If It Were Me, I'd Take His Commitee Chair, Move Him Into a Tiny Office and Assign Him a New Parking Spot In Anacostia

Joe Lieberman this weekend:

In describing the reasons he believes the Republicans' presumptive nominee for president would be better prepared than the Democrats' to lead the nation next January, Sen. Joe Lieberman said that history shows the United States would likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

So, to recap, Lieberman is actively campaigning for the Republican Presidential candidate using the scare tactics that are most offensive to Democrats.

Lieberman can, of course, say and do whatever he wants. It's a free country. That said, I'm absolutely mystified as to why the Democratic leadership, such as it is, hasn't stripped him of his committee chairmanship and every perk they can think of.

I understand that the Democrats only enjoy their 51-49 majority because Lieberman -- elected as an independent -- caucuses with them. That said, if the Democratic Party would like to be something other than a laughingstock they need to tell old Joe to go pound sand, and they should do it even if it means he switches parties. Seriously: what would it cost them? The majority can't get anything done anyway, since the Republicans filibuster everything they don't like. And with the election just a few months off and little chance Republicans will pick up seats, it seems like knocking Lieberman down a peg or two in the name of party discipline would be just the thing to do.

Will the Democrats do that? Apparently not. Which explains a lot about why Congress's approval rating is lower even than the President's. President Bush at least has a few Republicans who are still with him; the Democrats in Congress, unwilling to stand up for anything, have lost their own base.

Comments

[Frank]

Did you seriously just link their low approval numbers with Lieberman stating historical facts and attempting to draw a conclusion from them?

I mean, I'm sure their low approval numbers have nothing at all to do with the fact that they are all nothing more than a bunch of stuffed shirts, full of their own importance who push pet projects instead of actually doing what they were elected to do. You know, look out for the welfare of this country.

I will make my own prediction. The first party that gets off its collective ass and does the following things will enjoy the highest approval numbers in decades.

1. Stop playing politics with the war and start acting like they want to win.
2. Drill here. Drill Now.
3. Build the damn fence that they approved without ever planning on doing anything about. And start enforcing immigration laws. Don't bother with new laws, just start actually enforcing laws that are on the book. You know, like they promised they would 20+ years ago with the last amnesty fiasco.

[Frank]

One more thought..

..the Democrats in Congress, unwilling to stand up for anything, have lost their own base.

It seems you forgot one Democrat in the equation.. Joe Lieberman. He has been standing up for what he believes and you see what it got him. The Democrats did everything they could to defeat one of their own, because most of the rest of them don't know how to stand up for anything other than getting their sorry asses back into their congressional seats for another term.

[Tom]

Joe Lieberman may be standing up for what he believes in. He's just not standing up for what Democrats believe in. That's why he lost his primary battle.

[Frank]

And Democrats aren't standing up for America, which is why he won the election.

[Tom]

"Supporting America" in your mind being the same thing as blindly supporting whatever the sitting President wants, even if it guarantees further war in both Iraq and Iran? "Supporting America" meaning going along with a policy of military force in every circumstance? "Supporting America" meaning that, here in America, dissent is treason.

Screw you, Frank. I've never been more pissed at something someone wrote in a comment before. More than 60% of Americans want out of this war by the end of the year, and yet you somehow imagine that your ridiculous, crabbed, minority point-of-view is the only one that supports this country.

Seriously: it is simply not possible for anyone with any understanding of what this country is to take the point of view you have. Disagreement is fundamental, and it's entirely reasonable to believe that this war is a boondoggle. We went into it under false pretenses, the Administration screwed up the first four years of it, and what we're left with now is a Hobson's choice of bad options. Your man McCain advocates a hundred year occupation that reasonable people disagree on.

And you pull out "not supporting America" for more than half of the country?

That's piggish Frank. There are people on this blog I expect that from. You weren't one of them.

[Frank]

I never said blindly supporting the President. Supporting America and supporting the President are two separate things entirely. I complained about the President's handling of the war for several years, especially the number of troops sent in and the rules of engagement that left our troops hamstrung for most of the fight. The Democrat's solution during that entire time was to withdraw the troops. Now that we have the surge and are doing the job properly and winning the war, the Democrat's new song and dance is that we are now doing so well in Iraq that there is no reason to keep the troops there, so we should bring the home immediately. That is what I mean by supporting American. Elected Representatives doing what we pay them to do, which is to act in the best interest of our country and our national security. I haven't seen much of that from anyone in Congress for too many years. I don't much care for most of Lieberman's positions on domestic issues, but as far as the war is concerned, he is dead on right.

And since when did what the majority of Americans want ever sway congress? Most Americans want us to start drilling in America right now, but I don't see any Democrats rushing out to sponsor that bill. Most Americans do not support gay marriage, and have voted it down in many states. But since that doesn't fit with the agenda of the Democrat party, they use activist judges to implement policy that they can't get through the actual legislative bodies.

So yes, I stand by what I said about Democrat leadership, and a large percentage of Republicans in congress as well. They are all more interest in how many pork dollars they can bring back to their states, and how many fringe special interests groups they can appease rather than allowing the Commander in Chief to do his job and successfully direct this war, which we are winning. And winning decisively.

[Frank]

And I really cannot believe you pulled out the tired old line about the 100 year occupation. You as well as anyone should know that is not what he said nor what he meant. But you are so eager to swallow whatever bullshit that Obama throws at you that you actually say that like it means something.

Troops in Iraq for 100 years does NOT equal occupation. We have had troops all over Europe and the Pacific since WWII, but no one is calling them occupiers. We have bases in Kuwait, Oman, Turkey, etc., but no one is calling them occupiers. Bases in Iraq means the same thing it means everywhere else; having a strategic foothold which allows us to better respond to other threats in the ares, like Iran, Syria, Lybia, etc., etc.

[Tom]

The point is that good people can disagree in good faith. Except, you know, when one is a Republican and one is a Democrat, in which case the Democrat is unpatriotic, "not standing up for" our country.

Can you see how offensive that is to me, Frank? Do you understand why I'm so mad I can barely type?

I want out of Iraq. I think a Japan-style occupation of Iraq is a dangerous course for this country, guaranteeing another war 5 or 10 years in the future and pushing Iran toward belligerence. I may be wrong. Do you think I'm not supportive of this country Frank?

[Frank]

No, actually I think you are very patriotic and of the liberals I know, on and offline, one of the biggest supporters of our military.

Disagreeing about the war, or the strategy, is fine. Debates can be had, facts laid out, and plans taken. What makes me so mad I can barely type is that that the Democratic leadership (and please understand that everything I have been saying is about the D.C. types, leaders of both parties. They very rarely have any resemblance to normal Americans at all) claims to support our troops, but then they appear in rallies with the same fucked up people who carry signs that say things like, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers." or a prominent Democrat claims that McCain is unfit to serve as Commander in Chief because he was in the military and is therefor a "trained killer". These are the people that don't give a rat's ass about this country or what happens to it.

The ability to disagree with a policy is what makes this country great. Debating taxes, or health care, or any of a long list of things is a good thing, and healthy for everyone involved. It makes you examine why you believe what you believe and listen to an opposing viewpoint. Although most people aren't really listening as much as they are just waiting on their turn to speak.

Debating the war is not a bad thing. The President mishandled this war for a number of years, and needed to be called out on it. He finally listened and Iraq is a much different story now.

However, debating the war and deliberately undermining our President and our military is and should be treated as, treason. The editors of the New York Times ought to be run out of town on a rail. Anyone in the administration that leaks classified documents that spell out exactly what we're doing to fight this war ought to be tarred and feathered. People like Jack Murtha, who served his country faithfully, who call our soldiers and Marines murderers on international television without so much as a fraction of a clue as to what actually happened ought to be stripped of their powers, kicked out of office, and made to personally visit every one of those Marines and beg their forgiveness for ruining their reputations, their careers and smearning them before the entire world.

It's people like that who don't achieve anything except emboldening our enemies. Having a debate about how to fight the war and how best to exit is one thing; declaring the war un-winable, or worst, lost, and then never again allowing anything to change your mind, even the fact that we are winning and achieving the goals we set out for this country, is unforgiveable.

That is why I say they don't support America. Obama has placed more restrictions on when and how he will meet with Gen. Petraeus then he has on how he would meet with leaders of countries that have declared that they want nothing more than to see us destroyed. How is anyone in the military supposed to feel supported by someone who visited the country once, has refused to meet with the generals who are commanding this war, and regularly makes statements about surrender?

60% of the country wants the war to end? I would think it was much higher than that. Hell, I want the war to end. In my perfect world there would never be another war, anywhere. What I would like to see is a poll where they actually ask HOW do you want this war to end? Do you think we should give up where we are right now, abandon the Iraqis and bring our soldiers home to be "safe" (like the drum the Democrats constantly drum), or do you think we should allow the soldiers to do their jobs, give them everything they could possibly need for the successful completion of their job, and allow them to leave in victory?

I'm sure you're probably right, having a base in Iraq may lead to future wars. But future wars are going to come whether we have bases in Iraq or not. That area of the world, left to its own devices, is going to remain a battleground for another 1000 years. And they will continue to try to destroy Israel, retake Spain, and bring about the caliphate to usher in the end of the world. I don't say this because I fear them or what they might do, I say it because it is what they say they want to do. And they are a very patient enemy. Hell, they're still pissed off about the Crusade's, but we can't even get people to remember the horror they felt 7 years ago.

This war will not end for a very long time. There may or may not be peace in Iraq, but whether we withdraw from Iraq or not, there are still millions of Islamo-fascists in Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and dozens of other countries who want nothing more than to impose Shari'a law on the entire world. And not only are they not afraid to die for that cause, they hope to die for it.

[Tom]

Frank, I've never heard any of the things you've used to form your opinion of Democrats. I need you to document this:

...they appear in rallies with the same fucked up people who carry signs that say things like, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers." or a prominent Democrat claims that McCain is unfit to serve as Commander in Chief because he was in the military and is therefor a "trained killer".

I've spent the last half hour Googling and haven't found anything like that coming from anyone except some radical bloggers, protesters and one unsuccessful filmmaker. You generalize it to be something pervasive in the Democratic Party. I call bullshit. Document it, because I think it's conservative urban myth. (The McCain is off his rocker thing started, by the way, with the Bush campaign in South Carolina during the 2000 election.) Don't believe everything you read in forwarded emails.

As for the New York Times, I believe that exposing illegal activities by the government is one of the primary reasons we have a free press. I prefer government constrained by the law; here and in the past you've made the case that you prefer an Executive Branch empowered to do whatever it likes, so long as it sprinkles the magic fairy dust of "terrorism" on its actions. We're going to have to disagree about that, but I would suggest that you study the governments in the world that charge journalists with treason and let me know how you feel in that company. It's not an admirable group. I, personally, would not want this country to be like those. You, apparently, would.

Finally, there's not one serious Democratic politician who advocates bringing the troops home "right away." (I don't consider Dennis Kucinich serious.) Obama has talked in terms of 16 months, and even that is negotiable based on facts on the ground.

The point of all this is not that you're going to be convinced. You're not. The point is that maybe you'll understand that, in a free society, disagreement doesn't constitute not supporting your country. The Presidents point of view, John McCain's point of view, even my point of view aren't synonymous with patriotism. You impugn the patriotism of more than half the population in the strongest possible terms. You advocate that government try journalists for treason because they expose government law-breaking. In the past, you've argued in favor of torture and the president's power to imprison American citizens without legal recourse.

Just out of curiosity there, Frank, is that really the country you think we ought to be?

[Squidley]

A point of clarification:

We most definitely did NOT go into Iraq under false pretenses. The evidence has consistently shown that everyone believed, based on credible evidence and his history of possession and use, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Add to that his repeated failure to comply with the conditions imposed on him, and you have a very good case for invading. Despite the lies spread by the left, there is no basis for the assertion that we went in on "false pretenses."

Whether or not invading Iraq was the best choice, and the success of the invasion and occupation are different topics. I agree that due to Rumsfeld's massive incompetence and Bush's lack of leadership or vision, we are left with "a Hobson's choice of bad options."

Another clarification: homosexual "marriage" has been voted down in every state and legislature where it has come up for a vote. It is only by judicial (e.g., California) or executive (i.e., New York) fiat that it exists anywhere. Homosexual "marriage" is being crammed down our unwilling throats in a manner not consistent with either democratic or republican forms of government: it is imposed on us autocratically. If that's not un-American, I don't know what is.

Finally, there is a difference between loyal opposition and treason. Just because the latter appears in a newspaper doesn't make it any less treasonous, and the New York Times is the paper of record for anti-Americanism. I won't argue the point myself, but I believe the case could be made that some of the articles that have appeared in Pravda on the Hudson are treasonous.

[Wally]

McCain' complete "100 years" statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

No splicing, no editing. When asked about Bush's statement that we may be in Iraq 50 years, McCain interrupts with "make it 100." He clarifies with the concept that this would be a peaceful occupation with no Americans dying but (and here I depart from McCain's statement)that implies that we will definitely stay until that peaceful state exists. That could well take 50 years. I know if I believed that America was being occupied by a foreign military power I would make a lifelong commitment to freeing our country. Rightly or wrongly, that is what many of the insurgents believe they are doing.