A Democrat with the courage to tell the truth

[schweitz]

http://www.courant.com/hc-iraq1129.artnov29,0,4997656.story


Returning from Iraq, Lieberman praises U.S. strategy, urges Bush to tout successes.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think with him it is more than a cultural or religious thing. It's a logical and USA thing. I consider him a third party politician. Common sense party.

[Tom]

I like him. He can't really be a dem...must be black ops or something.

[highnote]

Lieberman is far more Republican than Chris Shays for crissakes. :D

He was the first Dem to jump all over Clinton for the Lewinsky affair.

Lieberman should do what Reagan did -- switch parties.

[boxcar]

I think with him it is more than a cultural or religious thing. It's a logical and USA thing. I consider him a third party politician. Common sense party.

But you should not forget: He's looking at the world through his Jewishness. Therefore, I believe his religion and his nationalism (with respect to Israel) have largely shaped his semi-conservative worldview.

This guy is one big thorn in the side of his party -- for which I'm very happy.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Lieberman is from Stamford, Connecticut. There is a large Jewish community in Stamford that tends to vote Democrat. So even though he is conservative, he has to pander to a liberal constituency.

Chris Shays, a Republican congressman, is from somewhere in Lower Fairfield County Connecticut and has to cater to the liberal voters, too. So he tends to come across as a centrist.

I live in an extremely Republican town, but we elected a Female Democrat as Mayor. Go figure.

I think Lieberman's religious and ethnic background have less to do with his opinions than his desire to get re-elected to the senate. In other words, like most politicians, he will do and say whatever he thinks is necessary to get re-elected.

Connecticut is a funny state. They elected an Independent Lowell Wicker for governor (he was a former Republican). They also voted for Jerry Brown over Clinton in the '92 Democratic presidential primary.

[lsbets]

I'm actually surprised that Sec did not respond to this thread and attack Lieberman as he usually does.

[Tom]

He's tied up on another thread debating taxes with Ralph. Damn that Ralph, he threw facts out again and screwed up another lib attack. :D

[so.cal.fan]

I'm a big fan of Sen. Joe Lieberman......I voted for him in the California Primary, he didn't fare well in Calif. They voted for Kerry.
I like Sen. Lieberman because he is an independent thinker.....he will speak out for what he believes in, regardless if it's popular or not.
He is also a very moral man. High moral standards, honest, takes thoughtful positions on issues.......it's amazing he is a politician.
I have read his statements and listened to him on TV debates.....while he is conservative about national defense....he is liberal on many other issues.
He's sort of a neo-liberal, while liberals like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and the likes are the old liberals......they lean towards Socialism and Isolationism...ideas that have failed for over 50 years all over the world, in yet they still cling to these "losers".

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, what's the deal? No comments in this thread from the powers that be in off-topic? Where are Sec and LJB when you need them? I can't wait for them to denigrate Lieberman and tell us he's not really a Democrat....LOL

[Bobby]

I don't know what to think of him. I guess I would like to think he's the Democrats John McCain. Or maybe he's trying to be Ross Perot. I do respect him though. He ain't sticking his finger in the wind.

[PaceAdvantage]

And still, absolute silence on this topic from some of our more vociferous political pontificators.....

Why has the cat got your tongue?

[Indulto]

I tend to second SCF’s assessment except for her blanket labeling and dismissal of some worthwhile progressive concepts under the inflammatory headings of socialism and isolationism. Lieberman seems to be as good person as a politician is likely to be which, as Carter proved, isn’t necessarily a qualification for the Presidency.

Assuming he actually had a chance for the Democratic nomination (which IMO no non-Christian really has), Gore’s predictable failure to support him very early on (since his only purpose in selecting Lieberman as a vice-presidential candidate was to distance himself from Clinton) crushed that possibility. By failing to do that, Gore simply demonstrated again why he wasn’t considered trustworthy enough, politically, to win despite getting a direct majority of votes.

It would not surprise me to see Lieberman take a more responsible and effective role than Dean has within the Democratic party, but his support of the war in Iraq precludes him from representing the party in the next presidential election, even as a running mate for the tattooed lady.

[Tom]

OK, we are on to something here.....from now on, start every thread with a positive comment about Lieberman! Like garlic to vampires, this is good "Lib-Away" stuff! :jump:

[JustRalph]

Lib Away! Wear it around your neck to ward off the Libs!

http://www.columbuscool.com/cross.jpg

[betchatoo]

For all the positives I still go back to this post I made this summer. Lieberman is just another pork producing politician

Security Loses; Pork Wins

Published: July 14, 2005

This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/o...ial/14thu1.html

This is bipartisan, because right at Senator Collin's side was Senator Lieberman (I can't believe I was prepared to vote for this man). If the people we elect aren't more concerned about protecting this country than getting money for their individual states we are in deep trouble.

[so.cal.fan]

Perhaps, Sen. Lieberman was concerned about his own State of Conn.? That is why they elected him as their representive.
Who would you like to see as the Dem. candidate in '08, betchatoo?

Just Ralph? Tom?
why don't you make a picture of Joe your new avatar?
Your INNER LIBERAL..... :lol:

[highnote]

Perhaps, Sen. Lieberman was concerned about his own State of Conn.? That is why they elected him as their representive.
Who would you like to see as the Dem. candidate in '08, betchatoo?

Just Ralph? Tom?
why don't you make a picture of Joe your new avatar?
Your INNER LIBERAL..... :lol:


I think Tom and Ralph are both more liberal than Lieberman. :D

[so.cal.fan]

How many liberals on board would vote for Just Ralph and Tom instead of Joe Lieberman, if you had a choice? :eek: :eek: :lol:

[betchatoo]

Perhaps, Sen. Lieberman was concerned about his own State of Conn.? That is why they elected him as their representive.
Who would you like to see as the Dem. candidate in '08, betchatoo?

Just Ralph? Tom?
why don't you make a picture of Joe your new avatar?
Your INNER LIBERAL..... :lol:

The sad part for me is that as of this moment I haven't seen a Democratic candidate who inspires me.
If JR and Tom run I just might vote for them. Ay least they think for themselves and the entertainment value might be worth the expected chaos.

[so.cal.fan]

Yes, you make a good point, betcha, but a sad commentary.
Actually any of our PA board handicappers would make better public officials than the ones we always get stuck with.

By the way, before Tom and Just Ralph "flame" you.......you had better explain what you mean by.....
"the entertainment value might be worth the expected chaos"
I happen to think the country could use a few good laughs right about now!

:jump: :jump: :jump: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

the entertainment value might be worth the expected chaos.

Oh, it would be fun! That is for sure!

[betchatoo]

Yes, you make a good point, betcha, but a sad commentary.
Actually any of our PA board handicappers would make better public officials than the ones we always get stuck with.

By the way, before Tom and Just Ralph "flame" you.......you had better explain what you mean by.....
"the entertainment value might be worth the expected chaos"
I happen to think the country could use a few good laughs right about now!

:jump: :jump: :jump: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That part's easy. If we had people who thought for themselves and were not beholding to any specific industries, parties or networks, Washington would panic and chaos would ensue.

[Tom]

All of my press conferences would include a mandatory "Leno-type" monolouge:

"Take the minority leader...PLEASE!" (ba-dum)
"Ted Kennedy was hanging out around the senate chambers. AROUND the senate chambers! (ba-dum)
"Monica Lewinski...talk about your "secret service!" (ba-dum)

[so.cal.fan]

I would love to see Tom as the White House Press secretary for Hillary Clinton, if she ever got elected! We would have to call him the "spinning monkey" The cable news shows and radio talk shows would be fighting over who gets Tom on their show!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[GaryG]

I would LOVE to ee Hillary and her wide backside as the Dem noninee. That would be an interesting campaign! Hey SoCal, do all of the local cops still meet at the Winchell's by Sav-On on Foothill? I once saw Sierra Madre, Arcadia and Monrovia cops all there at the same time.....a real Kodak moment. :D

[so.cal.fan]

Gary,
that Winchell's closed down sometime ago. It is now a Pizza place.
I don't know where the cops hang out now for donuts......
Hopefully, they have develped better eating habits.

[JustRalph]

When I was a cop in California, you weren't allowed to eat anywhere there was another officer...........no more than one cop car in the lot at one time. Or face the rath of one seriously pissed off Police Sgt.

[46zilzal]

you were a COP..that explains a lot

[PaceAdvantage]

you were a COP..that explains a lot

You know, I tire of your semi-frequent hit and run flame retorts. Explain yourself, or don't post if it's just going to be a backhanded comment designed to start some sort of war....

[PaceAdvantage]

Is it or is it not freakin' hilarious that HCAP, SEC, and LJB haven't said word one in this thread? And 46zilzal, who has a post in this thread, did not address the topic of this thread (of course).

What are they so afraid of? They MUST have been able to come up with something by NOW! Even MoveOn.ORG should have been able to formulate some sort of rebuttal that they could use....

[46zilzal]

You know, I tire of your semi-frequent hit and run flame retorts. Explain yourself, or don't post if it's just going to be a backhanded comment designed to start some sort of war....
one often wonders what is behind a constant point of view and NOW knowing of one's previous profession, it makes MORE sense as to the point of view of this poster that's all...nothing to do with denegrating the poster, just makes it more understandable.

[46zilzal]

as to the other point of view, everyone is allowed an opinion.

if you tire of my posts, well that's life

[PaceAdvantage]

Funny. I would have never thought this:

you were a COP..that explains a lot

equaled this:

one often wonders what is behind a constant point of view and NOW knowing of one's previous profession, it makes MORE sense as to the point of view of this poster that's all

[JustRalph]

one often wonders what is behind a constant point of view and NOW knowing of one's previous profession, it makes MORE sense as to the point of view of this poster that's all...nothing to do with denegrating the poster, just makes it more understandable.

Oh yeah, you know so much about me now. The fact that you make some kind of assumption based on the fact that I used to be a cop, speaks more about you than it does me. Go away.............

[46zilzal]

I have known many a policeman, grew up with several fellows who went that route........they have many things in common thats all.

[Indulto]

46,

You wrote, “one often wonders what is behind a constant point of view and NOW knowing of one's previous profession, it makes MORE sense as to the point of view of this poster that's all...nothing to do with denegrating the poster, just makes it more understandable.”

Would you care to explain how being a former policeman explains that poster’s "constant point of view" as you perceive it?

[46zilzal]

46,

You wrote, “one often wonders what is behind a constant point of view and NOW knowing of one's previous profession, it makes MORE sense as to the point of view of this poster that's all...nothing to do with denegrating the poster, just makes it more understandable.”

Would you care to explain how being a former policeman explains that poster’s "constant point of view" as you perceive it?
no

[PaceAdvantage]

Ahhh, finally, 46zilzal posts something that actually relates to the direction this thread has gone lately (lack of substantive response).

[hcap]

I don't like lieberman. Never did.
What's to comment? Not all democrats are worth defending.

Unlike unconditional rooting for repugs by other repugs.
Although considering the multiple scandals implicating so many, that is becomming harder and harder to carry out.

Difficult to root for your fellow cell mate :lol:

[so.cal.fan]

Most Democrats I know, including myself and my family like Sen. Lieberman....what is there not to like?
He has an opinion about the terrorist threat to the world......so do I and a few other people.
He sure has more integrity than many other politicians, Dems. and Reps.

[46zilzal]

Most Democrats I know, including myself and my family like Sen. Lieberman....what is there not to like?
He has an opinion about the terrorist threat to the world......so do I and a few other people.
He sure has more integrity than many other politicians, Dems. and Reps.
too bad old Allan Cranston was too old to run for president..a good guy

[Tom]

Wasn't he the Shadow?

[PaceAdvantage]

Finally.....we get one of the four horsemen to comment....

[Indulto]

46,

Cranston had his faults too. It's important to learn from the past, but if it tells us anything, it's that Congress is no place to look for leadership. Better a former Governor or Cabinet member with real accomplishments to his/her credit.

If you want change and you're looking for a Democrat or independent party candidate to support, find someone who has steadfastly opposed invading Iraq prior to obtaining the support and involvement of all traditional allies and who has shown equal character and intelligence in other areas as well. Can you identify any individuals with those qualities? How about a successful businessman or attorney with unimpeachable military experience who is also a convincing public speaker?

And challenging Bush's intelligence is counter-productive. You don't get a Harvard MBA, fly a jet, or even get elected Governor without something on the ball. It also does no good to disparage Bush's truthfulness, faith in his religion, or the religion of his choice. What is important to question are the results of his decisions and policies which IMO so far don't speak well of his judgment or his ability to acquire and utilize suitable advisors.

I suspect that by the end of his term, he will be considered our least-effective President. Of course, it’s always possible that he might be persuaded to end our life-consuming involvement in Iraq with it’s non-representative sacrifice of working-class-youth, and reduce the budget deficit before then, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I used to think analogies to the Roman Empire were appropriate for this administration, but now I see "The Emperor Has No Clothes" is more accurate.

[46zilzal]

I used to think analogies to the Roman Empire were appropriate for this administration, but now I see "The Emperor Has No Clothes" is more accurate.[/color]
my thoughts exactly

[Secretariat]

Since PA is baiting me to post on Lieberman I will. Lieberman represents a large pro-Israel constituency. That constituency is very interested in the protection of Israel. In that regard he follows the path of neocons like Richard Perle. It's interesting to read the history of the neocon crossover to the Republican party, because originally the movement orginated with some very pro-Israel Democrats - much like Lieberman.

Lieberman will always vote on a pro-Israel side. He always has. No big surprise here. It is costing him dearly though if he has any intentions of running for anything beyond the state of Connecticut as he was trounced when running for President during the primaries. Joe votes pro-business generally, but he has a conscious and often does vote for social issues that some liberals promote, but when it comes to the Iraq War, I do not see why his comments are a surprise. He's said the sme things since 911.

Murtha, on the other hand, is a man who gains little from his comments. He is a respected Marine and comes from a fairly conservative area that was pro-War. For him, there is little gain, but he had the guts to speak honestly.

I don't hate Joe. He's OK, but is really the mouthpiece of a pro-Israel viewpoint.

Hope that helps PA.

[highnote]

Finally.....we get one of the four horsemen to comment....


sec, lbj, 46 make 3. who is number 4?

[Tom]

Hcap

[Secretariat]

Hcap has posted in this thread as well...

[so.cal.fan]

Sec?
I recall the video clips from all over the world after the World Trade Center was destroyed by Muslim terrorist.
These video clips were not only on the Western press, but on the Arab world press as well.....they depicted:
people from all over the world in shock and sadness in response to the attacks.
I remember seeing video from Israel, men, women and children, weeping and putting flowers at the American Embassy.
I also remember seeing video from some Arab countries......men, women and children CHEERING in the streets.
I am also PRO-ISRAEL.
You speak as though it is EVIL for Sen. Lieberman to be so as well.
I don't see it as such.

[Secretariat]

Scal,

And what does Iraq have to do with the WTC that you cite? This is the continual refrain. Citing terrorism and 911 has NOTHING to do with the invasion of Iraq. Iraq did NOT invade the US, OR Israel. We invaded them. There were no iraqi terrorists on those planes.

I am also pro-Israel, but I don't beleive in going into pre-emptive wars with nations who had nothing to do with 911 against a nation which just might invade Israel. If we did that we'd be invading EVERY muslim nation.

I am also pro-Japan, but I don't see us invading North Korea which hates Japan. North Korea actually has a nuclear weapon pointed at Japan, not speculatively, but pointed directly at it. We arenot acting pre-emptively there by invading them.

I stick by comments on Lieberman. He's a Chamber of Commerce moderate, a social democrat and neocon in regard to policy towards israel. Not my cup of tea...btw, I don't use words like EVIL. i let GW do that. I simply don't agree with Joe.

[JustRalph]

Scal,
And what does Iraq have to do with the WTC that you cite? This is the continual refrain. Citing terrorism and 911 has NOTHING to do with the invasion of Iraq. Iraq did NOT invade the US, OR Israel. We invaded them. There were no iraqi terrorists on those planes.

You just don't get it. You never will. You think that other nations ignored our invasion of Iraq. You think that drawing in thousands of terrorists to Iraq has had no effect on their abilities in other countries. You don't recognize the fact that it took us only 3 days to take over that country, will be remembered for 2 or 3 generations in every middle east country. If you just don't get it, you don't get it.

There are other benefits too. We now have an entire Army and Marine Corp with battle tested troops. Many will remain in the military. Their experience will enrich our military for years. We have special forces troops who are running daily missions into Iran, Syria and surrounding countries. You can't measure the value of these missions. We have an Air Force that has been supporting missions for 3 years now. We gain experience every day. We are testing new weapons and concepts. We will gain immeasurable benefits from this action, on the war making logistical side. It is not just about "who to attack" it is about perception, historical value and building a force for the future also. These are all just side benefits of course. Killing the in rushing terrorists types has value. Establishing a new government in that region is huge. I heard an interview just the other day with a Syrian woman who proclaimed "if they get democracy, then we should have it"
That statement speaks volumes about the perception and changes that could be possible in the next decade or so.

[JustRalph]

BTW, I found an interesting site.........on Iraq

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

[lsbets]

BTW, I found an interesting site.........on Iraq

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

He has done some awesome, brutally honest reporting from Mosul. The picture that he has painted is much, much different than many would like you to believe, and I have little doubt that there are many on the left who will simply choose to ignore or do their best to discredit what might be the finest coverage of the war in Iraq.

[PaceAdvantage]

You just don't get it. You never will. You think that other nations ignored our invasion of Iraq. You think that drawing in thousands of terrorists to Iraq has had no effect on their abilities in other countries. You don't recognize the fact that it took us only 3 days to take over that country, will be remembered for 2 or 3 generations in every middle east country. If you just don't get it, you don't get it.

There are other benefits too. We now have an entire Army and Marine Corp with battle tested troops. Many will remain in the military. Their experience will enrich our military for years. We have special forces troops who are running daily missions into Iran, Syria and surrounding countries. You can't measure the value of these missions. We have an Air Force that has been supporting missions for 3 years now. We gain experience every day. We are testing new weapons and concepts. We will gain immeasurable benefits from this action, on the war making logistical side. It is not just about "who to attack" it is about perception, historical value and building a force for the future also. These are all just side benefits of course. Killing the in rushing terrorists types has value. Establishing a new government in that region is huge. I heard an interview just the other day with a Syrian woman who proclaimed "if they get democracy, then we should have it"
That statement speaks volumes about the perception and changes that could be possible in the next decade or so.

Spot on! Shout it from the rooftop brother Ralph!

[PaceAdvantage]

Hcap has posted in this thread as well...

You are correct...my bad

[Secretariat]

JR,

Oh, I get it, as does the majority of American people. Problem is that none of your reasons were mentioned before Congress as Reasons for going to war. Last I heard we don't engage in wars so that our military will be better trained for the future.

[Tom]

Everyone in the ME is aware now that if we decide to go in, no power on earth will stop us. Khadafy saw this and turned over his WMD....remeber that, Sec? Legit nukes out of the arms of terrorists and in UN cutody. Jordan is starting to publically dennounce terror, and who knows what was behind our recent taking out of Al Qeda #3.......reality check by Pakistan?

Other muslem nations are now calling for the release of the bonehead hostages...that would have never happened two years ago.

Why don't YOU go to mosul and start yourt own blog of the real truth as you believe it ot be?
You keep ignoring the reports by people actually there in favor of polls.
Did I tell you a few months ago I was called for a poll? I lied about every question, because, heck, they were not paying me, so why tell the truth? Only fools listen to polls anyway. Like PA says, the elections counted over the polls (twice!) and the ratings say all there is to say about Rush - he buries Air America.

[JustRalph]

JR,

Oh, I get it, as does the majority of American people. Problem is that none of your reasons were mentioned before Congress as Reasons for going to war. Last I heard we don't engage in wars so that our military will be better trained for the future.

Go back and read the rest of the post. You are just ignoring the obvious. I know you are not that stupid.

[Secretariat]

JR,

I did go back and read your post. I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. I thought we went into Iraq to disarmn Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, but then again I took GW at his word, as did many in Congress. I don't beleive pre-emptive war should be a training ground for American soldiers, especially since over 2000+ Americans have died and 20K wounded, and about 40 quasi-WTC's filled with Iraqi "civilians" have died in the process.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden and Zawahari and Omar remain at large, Iran is building a second nuclear reactor, N. Korea has nuclear weapons pointed at Japan. We're heading towards an Iraqi Shiite theocracy which eventually will lead to Civil War. But our troops are now trained you say? Good. Now, if we could only get the Iraqi ones trained.

But, I digress, the thread was on Lieberman. I answered that as Pa asked me too, disagree or not, but we're getting away from the thread with speeches on how well the troops are trained since we're at war.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sec,

The reasons we went in matter less and less as time marches on. Conversely, the benefits of going in are going to reveal themselves (as they have been doing for quite some time, but not to the blind) more and more.

[Bobby]

the benefits of going [to war] are going to reveal themselves more and more.

Are you being serious?

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you being serious?

Quite. Why? Is there something in my reply that isn't truthful? There haven't been any benefits to going to war in Iraq? Are YOU serious?

[Secretariat]

Sec,

The reasons we went in matter less and less as time marches on. Conversely, the benefits of going in are going to reveal themselves (as they have been doing for quite some time, but not to the blind) more and more.

The reasons for going in matter less and less to you.

This idea that JR has promulgated that the military has somehow benefitted from all of this is questionable. For one, 2000K soldiers are dead and 20K wounded. Two, quoting John Murtha on his sources in the Pentagon:

"The future of our military is at risk. Our military and our families are stretched thin. Many say the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on a third deployment. Recruitment is down even as the military has lowered its standards. They expect to take 20 percent category 4, which is the lowest category, which they said they'd never take. They have been forced to do that to try to meet a reduced quota."

How the heck is it a benefit to have low retention rates, and ex-marines saying the military is as risk.

As to "helping" the Iraqi people - read this and see who they are helping (PSA's are production sales agreements):

"....as a comprehensive new report by the London-based advocacy group PLATFORM details, the PSA model "is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost."

PLATFORM's "Crude Designs: The Rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth" points out that the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people:

"At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget."

"Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment."

Of course, given the current political chaos, Iraqi citizens have little power over whether their politicians sign the proposed PSA agreements. That critical decision could be left to con-men like the former Interim Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi, who recently met with no less than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice during his red-carpet visit to the White House. One can assume the topic of Iraq's proposed PSAs came up more than once.

Chalabi's successor as Oil Minister, Ibrahim Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, is expected to toe the corporate line, and Iraq's former Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi issued post-invasion guidelines stating: "The Iraqi authorities should not spend time negotiating the best possible deals with the oil companies; instead they should proceed quickly, agreeing to whatever terms the companies will accept, with a possibility of renegotiation later."

But PSAs are notoriously hard to renegotiate. According to PLATFORM, "under PSAs future Iraqi governments would be prevented from changing tax rates or introducing stricter laws or regulations relating to labour standards, workplace safety, community relations, environment or other issues." The Iraqi people would be locked into inflexible agreements spanning 25-40 years with disputes solved by corporate-friendly international arbitration tribunals, rather than by national courts.

Is that really the same thing as liberation? "

....

Are these the benefits?

[lsbets]

"How the heck is it a benefit to have low retention rates"

You meant to say recruitment, right? Because retention is at an all time high. Or do you just make shit up as you go along?

And with all do respect to Congressman Murtha - the more he opens his mouth, the more I believe that he is playing politics due to the potential ethical problems that are under investigation.

[Secretariat]

Yes, I did mean recrutiment. Retention is not a problem when you don't let people out and force them to go on their third deployment as Murtha said. Thanks for correcting that error.

[JustRalph]

Sec, you need to look up some history. The United States military gains benefit from every conflict. They learn new and valuable lessons. They learn more about weapons systems. etc, etc,

You think the families are stretched now? In WWII some guys went away for 5 years. Many came back to find that their wives had divorced them. The Soldiers and Sailor's relief act of 1947 stopped that practice. You cannot divorce an active duty military member unless they agree to it. This stuff is baby shit compared to the forties. The difference, We didn't have ten thousand Cable Tv channels telling us how horrible it is. Or loud mouth opposition congressmen and women who will speak out against our country and our troops at the drop of a hat. Look at last weekend. The most dangerous place in America on Sunday morning was anywhere between John Kerry and CBS news camera.

[Lefty]

Indulto writes: I suspect that by the end of his term, he will be considered our least-effective President. Of course, it’s always possible that he might be persuaded to end our life-consuming involvement in Iraq with it’s non-representative sacrifice of working-class-youth, and reduce the budget deficit before then, but I wouldn’t bet on it.


___________________________________________
Kept the economy going after 9-11, it;s still going even after war and hurricanes, tornados.
Freed 2 countties and both countries have had elections for first time in history.

If that's not effective, then you simply must give me your definition.

I'm a Repub, but if Clinton had been as effective as Bush, i'd praise him.
Unfortunately, he will be branded a perjuror and a womanizer and the man whi gave Bin Ladin a pass; 4 times! Not to mention raising taxes on us all, including people on SS. BTW, we're still in Bosnia. Didn't Clinton promise we'd be out in less than a yr, hmmmmm?

[lsbets]

Yes, I did mean recrutiment. Retention is not a problem when you don't let people out and force them to go on their third deployment as Murtha said. Thanks for correcting that error.

Maybe instead of retention I should have said reenlistment - the soldiers see a much different war than the Defeatocrats do.

[Tom]

So Sec, now you are in favor of high oil prices?

[Indulto]

Lefty,

Is it possible that your list of Bush’s accomplishments may be a bit premature, much as his proclamation from the aircraft carrier deck? I want to see how free those two countries are without an American military presence. Perhaps the economy is considered going well among the wealthy, but you might get an argument among the working class employed and the unemployed. With rising costs for housing, energy, health care, education, etc., what’s left of the middle class and the elderly seem to be running out of money.

How many troops are still stationed in Bosnia and how does the percentage of the original allocation compare with those of other peacekeeping nations there? How many peacekeeper deaths have occurred there since Bush took office?

I’ve always advocated that Clinton resign rather than put the country through the impeachment firestorm. Each of us has his own opinion as to whether extra-marital sexual relations are worse than illegal drug use and/or alcohol abuse and their effects on other family members. It took a lot of taxpayer dollars to disprove Clinton’s veracity regarding a subject that would ruin many other politicians facing the same level of scrutiny. Have we already forgotten the misadventures of the last two Sleazers of the House?

It remains to be seen whether it will truthfully be said that Bush left office with the country in better shape than Clinton did.

[Lefty]

Indulto, premature? Nope. Have there not been elections in two countries in the mideast? YES! It's up to them to hang on to democracy, but it has been secured for them for first time in history.
Clinton was a posieur and a poll taker. Bush is a man and a leader.
When Clinton left office the economy was tumbling under the wght of tax raises and artificially inflated stocks, mostly due to the shortlived dot.com phenomena.

Well, my wife still works and under the Bush admin has made more money and got to keep more of it. The elderly have always struggled and Clinton did them no favors. That's what Bush's SS reform sought to do; keep the next generations of elderly from having the same problems as this generation, but the Dems would have none of it.
Energy is high because of the demand of China and India as well as ourselves. If we would have been allowed to drill in our own oil rich country as little as 25 yrs ago, our costs would be lower today.

[hcap]

Joe says:

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

A more accurate view however..

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-30-05.jpg

[Lefty]

hcap, you libs get more ridiculous everyday. And i'm loving it. There goes your hopes in 08.

[so.cal.fan]

The reason the Democrats lost the election was the fact that the Democratic Party has been taken over by a small faction that only represents less than 10% of the population of the voters.
Had the Dems been represented by someone like Sen. Lieberman......they would have won the election in '04 and if they smarten up and get rid of the Howard Dean types......they will have a chance to win in '08, despite Lefty's prediction.
People didn't like John Kerry.
President Bush has made mistakes, but I do not perceive him as being dishonest, contrary to the extremists in the Democratic party.
I do not consider myself a conservative......I try to support the most honest position, what I think is best for the country. Isn't that what we are suppose to do?
I'm very liberal on some issues, very conservative on others, but mostly I take a centerist position.....the main one being supporting our troops who are dedicating their lives for their country, their country being ....us!
I am outraged by the "war protesters" the same way I was outraged by the same bunch back in the 1960s.
You people on the far left are misguided, but fortunately you will never win elections.........the country has evolved........we will not vote for old worn out policies still being touted by Ted Kennedy. Pass.

[Lefty]

so cal, yep Bush has made mistakes. That's cause he's willing to do something. But all I hear is he had no plan for the war.
But the Dems never put forth their own. Lieberman and others who have recently visited Itaq says we're winning.
The people didn't like Kerry you say, but they made him their nominee. They had the chance to nominate Lieberman, so, what happened?

[so.cal.fan]

Because, Lefty, like I said, the Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists who only represent a small percentage of the American people.
They may win an election in Europe, but not here. They just don't get it.

[JustRalph]

They may win an election in Europe, but not here.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lefty]

so. cal, yep, I agree.

[GaryG]

Just look what happens when they nominate an ultra lib: Mc Govern, Mondale, Dukakis etc. The only way they have a chance is with a more moderate candidate that could carry some states in the south and midwest, like that weasel Clinton did. The further to the left, the more resounding the defeat.

[so.cal.fan]

Bill Clinton was an affable kind of guy.
People liked him and had confidence in him.
He would have been re-elected again, if he could have run. No doubt about it.
I voted for him twice. Bet that suprises some of you on this board?
I voted for President Bush once and I still think I made the correct choice.
I think there is a valid reason for wanting to stablize the middle east.
Iran has nukes....and I don't think people really realize just what a threat
Islamic extremists really are to the world.
Remember.....Hillary Clinton never hesitated in voting to send our troops to Afganistan and Iraq. Never hesitated.......you guys don't think she KNEW something????? I sure did.

[Secretariat]

Bill Clinton was an affable kind of guy.
People liked him and had confidence in him.
He would have been re-elected again, if he could have run. No doubt about it.
I voted for him twice. Bet that suprises some of you on this board?
I voted for President Bush once and I still think I made the correct choice.
I think there is a valid reason for wanting to stablize the middle east.
Iran has nukes....and I don't think people really realize just what a threat
Islamic extremists really are to the world.
Remember.....Hillary Clinton never hesitated in voting to send our troops to Afganistan and Iraq. Never hesitated.......you guys don't think she KNEW something????? I sure did.

Who cares if he was an affable guy? GW is an affable guy, but a terrible leader. Clinton was pretty bad too, that's why I voted for Dole in 96. The economy is why he maintained his Presidency. He sold out on NAFTA, and health care. I lost respect for him. Hilary is more of the same. She'll say what she beleives people want to hear. It may surprise you to know I didn't vote for Clinton in 96, and I won't vote for Clinton in 08. I'd write in my vote first.

[lsbets]

Do you think anyone believes you when you said you voted for Dole? I think most folks would bet that if you had the chance you would have swapped knee pads and switched places with Monica.

[so.cal.fan]

Well, I respect that Sec. At least you study (handicap) the candidates.
Not everyone does....I'm sure most of the people on this board make very thoughtful choices, just as you did, handicappers are smarter than the average voter.
I admit to not paying attention to some of the negatives on Clinton.....his pardoning all those crooks as he left office was cheesy.....I think he did it to get even with everyone for "catching him"........I really do.
However, when you see him on Larry King or some interview show like that, he does come off well.
Most people like to vote for guys they like. I know, it shouldn't be that way, but that is the way it has always been.
I would like to vote for Tom Friedman, but he wouldn't run.
Any big powerful business leader like a Bill Gates would make a good president as well, they would study all the facts and do more of the right things, in my opinion. It's too bad we can't draft some of these type of guys to run.
Someone so rich they would have integrity.
What do you think, Sec?

[Tom]

The given that Hillary will run in 08 may be in jeopardy - Tom Golisano just might be posturing for a run at the senate, not govenor. And he could beat Hillary in NYS. Hillary would be a longshot to run without a senate base to launch her lies from.

Tom would be a better senator anywhay - whe would be well backed by repubs in DC.

[highnote]

I thought Galisano was an independent.

His partner Bob Sabo is from my hometown -- Salem, Ohio. Sabo is worth about 200-500 million. I guess that means Galisano is probably a billionaire.

A fun fact -- Alan Freed is also from my hometown. He's the man who coined the phrase "Rock and Roll".

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you think anyone believes you when you said you voted for Dole? I think most folks would bet that if you had the chance you would have swapped knee pads and switched places with Monica.


WOW!

:lol: :kiss: :lol:

[Bobby]

That is good LS.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Secretariat]

Well, I respect that Sec. At least you study (handicap) the candidates.
Not everyone does....I'm sure most of the people on this board make very thoughtful choices, just as you did, handicappers are smarter than the average voter.
I admit to not paying attention to some of the negatives on Clinton.....his pardoning all those crooks as he left office was cheesy.....I think he did it to get even with everyone for "catching him"........I really do.
However, when you see him on Larry King or some interview show like that, he does come off well.
Most people like to vote for guys they like. I know, it shouldn't be that way, but that is the way it has always been.
I would like to vote for Tom Friedman, but he wouldn't run.
Any big powerful business leader like a Bill Gates would make a good president as well, they would study all the facts and do more of the right things, in my opinion. It's too bad we can't draft some of these type of guys to run.
Someone so rich they would have integrity.
What do you think, Sec?

Well, I don't think you have to be rich to have integrity. and I'm more of a labor guy than a Chamber of Commerce kind of guy. I tend to vote for veterans, and voted for Clinton because of the Bush I recession, and generally I vote Democratic. However, NAFTA, and Clinton's failure to get behind the Health Care vote irritated me. I'm also a big beleiver in a balanced budget, and find unnecessary war a quick and huge drain on any budget. Question is what is necessary. That is why I continually support the Afghan invasion and criticize the Iraqi one. Many Libertarians in Congress do so as well. Mr. Paul comes to mind. It's not just Democrats. I voted for Dole solely based on his service because I was disappointed in Clinton's first time. I've posted this probably before even Isbets began posting his funny jokes here. If you don't beleive me Is, look it up in the archives. Maybe I'm wrong but I wonder if you've ever crossed party line so you find it difficult to believe someone actually could.

As you know I find GW's tenure the worst of any president we've had, and it pains me to say it, worse than Nixon. That said, I could vote for a Republican who had actual values like a Kean from the 911 Commission. I would be reluctant to vote for someone tied closely with the oil industry after this.

Friedman? Well, I disagree on many of the things he has written,especially the early articles on Iraq, but I find him a man of integrity. I also find John Murtha a man of integrity.

I would vote for Friedman, and would prefer to see more non-politicians run, but the nature is in today's world you have to pay your political dues. Perot, Forbes, etc. I prefer a guy like Bill Moyers to Friedman, but it's sure make a better debate than the crap you hear now.

[Secretariat]

The given that Hillary will run in 08 may be in jeopardy - Tom Golisano just might be posturing for a run at the senate, not govenor. And he could beat Hillary in NYS. Hillary would be a longshot to run without a senate base to launch her lies from.

Tom would be a better senator anywhay - whe would be well backed by repubs in DC.

Hilary Clinton has a snow ball's chance in hell of getting the Dem 08 candidacy. She's polarizing, and is all over the place. I admired her early health care initiatives, but she's compromised herself so much it's a different Hilary than the early 90's. She'd never come close to winning the primaries. She may even have difficulty winning back her seat.

[Secretariat]

Since this thread was about Lieberman, I thought I'd post some of his recent quotes and counter-quotes:

"Lieberman Flashback: Questioning Bush’s Credibility Is Central To Democracy
On Wednesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman argued that anyone who questions President Bush’s credibility while the country is at war puts the nation in danger. Lieberman, 12/7/05:

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

But when he was running for President, Lieberman directly questioned Bush’s credibility on the war. In fact, he argued that doing so was an essential part of our democracy. Lieberman, 7/28/03:

In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge. "

[Lefty]

sec says: it is about distorting intelligence and
_____________________-
The dems keep saying this, but so far, haven't proved it. Cause it's a lie. They all said Saddam was a terrible danger and now they are trying to say they didn't. Goes back to Clinton admin and HIS intelligence.
Give up the lie, you'll feel better and your nose won't grow.