Lieberman proves to be the political whore he is. Wants MORE troops in Iraq!!

[Roland99]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/12/mccain-iraq-troops/


Fuck off, Joe!!

[MichiganVote]

1. People in Ct. will regret voting for him the same way Repub's regret Bush

[Thickasabrick]

3. He was the republican candidate. Republican money funded his

campaign. As far as I'm concerned, the dems lost that seat to a republican.

[Roland99]

5. No doubt. I can't believe *anyone* would support MORE US death in Iraq

[Skidmore]

14. Republicans in Connecticut voted for him.

Russert had the stats this morning on it. The people who voted for Lieberman were overwhelmingly Republican.

[MichiganVote]

17. And, altho' its questionable, repub's are assumed to be people

[last1standing]

2. I want a pony for Christmas.

I think we're both going to be disappointed. :(

[Pithy Cherub]

9. Traitor Joe is counting on his fellow republicans

to vote in lockstep with his demented views of reality. They won't. Hagel - of all people - is closer to the Dems points on withdrawal from Iraq. Collins and Snowe from the northeast got the message. Holy Joe is blowing smoke and Reid should slap him down. Holy Joementum has over estimated his power, again. Who's to say a republican wouldn't turn around and make Joe have done it all for nothing. Sanctimonious Joe's not that smart - he's a republican.

[Nite Owl]

4. So HIS kids are going to

sign up?

Didn't think so. What was CT thinking reelecting him? They missed a chance to elect a great Senator and got this dangerous embarrassment instead.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Ian David]

7. How about all those College Republickers that volunteered for LIEberman's campaign? n/t

[Mr_Spock]

8. I STILL hate LIEberman

scum-sucking pig - I wish we could afford to cut him loose :(

[catmandu57]

10. He's irrelevant

We have a democratic majority, let him whine with the minority reptiles now they deserve each other.

[Roland99]

15. No, we don't have a majority. It's 49-49-2.

If there was a pure party-line vote and assuming Sanders sticks with the Dems, Lieberman could very well vote with the Repubs and cause a 50-50 tie which would then bring in DICK to cast the tie! Gee...wonder how *that* would go?!

[PADemD]

18. There's another Senate election in two years...

another chance to really make Joe a minority.

[focusfan]

11. congress should let what Joe says

go in one ear and out they other.:dilemma: 

[Bucky]

12. It's not being "a whore". Hookers don't escalate violence. The biggest blunder in Iraq was too few

troops in the field. Well the second biggest. The biggest blunder was going in there in the first place. But Lieberman is being consistant. So he's wrong, but not flipflopping on an issue.

Actually in 1998 or 99 the Pentagon ran a war games study (only recently declassified) of what a regime-change invasion of Iraq would work like. The game simulated going into Iraq with 400,000 troops and presupposed cooperation and support from some neighboring countries. They found that the result would be chaos, sectarian violence, increased terrorism, rampant looting, and a general destablization of the region. That was with almost three times the number of troops Bush & Rummy sent in.

Understaffing the occupation has made the problems worse than they might've been; but it didn't cause the problems.

[Hubert Flottz]

13. I think that I by his name stands for something else in Joe's case!

[applegrove]

16. Dems may agree to that for a bit. We never had enough troops in Iraq.

Rummy tore up the long-standing battle plans of the generals and negotiated them down, down, down from 500,000 to just over 200,000. It may be that to secure the border and find all the leaders of factions..to get them to the table..that more troops are needed for a bit. Even Murtha (I think) has said it is a possibility.

Job was not done with the right numbers of troops to begin with. Seems neocons wanted a very slow war. IF a big quick one means the troops can come home, then I'm all for it. So that those poor Iraqis have a chance, perhaps a few peace treaties when they are left to their own devices.

After all - the worst case scenario would be if US troops were redeployed and then had to go back in a year.

[SwingVoter2006]

19. Speaking as an Army Reservist

A temporary increase in troops might be the only way to stabilize things enough for us to withdraw without the entire country falling to shreds. If a temporary increase in troops means we a) get out faster and b) increase the likelyhood that the Iraqi elected government doesn't collapse in anarchy, then I think it's a good move. And yes, I won't mind deploying to support this kind of pre-withdrawal operation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Sacrificing many to save a few politicians reputations.

The military likes to say that it sometimes necessary to "sacrifice few to save many". A neat idea...if you aren't one of the "few".

Joe would have us sacrifice many more GIs and even more Iraqis so that BushCo and his supporters could have a "victory".

How easily they play with people's lives.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. I say we send Joe himself to Iraq

With only the same supplies the average troop got. We'll see how far he gets.

:)