Lieberman - WTF?

[BVS]

You couldn't name ONE war that wasn't miscalculated.

But could you name one as miscalculated as this one.

I'd normally demand you to, but I wouldn't want to make your head explode.

Wow, you've been back 2 days and already a personal attack, nothing changes with you does it?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I never said time table. In fact if they planned ahead the insurgents wouldn't be a factor. If this war was planned the borders would be guarded before we occupied, therefore we could rebuild without constant terrorist attacks.

But no that would have been too much thinking and planning.

Now that it's year 2006, let's talk 2006.

If you think the withdrawl based on progress and the withdrawl by timetable are both bad policies, then what is YOUR solution?

 

[BVS]

If you think the withdrawl based on progress and the withdrawl by timetable are both bad policies, then what is YOUR solution?

When did I say withdrawl based on progress is a bad policy?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

But could you name one as miscalculated as this one.

Wow, you've gone off the cliff with this one. Let's see, WWII would have been a lot less serious had we turned down our isolationist policies that are being duplicated today by France and Germany - the ultimate oil hags. Vietnam, not necessarily for the time we entered, but how it was fought. We had too many troops on the ground, and we - especially with LBJ - wouldn't throw a bomb if it would've won the war within very few years. With Nixon's would've made the best out of a bad situation, but he turned out to be a two-faced crook who deserved what he got, even though the Vietnamese did not.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

When did I say withdrawl based on progress is a bad policy?

Yeah, I'm surprised people actually consider this a real "plan".

I mean, it's worked so well so far.

I was given the impression that you did.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, for people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, it sure is tragic.

um, did you happen to notice how many civilians have been killed in Iraq over the past 3 months?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

um, did you happen to notice how many civilians have been killed in Iraq over the past 3 months?

And do the figures discount the terrorists who hide among the civilian population?

 

[BVS]

Wow, you've gone off the cliff with this one.

Well I won't get into it, for we're off topic, the point is the issues with Iraq were all foreseeable and ignored...

 

[BVS]

I was given the impression that you did.

Well once again you are clouding two entirely different issues.

Yes pulling out of Iraq, at this point, under a time table would be useless.

But this is NOT a "plan" against terrorism. Terrorism will continue even if a democracy is in place and the Iraqi army is stable.

There is no plan against terrorism right now.

 

[BVS]

Let's get back on topic...

 

[Irvine511]

And do the figures discount the terrorists who hide among the civilian population?

do you know what the figures are?

let's start there, and THEN you can talk about how they're all just terrorists.

i know all arabs look alike.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well once again you are clouding two entirely different issues.

Yes pulling out of Iraq, at this point, under a time table would be useless.

But this is NOT a "plan" against terrorism. Terrorism will continue even if a democracy is in place and the Iraqi army is stable.

There is no plan against terrorism right now.

I don't doubt the continuing existence of terrorism, which is why the Iraqis need a massive military.

However, IRAN, N. KOREA, and other nations that could assist terrorist groups should be monitored with extreme caution. I agree with exhausting every diplomatic solution - although I'm not sure that it will do much to stop what they have in mind. If that's the case, we have to protect the innocent one way or another.

 

[nbcrusader]

Let's get back on topic...

You mean Lieberman??

 

[BVS]

You mean Lieberman??

I think that was it.

 

[deep]

You couldn't name ONE war that wasn't miscalculated. I'd normally demand you to, but I wouldn't want to make your head explode.

Operation Urgent Fury

Ronald Reagan's successful war

 

[Macfistowannabe]

do you know what the figures are?

let's start there, and THEN you can talk about how they're all just terrorists.

i know all arabs look alike.

In other words, you would have no argument other than to accuse Americans of being a bunch of xenophobic bigots.

 

[U2DMfan]

Been drinking?

Actually yeah I was.

That was as obvious sarcasm as I could muster at the time.

Airball!

 

[U2DMfan]

Excuse me, but Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush wants us to believe he did but he and bin Laden have lost no love on each other.

Am I wrong to assume a certain amount of intelligence among posters on FYM? You guys are sharper than this.

It was, what I believe to be patently obvious sarcasm.

Do you all have such a low opinion of my grasp of the situation.

Perhaps I need to take a more 'leftist' stance, then you will know am I 'on board' here at FYM.

That or just a simple misunderstanding.
Really that's all it was, I know.
Never question Bruce Dickinson!

 

[deep]

An American Research Group poll conducted Thursday through Monday said the race was a statistical tie, putting Lieberman's support among 790 likely voters at 44 percent versus 42 percent for Lamont, a political novice and wealthy cable TV executive.

Republican Alan Schlesinger, a former state legislator, had 3 percent. The poll had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Another poll of 500 likely voters by Rasmussen Reports showed Lieberman's lead over Lamont narrowing to two points, 45 percent to 43 percent, from five points in an August 12 poll. Its margin of error was 4.5 percentage points.



Both surveys showed Lamont gaining ground on the three-term senator since a Quinnipiac University poll last week that put Lieberman's lead at 12 percentage points.

 

[BVS]

Actually yeah I was.

That was as obvious sarcasm as I could muster at the time.

Airball!

Well there are posters that DO believe that in here, and you aren't frequent enough in here for me to tell when you're kidding. Sorry...

 

[deep]

now lieberman is for

cut and run?

Lieberman to Consider Iraq Pullout Plan

By SUSAN HAIGH , 08.25.2006, 09:12 PM


Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker's proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.

The proposal was floated by Republican Rep. Chris Shays, another Connecticut politician facing a tough re-election battle with an anti-war candidate. Shays has long been a supporter of the war and previously opposed withdrawal timetables.

"It seems to me that Chris is saying, maybe we ought to set some goals for when we want to get out, and I'd like to see what he has in mind before I comment on it," Lieberman said while campaigning in New Haven.

"As I've said to you over and over again, the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better it's going to be for the Iraqis and us, but if we leave too soon for reasons of American politics, it's going to be disaster for the Iraqis and for us," he said.

the man has no shame

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well there are posters that DO believe that in here, and you aren't frequent enough in here for me to tell when you're kidding. Sorry...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

now lieberman is for

cut and run?



the man has no shame

He would consider "taking a look" at the referendum. That doesn't mean he's automatically defined as a flip-flopping turncoat. As far as I can see it, he has so much going for him as far as support fromconservatives who don't want to elect a Republican who has ethical problems. But if he is following the crooked footsteps of John Kerry, he's making the biggest mistake of his life.

 

[anitram]

He was against the withdrawal before he was for it.

 

[verte76]

Am I wrong to assume a certain amount of intelligence among posters on FYM? You guys are sharper than this.

It was, what I believe to be patently obvious sarcasm.

Do you all have such a low opinion of my grasp of the situation.

Perhaps I need to take a more 'leftist' stance, then you will know am I 'on board' here at FYM.

That or just a simple misunderstanding.
Really that's all it was, I know.
Never question Bruce Dickinson!

I didn't know it was a joke. Sorry.

 

[verte76]

He was against the withdrawal before he was for it.

Yeah, will the real Joe Lieberman stand up?

 

[deep]

Bush Confidant Hosts Lieberman Fundraiser

President Bush "moved a step closer to Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman's re-election bid in Connecticut as an independent candidate when Tom Kuhn, the president's college roommate and close friend, co-sponsored a Lieberman fund-raising luncheon Thursday in downtown Washington," Robert Novak reports.

"The luncheon's sponsors pressed fellow Republican lobbyists to pay a minimum of $1,000 a ticket. Lieberman has announced he will stay in the Democratic caucus if re-elected. But Republicans backing him against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee, hope for a change of heart by Lieberman."

 

[deep]

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."

I really smell a rat here


i would not be surprized,

if at some point in 2007


Leiberman jumped to the GOP caucus

 

[Bluer White]

He would hold more power in Senate committees by remaining a Democrat.

 

[INDY500]

He would hold more power in Senate committees by remaining a Democrat.

Remember, he is now an independent. The Democratic party having turned their back on him during the primaries. Should he decide to caucus with the Republicans in 07 then they would remain the majority party. And they would give him any chairmanship he wanted I'm guessing.