President Bush's conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy is giving the country good reason to question his leadership. . . . The President's failure to plan adequately for post-war Iraq, unwillingness to accept responsibility for the misleading use of intelligence in the State of the Union address, and ongoing failure to learn critical homeland security lessons from September 11th risk setting America back.
. . . "By its actions, the Bush Administration threatens to give a just war a bad name."
The same guy who said this in December 2005:
"We do have a strategy," he said. "We do have a plan. I saw a strategy that's being implemented."
It is the same guy who is now saying this:
"This shouldn't be about one issue or about name calling ... angry name calling. I don't think the public wants that."
Yes that is the lying hypocrite Joe Lieberman. Not only is Lieberman supremely stupid - anyone who has said what he has about Iraq NOW can only be described in that way (not even Sully is that stupid), he is a a craven political opportunist who, when he was running for President, was willing to lie about his views on the Bush Administration's conduct of the war - saying Bush "gave a just war a bad name." For him to lie about his views on the war for political gain, in light of his moralizing sanctimony, is truly despicable.
Remember what he said about folks opposed to the war?
"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."Joe McCarthy could not have done it better. Here's what I say to you Lieberman:
FUCK YOU you slimy piece of shit McCarthyite lying creep. You political opportunist sellout bastard. You have no values. You have no honor. You are the worst of the worst.
History has judged you. You are not only a failure. You are a disgrace.
More on the flip.
Joe Lieberman has never asked tough questions of President Bush through any of these phases. He has failed his constituents and his nation.
He has never provided the critical and independent thinking that might have saved our nation from - or at least mitigated - this great foreign policy debacle, a point Zbigniew Brzezinski insightfully raised yesterday:
What troubles me the most is not that which that I have criticized, but that which hasn't happened. That is to say: a serious and comprehensive Democratic challenge on this subject. Democratic leaders have been silent or evasive. They have not offered an alternative to the war in Iraq. It's easy to criticize - that was the first part of my speech. That is easy to do, although some of us did it sooner than others
But they haven't offered an alternative. Also they have not seriously challenged the view of the world that is being propagated from the top. At a time of a deepening and widening crisis in Iraq, and a widening gap between America and the world, that to me is a form of political desertion.
Joe Lieberman, a neoconservative in the most accurate sense of the word, has made such a challenge all but impossible. To use Brzenzinski's words, he has led the charge of "political desertion" on national security.
Joe is a senator who likes to call himself "independent-minded." But when it counted most, in a matter of war and peace, in a matter of national security, in a matter of the most significant strategic importance for our nation in decades, Joe Lieberman has been exactly the opposite - a cowed, uncritical, rubber-stamp supporter of a failed policy.
Joe Lieberman has failed his country for three years straight, and worse, shows absolutely no signs of changing, even while many Republicans already have. As Harry Reid has said, "Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he's just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."
In many ways, it's three years too late to be having a debate on this. But better today than three years from now - three more years of mindlessly defending incompetence.