Saturday, July 08, 2006

Lieberman should be purged from the party

* cbs:
" the FBI admitted that two people working for the agency planted the idea of blowing up government buildings, including and FBI office in Miami, with members of an alleged South Florida terror group known as the Liberty City 7."

* clemons:
"While I have respected Lieberman's work and advocacy for a serious national technology policy and for progressive work on gay rights and civil rights, his support for the expansion of a significant challenge from Osama bin Laden into a crusade in the Middle East and war against Iraq calls for serious electoral consequences.

Lieberman has helped empower the course that we took and has not stepped back from his support of Bush on the Iraq War -- which has threatened America's global standing as well as moral and military credibility. Our security has now become more complex and our options in the future more limited.

Opposing Lieberman has nothing to do with being "anti-war", it has everything to do with being "anti-Iraq War" and trying to prevent the same kind of dangerous calculus from being followed in the future. If Lieberman helps empower thinking so potentially dangerous to American national security interests, he should be purged from the party."

* don in the comments:
" Todays "G-Dub WTF Moment" brought to you by Larry King, Editor & Publisher, and the letter "Q":
Asked why the U.S. faced so many problems in the world, Bush said, "The reasons there are problems is because we confronted them.""
(Kathleen in the comments: "Does that make him the Problemator? ")

* damien in the comments:
" btw if you want test your 9/11 knowledge and enjoy some whimsy you can try this."

9 comments:

Kathleen said...

That's the truest thing Dopey has ever said. In other words, there are problems because he failed to solve them, not to mention those he created.

Does that make him the Problemator? Let's not misunderestimate him, now.

oldschool said...

the FBI admitted that two people working for the agency planted the idea of blowing up government buildings, including an FBI office in Miami...



oh fer chrissakes. I believe I mentioned the word "entrapment" a week or so ago?

today's disclaimer: I obviously have no qualms whatsoever about pointing out the glaringly obvious.

lukery said...

kathleen - 'Problemator' is hysterical (post updated)

oldschool - yeah - i think it was widely presumed/understood to be the case. in normal times you'd think A) they wouldnt be so stupid to put that idea in anyone's head, and B) that they agents would let this fact be known to their superiors before the story went headlining around the world.

Anonymous said...

The question I believe that we should be asking is not just whether Democrats are anti-Iraq war but whether or not they support the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

- Jiminy Cricket

lukery said...

Jiminy - 'no american president takes any options off the table blah blah' - good point though. who'd be strong enough to come out and say that? my guess, only gore and feingold.

incidentally, the last few days i've been imagining the 09 inauguration speech - which hopefully will have a richardclarke/911comm moment. "Dear world, we are really sorry"

Kathleen said...

Anonymous;

I agree. I am opposed to war resolutions because the President has the authority to use force in a clear and present danger.

Congress on the other hand has the responsiblity of delcaring war, presumably in the absence of a clear and present danger, ie pre-emptively.

I think the war resolution is a way for both branches to straddle the issue and not go on record for delcaring war, while allowing the president to invent a present danger.

I think a very good question for each of us to ask our candidates is "Do you support pre-emptive war?. Maybe then we'll know what to expect.

How do Christians square throwing the first stone with their faith?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, asking a candidate that question would certainly cut to the chase!

What would be interesting would be to follow up that question of whether they would support the idea of other countries following our lead on the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

I swear I would pay to see those two questions asked.

- Jiminy Cricket

lukery said...

JC - good point

"I swear I would pay to see those two questions asked."

i imagine there are many such studies over the past 3 years around the world

Kathleen said...

I'll ask my candidates for Congress and Senate those questions. How about everyone else doing it as well?