Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Nov 29, 2005.
I think he is better in the Democrat party. He is the only person in that party that has a chance at convincing them they need to defend the country. They might write him off but he is still the only real chance they have.
I would feel much better about his assesment if his loyalty to Israeli didn't come into play but anything is better that the crap his buddies are flinging around.
The fact that most rarely listen to Lieberman tells you how far to the left their party has swung. Many Dims don't like him and even think he is a traitor to the party. He doesn't stand a chance unless the whole party moves back to the right for some major reason - like another 9-11.
I agree, which is why I wish he would switch parties. He never belonged with Gore, who sullied him. I like his pro-Israel stance, if and when we do something about Iran, I KNOW who'll have our back and it won't be Mexico.
Israel BETTER have our backs, by God. We are the only reason that they are still on the map!
Another 9/11 wouldn't do it. The libs would buckle down more than ever to hold it up as proof that Bush's anti-terrorism policies don't work and that only through their appeasement tactics can we be safe from future attacks.
He's one of the few Democrat politicians that puts politics aside when it comes to doing the right thing...He can't be too popular amongst his own this night, but the best part is he doesn't give sh!t..
There are plenty of Democrats (myself included) who think it's no time to "cut and run," and who have kept up with the news of the positive developments in Iraq along with the many problems.
The language you use here, "appeasement" versus "anti-terrorism" is so slanted. Better language might be "realism" versus "idealism," as used in the New Yorker piece a few weeks ago about Brent Scowcroft (the staunch Republican who was against the war, and who has been marginalized by GW Bush despite being GHW Bush's very best friend). Check it out at:
Also, it really is time around here to stop lumping all terrorists together. A Wahhabi Saudi who flies a plane into the WTC is a different terrorist from a Palestinian who opposes Israeli settlements or a home-grown Iraqi insurgent who opposes the presence of occupying Christian troops in his country. "The war against terrorism" is really a meaningless phrase, since dealing with each one of these different situations requires different tools and approaches. The best way to stop the insurgents from increasing in number, for example, may well be to leave Iraq, but that would likely hurt us in regard to Wahhabi (Al Qaeda) terrorism.
It's the same with the phrase "the Iraqi people" that Bush is always throwing around. There's not more one Iraqi people than there was one Yugoslavian people. The moment the dictator is gone, the ethnic groups re-emerge. Today's Boston Globe, for example, reported on the wave of Saddam nostalgia among Sunnis. Simultaneously, Shi'ites were calling for his death.
Here's another thought. The NeoCon goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East is laudable (though very idealistic, as Scowcroft points out--he calls NeoCons "liberals with guns"). But who exactly will get elected once democracy is in place? Someone said that if Saudi Arabia were a democracy, there's no doubt who would win the election: Osama bin Laden. Are we really ready for a batch of Islamist states? We were so worried about Iran in the 80's that we befriended Saddam (after many of his crimes!) and did business with him (in particular, Dick Cheney did big business with him through a subsidiary of Halliburton). How do we know that democratic Islamist states won't breed more terrorists than the current dictatorships? Isn't that a giant leap of faith?
Separate names with a comma.