so many others of all stripes, trapped inside the Fantasy Bubble created by billions of dollars and a Party-Loyal Sub-Media that more resembles the Soviet Union than the Old Democratic-Republic. He falls for it, feeds off it, and plays into it every time and that is the one thing that is unacceptable at this late date!

The VRWC or Confederate Broederbund or whatever you want to call it has had a mostly free-hand for more than a decade. Every lie they told went unchallenegd, no matter how demonstrably unfactual it was.

Part of the issue is that the Left has no comparable Party Media (the idea is repugnant, but now we have no choice), and the VRWC utilized the Mainstream Media as a stand in for such an organization. They pretended that's what it was, a Democratic Party Organizaion, with no allegiance to fact-checking or now-defunct journalistsic standards. And we ALL let them. We are ALL to blame, but our elected representatives doubly so, for they are charged with protecting the Republic against Soviet and Nazi-style threats (here I am speaking of Bushevik propaganda strategies...lucky for us they aren't as violent and virulent as Nazis YET, or we wouldn't even have this pleasant twilight for howevermuch longer it lasts).

What galls me is that Joe (and plenty of others, to be fair) is still clueless on this score. And accepting the Right-Wing Sub-Media at "face value" when in fact the oppositie is true and they have gradually weakened, bullied and parsitized the Mainstream Media into a pale version of themselves, willing to chase and publicize any Red Herring the VRWC wishes to shriek for a week or more...

His behavior during the Bloodless Coup of 2000 could only be characterized as a cowardly disgrace to the Old American Republic and the Founding Fathers. I still remember how he took the Bushevik side on the double-military votes and the falsely solicited after-the-election military votes. It all came out, Google it and see if I'm lying, but by then it was too late.

Where was Joe when the Bushevik brought their Rent-a-Brownshirt mob in to stop the Miami-Dade recount?

(cue crickets chirping)

And even now, he is still praising the Emperor's Wonderful New Clothes while attacking the few who have the balls and risk personal destruction and job loss if the Busheviks fear more than a dozen people might hear them.

I can't go on. There's more but you get the idea. I ould NEVER support anyone who has licked that much Imperial Boot for this long and in the face of such evidence, whatever positives he may have (and you lay those out nicely).

Knowing this, I look at Lieberman and see those Jews who counseled timidty to their communities during the Rise of Hitler. Who helped the Nazis round up their own people out of fear and timidity and "not wishing to look unpatriotic".

And I am a Jew. I am proud to be so.

Rant over.

:kick:

I do not like Lieberman because he is anti-First Amendment. He pushes the envelope on restrictions on freedom of expression. He clearly is in favor of tearing down the wall that separates church and state.

I will support Lieberman if he is my only choice, but I do not like him as a candidate because of his stance on First Amendment issues.

a DINO?

I will NOT support him for the nomination and if he wins the nomination, I will NOT vote for him.

I am AABB, almost anybody but Bush. Holier-than-thou Joe is the only Democrat seeking the nomination I will not support against Bush.

up their schools is what makes him a dino.

But let's face it, he probably doesn't really believe that . He just says he does to get votes from other dinos.

Videogames can indeed desensitize kids to violence. You civil libertarians live in a dreamworld.

Vs. how many are caused by video games?

Get back to me if you have a serious solution to the problem of violence in our culture other than the videogames are"desensitizing" argument.

How many people have died in the war that Lieberman supported?

Oh, and has Lieberman ever attacked the military for putting out the first-person shooter, American's Army, the exact type of violent game he's against?

(sound of crickets....)

Nope, because that's a recruiting tool.

Joe wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't so hypocritical about what violence is ok and what isn't.

he's so sanctimonious, self-righteous, and holier-than-thou about them, thinking nothing of forcing them on everyone else. He screams about Hollywood and video game violence, but has no problems with the real violence and horror of the Iraqi war and what we're doing there. He's a strong supporter of vouchers, which does it for me right there. He stabbed Gore in the back in 2000, and that is not only immoral it's inexcusable. His main focus is on national defense, and the Pentagon already has and gets enough, more than enough, of our hard-earned money as it is.

Any Dem who is strong on national defense is a DINO.Lets just all sing "Peace Train" and everything will be all right.

Offense would mean attacking a nation that did nothing. Perhaps you forget about Iraq invading Kuwait?

TWELVE years ago! Iraq was not a threat, didn't have any WMD's, and had no connections to 9/11 and Al Quada at all! The invasion of Kuwait has NOTHING to do with our attacking them in March, and killing 10,000 innocent civilians so that the Bushistas could get control of the oil and Shrub could get his ego kick.

The UN reports even said Iraq failed to prove it had disarmed chemical weapons. If he didnt have WMDs why'd you doves support sending inspectors in? You guys change your story too much. I didnt by the way support rushing into war as we did. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat.

Kuwait was far too long ago; the WMD thing is nonsensical as a reason, since many countries have them. I, a 'dove,' supported sending the inspectors in to get the inhuman sanctions lifted, and I never changed my story.

Even if Iraq openly had WMDs you would've said so what?

them, they wouldn't have them anymore, would they? The inspections would have ended, and the Iraqi people would not be suffering as they had for 13 years, as they are now. But the fact is, they didn't have them, so why you bothered with this is a mystery.

Plenty of people were saying before the war that a preemptive invasion of Iraq will only exacerbate the situation in the Middle East. Iraq is in chaos. Does anyone feel that America is more secure now that Saddam has been overthrown? I don't.

on me. I did not say he was a DINO; I just said I can not support him as a candidate because of his position on the First Amendment.

Your strawman argument will not work here.

You want to impose your morals on him by saying he has no right to criticize violence in movies.

That's one way.

Welfare for Churches is a terrible idea of the trained chimp in the white house and Lieberman supports it.

That alone loses my vote. Gore's feeble attempt to appease the church welfare crowd nearly got me to go over to Nader.

Lieberman co-sponsored the 1996 Telecommunications Act which required manufacturers to put V-chips in all new television sets. Sorry, but I don’t need technology or the government telling me what I can watch on TV. I am perfectly capable of changing the channel myself. The Telecommunications Act also required TV programmers to devise a content-labeling system. It also provided for government to take the whole system over if the (allegedly) voluntary system didn't satisfy them and that’s exactly what they did.

Lieberman co-sponsored the Television Improvement Act of 1997 to force television broadcast and cable networks to establish a "voluntary" code of conduct to make shows more "family friendly."

There are many more examples of Joe's moralizing and sponsoring legislation to impose those morals on others. The facts simply do not you on these points. If I have to do so I will cite several more examples when I get the time.

you are free to vote for him if you like.I don't think playing the race card is a good way to go about w/your complaint especially among us liberals.Joe Lieberman is a wolf in sheeps clothing.I will not forgive his censuring Clinton for the Lewinsky mess.I will not forget his la di da attitude on election day 2000 when we Floridians were being stripped of our rights Randi Rhodes told him on the radio that somethings wrong senator..I don't like his bashing of Howard Dean.I disagree with his reasoning for going to war in Iraq and even now STILL defending Bush and his WRONG decision.All these things off the top of my head and not one has anything at all to do with his religion-he's just a lousy democrat that's why I would NEVER vote for him ever.Oh yea I didn't get to vote in 2000 for him and Gore since I was one of the disinfranchised Florida dems

His record...I've seen better, I've seen worse. I think he gets an ultra bad rap here, but I think because he seems to be a good hearted guy he makes naive and ridiculous choices sometimes.

I do have a problem with his chastising Bill Clinton in front of the whole country on what was a clearly partisan issue.

I do have a problem with his just being "delighted to have the opportunity" of running in 2004. He should be the first one to talk about what was STOLEN from him (not harp on it, but he's too Pollyanna and "it was a great experience" for me).

I do have a problem with him pairing up with Lynne Cheney to put out a blacklist about how our universities are "failing America" because they don't tow the line.

I do have a problem with him sitting on the Nixon Center Board.

I do have a problem with his support for the Iraq war and vouchers.

I also find him to be dreadfully boring, especially that voice.
Is he proposing anything new at all?

You will find plenty of them over there.

your anti-semetic arguement is MOOT!

Sooooo, perhaps I already had a clue. :-)

Go to the I/P forum and you'll see it plainly. But a lot of the posters at DU, or the ones who are most active, are left wing extremists.

If you're Jewish and are either sympathetic towards or at worst indifferent towards the terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and calls for the destruction of Israel, than you are welcome in the DU community. But if you're Jewish (or hell, even if you're not Jewish) and stand up for Israel's right to exist and right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, then you're just another one of Ariel Sharon's butt monkeys and may as well go join the Republican Party. You certainly aren't welcome here.

In addition, practicing Jews -- and especially orthodox Jews -- are certainly looked down upon here. But then, so are most people who profess a believe in God and see some virtue in religious faith.

Maybe you should give it a rest.

who defend everything that bastard does. That's one forum that I usually avoid for all the same reasons being thrown around here... the idea that criticizing the actions of someone who happens to be Jewish automatically makes you an Anti Semite.

For the record, I believe that Ariel Sharon, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle , the Kristols and the rest of the PNAC cult are insane, fascist criminal pieces of shit who deserve to be sentenced for treason and the usual legal penalty that comes with that sentence. Therefore, I find it very hard to respect, let alone endorse the Presidential candidacy of, anyone who defends their agenda.

The fact that they, or Lieberman, are Jews has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just as my overall opposition to the Bush Criminal Empire has nothing to do with being "Anti-American" like Faux News says.

because they are all pro-Isreal.

never seen one stick around for more than a few posts.. where are these people?

But I've done this before several times. And you aren't going to change anyone's mind. They don't care about the facts. But I do admire you for trying to inject some truth into the debate.

Who are a mix between pacifist and civil libertarian absolutists anyone who doesn't support cutting military spending in half and who doesn't support arresting Al Qaeda operatives as opposed to militarily attacking them is a DINO.

He has no fire and no energy out on the stump at all.

Team Bush plays tough, they play mean and they play like it's their divine right to rule for life. You need a candidate who can fight that stuff with equal vigor. Joe Lieberman will be a DLC Michael Dukakis; that is, he won't fight back when he is savagely attacked (I could even see an underground anti-Semetic whispering campaign being waged in the South) by Karl Rove's goons. I could just see Joe Lieberman's response, "Well, I respectfully disagree with the President..." No, that won't work.

http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

There is support for vouchers, missile defense, privatizing social security, censorship of video games, the Iraq debacle, and opposition to affirmative action and civil unions.


Look who supports Lieberman: Big finance, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00000616&cycle=1998

This loser does not represent me.

I know you are not going to almost any positive feedback here, so I thought I'd try.

I would never think of supporting Leiberman over my fav candidates for a number of reasons

He is very much a yesman for some very unpopulist corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, among other conservative positions such as being anti-gun control, and religiously orthodox

however I do admire his political courage as of late. Dems shouldn't be afraid to say the truth that Dean is the wrong choice for democrats who want to advance there agenda and grow the party, and that Dean would very much derail any hope of empowerment for democrats for some time to come

he knows that the easy thing to do to win the dem primary is to pander to the knee-jerk liberal line etc, and he's not doing that at all, instead going after the "flavor of the month".

but to you I should also caution that he doesn't stand a chance of being nominated for 1-the fact that he doesn't present himself as even remotely liberal/progressive, and 2- he isn't really a liberal/progressive in any accepted terms.

Big Deal.

Since that's all you really give a damn about I suppose that makes him a "liberal" to you and that as long as the NRA hates him and NARAL likes him that makes him a "liberal" even though there has never been a country with a record for torture and massacre that he hasn't wanted to ship guns to (not just Israel), never seen a military budget that he didn't overspend on including star wars, never found a corporate giveaway he didn't like, championed de-regulation, wanted to pour Social Security into the stock market but of course he's not a corporate whore, he's just a victim of viscious anti-semitism :eyes:

I agree with the original poster here. Kerry and Edwards both voted for war with Iraq and strongly support Israel, yet it's only Joe Lieberman who gets singled out for those votes.

the Israel stuff is stupid from people who only pay attention to Joe's stance on Israel because he is Jewish and don't pay enough attention to know that the entire congress is more into "supporting Israel" than the Knesset is.

But does that mean all legitimate criticism of him is anti-Semitism?

I don't think so.

Some of us just want someone who will FIGHT and Joe just ain't the man.

I am not voting for Lieberman either. But I do think that he gets singled out unfairly here and a lot of it has to do with his being Jewish.

Those three don't have a whiny holier-than-thou thing hanging over 'em nor have they been talking up how great they thought the war was, so if they were nominated, I would put the clothespin on my nose, gather up my puke bucket, go down to the polls, and vote for their sorry ass.

I wouldn't campaign for them and I damn sure wouldn't donate money to their campaigns.

If they decided to talk up how great the war was or got holier than thou on me, I'd cast them into the no vote no how no way bin with Lieberman.

Kerry has been getting close to that lately....

You want us to pick Dean or Kucinich, the people the GOP most hopes we pick.

I honestly do not believe anybody else in the race is electable.

Hawks don't staqnd a chance in '04 as the body bags continue to pile up in Vietnam II.

Every Republican I know wants us to run Dean or Kucinich. Dean could care less about Iraq, he said he opposed Iraq but he saw alot of disgruntled anti-war Dems who could help him win the nomination.

as I do to you, so I could care less what "every Republican you know" wants.

Dean will win the nomination and kick the shit out of *, mostly due to body bags coming home from Vietnam II.

Dean won't get the nomination thankfully. We can't stand to have any more McGoverns.

hold Lieberman, Bayh, and Gephardt (the Rove Rose Garden Speech) to a little different bar re: the war resolution vote, than we do other voters. Whenever I mention one - I mention all three. They all chose to stand with bush - and in doing so collapsed on going bipartisan negotiations in the Senate on several amendments that would have made the resolution less of blank check.

Everytime I bring it up - I bring it up for all three. And it comes up in discussions of all three.

How is this antisemitic?

You really need to seperate this out - your broad brush appears to make a case that ANYONE who is not rooting for Lieberman, or who is at times critical, = antisemetic. This removes the ability to criticize (as I did above) him for positions and actions that are not hyperbolic, or singling him alone out. That is just as unfair as the bashing that gets irrational towards Joe.

don't support vouchers and privatizing Social Security, aren't still vigorously and enthusiastically supporting both the Iraqi invasion, even after it's now known that Shrub LIED about everything in order to drag us into the invasion, and pushing further into Syria, Iran, etc., ad nauseaoum, didn't team up with Lynne Cheney and her merry band of fascists to draw up a list of universities that were "unpatriotic" in refusing to toe the administration's line on Iraq and everything else, don't support pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and big business against the consumer, don't dismiss the huge and ever-growing numbers of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured and/or who have no access to health care (he says the unemployed poor can "buy into Medicaid because the era of Big Government is over", yeah, right, maybe the homeless can buy houses, too, while he's at it), aren't yes-men for the Bushistas, didn't stab Gore in the back in 2000, don't currently support the PATRIOT Act and a lot of what Asskroft is doing, etc., etc., and on and on.

Peddle your charges of anti-Semitism elsewhere, because I'm tired of hearing that label smeared on anyone who disagrees in the slightest with Lieberman or Israel or any other Jewish or Israeli politician. What, because someone's Jewish or a member of any other ethnic or religious group member, any criticism at all is bigotry against that group? That's bullshit, and you're smart enough to know it!

They both voted for the war powers.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Miller is not running for pres. So what is there to like?

:puke:

Then there would be two potential nominees I would not even consider voting for if either won the nomination.

Kerry did as well. Is he a conservative too? Sorry but I also supported using force against Iraq. Do we need your permission?

since supporting that whole thing pretty much makes you a gullible fool who shouldn't be listened to anyway.

I never believed Iraq was an imminent threat, however the UN even said Iraq wasn't cooperating as far as showing evidence that they had disarmed after 1991. Secondly Saddam shouldve been removed for the slaughter of Kurds which is an act of genocide. We removed Milosevic for less.

Until you advocate bombing Ankara and Washington for their role in that genocide, I think I'll pass on your crocodile tears for the Kurds.

on edit: Two states have attacked US troops and gotten a pass on it, Israel and Iraq. You have to be way, way, up on the client list to get away with that and it was at the hieght of Saddam and Turkey's ethnic cleansing manuevers vis a vis the Kurds so apparently we not only turned a blind eye but felt it was a service or Iraq would have moved out of that tiny club of client states.

Because some in our govt did terrible things we can't do anything to help anyone in the world. We took the Indians land so I guess we shouldn't have felt we had a moral duty to stop Hitler. Foreign policy has to balance realism with humanitarianism. I don't think Turkey dropped bio weapons on a town as big as Halabja, secondly we couldn't logically invade Turkey the way we did to Iraq. Most of all because Turkey wasn't ignoring a call to disarm and hasn't recently invaded its neighbor.

are you still clutching on to that?

Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad, bad, guy but if you think that gas attack was the worst thing that ever happened to the Kurds you don't know the region very well and I don't care how nice your intentions are, I don't know how to delicately put this but if you thought life was going to get better under US occupation or that "democracy" was every going to develop there while we could keep that from happening you are naive in the extreme.

Ignore that the UN itself said Iraq failed to provide evidence that it had destroyed its WMDs. Did I ever say I wanted us to go it alone? I do think Iraq has the potential for democracy but not with us going it alone.

Hans Blix said he thought he could get more co-operation than he was getting and he got it.

BTW, I'm not a "dove", I just know bullshit when I smell it and Iraq has stank of it for ten years.

Iraq NEVER offered evidence that it had disarmed. Iraq told the UN to prove they had WMDs.

Blix thought that there should be evidence. The evidence was sitting there in the form of an unmolested invasion army on the southern border and given that army and the understanding that anyone over the age of ten should have had that it wouldn't matter what the hell Iraq produced Bush was going to invade anyway if Iraq did have some sheet of paper that chronicled dismantlement or just out right abandonment (would have been easy enough to dummy up one way or another) I think the Iraqi's very rightly felt that at least if Bush thought *maybe* they had something it would keep the infantry in the MOP suits, hot, uncomfortable and with limited vision but given how quickly those suits came off you can tell that no one in the military really took that seriously anyway.

And the UN report said nothing of what you're saying. But thats DU for you.

where is your precious UN report? I'm assuming it's from the time the inspectors were "kicked out" right?

both in Cyprus (a neighbor which it has invaded and occupies, to correct you) & in its race war against North & South Kurdistan. While Turkey was helping in the so-called "anti-genocide" war against Serbia they were bulldozing hundreds of Kurdish villages (or rather, villages of those known as "Mountain Turks", for "Kurds" don't even exist in Turkey, the "Kurdish" language is thought of by the state as a Turkish dialect but was banned anyway, and they're all "Proud To Be A Turk" anyway) in the 90s alone, thousands more before then.

-------------

one quick link that mentions some of what I have within a couple convenient paragraphs.
(pre-note:--by "terrorists", they mean any Kurd. Another line I remember from a Turkish army officer from elsewhere, paraphrased "to be tortured you didn't have to be suspected of being PKK, it was enough to just be a Kurd".

--snip--

Article (d) of the ``secret'' Internal Security Directive of the Turkish Land Forces Command, dated 27 February 1986, states that ``poison gas can be filled (as published) against terrorists if necessary.'' Article (e) of the same directive says: ``If necessary specially produced poisonous germs can be produced and used against the terrorists''. Commenting on this article, the book says that ``poisonous germs'' means biological weapons.

Dr. Celiker´s book points out that the Turkish state used chemical gas (as published) in the Kasrok, Banik, Rojikan, and Merve regions of South Kurdistan on 11 October 1991. The book adds that some of the Napalm bombs used on that date hit several schools and a hospital, burning down those buildings. The book says that an official who served in the coalition forces which were present in the region at the time the Turkish Air Force dropped Napalm bombs on the region has confirmed this incident.

The book says that the Turkish state used Napalm bombs, which it obtained from the United States, against Greek Cypriots in the Pasof (presumably Pafos) area of Cyprus in 1946 (as published) and then again during its invasion of the island in 1974.

--snip--

http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/1999/99-05-27.tcpr.html#03

-------------

I might also recommend Kristiina Koivunen's "The Invisible War in North Kurdistan", it's online as a PDF, run a search on the author's name; a bit long, but you can get the idea from the ToC, as well as relevant works by Husayn al-Kurdi.

"Because some in our govt did terrible things..", that's right, they have, and there should be punishments for it.

"Foreign policy has to balance realism with humanitarianism..., two qualities which US foreign policy hasn't possessed..

"We removed Milosevic for less..", to that segment I'll add "...for less than what we ourselves have done and helped dozens of client states to do". A hypocrite doesn't carry moral weight to his arguments, but he can get the naive and easily manipulated to go along with his bullshit, for a while anyway.

How much of a limb would I be going out on if I were to assume you were a fan of Friedman?

and don't assume I'm a dove.

The only people who believe the Israeli's intentionally attacked the Liberty are right wing and left wing crackpots.

Show me a credible, unbiased source who says otherwise and I'll come around.

intentional or accidental that's the list of friendly nations that fired on US vessels.

in Afghanistan.

I'm sure there are more examples.

Lots can go wrong in the fog of war.

I don't follow the Liberty closely, my conjecture is that it wouldn't have mattered if it was intentional or accidental we wouldn't have attacked our good client Israel over a few sailors and we wouldn't have attacked our good client Iraq over a few sailors and that's the entire point.

n/t

So if a man was raping a woman you wouldn't support using force to stop him? Violence can be a force for good.

It definitley will let me know how much validity to give your posts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and you are incapable of reading an intelligence document critically. The statement you are clinging to was created by CIA spooks being leaned on to come to that conclusion and if you weed out the numerous, numerous, "may", "may have", "could have" sort of qualifiers it should jump right out that the people putting it together were sorely afraid this day would come and were trying very hard to try and retain their reputation.

Those falsified reports concerned a nuclear program not chemical weapons. Nice try though.

Where are they?

Why weren't they used?

The WMD argument never held water.

Face it, you fucked up and believed tghe shit * spewed.

You fit right in with the sheeple here at DU.

Listening to your defense of the Illegal War Against Iraqi Civilians To Steal Their Oil has convinced me to cast Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards into the pit of no vote no how no way.

This will be the last tim I will ever respond to one of your posts.

No wonder he was booed in two strait debates. Even the Freepers call him a Republican in Democrats cloths. Every time I hear this man talk he advocates being Bush-light, puke. Face it Joe will be politically died very soon when he loses the first couple of primaries, and the knock out blow is when his former running mate Gore indorses someone else.

This is a man who co- founded a think tank group with Ms. Cheney, puke!

Or you another DUer who think something is true just because you say it's true. The unobjectivity of most DUers drives me nuts. You need to start thinking outside of the box.

And that's just his issues, leaving the stuff about stabbing Clinton in the back during impeachment and Gore during the recounts out.

but Lieberman voted against impeaching Clinton.

This man smiles like the joker every time he brings up the stolen election, what the hell is that all about?

I am not voting for him but the character assination engaged against him by certain DUers is clearly unfair.

Letter to ACTA
by Joe Lieberman

Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
December 18, 2001

Jerry Martin
President
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
1726 M Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-4525

Dear Jerry:

I am writing in regards to the Council's recent report, Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.

In the past, the Council has often sent me advanced copies of its publications before they have been released and asked for my support. In this case, though, I was never given the opportunity to review the Defending Civilization report before it was made public. I first learned of it through a call to my office from a reporter in Connecticut about a controversy the report had stirred at Wesleyan University.

If I had been given an advanced copy, I would have objected to its content and methodology and asked you either to revise it or make clear that I had no involvement with it. But because that did not happen, and because I have been incorrectly listed on your website as a co-founder of the Council, a number of news accounts and commentaries have associated me with the report and incorrectly asserted or implied that I endorse it.

This letter is meant to set the record straight about my disapproval of this report, which I consider unfair and inconsistent for an organization devoted to promoting academic freedom. To avoid any future confusion, I would ask you to remove any reference to me as a "co-founder" of ACTA from your website or other Council documents. And I would ask that you note in any future public statements that I do not support this specific report. Thank you.

Joe Lieberman

Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020128&s=lieberman20020117

I am sure there is more.... Oh yeah. He got booed at a speech he gave in California on Febuary. You can show me his voting record all you want, there is more then a voting record when it comes to idealogy. Sean Hannity doesn't have a voting record but we know he is right wing as hell because of the stuff he says, Joe is a moderate Republican. Of Course some of the stuff he supports, he doesn't vote on it. So Special Interest Group ratings is not going to convince me because there is much more then that when it comes to determining someone's idealogy.

It is obvious that you dislike Lieberman for reasons that have nothing to do with his political beliefs.

That's a non-starter right there. This isn't Canada, EU or Australia.

his moralizing for one, free speech, faith based programs, WAR and defense, Gay marriage and he has made disparaging remarks about nonbelievers.

oh btw, you failed to mention his backers. he is tied to the financial industry and insurance companies. he is a corporatist.

Google it up. There are some sad articles in the Nation magazine.

to suck up to Bill fucking O'Reilly?

Thank you!

Note my avatar. That includes Joe. Though I wish he'd stop calling Iraq a just war *cringe* that is sooo hard to shake.

But I will not vote for him for President for two reasons:

1)He continues with his enthusiastic support of the war in Iraq. Frankly, I don't really want to vote for anyone who voted for that war, but if someone like Kerry stands up and says "I voted for it. I was wrong, but the President also misled me," I can forgive them for their vote. Personally, I'll never vote for Diane Feinstein again because she voted for that war. But she won't be running for President.

2) Lieberman is not willing to give me my first amendment right to be free of government imposition of religion. I thought he backed down from that when he was running for VP, but he's back at it again. There is no freedom of religion if it doesn't apply to non-believers, too.

Now, then...if he changed his position on both of those points, I'd vote for him against Bush. But until then, I'll vote third party if he gets the nomination.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/843/3340788.html


The proposed resolution, which is expected to pass the House early next week, mentions support of efforts to gain U.N. Security Council backing, but it does not require U.N. approval for unilateral action.

The deal with the House undercut an effort by a small group of Senate Democrats and Republicans to fashion a resolution that would have stopped short of endorsing war to force Iraq to disarm and Saddam to yield power.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was alone among top leaders in opposing the new plan. He and some other key Senate Democrats continued to push for more restrictions on Bush's latitude to wage war, but the House deal puts enormous pressure on Democratic holdouts to rally behind Bush.

The resolution was strongly backed by House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the last Democratic vice presidential nominee, and was a significant victory for Bush, who had insisted that he wanted to fight Saddam with all military options at his disposal.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31884-2002Oct2?language=printer


An apparent minority of lawmakers, primarily Democrats but including a smattering of Republicans, continued to oppose the resolution. "Neither the facts nor the effect of proposed war resolutions have changed," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.). He said the president "wants unbridled discretion to launch a massive ground invasion without evidence of an imminent threat to American families."

Conspicuous by his absence at the ceremony was Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who was alone among top leaders in opposing the new plan. Democratic schisms were apparent throughout the day, beginning when the four congressional leaders left the White House after an early breakfast with Bush. While Gephardt provided the first word to waiting reporters that agreement had been reached with the House, Daschle said that a number of senators still differed with the revised White House proposal.

As Daschle canceled a morning news conference, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), who also opposes the measure, called off a meeting of his Foreign Relations Committee planned to discuss an alternative resolution.By midday, the White House had released the new text and Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) had gone to the Senate floor to introduce it and voice their support. Within an hour, Lieberman and Bayh were standing in the Rose Garden with Bush.

--snip--

I'm happy to see someone stand up for Lieberman. I would vote for him if I had to over b*sh. But please don't pretend his betrayal over the war vote never happened. There is a reason why many Du'ers hate Joe Lieberman, and it ain't anti-semitism.

puts him firmly in the center-left camp.

His shrill rhetoric makes him appear much more conservative than he is and his inefficacy as a campaigner makes him unelectable.

Nice to meet ya!

I'm so sick of that race card, I don't blast joe becuase he is jewish.

Now I see where you are coming from planet "just call people anti-semit to get our way"

You sound like someone who would defend Trent Lott by claming that calling him a racist is just the "typical PC" strategy. Would you feel the same way?

It is obvious that a lot of the dislike toward Lieberman stems from his being a religious Jew.

This shows that DU will not tolerate those who equate opposition to Lieberman with anti-semitism.

I call Joe Lieberman Holier-Than-Thou Joe for one reason and one reason only, his support of the so-called "Faith Based Intiative" but I consider more aptly named "Welfare for Churches".

First post here on DU. Hello everyone.

It amazes me that this has to be told to the Lieberman supporters time and time again, but it's just easier to repeat that we're anti-Jewish.

Other than his voting record...which IS Liberal leaning...IN GENERAL...Lieberman has done the following:

-- Attacked the entertainment industry moralistically, just like a member of the Religious Right. Some of us won't take that crap from Falwell's crew, and I'm sure as HELL not going to take it from someone on my "home team" and be told to like it. This is a very conservative stance of his, and some of us care about artistic freedom, so don't belittle us by thinking it's all about playing Grand Theft Auto or some other crap like that -- it's about freedom of speech and anyone, be it liberal Democrat or Conservative Republican who attacks Freedom of speech under the guise of promoting morals in this country IS MY ENEMY as a writer.

-- he moralistically joined in with the Republicans in declaring that Clinton's actions were ruining the morality of the country (there's that MORALITY word again...some of us don't' look for that out of candidates, but from our Priests and Clergy, ok?)

-- He helped undercut the negotiations on the Iraq Resolution.




There's THREE MAJOR REASONS for not liking Lieberaman that have nothing to do with him being Jewish.

But I'm afraid that all you "You're Anti-Lieberman because you're anti-Jewish" posters won't get that through your skulls.

Some of us have been shouting our non-religious reasons to you long enough now that there's no way you haven't heard us. You're just ignoring us and playing the "Oh pity us, the masses are against us because of our candidate's religion" card.


I'm tired of being insulted and called a religious bigot when the Pro-Lieberman people are stereotyping people themselves.

"Wifey and I find the voice hypnotic and sleep inducing", sez Mr. John Q Public.

Well I guess you are free to call this bashing or not, but the man is just unelectable. He has the appeal of a wet gym sock on television. I would like to live in a world where that did not matter but the election is too important to just pretend it does not.

He projects neither strength nor charm and that's why he's not going anywhere. I believe he's a decent man, but not inspiring.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.ordnancemarine.com/moto/hatingarabs.htm

apparently when he talks about hating people he knows of what he speaks :wow:

another one bites the dust

*NAFTA

*Aid to Israel

*Deregulation

*Ending welfare as we know it

*Iraq



I MIGHT reconsider

Well, this is what happens when you run for president.

Too bad he can't exercise better self-judgment and realize he has no chance. Kucinich too and others regardless of recoird and stand. Presidential gravitas or charisma whatever, the cold facts of life.

If he wasn't so outspoken attacking others he might save himself needless pain and accept credit for the really valuable things he has done in Congress.

Only the Repugs routinely get winners with anti-charisma, horrors in their records and beliefs. Because they boost their moral zeros with loyal unity and ruthless energy. And money. Lots of it.

I know a lot of republicans that vote just like him.

Keep in mind Lieberman originally ran in CT against a LIBERAL Republican. Remember them? Lieberman ran as a conservative in that election.

BTW...I do hate it when people call him "Holy Joe"...it's mockery of religion, and I don't like it.

HRW gives him a 100% rating, so you're wrong about his being anti-gay. And the ACTA issue has been addressed, per the message I wrote earlier.

I think that speaks volumes about his First Amendment credentials.

that Joe's causing a rift in the Democratic ranks.

Thank's Joe :loveya:

dislike Lieberman for reasons that have nothing to do with his political positions.

Everything from SDI to privatizing social security to vouchers to bankruptcy deform -- there is a lot of ground to hate Lieberman, and people are rightfully fed up with Holy Joe's sorry ass.

that you dislike him because of his religion.

...despite his support of the Bush* regime and their far right wing policies.

- And frankly jiacinto...I'm getting a bit sick and tired of you stereotyping posters to the left of you as extremists. This is the kind of tripe we hear from the DLC...and the kind of politics that has split the party.

neo-liberal, anti-welfare. pro-dismantling the new-deal

Lieberman voted against the tax cut

:kick:
I'm for Dean but what the hey...