Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
That come with the territory of being a democracy, though, doesn't it? If we were stifled in our political conversation during wartime, wouldn't we no better than Hussein's Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweetjazz made my point andy, which is not about restricting our political rights by law domestically, but that we should as a nation be aware of the risks to our soldiers in political disunity back home, and be willing to self-limit it. I detested President Clinton and everything he ever did, but if he were commander-in-chief during a war situation, I would be willing to back his play even if I didn't like the situation, and show a unified America to those we were in combat with, and save the recriminations for after the fighting was finished.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sweetjazz made my point...

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to reread what I wrote and see if it really makes any sense.

Of course, it is just a simple spelling out of what Lieberman is saying...

Re: Lieberman
 

That would seem to me to be very, very dangerous. More dangerous than the potential risk to our soldiers. There are just some plays that shouldn't be backed.

Re: Lieberman
 

Andy, you're really missing the point here. Just by starting this thread, you have created one more insurgent attack later this week. That's right. Zarqawi reads the 2+2 politics boards and increases attacks every time he sees a post like yours suggesting that we should be able to debate the war. If you weren't so wrapped up in your peace marches and music festivals, you might have noticed this. I mean, when did people start criticizing the war? Right after it started. And when did the insurgency attacks begin? Right after it started. Put two plus two together, man.

I hope you'll be satisfied when more Iraqis die because you didn't learn the words to "Bush was right". You just seem to enjoy watching Iraqis die while you sit back and enjoy your luxurious freedom of speech. Everything you say is obviously just a pretext because you really just HATE America and want us to lose.

We cannot afford freedom of speech at a time like this. We are working very hard to insure that Iraqis can choose their own government, so that they too can see their rights curtailed by someone they elected. This is vastly better than having their rights curtailed by someone who they didn't elect. That is what democracy is about, and you just don't get it.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Lieberman
 

Lieberman believes in the war on terror and spreading democracy. He was willing to stand up to his own party for those beliefs even though they are currently unpopular.

You can disagree with him, but he is clear on where he stands and why.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril,"

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP



It maybe a small difference to you in how you quoted Lieberman but IMO it isn't. At least quote Lieberman correctly.

The NY Times misquoted him I believe. I can provide multiple sources for this quote btw. Just do a google search on the words I posted.

Re: Lieberman
 

Yes, and it is an affront to liberals everywhere that anyone would have any beliefs at all, even higher blasphemy that they stand up for them. (qualifier, I know you aren't a liberal leigh)

Re: Lieberman
 

Oil - Its all about the oil.

Re: Lieberman
 

I think the problem is that much of the criticism is based either on false premise or worse yet, is simply made up. While those type things typically would not be a problem since they are easily be debunked, they have actually become common belief. Examples are:

-Its all about oil and making Bush's buddies rich.

-Bush is an idiot, moron, etc.

-Bush is an imperialist.

-There was a rush to war.

-Bush lied to us.

The problem is, these ridiculous, easily fed lines are now accepted as absolute truth by large segments of the population. The media has been totally remiss in challenging these notions, and I think in fact encouraging them.

So, these criticisms do unecessarily undermine the president and the war effort, even though they are things that normally would be instantly dismissed.

Re: Lieberman
 

The argument that a healthy debate over the war at home somehow undermines the war effort itself, or emboldens the terrorists, seems like complete conjecture. What is the evidence?