Delusional Lieberman Predicts Constitutional Crisis...

[Hissyspit]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-you-still-think-joe-lieberman-is.html

If you still think Joe Lieberman is a nice level-headed moderate, read this
by John in DC 2/17/2007 12:01:00 AM|

Joe Lieberman, like most of the Republicans, still has this odd notion that we're back in 2003 when much of the country thought the Iraq war was necessary, going well, and somehow linked to September 11. Back then, this kind of speech from Lieberman - which pretty much reflects the arguments made the Republicans in the House today - might have been effective. Today it's just bizarre. More from TPM:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012517.php

Lieberman predicts constitutional crisis ...

Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step-by-step, there are many in this Congress who have nevertheless already reached a conclusion about the futility of America’s cause there, and declared their intention to put an end to this mission not with one direct attempt to cutoff funds, but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of the moment. This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid. Let me explain what I mean by a constitutional crisis. Let us be clear about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this non-binding resolution. Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is. I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President’s strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war. Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one’s interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation’s interests over the long term, this is it.

MORE AT LINK

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

5. "Paid for by the Zionists"...Wow.

Am I really the only one that is offended by that statement? Sounds like one of those comments about how Jews run the world or Jews own everything...

No one, and I mean NO ONE hates Lieberman more than me. But what do YOU mean by "Zionists"?
When coming from a goy, it just sounds alot like the "N" word to me...
Maybe you could say the "Israel lobby" or something... blech.

[originalpckelly]

11. AIPAC's original name was "American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs"

Now, "Zionist" has been associated with very negative connotations, like the protocols of the elders bullshit, and the fact that Iran's President and Osama Bin Laden use it to refer to Israelis.

I think that's why we feel a word, that once didn't have a negative meaning, now does. I think it's very understandable to be offended by it's use. For what little it counts, I'm offended and I'm not even Jewish.

[Erika]

18. Do the study

The Zionists were nothing more than the capitalists hoping for a profit in the establishment of Israel. They got it via the U.S. taxpayers, 13 mil a day.

[Bonobo]

24. Yeah, it had nothing at all to do with Jews needing a place safe from

those who wished to murder them...

[Erika]

13. No, I mean the Zionists

As far as I know, we are still shipping $13 mil a day of our taxes to the Zionists.

[originalpckelly]

14. Not all Zionists are Lieberman supporters.

:spank:

[Bonobo]

15. I repeat, what do you mean by Zionist. You. Personally.

[cyclezealot]

28. I doubt the author was singling out a particular religion.

I suggest he/she probably meant "AIPAC." And yes, they do purchase our politicians's opinions, due to their huge war chest. Rivals the NRA. Categorize AIPAC however you want; but any hind of compromise with the Palestinians is not a part of their make up.

[Jim Sagle]

10. I'm a Zionist. And I never paid a damn cent for him.

[originalpckelly]

12. Oh damn you, making it so hard to have broad generalizations!

Lieberman is a Zionist, but not all Zionists are Lieberman supporters.

[Erika]

17. I guess they didn't need you

to keep our taxes flowing to Israel. Joe should move to Israel and save our tax $.

[Bonobo]

19. So now Jews should leave the country and move to Israel. Is that it?

Or just the ones you don't like?

Like telling black people to go back to Africa...

[Jim Sagle]

21. I don't need you either. Does anyone?

[Usrename]

20. I thought you were a Lieberman Democrat.

What gives? Don't you put your money where your mouth is?

[Jim Sagle]

22. You're not very perceptive. Not very interesting either.

[cyclezealot]

29. Again, i doubt its aimed at you.

But, Hillary worships at the altar of big money. Her performance before AIPAC was pretty disgusting too.

[ProudDad]

23. Zionist

"The word "Zionism" itself derived from the word "Zion", one of the names of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Bible.

It was coined as a term for Jewish nationalism by Austrian Jewish publisher Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the first nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) in 1890. (Birnbaum eventually turned against political Zionism and became the first secretary-general of the anti-Zionist Haredi movement Agudat Israel.)

Since the founding of the State of Israel, the term "Zionism" is generally considered to mean support for Israel as a Jewish nation state. However, a variety of different, and sometimes competing, ideologies that support Israel fit under the general category of Zionism, such as Religious Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, and Labor Zionism. Thus, the term is also sometimes used to refer specifically to the programs of these ideologies, such as efforts to encourage Jewish emigration to Israel."


"Critics of Zionism, such as Joseph Massad of Columbia University have asserted that Zionism is a form of racism. These critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees, and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State. For Palestinians, opposition to Zionism is often said to lie in their own competing claim for nationhood.

While most Jewish groups are pro-Zionist, some liberal and Haredi Jewish communities (most vocally the Satmar Hasidim and the Neturei Karta group), oppose Zionism on religious grounds."

-------------------------------

Zionism is to Jewish People as the Nation of Islam is to African-American people or the Christian Identity Movement is to Caucasian people.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. "take Baghdad back step-by-step"

Lost me right there joe. Any prior ownership of Baghdad was just an illusion, brought to you by fox news, this latest campaign is no different. What is this guy's connection to the AIPAC?

[EV_Ares]

3. Remember when Bush said this about our constitution:

From the December 2005 Idaho Observer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President confirms Constitution status in angry outburst


"It’s just a g-d piece of paper," President Bush reportedly exclaimed in reference to the U.S. Constitution.

The alleged comment came last month during a meeting with congressional leaders who were cautioning President Bush about implementing some of the more controversial provisions of the new-improved Patriot Act and was reported by Capitol Hill Blue editor Doug Thompson. Capitol Hill Blue publishes the dirt coming from secretly disgruntled sources inside the Bush administration. The president’s dramatic mood swings, substance abuse issues and profane language are commonly reported.

Thompson is hard to discredit. He has been a D.C. journalist for over 40 years and is known to have eyes and ears everywhere.

President Bush even commented that Dick Cheney is one of his best friends because he doesn’t read about their private conversations in the press the next day.

The truth is that President Bush is right, in a practical sense: The Constitution is just a piece of paper that was superceded by the 14th Amendment and replaced by U.S. Code. However, blatant irreverence for that sacred document is unbecoming of a president.

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20051213.htm

[LibDemAlways]

4. Connecticut voters had an opportunity to

send his ass packing and chose not to. After he thumbed his nose at the Democratic voters by running as an Independent, enough still joined with the repukes to return him to the Senate. What the hell were they thinking? He's a disgrace.

[Erika]

16. The Zionists bought and paid for him

He wants that 13 mil a day to keep flowing from our pockets to Israel.

[Hardrada]

27. And that certainly doesn't get as much press as it should!

[Bonobo]

32. Funny, I thought before you said to flowed from Zionists to him? Which is it?

[Purveyor]

6. I've observed Joe in committee hearings/interviews as of late and

he indeed thinks himself as some sort of 'King-maker'.

Watch for him to 'flip' to the GOP soon.

What the hell, he has 6 years guarenteed in the Senate and a hefty retirement package (not to mention the AIPAC freebees).

"Life is just a dream, eh Joe"?

[ljm2002]

7. Silly man...

...we already had the Constitutional crisis in 2000 and the Constitution (and, incidentally, Gore and Lieberman) lost. Remember that one, Joe?

Fast forward to 2007. We've been mired in the Big Muddy of Iraq for more than 4 years now. Lieberman has the gall to write, "As the battle for Baghdad begins..." :wtf:

I ask you, Senator Lieberman, with all due respect: If the battle for Baghdad is just beginning, then what in bloody hell have our troops been doing over there for the last 4+ years?????

[Hissyspit]

9. "Battle for Baghdad"

That stood out to me, too. That's one of the reasons, among many, that I put 'delusional' in the subject line. :)

[Hardrada]

25. Winning battles but losing the war.

[Hissyspit]

33. Yup, we repeated the French and Algiers in Vietnam.

And we're doing it all over again. Incredible.

[Lasher]

36. Yep, fighting for the same piece of ground over and over.

It's Vietnam with sand.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. - Aldous Huxley

If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind. - Samuel Taylor Coleridge

What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. - G. W. F. Hegel

History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time. - Anonymous

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/quotations/lessons_of_history.html

[Straight Shooter]

8. Angus Reid poll: 56% of Americans consider Iraq War "hopeless"

What Albatross Joe fails to recognize and accept is that the citizens of America have spoken. It wouldn't matter if every member of Congress were in total gung-ho agreement to escalate the war and fund it to the moon. Congress is our voice. We pay for their salaries and expect them to do the job we hired them to do. Americans think the war is lost. Therefore, the responsibility of Congress is to end this war, no ifs, ands or buts.

It's all about Albatross Joe and what he wants. I wish he would STFU, because he's just as much a squatter in Congress as bush is in the White House. Both of them got where they're at because they're bought and paid for and crooked as a dog's hind legs when it comes to elections.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14768

[fooj]

26. Does anyone think Harry scheduled the vote for Saturday purposefully?

Lieberman can't f*ck things up if he isn't there.

[beltanefauve]

30. Can you say,

bought and paid for?

[lovuian]

31. Actually I do see a crisis Civil War is a possibility

States secceeding from the Union

[ClintonTyree]

34. Answer me this, Joe.

"But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war".

And that Commander in Chief was not elected (literally) to become a dictator, was he Joe? Well, he certainly acts like one. Usurping the powers of Congress, the will of the people, ignoring each and every law that stands as a barrier to preventing him from becoming a complete autocrat. What about THOSE apples, Joe? You want to talk about a Constitutional crisis? Start with the mindless cretin in the White House who has circumvented Congress for the past 6 years, Joe.

What a fucking asshole. The son of a bitch has gone completely over to the dark side. Why the people of Connecticut elected this piece of junk is beyond me. I guess they didn't want to lose his "influence" in the Senate. Sadly, I think Joe's allegiance lies more with Israel and the GOP than the people of Connecticut. I wonder if they have buyer's remorse now?

[ima_sinnic]

35. he lost me with the key repuke talking point of "micro manage"

--it appears that "micro managing the war" is the latest repulsican meme. the repulsive creeps I've heard "debating" in Congress have all used this as one of their major points, that Congress cannot "micro manage the war." looks like the creepy little butt kisser is on the cc: list.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. It's the "Ownership Society" thingy in the flesh...

Karl Rove paid for Joe's win in November...so NOW the GOP Owns Joe!