Boston Globe Columnist Attacks Sen. Lieberman
I can't say that I'm surprised that the Democrats' agents, aka the Agenda Media, don't like Joe Lieberman. What I'm surprised at is their willingness to rake Sen. Lieberman over the coals as harshly as Joan Vennochi does in
this morning's column.
Frankly, that's why they're losing so many elections. They don't use anything closely resembling coherent thought.
Posted Thursday, July 6, 2006 11:02 PM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
It's all about Joe, and not just about war. US Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, (D-CT), announced that he will run as an independent if he loses his party's primary nomination in August. The three-term senator is billing his decision as a commitment to principle. Mostly, it feels like a commitment to Lieberman.Ms. Vennochi would be wise to consider the fact that it's mostly about chastising the Democratic Party for running from its roots, roots that Presidents FDR, Truman & JFK, roots that senators like Humphrey, Scoop Jackson & Daniel Patrick Moynihan personified. That Democratic Party is about to become part of the history books. When it officially happens, the legendary Democratic hawks will shed a collective tear from their graves.
Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to chastise Bill Clinton for his Oval Office escapades with Monica Lewinsky. In 1998, he called Clinton's actions "immoral" and "inappropriate" and railed against the president for "willfully deceiving the nation about his conduct." At the time, he took the public praise for taking on a president of his own party; now Lieberman has to accept the latent party ill-will.What rubbish!!! Isn't Ms. Vennochi telling Lieberman to suffer the consequences for chastising President Clinton, who lied to the American people? It's as if Ms. Vennochi is saying that successful Democratic presidents are beyond criticism.
It would also be nice to hear him express some similar moral outrage over the Bush administration's deceptions involving the case for war.Ms. Vennochi, are you refering to President Bush telling us that there were WMD's in Iraq? Why should Sen. Lieberman express moral outrage at President Bush for being right about WMD's? Ms. Vennochi, wouldn't it be more appropriate to chastise Mr. Lamont for propagating the lie that the President lied us into war? Here's part of what Sen. Santorum read:
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."Ms. Vennochi, don't these WMD's count towards the President saying that Iraq had WMD's? Or is it that you just hate admitting that he didn't lie us into war? Perhaps that's why Sen. Lieberman hasn't expressed "similar moral outrage over the Bush administration's deceptions involving the case for war."
Lieberman further irritated fellow Democrats in 2000 when he was the vice presidential nominee, but refused to end his US Senate campaign. If the Gore-Lieberman ticket had prevailed, Connecticut's Republican governor could have appointed a Republican to replace Lieberman in the US Senate.So Connecticut Democrats are upset that Lieberman kept his senatorial campaign open in 2000? That's infantile behavior. They would've lost the Senate seat just like they lost the presidential election. It's stunning the type of 'logic' Democrats use.
Frankly, that's why they're losing so many elections. They don't use anything closely resembling coherent thought.
Posted Thursday, July 6, 2006 11:02 PM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.