Lieberman
 

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Isn't it the president himself who has undermined his own credibility? How does criticism of his statements and policies, unless there's some substance or truth to the criticism, undermine his credibility?

Re: Lieberman
 

Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces.

Re: Lieberman
 

"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

Re: Lieberman
 

Lieberman's statement seems to indicate a loyalty to Bush. Criticizing the president puts the nation at peril? The fact that this argument has been made acceptable weakens the core of democracy. Did Democrats accuse the Republicans of aiding our enemies in Kosovo?

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be, then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not, that we will lack the political unity to see it through. This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

Re: Lieberman
 

It's an emotional argument that the average person buys into. And there are rumors circulating that Lieberman might replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.

That's why he said it. It's possible he's stupid enough to believe such an argument, but most likely he -- like just about everybody else in Washington -- is willing to say anything to help himself politically.

Re: Lieberman
 

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?

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be, then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not, that we will lack the political unity to see it through. This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We" are divided as in people in politics at home. But our military's goals remain firm. Terrorists/insurgents know this, they don't have the intellects of six year olds. We need a discourse, we can't just eliminate free speech because it makes us seem weak. It makes us seem democratic, which is what we are. And what we want them to be.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, we are obviously fighting for an Iraq in which the people there will have a government in which they will not be able to criticize their government, which will prevent their military from being undermined!

We all know that Iraq will never be attacked once people realize that they are united behind everything they do. Soldiers only die when their government is criticized.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
"We" are divided as in people in politics at home. But our military's goals remain firm. Terrorists/insurgents know this, they don't have the intellects of six year olds. We need a discourse, we can't just eliminate free speech because it makes us seem weak. It makes us seem democratic, which is what we are. And what we want them to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the liberal mainstream media would have you believe. What they are not reporting is that Zarqawi is telling the insurgents to stop attacking if Democrats start supporting the president. The insurgents aren't killing innocent Iraqis and American soliders; Democrats are.

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?

Re: Lieberman
 

You know I got called a commie on this board once.

Trolls are funny.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know I got called a commie on this board once.

Trolls are funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that...That was awesome.

As to the issue at hand. I think that Lieberman is saying ungrounded critism at the EXPENSE of the commander-in-chief is detremental to the country during war time. You can see this by the quotes that UBL and Al Jazeera choose to run. There is such a thing a dialog and open discussion that the Democrats don't want to proceed like adults. They just whine and complain about not winning election and getting offended that the majority of the people who have voted do not see the world the same way.

Leiberman is trying to rally the Democratic party to being a good alternative to the Republicans. Getting them to solve problems rather than create more. I for one would welcome a good active constructive opposition party.

-Gryph

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Lieberman is saying ungrounded critism at the EXPENSE of the commander-in-chief is detremental to the country during war time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he referring to "ungrounded" criticism or criticism in general? And who decides whether a criticism is ungrounded or not? Alot of very smart and well-meaning people think that in terms of both fiscal and foreign policy, the Bush administration has been a complete disaster and that we are headed for some very bad times on both accounts. Should those people keep quiet?

I am also waiting with baited breath for somebody to answer my other question in the thread, about what hard evidence exists that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq.

Re: Lieberman
 

as a supporter of the President it sounds good to me and I hope the democrats follow suit.

however don't expect the same treatment in kind if it ever comes to that. Politics is about kicking the [censored] out of your opponents as they lay in their death bed

Re: Lieberman
 

I copied the quote directly off a web site, so if he was misquoted it wasn't I (me?) who did it. It was the first web site I googled to get the quote, about which I had heard on the radio this morning.

I remember once Mario Cuomo criticizing a New York Times reporter on an interview show about the media getting something he said wrong. The reporter asked him if he thought the media gets it wrong all the time. Cuomo said no, but far too often. I agree.

The most egregious recent example I remember was a headline in the Los Angeles Times the day after one of President Bush's speeches on Iraq before the invasion. The headline said the president said Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, the president said exactly the opposite, that it wasn't an imminent threat.

Re: Lieberman
 

Seems to me the Republicans were much more affronted by Murtha's comments.

Standing up for one's beliefs doesn't impress me one iota. It's the nature of those beliefs that I care about.

Re: Lieberman
 

FWIW, I just regoogled the quote and the first six I looked at did not have the word "critical."

Re: Lieberman
 

Your quote is exactly correct, as per Senator Lieberman's own web site. Either the media got it wrong, or he didn't say exactly what the text says.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]

The most egregious recent example I remember was a headline in the Los Angeles Times the day after one of President Bush's speeches on Iraq before the invasion. The headline said the president said Iraqw was an imminent threat. In fact, the president said exactly the opposite, that it wasn't an imminent threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that. My household cancelled our subscription soon thereafter. Apparently so did a couple hundred thousand others as well. LA Times has had something like a 15-20% drop in subscriptions in the last 5 years.

Re: Lieberman
 

huh huh. Lehigh said Troll.

Re: Lieberman
 

Stern,
Let me explain, I don't actually think it's about oil. Sometimes I say things on these boards that I don't really believe and are solely intended to get people rowled up. In this case, I was waiting for Andy to jump on that. Unfortunately, he's wise to it I think.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that Lieberman is saying ungrounded critism at the EXPENSE of the commander-in-chief is detremental to the country during war time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he referring to "ungrounded" criticism or criticism in general? And who decides whether a criticism is ungrounded or not? Alot of very smart and well-meaning people think that in terms of both fiscal and foreign policy, the Bush administration has been a complete disaster and that we are headed for some very bad times on both accounts. Should those people keep quiet?

I am also waiting with baited breath for somebody to answer my other question in the thread, about what hard evidence exists that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no hard evidence that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq, and obviously the idea that it will is comical. Would the insurgency give up if they read in the papers that Democrats and Republicans were united in this war? No, of course not.

There is a reasonable argument that once America pulls out of Iraq, the insurgency will have the opportunity to capitalize on the lack of a military presence and become empowered. I think this is very plausible, and one reason that continued military presence in Iraq is necessary.

Basically, it was a poor strategic decision to invade Iraq (in my opinion). One consequence of the poor strategic decision is that our military is tied to Iraq for the foreseeable future in order to prevent an insurgency from taking hold there. The insurgency, of course, only became a strongly organized and powerful entity after we invaded Iraq (though obviously many of the leaders of the insurgency were attempting to form networks designed to promote and spread their radical agenda prior to the war -- they were just much less successful before our strategic decision gave them a rallying point around which to exponentially increase their strength and numbers).

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Isn't it the president himself who has undermined his own credibility? How does criticism of his statements and policies, unless there's some substance or truth to the criticism, undermine his credibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lieberman is a douchebag, but Dick Cheney would have been worse. Wait a second...

natedogg

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, it IS wrong. Bush and his crew lied the nation into a war of aggression. That is a war crime and a crime against the nation. There is NO legitimate defense of this criminal conduct, whatever your partisan affection for the man may be.

[ QUOTE ]
then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided

[/ QUOTE ]

America IS divided.

Get used to it.

You did it by lying the nation into a war of aggression.

[ QUOTE ]
and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me you're not really this stupid.

Seriously.

Iraqis are not attacking an occupying army because Bush is domestically unpopular ten thousand miles away. They are attacking an occupying army because it is an occupying army.

How geniunely stupid do you have to be not to recognize this?

[ QUOTE ]
that we will lack the political unity to see it through.

[/ QUOTE ]

"see it through". What a lovely sounding political catch-phrase. And what does it mean? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Because you don't have an exit strategy. You NEVER had an exit strategy. You people just like repeating Hallmark Card phrases like "stay the course" and "see it through", while ten thousand miles away American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being maimed and burned and killed to supply you with your Hallmark Moments.

But the truth is that you really don't care, just as long as you get to accuse your political opponents of "disloyalty", in furtherance of your own partisan politics. It's shameful behavior, and you hacks should be called on it every day, every hour, every minute.

[ QUOTE ]
This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a way to get them "home sooner" : bring them home NOW.

Or, in the alternative, let's send America's Young Republicans to take their place. I'm sure Rush would be happy to help with the recruitment effort. And if you don't want to sign up and see the bloodshed firsthand, well, he can just tell his millions of listeners that you're a traitor. And naturally they'll believe him. Because real patriots don't ask questions. Right? Right.


q/q

Re: Lieberman
 

I think what he means is that disagreement should be done in private, and that a consensus view should be presented to the public. Say, the way a Japanese company is run.

This requires that both sides listen to eachother. Since Bush doesn't listen, Dems can't have a voice, so they go to the public.

Of course, one could say Dems don't want to have a voice, but rather want to bring it to the public for political gain. After all, what is thier alternative plan for Iraq, if they have one they need to bring it to the table and let people see it. What is their alternative plan for Iran and terrorism in general? They don't really have one (plans are harder then criticism). They want to be for and against the war at the same time so they can take credit and assing blame either way.

What Dems really want is for things to continue going badly, for Bush to get the blame, and for Dems to use it to win elections at home. Both a withdrawal or success are bad for them. A dream scenerio is that we are still in Iraq during the next presidential election and that things are going wrong. No one cares about Iraq, even Bush. All American foriegn policy is executed in order to gain political advantage at home for the personal benefit of the candidates.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no hard evidence that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq, and obviously the idea that it will is comical. Would the insurgency give up if they read in the papers that Democrats and Republicans were united in this war? No, of course not.

There is a reasonable argument that once America pulls out of Iraq, the insurgency will have the opportunity to capitalize on the lack of a military presence and become empowered. I think this is very plausible, and one reason that continued military presence in Iraq is necessary.

Basically, it was a poor strategic decision to invade Iraq (in my opinion). One consequence of the poor strategic decision is that our military is tied to Iraq for the foreseeable future in order to prevent an insurgency from taking hold there. The insurgency, of course, only became a strongly organized and powerful entity after we invaded Iraq (though obviously many of the leaders of the insurgency were attempting to form networks designed to promote and spread their radical agenda prior to the war -- they were just much less successful before our strategic decision gave them a rallying point around which to exponentially increase their strength and numbers).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you just said. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what he means is that disagreement should be done in private, and that a consensus view should be presented to the public. Say, the way a Japanese company is run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what Lieberman meant. But that is a very illiberal perspective! What happened to the marketplace of ideas? Again, I don't see what evidence there is that presenting this unified front helps us at all. Rather, stressing the need for public unanimity concerning such an important issue just seems to undermine the principles of our democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, one could say Dems don't want to have a voice, but rather want to bring it to the public for political gain. After all, what is thier alternative plan for Iraq, if they have one they need to bring it to the table and let people see it. What is their alternative plan for Iran and terrorism in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I'm not sure they have a plan right now. But of course, it is not uncommon for the opposition party to hold its cards close to the vest in these situations and only lay out a plan once election time rolls around. That's how it nearly always works. They don't want to give the Republicans over a year to counter their plan and formulate a response for next fall's elections. I don't know if I would go as far to claim that they want Iraq to go badly at this point. But I agree with you that the most important priority for most politicians is ultimately their own reelection, and so they may have mixed motivations.

Re: Lieberman
 

The theory behind the unified front is that the insurgents can't defeat us militarily, so the only way they can defeat us is by making us want to leave.

When they see people on CNN saying we can't win and we should leave, this further enboldens them to committ more violence since they can see thier strategy is working.

If there was no public disagreement, if the insurgents knew there was no possibility of forcing enemy withdrawal through violence, then they would lose support.

That is the thinking behind it. The basic premise is that we will win the war as long as we don't give up. If you believe in this premise then it makes sense to want to stifle the opposing sides dialogue as it, not the insurgents, is the only thing that can make America lose the war. If you think victory is impossible then you have to speak up because it is the insurgents, not American politics, that will make us lose the war.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise is that we will win the war as long as we don't give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly enough, to a large extent, this was the rationale that the British government used when trying to defeat the American "insurgency" of 1776. And they were essentially right -- the British ALWAYS could have supplied enough troops to keep the Americans from being victorious, at least for the foreseeable future.

However, the British public tired of the cost of trying to defeat the Americans, both in lives lost but primarily in taxes raised. The British government was in massive debt already at this point (due to a previous war with France, which was known as the French and Indian War over here), and eventually the politicians were swayed by the general sentiment (of the voting public -- universal suffrage had not yet caught on) that America just wasn't worth the trouble. (The French being willing to help us probably led to this decision, as that was clearly going to up the cost of lengthening the stalemate between the British military and the American rebels.)

Obviously, there are moral differences between the American insurgency then and the Iraqi insurgency today. (Though it should be pointed out that the British considered many of our tactics in the American revolution to be barbaric by the standard of the times, e.g. the Boston Tea Party.) And there are strategic differences as well. But the general principle still holds true that people everywhere eventually tire of fighting a battle to maintain a stalemate. That is essentially what is going on in Iraq -- our military presence prevents the insurgency from gaining political power, but the insurgency has been a consistent thorn in the side of our goal for increasing stability and prosperity.

Historically, merely "staying the course" has always been a losing strategy -- the costs of our military occupation are much higher than the costs of the insurgency. What is needed are tactics that will strip the insurgency of its support. While the administration has repeatedly suggested that the insurgency is in its last throes, I have not seen any evidence that they have a particularly effective strategy to dramatically move the balance of power and support in the region to the U.S. military. In fact, despite the fact that our intentions are to build infrastructure in the region (whereas the insurgents seek to destroy it), our military is significantly better trained at handling these kind of operations than in the past, and the Iraqi public gave us a fairly long grace period in the beginning, the insurgency has actually grown in strength over the past two years. Why?

(1) We have failed to addres the ethnic divisions in the country effectively. (This is no easy task and it is unlikely to be accomplished anytime in the near future. The main criticism of the administration on this matter is not that they have failed here -- as just about any administration would have -- but they failed to see early on how serious and difficult a task lay before them.)

(2) We have failed to engage the marginal supporters of the insurgency. We have not done a good enough job of getting into communities where the people support the insurgency out of fear of reprisal or misinformation about the American campaign. These are missions that are very high risk and cannot be conducted inside the comfort of the Green Zone. But these are the missions that would actually strike at the heart of the insurgency if they were successful.

(3) Our horrendous standards of interrogation, as well as similar practices by Iraqi authorities, have seriously undermined our message and made too many people suspicious of a return to Saddam's way of rule.

Re: Lieberman
 

[ QUOTE ]
The theory behind the unified front is that the insurgents can't defeat us militarily, so the only way they can defeat us is by making us want to leave.

When they see people on CNN saying we can't win and we should leave, this further enboldens them to committ more violence since they can see thier strategy is working.

If there was no public disagreement, if the insurgents knew there was no possibility of forcing enemy withdrawal through violence, then they would lose support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, that is indeed the theory. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it is actually true.

Therefore, the case for tossing aside one of the foundational principles of liberal democracy - that important issues deserve a public hearing - seems rather weak.