UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: cobrafang Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 90258  
Subject: GI Joe Date: 5/24/2008 9:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
Today brings another obnoxious Lieberman op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. As I behold his steady deterioration, I sometimes find myself wondering whether Lieberman is all that smart. I used to think of him as kind of a bright guy, but he's drifted into that minimally informed style of pigheadedness that characterizes a lot of the right wing talk shows he likes to appear on.

This paragraph in particular jumped out at me:

"Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot."



Where to begin? First of all, can anyone imagine a Bush-Cheney-Lieberman response to the Cuban Missile Crisis that would not have produced some kind of inferno? But never mind that. Lieberman disingenuously ignores Kennedy's far more important strategy of engagement with Khruschev. As for Castro himself, evidence has been surfacing in recent years of a Kennedy plan for a two-track policy toward Cuba, the second track being a "carrot"of engagement. Kennedy would have arrived at that place through a series of hard lessons, especially the Bay of Pigs. It's worth noting that Bay of Pigs-style fiascos would be one of the hallmarks of a President Lieberman foreign policy. One of his very few consistent strategies is dumping arms into the hands of any faction that, for the moment, doesn't like somebody we don't like. At the beginning of the Balkan crisis, he proposed arming Bosnian Muslims. He was still speaking to me in those days, and I tried to talk to him about the bitter lesson of Somalia, where our policy of arming one warlord against another in the Soviet pawn game had led to a wildly violent and dangerous landscape that turned bloodily against us. He was unimpressed by my reasoning.

Which leads us to Reagan and Iran. Here Lieberman is absolutely correct. Reagan did everything BUT talk to Khomeini, and the result was a series of disasters. His first notion was -- tell me if this sounds familiar -- dumping arms into the hands of somebody who didn't like Khomeini. In this case, the somebody was Saddam Hussein. Hence the wonderful picture of Rummy pressing the flesh with Saddam. His second strategy was dumping arms into the hands of somebody who didn't like Khomeini. What's that? The same strategy you say? Well, yes and no. This time we sold weapons inside Iran and wound up caught in a monumental and embarrassing lie. This was called the Iran-Contra Scandal.

This is the kind of thing Lieberman loves. Sneaky military dealings with the enemies of our enemies. With no acknowledgement that the enemies of our enemies often become our enemies. (Think Osama bin Laden.) And it somehow has not sunk in with him that this doesn't work, that it has produced in fact the very set of conditions he now deplores and now intends to address with more of the same kind of thing.

Which is how I have come to ask myself whether he is even all that bright.

http://blogs.courant.com/colin_mcenroe_to_wit/2008/05/gi-joe...
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76208 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/25/2008 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Today brings another obnoxious Lieberman op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. As I behold his steady deterioration, I sometimes find myself wondering whether Lieberman is all that smart. I used to think of him as kind of a bright guy, but he's drifted into that minimally informed style of pigheadedness that characterizes a lot of the right wing talk shows he likes to appear on.


This nonsense is typical of radical leftists and why you guys might actually lose the election in November.

Lieberman was Gore's V.P. candidate in 2000. Lieberman hasn't changed one iota. Your party has changed--it has tilted so far to the left that Lieberman was kicked out.

Why not just be honest and admit that the crazy left has completely taken over the dem party? It's 1972 all over again.

Clinton, Liberman, Ferraro...no one is liberal enough for you guys anymore, unless they are the most extreme left-wingers available...like Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: goofnoff Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76209 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/25/2008 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Lieberman is backing the Republican candidate for President. Its not that the Democrats have gone further left, its that Lienberman has become a war hawk. The Democrats has an anti-war attitude. A majority of Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and a majority want out.

If you are a pro war Bushie you won't get Democratic support.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76210 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/25/2008 6:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Lieberman is backing the Republican candidate for President. Its not that the Democrats have gone further left, its that Lieberman has become a war hawk. The Democrats has an anti-war attitude. A majority of Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and a majority want out.

If you are a pro war Bushie you won't get Democratic support.



Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic party for being a moderate. How could you possibly claim that the Democratic party has not gone to the extreme left since the same Joe Lieberman was your V.P. candidate in 2000?

The Democrats did not have an "anti-war attitude" in 2003. Other than Obama, of course.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: goofnoff Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76215 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/26/2008 7:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic party for being a moderate.

I see your problem. Yopu haven't a clue about what you are saying.

When was Lieberman "kicked out" of the Democratic party?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JHShort Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76216 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/26/2008 8:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
>>Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic party for being a moderate. How could you possibly claim that the Democratic party has not gone to the extreme left since the same Joe Lieberman was your V.P. candidate in 2000?

I live in CT (i.e., the senior senator from the state of Israel claims to also be my senior senator) and I'm having trouble remembering when he was kicked out of the Democratic party.

He was defeated in the primaries because of his pro-Iraq war position. But he wasn't kicked out and consistently claims to still be a Democrat.

Other than that, could you please point to how the Democrats have gone to the extreme left. Hillary Clinton is running on a position of a continuation of her husband's policies. Obama is running on a platform of providing health care to all Americans -- something that has been a Democratic party standard for years.

Both Hillary and Obama are running on a balanced budget platform -- which involves both spending cuts/changes and tax increases. That's to the right of the typical Democratic position -- although as history tells us the last balanced budget was Bill Clinton and the Republicans are responsible for a full 78% of the National Debt (Reagan, George HW Bush, and george w. bush).

John McCain, on the other hand, is running on a platform of continuing the bush tax cuts that even bush's own Treasury Dept has admitted have (a) done nothing to aid the economy, (b) contributed a couple of $ trillion to our record $9.2 trillion National Debt ($4.1 of which is the direct responsibility of Bush/McCain), and (c) damaged the value of the dollar to the point of tripling the price of crude oil.

So please explain your "extreme leftist" comment.



>>The Democrats did not have an "anti-war attitude" in 2003. Other than Obama, of course.

Yes, and too bad that they didn't have an anti-war attitude in 2003. After all, we've gotten such wonderful benefits out of that war:

1. We attacked a guy whom even george w. bush's Pentagon and CIA now admit had no WMD, no plans to attack his neighbors, and was a staunch opponent of Al-Qaeda. (source: CIA Special Deputy Report, Pentagon Iraq Study Group, 9/11 Commission, Senate Special Intelligence Committee)

2. We put Iraq in play, and the best possible scenario is that it continues under the current pro-Iranian government and becomes an ally of Iran (source: Iraqi government, US State Dept)

3. Radicalized the entire mid-east and gave Al-Qaeda the opportunity to rebuild and refinance (source: NIE -- two of them in fact, plus MI-6, NATO).

4. Took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan (source: NATO, Pentagon, MI-6)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76217 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/26/2008 12:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I live in CT (i.e., the senior senator from the state of Israel claims to also be my senior senator) and I'm having trouble remembering when he was kicked out of the Democratic party.


"Senior senator from the state of Israel"?

Please stop the jew-baiting. It's not appropriate for these message boards.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kentm401 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76220 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/26/2008 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Huh?

"Senior senator from the state of Israel"?
Please stop the Jew-baiting.


JHS doesn't need moi to defend him....but the above was uncalled for....His remarks in the OP were baiting of no one

- other then war-mongering neo-CON reactionary fundamentalist bible thumping bush loven corporatocracy-souless-republicrates, incapable of admitting either error or mistake and willing to ask others to die for their own grandiose vision of neo-CON Armageddon.

You wanna object to something object to this....not JHS's OP.

KBM (I've been considering reporting Joe as a "registered foreign governmental agent")

Print the post Back To Top
Author: timjbd Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76236 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 11:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Indeed it's NOT "Jew-baiting" to point out that Lieberman has gone way overboard in his support for Israel to, what many including me believe to be, the detriment of the USA.

Israel and its' supporters can take their due criticism just like everyone else.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76239 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 12:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Indeed it's NOT "Jew-baiting" to point out that Lieberman has gone way overboard in his support for Israel to, what many including me believe to be, the detriment of the USA.

Understandably since you probably also believe that Jews have undue influence over the government of the United States. And that because Lieberman happens to be Jewish, he is the puppet pulling the Senate's strings as they mindlessly bow down to the Jewish conspiracy.

Last time I checked, however, Lieberman was one of 100, and indeed, a Democrat who is reviled by his now reviled by his own party as being "too conservative" [code words for: "too Jewish."]

And I am also sure you are of the opinion that were it not for U.S. support of Israel, the U.S. would be well-loved by the Arab/Muslim states.

No doubt as well you believe that the State of Israel itself is a counterfeit regime which owes its existence only to the illegal usurpation of the rightful lands of peaceful Palestinians via use of force.

Have I got it just about right, fella?

Israel and its' supporters can take their due criticism just like everyone else.

You didn't criticize any particular policy advocated by Israel or by Lieberman, did you. But the fact that his last name is "Lieberman" is more than sufficient to warrant your criticism.

Isn't it obvious? He's a jew, and because he's a jew, he will sacrifice "U.S. interests" to the "detriment of the U.S.A." for his beloved State of Israel.

That's what you believe, and nothing anyone can say will ever change that.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: timjbd Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76242 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Wow, with you around, nobody needs to have ANY of their own opinions. You'll just supply everyone with them. Like a one-stop-knee-jerk-opinion shop.

However, saying that the phrase "too conservative" is code for "too Jewish" sounds highly suspect if not entirely ridiculous.

As for the rest of your screed, you really should be careful throwing around those sorts of wild accusations.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76245 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 3:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wow, with you around, nobody needs to have ANY of their own opinions. You'll just supply everyone with them. Like a one-stop-knee-jerk-opinion shop.

However, saying that the phrase "too conservative" is code for "too Jewish" sounds highly suspect if not entirely ridiculous.

As for the rest of your screed, you really should be careful throwing around those sorts of wild accusations.




Notably, you attacked me, but you did not state what your opinions on the points I addressed actually are.

Presumably, had I been wrong as to any specific point, you would have said so.

Since you didn't say so, I must assume that I guessed right, and that hit you right in solar plexus.

Catch your breath, bend your head down between your knees, take a couple of minutes, and then tell me which of the opinions I attributed to you that you don't actually hold.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: timjbd Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76249 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 3:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dude,
Even though I sense the force is strong in you, these are not the times to be acting like a clown.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kentm401 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76251 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 5:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Give it up Timj....some neo-CON folks [read "forever" war mongers] just need to be put on "ignore"....

KBM ("Left" Liberal Jewish Jeffersonian Virginia fiscal conservative)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76257 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 7:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dude,
Even though I sense the force is strong in you, these are not the times to be acting like a clown.


You've now on at least two occasions failed to respond other than evasively.

I opined on what I thought your political opinions were. You took great umbrage, but you didn't deny that what I said was correct.

No one is acting like a clown. However, you've been exposed for what you obviously are, and you don't like the headlights shining on what that is.

I can't say that I blame you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: micmaz99 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76262 of 90258
Subject: Re: GI Joe Date: 5/27/2008 10:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
" Give it up Timj....some neo-CON folks [read "forever" war mongers] just need to be put on "ignore"...."

Back in the 20th century, we used to call them trolls;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

"Do not feed the trolls"

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement