Hawkish Stance On Iraq May Cost Lieberman

[Larkspur]

by Michele Jacklin, Hartford Courant political columnist
http://www.ctnow.com/news/politics/hc-jacklinopedwedsept10.artsep10,1,340707.column?coll=hc-utility-news-politics

A new Time magazine/CNN poll has found that an increasing number of Americans, now up to 43 percent, don't believe the war in Iraq was worth the toll in American lives and other costs.

And that was before President Bush took to the airwaves Sunday to say he would ask Congress for a staggering $87 billion, on top of the $79 billion already budgeted. And before he said he would commit U.S. troops to Iraq for as long as it takes to win the peace - words that are chillingly reminiscent of the Vietnam War era.

America's growing disenchantment with the Iraqi conflict, as affirmed by the Time/CNN poll, could be bad news for Bush and even worse news for Democrat Joe Lieberman. Connecticut's junior senator has hitched his presidential wagon to a platform built on strong national security and unflinching support for the war in Iraq. Of the nine Democratic contenders, Lieberman alone has called for more U.S. troops to be sent to the war-torn country, a step that even the militaristic Bush has been loath to take.

Lieberman has seized on Iraq as a hammer with which to bludgeon his rivals. He's criticized Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for showing "ambivalence" over the conflict and said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is unelectable for opposing it outright.
<SNIP>
Does this signal that the tide is going out for Lieberman, even in Connecticut?

[joeybee12]

1. The tide IS going out!

At least Kerry showed ambivalence, and questioned whether we had thought it through, and despite the fact that I think that was kind of mushy on his part, it did represent thoughtfulness on his part.

Holy Joe, on the other hand, is as bad as the neocons--blow 'em all up, and let God sort 'em out.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. But Lieberman is a good liberal!

He's always slandered here on Democratic Underground and his voting record shows he's to the left of Dennis Kucinich, and all DU'ers are therefore racist!

OK, so I don't believe a word of the drivel I spewed above. I just wanted to beat someone else to the punch, since he ALWAYS says this on any Lieberman thread he can find.

Time for Lieberman to reap what he has sown.

[mndemocrat_29]

3. Lieberman is politically doomed

He won't be the presidential candidate in 2004, he'll be primaried in 2006 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, and he'll be an out-of-work politician by 2007.

[Khephra]

4. May? May?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:evilgrin:

Methinks the writer is downplaying it a bit.

[Melsky]

5. He'll be an out of work politician

with a very lucrative "reward" job in the military industrial complex which he has lavished so much love and money on.

I think he is slightly less bad than bush, but every time he opens his mouth the margin gets smaller.

If he did become president, it would be horrible for the country and it would be blamed on the democrats.

[Flying_Pig]

6. Dollars to doughnuts, Lieberman will....

jump ship. I am more convinced every passing day, that he is a GOP mole. I've felt this since his "pink tutu" performance in Florida, in 00'. I don't give a damn about his voting record either. For every decent vote, I can show you one that wasn't. Any bets that if Bush is able to pull off a win in 04', that Joe will either jump, and/or, be "appointed" to some lofty post by Bush?

Joe Lieberman's agenda, is not the agenda of America. It is, first and foremost, an agenda that lends blind support to Israel's Likud, and Sharon, and secondly, to the corporate powers who put him in office, to whom he has been subserviently loyal, ...his voting record be damned.

[chaumont58]

7. I agree with you about Israel,

There are others in powerful positions carrying the water for Israel, the NewRepublic magazine comes to mind. That owner, Martin Peretz(sp?) would sell this country down the drain if it helped Israel.

[Kolesar]

8. Sadly, but Iraq needs more troops and more control right now

What Iraq ultimately needs is police from several nations to establish civil order. The closest we can get to that is army units and so far only the US and Britain can supply a significant number or troops. We should send over more troops if no one else will, but ultimately the US regime must be forced to cede power to the UN and send in multinational forces. That will be the end of the hegemony over the oilfields accomplished by the Bush administration.

[acerbic]

9. I wouldn't say it's hawkish or dovish...

It's about lies or truth and Lieberman is supporting and perpetuating lies. Calling it "hawkish" is giving it way too much credit.

[genius]

10. The only one with a good stance was Kucinich

He wants the U.N. in and the U.S. out.