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.