Well, Joe Lieberman now faces a decision, after .his primary defeat by Ned Lamont. The story in the Washington Post makes a point I find interesting.
HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 — In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent’s support for the Iraq war.
Actually, that’s not entirely correct. Lamont did run largely on Lieberman’s support for toppling Saddam Hussein, but that’s not Lamont’s entire bag of tricks.
See, what Lamont really has been advocating is a complete withdrawal from confronting terrorists and dictators with anything but the occasional sharply-worded statement. Lamont believes, a couple centuries of history to the contrary, that we can negotiate with every enemy we now have and will ever have and that our answers will always be found in talking. Unfortunately, Joe Lieberman spent more time defending himself from the racist and homophobic attacks of Lamont supporters like Jane Hamsher and the posters of the Daily Kos to point out to the voters how ridiculous Lamont’s belief really is.
But he’ll get that chance if he does follow-through and runs as an independent. I’m not quite sure how I feel about that move, particularly, but it does strike me as an astute strategic move. Lamont is wealthy, but burned through a lot of that wealth running his primary campaign. Lieberman still has funds and the vaunted netroots haven’t raised the sort of cash they’ve promised, so Lamont could be in spending trouble come the early fall, when advertising matters the most.
I hope that Lieberman runs and wins, regardless of the damage that does to him inside the Democratic Party. He still seems very much a man of principle and character and we need more of those men in the Senate, regardless of their party affiliation (or lack thereof).
UPDATE: Heretik has a dofferent look at things this morning and, since I’m feeling in a good mood, I’ll give him his airing:
Keep an eye out for how many times you see “wild eyed” extremists as a description of the crazy types who can’t take the same old BS anymore. The same old BS actually only has a vintage since 2000 and the election of George Bush. Bang the ho hum drum slowly.The big news is the rise of The Mad Middle TM.
The Mad Middle, huh? I’m assuming that Heretik believes the “middle” endorses racism, homophobia, and the stench of anti-Semitism splattered throughout its campaigns. I’m not sure that’s true at all, but we’ll see come November just how “middle” this alleged “middle” really is.
One thing is worth remembering. It’s easy to sell crazy in an asylum.
UPDATE 2: Heretik’s “middle” doesn’t appear to be all that “middle”, given this post. My bet is that the center of the Democratic Party is more Brendan Loy and less Heretik
You may feel that lying about Ned Lamont’s positions is the way to make your point, but it’s not.
Then again, it’s not like lying has ever heart anybody on the right side of the blog-o-sphere.
Ah, I see. Withdrawal from Iraq is a bad thing because it stops us from fighting terrorism. In Iraq. In Iraq’s civil war. In Iraq’s civil war that was set off by our invasion. In Iraq’s civil war that was set off by our invasion to rid the Iraq of WMDs. In Iraq’s civil war that was set off by our invasion to rid the Iraq of WMDs that we cannot find. In Iraq’s civil war that was set off by our invasion to rid the Iraq of WMDs that we cannot find and to fight Al Quaeda that came after we arrived. In Iraq’s civil war that was set off by our invasion to rid the Iraq of WMDs that we cannot find and to fight Al Quaeda that came after we arrived with our troops that we sent to Iraq. In Iraq’s civil war that was set off by our invasion to rid the Iraq of WMDs that we cannot find and to fight Al Quaeda that came after we arrived with our troops that we sent to Iraq to ride Iraq of WMDs. . . see where this is going?
Yeah, that’s working real well.
BTW, the majority of Americans, patriots all, want us out of Iraq. And they’re right: why should the United States make its withdrawal contingent upon the Iraqi government? If I were them I’d use our troops indefinitely; why not what with Bush giving away the farm?
Bryant, your accusation might have the teeniest amount of credibility if Ned Lamont didn’t say we are stronger when we “negotiate with our enemies”? But he did and you’re just here to spread the disinformation. Sorry, come back again when you have something to say about the real world.
PT – I wish I had some idea what you were trying to say, but you seem to be living up to your name pretty well.
Meet Joe Lieberman’s Worst Nightmare
Liberal bloggers jumped on Ned Lamont’s bandwagon before he even owned one. Now the anti-war crusade
Think back, oh, six short years ago, when out of the very Piece of Filth Who Stole the White House declared that “nation building” was not the responsibility of our nation.
Amazing how the kool-aid drinkers can shape-shift to cover the a$$ of that little Piece of Filth.
[...] Keep an eye out for how many times you see “wild eyed” extremists as a description of the crazy types who can’t take the same old BS anymore. The same old BS actually only has a vintage since 2000 and the election of George Bush. Bang the ho hum drum slowly.The big news is the rise of The Mad Middle TM. Oh, no. All the incumbents looked screwed. The Dems are screwed too. Or something. Look for Republicans to repeat the chant that everyone is in trouble. But somehow the party in charge is not in that much trouble. How much more different could this be from 2002? The one constant is Lieberman: The Lieberman for Lieberman Party is as strong as it ever was, putting principle Lieberman above everything. [...]
Yeah, Tommo, because absolutely nothing happened between 2000 and now to change how responsible adults look at the world. Nothing at all, right?
How hard do you have to squint to overlook a few thousand corpses, anyhow?
Dude, you are nuts. You demonstrate an astounding disdain for understanding the complexities of our geopolitical situation, opting for a dangerously simplistic analysis. “a complete withdrawal from confronting terrorists and dictators”? Our current (insane) foreign policy eschews diplomacy for threats and violence, actually reducing our ability to confront dictators and terrorists in a constructive fashion. Lamont realizes that we need to treat the rest of the world with respect, and so don’t the voters of Connecticut.
And a “man of principle and character” would not run in an election and upon losing declare that he won’t abide the people’s choice. A “man of principle and character” abandons his party when he sees that his party is wrong (jim Jeffords), not when he loses an election. Joe Lieberman officially abandoned the party when he decided to go Indy.
I read your flimsy link to the unbiased National Review.
Please explain to me how:
“Our nation is stronger when we work with our friends and negotiate with our enemies.”
became….
“Lamont believes, a couple centuries of history to the contrary, that we can negotiate with every enemy we now have and will ever have and that our answers will always be found in talking.”
So are you saying we should attack Iran, North Korea, Syria?
Should Ronald Regan have attacked Russia?
Everyone is in agreement Al Quaeda and Bin Ladden are America’s enemy and yet our Republican controlled goverment is spending a less and less energy, money and time fighting that threat.
Aghast, you are kidding, right? I’m going to assume that this is the only post of mine you’ve ever read because there is no way at all you could have read more and still say that my analysis is “simplistic”.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that I understand our geopolitical situation more than Ned Lamont. Then again, I’d bet the average 12 year old does, too.
Why does every republican blame Democrats for being “soft” on fighting terrorists? It’s getting real old. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch; Bush lied about the reasons to go to Iraq; Bush would rather send troops rather then negotiate with Iran. How many more soldiers need to be killed before you say is enough is enough?
So Lamont feels we should solve our issues by diplomacy…if that can prevent a war and American lives, then every American should support this method of talk first, action later.
The joke about this whole Lierberman issue, is that the we are going to war with Iraq (and most likley Iran) to “bring Democracy” to thes countries according to Bush, yet Joe is telling Connecticut citizens (of which I used to be one) that screw Democracy, you didn’t vote for me, so I’m just going to switch teams and run in November anyway. Shouldn’t we be sending troops into Connecticut to stop him so that the people of CT’s vote count?
The Democratic tidal wave is coming, and the chicken hawks haven’t even rolled up their pant cuffs.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that I understand our geopolitical situation more than Ned Lamont. Then again, I’d bet the average 12 year old does, too.
Comment by Jimmie — August 09, 2006 @ 10:03 am
LOL!!! Do you eat fruit-filled or plain.
Anyone who supported bush boy on his Iraqi Oil War automatically has no clue or claim to geopolitical knowledge… You are funny, though.
“you mean there’s 2 kinds of Iraqis???”
-GWB
Lars – Before you haul out the pastries, you might want to provide some sort of proof that Lamont knows ore than me. His quotes demonstrate the opposite.
Oh yeah, “No blood for oil”. Seems you have about the same level of understanding that Lamont does. You do know the quote you used wasn’t actually uttered by the President and is debunked by his use of the Shia/Sunni distinction in speeches years before the alleged quote, right?
(Actually, let me correct the last statement. There’s no proof that the President uttered the statement beyond one man’s hearsay. We wouldn’t want to deal in unsubstantiated rumor, as opposed, say, to the words of a half-dozen nations’ intelligence communities, now would we?)
Jimmie,
Let our soldiers fight in real wars against our real enemies who were out to get us. Clue: It wasn’t Iraq.
Go out and buy a Hummer if you want to feel all strong and manly.
The life you save might just be an American soldier.
Robert. Gotcha…Saddam no threat. Wasn’t paying off terrorists. Wasn’t shooting at our war planes every day. Didn’t violate the cease-fire. Didn’t shelter terrorists who had attacked America (like, say, in the first WTC bombing, or some guy named Abu Nidal).
Man, you parrot good!
Lamont didn’t run on Lieberman’s pro-War position.
Lamont ran against Lieberman’s position attacking and weakening his own party, for daring to question or criticize a Republican president. The Iraq war was part of this, but so also was Lieberman’s shafting his own party on piratizing Social Security, not filibustering Alito, etc. etc.
This is why Lieberman was in danger, and Hillary Clinton is not. Hillary Clinton voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq – but since then has dared to do what the Republican congress has not: actually ask critical questions of the President and his administration.
So, Jimmie – where are those WMD’s?
It was a good idea to leave Afghanistan unfinished, to go get those WMD’s that were threatening us right away.
Sure was a good thing, because the Taliban was completely eliminated and will never come back now, and everything is completely ok in Afghanistan.
Not.
Well, Jim, you could start here, or here, or here, or here or possibly here. You could also ask the Jordanians where in Syria (a country without an appreciable chemical weapons program) a would-be mass murderer might have gotten enough chemical weapons precursors to kill about 80,000 people in Amman.
There are a few links in this post to various WMDs found in Iraq.
I’m sure you recall that all of these weapons were forbidden to Hussein and that he was obliged to reveal the existence of all these weapons by unanimous vote of the UN Security Council and that he revealed none of them.
A future note to any commentors here. I’m not going to even bother responding to your posts unless you ask serious questions or make a point that’s a bit less flimsy than a used Kleenex.
That shouldn’t be too hard, should it?
[...] Like cornered animals: See, what Lamont really has been advocating is a complete withdrawal from confronting terrorists and dictators with anything but the occasional sharply-worded statement. [...]
Well, um, what about the complete lie?
“See, what Lamont really has been advocating is a complete withdrawal from confronting terrorists and dictators with anything but the occasional sharply-worded statement.”
I mean, you did know Lamont supported the Afghanistan campaign, so…what’s up? Why is it nearly impossible for somebody on the right to get ten words out without completely lying through their teeth about something?
Do you *ever* wonder if that gambit will backfire? Or has the truth been so long lost that you’d have to untell a thousand lies to get back to it?
Okay, Jeromy, let’s take a look at Lamont’s web site, okay? Let’s see what issues he finds important.
Do you see the words “national security” anywhere there? How about the words “terror” or “terrorism”? No?
Ah…maybe it’s hidden behind that “Situation in the Middle East” link. Let’s see what he has to say there.
Oh, so Lamont’s helpful advice only beging after the fighting stops, does it? Well, that’s something I couldn’t possibly consider “complete withdrawal from confronting terrorists”, could I?
How about that little bit about not negotiating with Hamas, but negotiating with the Palestinians? Does Lamont not realize that Hamas is the majority party that controls the Palestinian Authority and there’s no way to negotate with the Palestinians without dealing with Hamas? That would be why the President has cut off negotiations with the PA and has sent his message directly to the Palestinian people – because the PA is run by an international terrorist organization whose sworn aims are to destroy Israel and America. I would expect a candidate for the US Senate to know something like that. Lamont, clearly, does not.
And who, exactly, are these “others who might help”? Does Lamont have some sort of magic pixies in mind here? The “others” who are actively engaged in the region right now are Iran and Syria, who openly fund Hezbollah (you remember those guys? Khobar Towers and all?) and France (which has given plenty of cover to Iran’s Mad Mullahs and their open declarations of destruction for Israel).
So where’s the truth, Jeromy? Where’s Lamont’s brave stand toward fighitng terrorists instead of some confused blather about peace accords that we’ll negotiate with the PA without negotiating with the group that runs the PA but only “after the fighting stops”?
I posted this today at MoveOn:
oops:
So, let”s see. An organization that purportedly wants to return power back to the people, in league with Daily Kos, etc., has hitched its wagon to an ulta wealthy Exeter WASP opportunist and, in the process, trod all over a decent man because it disagrees with him on one issue, albeit a very important one. Whither nuance and the once “vital center”? Now, we have the rogues on the right, who I abhor, facing down the naive but very Rove-like “We’ll show you not to support the war!”, beat-a-Democrat-in-the-primary-at-any-cost MoveOn folks. Wonderful. What now? Having handed all political momentum back to your opponents, while tolerating vile anti-senitic rants on your various websites, what exactly comes next. Feeling pretty muscular, I bet. Bravo!
As I said yesterday, you have driven me completely out of the party, which now seems to have room only for “disaffected” naifs with no ability to manage what they have wrought. Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, compromising, and groping, sometimes despairingly, for that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY “vital center”. Rushing to either extreme while ranting and insulting has been tried by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Absurd absolutism from either extreme looks the same when all is said and done.
There must be a third way. The world will not survive unless common sense moves the two extremes towards one another. So, in your delirium, pause and ponder where you are headed, if you can. You strut about as though you have accomplished something, when all you have done is tear things to pieces in a directionless frenzy.
If you on the lunar left could find some way to plant your flag nearer the middle, which would give you a footing to bring your opposites also back to that same middle, then all is lost. For now, I guess I am left with Kinky Friedman and the waning hope that you will learn to lead and not lock arms in a parody of some childhood game.
- Will Hough, Educator (August 10, 2006; West Wareham, MA)
Will, something tells me you won’t be invited to the mext MoveOn soiree.
[...] Let’s go back and ask the same question commentor Joe D asked on one of my earlier threads. Why does every republican blame Democrats for being “soft” on fighting terrorists? [...]
“…That would be why the President has cut off negotiations with the PA and has sent his message directly to the Palestinian people…”
Lamont:
“Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush and the Secretary of State ought to be working on a peace settlement with Israel, the Palestinians and others who might help.”
Spot the difference, Jimmie? Strange how it’s “just harsh words” when Lamont says it, but you immediately pivot and laud Bush for doing it. And that’s supposed to prove Lamont really just wants to shake hands with terrorists?
Here’s another theory: you guys don’t have a leg to stand on, so you’re manically fabricating as fast as you can before November.
As for the “Democrat” who thinks that you’re either as gung-ho and blind about the war as Joe Lieberman and George Bush or you’re “far left,” sounds like you’ve been drinking way too much Kool-Aid. In truth, they are the radicals and Ned Lamont represents the views of the majority of the American people. In truth, conservative Democrats are welcome in the party as long as they can restrain themselves from running over to the Republicans and tearing down the Democrats every chance they get.
Joe Lieberman was out there for himself, and the fallout from this primary loss has proven *every* single thing Democrats for Lamont said about Lieberman. What better proof do you need than the fact that Rove has already offered Lieberman a hand, Ken Mehlman won’t endorse the Republican candidate in Connecticut, and every true believer neocon radical rightwinger has come out full steam in support of Lieberman?
Sorry, guys, but you don’t have a single goddamn round in the chamber. You overlook that you just tossed out a moderate Republican for another mouth-breathing Bush fanatic, and that the Democrats also tossed out crazy ass Cynthia McKinney.
Some will fall for this narrative, because somehow somebody still trusts Republicans without triple-fact checking every word that comes out of their mouth.
Just harsh words? You know damn well you’re talking about Iraq and Iraq alone. You still think Iraq was the proper response to 9/11, so nobody against Iraq could be serious about 9/11. Fringe, fringe, fringe. That’s kook talk, no matter how loudly you spew it, and most people just aren’t fooled anymore.
It’s probably futile troll-baiting, but I just can’t imagine negotiating a peace settlement with the citizens of any country, without speaking to their elected government. Have I missed some obvious principle of civics? If I haven’t, then, yes, there is a clear, qualitative difference between ‘sending a message directly to the Palestinian people,’ and ‘working on a peace settlement with the Palestinians.’
Despite that, I’m willing to assume, for the sake of the argument, that Jimmie’s wrong, and Lamont’s opposition to war is specifically about Iraq, as Jeromy says. Simply saying ‘we never should have gone in the first place’ is not, in fact, a statement of policy. The situation exists; clearly one choice is to ‘stay the course’, and leave troops in Iraq to keep fighting the insurgents for years; another choice is to remove them and let the Iraqis deal with the consequences; a third is to leave troops, but restrict them to security duty in Baghdad. And there are lots of other choices as well, but like these, they each have some obvious negative aspects. I hear Lamont is an ‘anti-war’ candidate, but that doesn’t give me a clue, what he proposes to do about it.
I gather, from not-so subtle subtext, that the Democratic party is upset with Lieberman running as an independent. That strikes me as odd; after a mudfest like the CT primary, surely no one is counting on him to throw his support behind his erstwhile opponent? If the party has decided he’s too right-wing on this issue, then there’s every chance he’s a better spokesman for the state as a whole… If I were a moderate CT Republican, I’d vote for him…
EricH – You’ve hit on the problem I have with the Democratic Party as a whole for the last six years (at least). They are very eager to criticize any plan the President puts forward, but they never seem to come up with a plan of their own. That’s been true for Iraq, for Social Security, Homeland Security, and a host of others. In fact, if you look at their strategy for the November elections what you see is a bunch of things like “make America strong” and “deal with our allies” but with no details how they intend on doing these things.
What I, as a voter, want is a plan. Thus far, only the President has put forth anything close to a substantive plan for dealing with worldwide terrorism. I do not agree with every aspect of that plan and I very much wish he had done some things differently, but since his is the only plan on the table, what other option do I really have?
Eh? since when does a “mudfest” primary mean the loser should run as an independent? It’s almost entirely tradition for party members to line up once primary battles are over. Sheesh.
And what the hell is Bush’s plan for terrorism again? “Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”??? That’s a SLOGAN, it’s not a “plan.”
Really, guys, if you’re longing for soundbites, if you’re willing to accept any course of action as long as it can be summed up by “Go kick somebody’s butt,” then perhaps more broken GOP policy is what you need. If Democrats have to say “I’m going to wage war on Syria” for you to accept that you’ve been offered a “plan,” then you’ll never see a plan. What it seems to be is that you just disagree with Democrat plans, and don’t really mean “no plan” but rather “no GOOD plan,” which is entirely your perogative, but be honest about it.
Because all I hear is “we’re going to keep saying NO PLAN until November.” That, along with “A vote for Lamont is a vote for Al Queda!”
Really, isn’t it about time some shame kicks in?
If tomorrow Bush decides to install video cameras in everybody’s home, and Democrats say “No on video cameras!” are you going to still say “Well, at least Bush has a plan!”
It’s not that we’re exceptionally good at tearing down Bush’s policies…they’re self-refuting, because they’re really terribly policy based on election politics, sloganeering, and sloppy ideology rather than reality. If Democrats kept silent, the plans would still be failures.
Jeromy disagrees with me on what we should expect from a defeated candidate. OK; don’t care. Not important. Unfortunately, that seems to be the end of addressing my post.
I thought I asked, pretty clearly, “What action would anti-war candidates have us take, with regard to Iraq?” The easy way to refute Jimmie’s contention that there is no plan…I think…is to just answer that question.
As best I can tell, Jeromy’s response is “Bush doesn’t have a plan for terrorism in general, either.” Though that’s mainly aimed Jimmie’s way, apparently.
And as far as I can tell, the rest seems to be knocking down strawmen. (Well, also a couple of ad hominem arguments.) Debating would clearly be a waste of my time. Oh, well, I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed, my hopes weren’t really that high.
eric: gee, i’ve never seen a right winger run away from a debate plugging his ears going “la la la” before!
democrats are going to approach iraq with the priorities of getting troops out and negotiating a political settlement. the problem is, you know that already, which is why you’re beating the street to go find another comment thread to repeat the same soundbite slogan over again.
democrats will listen to the experts, listen to the military, listen to iraqis, and use the power of the united states as an honest broker instead of waiting for 2, 12, or 50 years for iraq to settle down while our soldiers sit around waiting to be attacked.
republicans will sit around playing testosterone games, mixing up iraq and 9/11, claiming we’re defeating terrorists when we’re giving them a testing ground, and in general offer nothing except more strategic blunders.
anyway, eric, my hopes weren’t high either, but most rightwingers stay around for a few rounds before they go high-tailing it talking about what tough bastards they are. 101st fighting keyboardists turn out to be yellow elephants on the net as well.
later!
Jeromy, I’m going to address your comment asserious, even though it’s pretty obvious that it isn’t.
First, you accused me twice in of running away from the comments section of my post, even though of the 31 comments (I counted 3 trackbacks) this thread will have as soon as I hit the “Submit Comment” button, 12 of them are mine. I do not think that making about 2/3 of the comments in a thread constitutes “high-tailing it” by any reasonable measure.
Second, you do not apparently understand what the word “plan” means. I do not doubt that the Democrats want to get the troops out and reach a political solution. That is exactly what the administration wants also. The difference is that the administration has put forth a plan to do so and the Democrats have not. Now, you may not like the plan. You may think the plan takes too long and is too open-ended. You may think that their means of reaching a political settlement does not include some groups you think it should. But it’s hard for you to deny, without causing gales of laughter, that no plan exists.
I can not say the same for Ned Lamont or the Democrats.
Let me ask the questions explicitly. When and how will Ned Lamont bring the troops home from Iraq? With whom will we negotiate a political settlement and what would be our desired outcome? What elements of that settlement would be up for negotiation and which would be deal-stoppers?
Remember, the word “don’t” is not a plan. It is a fence inside which you might hope to build a plan. Saying “That guy’s plan sucks” is not a plan. It is a criticism. Now, what is Ned Lamont’s plan?
You also mention that Democrats will listen to various people. Do you then believe that the administration has not listened to experts or the Iraqis in their dealings? You should realize, of course, that taking the advice of experts and Iraqis with whom you disagree does not mean that the President didn’t consult a host of experts and Iraqis.
So that’s your plan. Instead of ad hominem attacks and strawmen, give me the Ned Lamont plan.
Jimmie: number one point: you’re not eric. if you are eric, my mistake. but i was talking to eric.
secondly, i find it stunning that you find so many questions answered by george bush’s “we’ll stand down as they stand up!”
moving on, i really don’t know how anybody could miss that we’d have to be negotiating between sunnis and shiites. i mean, i’m aware that bush didn’t have a damn idea of the difference between them before invading, but that isn’t a democrat problem.
democrats are looking for a united iraq if possible, but are also willing to consider dividing the country up if need be. iraq’s borders are artificial, drawn by the british, and there’s no reason to force together sunnies and shiites.
and lastly, if you don’t know that the administration hasn’t listened to anybody but their own little cabal, you simply haven’t been paying attention.
gee, i’ve never seen a right winger run away from a debate plugging his ears going “la la la” before!
And you still haven’t. First, because I’m not a right winger, by any stretch–not registered Republican, don’t vote that way, don’t live in a red state–second, because you weren’t debating. Just describing what you think my opinions are, and then proclaiming why they’re wrong.
Unfortunately, I want a discussion, and Jeromy wants a fight–maybe Jimmie can oblige him, but I’ve lost interest in being gratuitously insulted.
Wow, Jeromy, you’re all about having a discussion, aren’t you?
First, you insult someone whom you know nothing about, then you decide that you’re going to define all the terms of the “debate” and shift them about as you see fit.
Whether you like the “plan” or not, the President’s sound-byte of “We’ll stand down as they stand up” is at least a plan. Though there is much more to it – details of which the White House has publicly and freely released to anyone who wishes to peruse it at least contains more than “Bring them home and all will be well” that you’re advocating.
You make a lot of assertions, here and on your blog. While you’re long on epithets and parroted campaign slogans, you’re mighty short of anything approximating proof. Until you can come up with some, I’m done with you.
Wow, Jeromy, you’re all about having a discussion, aren’t you?
Hey, that’s not fair, Jimmie; he never said he wanted to discuss anything. That was my assumption, and my mistake. Don’t pick on him for breaking an agreement he never made.
hmm, sound and fury signifying nothing.
“You make a lot of assertions, here and on your blog. While you’re long on epithets and parroted campaign slogans, you’re mighty short of anything approximating proof.”
hey, feel free to start backing up *anything* you’ve said. you just offered me a campaign slogan and then insisted “but there’s more than that!” and offered no comprehensive reply to the positions i put forth that directly answered your questions.
which is par for the course, entirely expected. i’m quite used to paragraphs and paragraphs of claims and assertions about how somebody caught lying doesn’t have to talk to the likes of me anymore, but in every case i make sure i offer the last substantive point.
you boys have fun parroting whatever the hell pops into karl rove’s mind, but your questions got answered and you couldn’t hang. it’s that simple. you told a lie about ned lamont and pretend that the question of defending our nation all boils down to whether or not somebody signs onto bush’s clusterfuck, but pose as “honest” debaters.
by the way, debate:
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.
You guys want to gratuitously insult a good guy like Lamont who represents the opinions of the majority of people in this country, and cry when you get your facts shredded. The truth is that Bush doesn’t have a plan for dealing with sunni/shiite tension, and has never offered more than pie-in-the-sky hopeful statements. You don’t have a single leg to stand on.
Democrats know that we don’t have the resources or justification for sitting around Iraq forever. The supporters of this war have gotten *everything* wrong and cannot be trusted to know what they’re doing anymore. The Iraqis can handle themselves *if they want to* and if they want war, there’s obviously nothing we can do about it, as it is already happening.
So run away, kids. Again, talk all the smack you want, but I’ll make the last substantive point. Your side depends on an echo chamber, and you can’t handle the disruption of the repetition.
Jeromy, if you want proof for my assertions, read my blog. There’s a search function and something called Google. I suggest you use it. I’m certainly not going to spend my time looking up facts that you’ve been either too lazy or too obtuse to see for yourself.
Here’s a little taste, though, in the form is the President’s Strategic Plan on Iraq, wihch I commented on in two separate posts here and here.
Those posts were made in late November, 2005. You’re almost a full year ignorant. Well, a bit more than that, but I’m feeling charitable since you seem to be hurting a little bit.
Okay, so I’ve ponied up a little taste. So tell me, Jeromy, where’s Ned Lamont’s plan, hmmm? I’ve asked you twice and still no answer. Got a link? A hint of a link? The ghost of a hint of link? Anything?
Before you show off your scary-good fact-checking-Fu, let me point out that only one person between EricH and I have insulted Ned Lamont and that’s me. You owe him an apology and I’m making your future ability to comment here conditional on that apology. EricH has dealt with you in good faith and he has not earned your bile.
One chance to do two things. Answer my question and apologize.
ericH needs an apology? i doubt he feels so, but it seems both of us have been confusing him with you, so i retract all the bile that only you deserved, jimmie. not that i give a rat’s ass about your threat to block my commenting. i’m fully aware of how conservative blogs manage their comments section, practices you will never observe at my blog.
It’s interesting that you note a full year has passed since that plan was laid out. That might illustrate to you the key problem: Bush’s neocon buddies are *excellent* at dreaming up elaborate theories about war, and complete *shit* at having them match up in reality.
that plan is a pack of promises, boasts, and wishful thinking, with few concrete terms binding the administration. we could be exactly where we are today, or worse, ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road, and they’d have to change about three words in that plan. “We expect, but cannot guarantee…” will continue to echo throughout it. one year later that “plan” has proven to be worth a roll of toilet paper, no more.
george bush is completely detached from reality:
http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/.....index.html
if the sunnis and the shiites don’t want to get along, a hundred-something thousand of our troops aren’t going to be able to stop it.
ned lamont and the democrats have provided the opening for america to escape this clusterfuck that bush and you fellas have unleashed on both our nation and theirs. we will support the iraqis and guide them, but we’re going to stop tearing apart our own military and blowing up our national debt in the process. we’re going to stop inflaming the muslim world and putting our military weakness on display for all to see. we’re going to have a rejuvenated military that will be able to act if we do actually face a serious threat unlike iraq.
but again, jimmie, the point was that you lied about lamont just like republicans have been lying about democrats for five years now at rove’s cue shortly after 9/11. when it was time for our nation to unite, karl rove said “we’re going to play this for all we can get” and since then the GOP has been utterly unhinged and unbound by the truth. the democrats were behind afghanistan, ned lamont, howard dean, al gore, one after another.
i for one was amazed we didn’t drop 500,000 soldiers on afghanistan. it’s never made sense from the get-go. we threw a few troops at afghanistan, couldn’t get any attractive results, and so the administration took a 180 degree wrong turn into iraq, and threw too few troops there as well. the protests of the pentagon have been squelched by the happy musketeers, bush, cheney and rumsfeld. at every step it’s been a strategic blunder, yet it’s all been drowned out by claiming criticism means democrats would do nothing.
your blind support of this administration is why the public trusts democrats more on national security now than republicans. you’re too busy trying to get elected by lying about your opponents, and we’re too busy trying to figure out how to undo your mistakes.
if you want plans, you can see http://giveemhellharry.com/blo.....rd-in-iraq
or
http://www.americanprogress.or.....ct=2360393
ned lamont and other democrats are on board with this agenda, and it’s one that america can rest at peace with.
Thank you Jeromy, for the half-assed apology. That’s probably the best I should have expected.
Okay, so I have a bit of a plan from a Democratic 507 group and something from Harry Reid asking the President for a plan that he’s already been given. Nothing from Lamont. Nothing from the Democratic party. That’s three times I’ve asked and three times you’ve not answered my question.
Here is my point, write plain so that even you, Jeromy, can understand. You may not like the President’s plan. You may not agree with it in any detail. But it exists. That puts him one up on folks like Lamont.
Now, I’m done with you. Go back to your blog and cry to your hundred readers about how mean and cruel I was, okay? My hundred readers are tired of you.
mean and cruel? you flatter yourself.
the center for american progress is the prime democratic think tank and fully staffed and supported by the party. to convince yourself that lamont or the party isn’t on board with that is to exist in folly. but that seems to be your speciality.
you must cling to your “no plan!” soundbite, but the thing is that it is becoming increasingly clear to the public is that democrats do have a plan to get our troops home. bush’s plan, to turn iraq into magichappyland, is increasingly recognized as snake oil.
lamont is with the majority of the american populace, you and bush are on the fringe. enjoy!
[...] Besides tattooing IOOWA LIBRUL 4EVERRR on my forehead in Iowa City with Mike G’s heroin needles and the blood of a virgin, most of my online time was spent chatting with my beloved and getting scrappy with one of the conservative bloggers I picked on earlier. Enjoy the pathetic exchange with my lessers… [...]