There is no more self-satisifed, arrogant, repellent fellow in Congress than Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). As a Democrat, he couldn't get his nose up George W. Bush's derriere far enough. Lieberman, like all totally discredited neo-conservatives, not only cheered every bloody move by Bush/Cheney in Iraq, but encouraged the Terror Twins to attack Iran as well.
Lieberman so offended Connecticut Democrats by his continual sucking-up to the worst executive branch in U.S. history that they disowned him, running him out of the party and picking Ned Lamont instead to represent Connecticut's Democrats in the 2006 election cycle. Though Lieberman won the Conn. senatorial race as an independent, largely with the help of neo-conservative Republican voters, true liberals have never forgotten, nor forgiven, Joementum for his unacceptable behavior.
Joe made a decision last fall to campaign openly for the Republican losers of the last presidential election, McCain/Palin. Outrageously, Lieberman was a prominent speaker at last fall's Republican National Convention. Lieberman said of Barack Obama…“I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.” Mainstream America elected Obama with 53% of the popular vote and a virtual landslide of electoral college votes.
In spite of all that, Senate Democrats kept him in their caucus clubhouse as a member in good standing. While compromise is the hallmark of governing, compromising with the devil, they say, is always a losing proposition. And so it is with Mr. Joe Lieberman.
Though mistakenly attributed to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), this statement captured the foolishness of congressional Democrats in acting as though Lieberman's turncoat performance had no meaning….
A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: “The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain’t happening.” He added: “We need every vote. He’s with us on everything but the war.”
And, rightfully, the "bloggers" still want to get rid of him. This is how Joe Lieberman is "with" Democrats on, you know, everything but the Iraq war….
Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that’s where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There’s no reason we have to do it all now.
Lieberman believes it is "moral" when America attacks a sovereign nation, like Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the process, when Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. He believes it was "moral" to borrow endless amounts of money to attack and occupy Iraq. Lieberman believes that it is "moral" for the nuclear-armed country of Israel to hold the defenseless Palestinian people in a continual state of apartheid. Lieberman thinks it was "moral" for Israel to brutally attack Gaza with helicopter gunships, an action the U.N. has called a war crime. Lieberman thinks unilaterally attacking Iran is the "moral" thing to do.
That's what Joe means when he uses the word, "morally."
Outrageous health care costs have helped to fuel the current deep recession, but according to the "moral" Lieberman, we shouldn't address health care reform because, "morally", we're in a deep recession. Pure Republican-Speak. The language of the assholians.
So…surprise….Joe Lieberman, faux-chum of Democratic chumps, really ISN'T "with us on everything but the war", is he? The bloggers proven correct yet again, but, you know, those curseword-using bloggers have Cheetos dust (or something) on their keyboards.
It looks like Joe may very well join a Republican filibuster to stop a public option from being passed. Now, that would really be showing Democrats how much he is "with us on everything but the war." Huh?….
With Joe Lieberman, as with many narcissistic political assh*les, everything is all about him,…..or Israel, who he incessantly rushes to protect and defend. But one thing is for sure….Joe Lieberman does not represent the American people. Don't be surprised if Joe-Boy starts making a lot of appearances on whore-teevee-media, trying to make the final battle in the Senate over health care reform, as he does with most issues, all about himself.
See also….Joe Lieberman does his best to cover up war crimes.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I started to pay closer attention to Joe Lieberman when he ran for the Vice Presidency. I made the incorrect assumption that since he was running with a boob, he must be a boob himself.
29 Democratic Senators voted to give the President the authority to go to war. When things did not go perfectly, many of them changed their minds. Joe Lieberman stood by his convictions even though it bothered members of his own party. Oh the horror, of having principles. Once you go to war you must see it through until victory. This will keep you out of future wars.
You should look at Lieberman as liberating. He has shown that you can be a Democrat AND be honorable, maybe even think for yourself.
Yes, and I spoke of those "convictions" in the blog. Joe has convictions about attacking Muslim countries in the middle east. He's for it.
Joe proved where his convictions were focused when he told the Connecticut Democrats to go Cheney themselves, and ran against Lamont, the choice of the Democrats in the state.
It's always about him,…and now he's trying to make health care reform about him, because everything is about Joe. It's Joe's world.
To think he was Al Gore's running mate.
I don't like to think about it.
Lieberman stands almost alone as a man of conviction in the Democratic party. His partisan cohorts largely voted one way on the Iraq war, only to go back on their own convictions once popular opinion turned against that war. Those are the a-holes we should condemn, the ones who care about nothing other than their own political skins. ]
As usual, the Rev is on the side of the spineless.
"a man of conviction"…..that's some very humorous stuff.
Reverse speaks of 'more and better Democrats' in other posts. But when one of them shows some semblance of honor, Democrats set upon him like a pack of wolves.
To follow up on bzzzzp's comment above…
"29 Democratic Senators voted to give the President the authority to go to war…"
I add the Democrats were the majority party in the U.S. Senate back then, just as they are now. Which means they funded the war, just as they do now.
Democrats have always been neck-deep in this war, just as they are now. The Reverend is an intellectual slave to a gang of liars. They own his mind. He writes only what they would have him write in their efforts to lie to people about what they represent.
The Reverend is a liar.
this from Secular Humanism……..
"Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”
It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.
For six years, Americans really haven’t known why he launched the unnecessary Iraq attack. Official pretexts turned out to be baseless. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after all, and wasn’t in league with terrorists, as the White House alleged. Collapse of his asserted reasons led to speculation about hidden motives: Was the invasion loosed to gain control of Iraq’s oil—or to protect Israel—or to complete Bush’s father’s vendetta against the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Nobody ever found an answer.
Now, added to the other suspicions, comes the goofy possibility that abstruse, supernatural, idiotic, laughable Bible prophecies were a factor. This casts an ominous pall over the needless war that has killed more than four thousand young Americans and cost U.S. taxpayers perhaps $1 trillion."
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5
King sez…."His partisan cohorts largely voted one way on the Iraq war, only to go back on their own convictions once popular opinion turned against that war."
I wonder if they knew then what they knew now……that "President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” would they have voted to entrust Bush with the power to start wars?
"…..once popular opinion turned against that war." Or was it when the truth came out?
I can't imagine anyone clinging to a pack of lies when the truth is known…..of course I'm not one of King's fellow republican travelers
"Honor"..is now considered to be an act of attacking, slaughtering and occupying a country which posed no threat to the United States.
You lie!…..speaking truthfully about neo-conservative bloodthirstiness, a bloodthirstiness embodied in the person of Joe Lieberman, is considered being an "intellectual slave to a gang of liars."
Furthermore,…."Democrats set upon him like a pack of wolves"…is that why Lieberman faced no consequences from Democrats for actively defending Bush and campaigning for McCain? Doesn't sound like an attack by a pack of wolves to me.
Rev:
Fine, neocons started the war. I note once more that 29 Democrats voted with said neocons and that the 60 Democrats in the Senate, the 250 Democrats in the House and your Democrat president continue to fight it. And you're OK with it. Because they're Democrats.
Once more: You are an intellectual slave to a gang of liars.
I'm against escalation in Afghanistan, as are most liberals. I'm for more and better Democrats, as are most liberals.
The fact that current Democrats voted wrongly doesn't change what liberals still want.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want more escalation. Conservatives have completely embraced the neo-con viewpoint. What does that say for conservatives? And…do conservatives want more and better neo-cons elected?
You're against escalation in Afghanistan? OK. Be interesting to see what you write when Obama sends more Americans to fight there. It will also be interesting to see what you're writing a year from now when Americans are still in Iraq under the leadership of Obama and the Democrat Congress. Change.
Oh, hell. Who am I kidding? It won't be interesting at all. It will be predictable. Because Obama and his Democrats own your mind, you will write exactly what they would have you write.
No, the Democrats and Obama do not own my mind…..how could they? I lost my mind a long time ago.
walter,
How do you explain all those Democrats in Congress talking about wmd in 1998, and then again in 2002 ? How do you explain the Clinton administration bombing Iraq over those wmd and calling for regime change in Iraq ? How do you explain 16 UN resolutions against Iraq, mostly for not complying with wmd inspectors ?
Exactly when did the US stance on Saddam's wmd become a lie ? Would that happen to be the same day Bush took office ?
Walt explains it with a link to some counterpunch article he knows no one will click on. It's how he explains everything, these days.