Sen. Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs [Archive]

View Full Version : Sen. Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs

recxjake

12-02-2005, 12:49 PM

Sen. Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/132602.shtml

Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003.

"The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday.

"[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb."

"I have no regrets" that the U.S. toppled Saddam, the former vice presidential candidate explained. "I think we can finish are job there, and as part of it - really transform the Arab-Islamic world."

Lieberman said that his fellow Democrats haven't taken kindly to his decision to buck his party on Iraq.

"There's been some grumbling," he told Hannity. "In Connecticut there's a 'Dump Joe' web site that has cropped up."

But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."

recxjake

12-02-2005, 12:50 PM

A honest liberal....... God is REAL!!!!!

But according to my other post 40% of Dems would rather have Saddam in power... wow...

Baby Lee

12-02-2005, 12:51 PM

I knocked Joe back in '00 for his invasion stance on decency, but he's been a treal stand up guy since. He's certainly the Dem of '04 I'd have come closest to voting for.

mlyonsd

12-02-2005, 12:52 PM

The media's avoidance of a prominent Democrat's views like Lieberman's is telling.

Some lesser known Rep. like Murtha speaks up about immediate withdrawl and they go ape shit. Lieberman speaks out about us winning in Iraq and you can't find it anywhere.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 12:53 PM

I'm just impressed with the fact that he can admit that Saddam did have them, we all know he did, everyother countries intel said the same thing.... saying that the war was a mistake since we didnt find any is just wrong and people who say that are just trying to make political gain

recxjake

12-02-2005, 12:53 PM

mlyonsd

12-02-2005, 12:55 PM

It will be interesting to see if Lieberman gets invited to any of the Sunday news shows besides Fox.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 12:57 PM

It will be interesting to see if Lieberman gets invited to any of the Sunday news shows besides Fox.

I doubt it! This makes me happy because it basically says to all the Dems who use this talking point to bash Bush and CO that they are wrong!

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:07 PM

Some lesser known Rep. like Murtha speaks up about immediate withdrawl and they go ape shit. Lieberman speaks out about us winning in Iraq and you can't find it anywhere.You guys are really stuck on that myth, aren't you? If you can't find out about Lieberman's Wall Street Journal article anywhere, how'd you find out about it? Hint: the Wall Street Journal, one of America's most widely read papers, might be a good place to look.

As for Murtha getting all the press, are you all being deliberately obtuse? What drew the media's attention was not a hawkish Democrat coming out and calling for troop withdrawals. That's nothing new, and he's not the first. It was the way the Republicans dashed about to block his proposal with a dummy proposal, misrepresented his proposal to the rest of Congress, and then were forced to retract that drew the media's attention. Had the Republicans not resorted to such stupidity in that case, the media wouldn't have given a hoot about it.

Radar Chief

12-02-2005, 01:08 PM

A honest liberal.......

Honest? Ok yea, I kinda like Joe too. Liberal? Not a chance. Though he is definitely Democrat, he’s also comparatively conservative from what I’ve seen.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 01:10 PM

Honest? Ok yea, I kinda like Joe too. Liberal? Not a chance. Though he is definitely Democrat, he’s also comparatively conservative from what I’ve seen.

He's a conservative liberal :)

mlyonsd

12-02-2005, 01:10 PM

You guys are really stuck on that myth, aren't you? If you can't find out about Lieberman's Wall Street Journal article anywhere, how'd you find out about it? Hint: the Wall Street Journal, one of America's most widely read papers, might be a good place to look.

As for Murtha getting all the press, are you all being deliberately obtuse? What drew the media's attention was not a hawkish Democrat coming out and calling for troop withdrawals. That's nothing new, and he's not the first. It was the way the Republicans dashed about to block his proposal with a dummy proposal, misrepresented his proposal to the rest of Congress, and then were forced to retract that drew the media's attention. Had the Republicans not resorted to such stupidity in that case, the media wouldn't have given a hoot about it.

Obtuse? I've never been called that before.

Nope, you have the Murtha thing all wrong. I saw him on two different networks before the WH and the big House cat fight occured. You're definitely wrong on that one.

Like I said before, we'll just see how fair and balanced the true networks are...they had Murtha on, lets see if they invite Joe.

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:11 PM

He's a conservative liberal :)
No, he's a conservative Democrat. There are also liberal Republicans. I thought you said you were studying Poli Sci? Doesn't sound like you've made it to very many classes.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 01:13 PM

No, he's a conservative Democrat. There are also liberal Republicans. I thought you said you were studying Poli Sci? Doesn't sound like you've made it to very many classes.

you make me laugh, keep it up

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:13 PM

Obtuse? I've never been called that before.

Nope, you have the Murtha thing all wrong. I saw him on two different networks before the WH and the big House cat fight occured. You're definitely wrong on that one.
Nope, I don't think so. As I mentioned in another thread, without that incident, it would likely have only received a few mentions and been forgotten in fairly short order. Before the catfight, it only received a moderate amount of attention. After the catfight, it became a media extravaganza. You can thank the Repubs for the extravaganza.

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:15 PM

you make me laugh, keep it up
So you're saying that there are no conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans? If so, you'd better hope your professor doesn't get wind of it. He might start picking on you in class.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 01:16 PM

I wonder if what Senator Joe has to say about Iraq will justify going to war w/ the libs? I somehow doubt it and I bet we don't hear anything of us in the future

mlyonsd

12-02-2005, 01:17 PM

Nope, I don't think so. As I mentioned in another thread, without that incident, it would likely have only received a few mentions and been forgotten in fairly short order. Before the catfight, it only received a moderate amount of attention. After the catfight, it became a media extravaganza. You can thank the Repubs for the extravaganza.

I'll grant you the Republicans threw gasoline on the fire. But Murtha's comments were on more than one network before the explosion took place.

But maybe I'm just being obtuse here.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 01:18 PM

So you're saying that there are no conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans? If so, you'd better hope your professor doesn't get wind of it. He might start picking on you in class.

oh no, not at all.... that is definetly true.... but i also think that a liberal=Democrat

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:21 PM

I wonder if what Senator Joe has to say about Iraq will justify going to war w/ the libs? I somehow doubt it and I bet we don't hear anything of us in the future
Lieberman has been saying the same thing since day one. This isn't some new development. He's also a known neocon, so most of the Democratic party doesn't pay a lot of attention to it, because they think he's just aping the neocon party line.

As far as what he said about the Duelfer report finding that there were still low levels of chemical and biological weapons, that's true. But it also didn't find that they met the criteria for wmds. Being a chemical or biological agent does not automatically qualify a weapon as a wmd. There are more stringent criteria than just that. The Duelfer report recognizes that.

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:21 PM

oh no, not at all.... that is definetly true.... but i also think that a liberal=Democrat
Then you're simply misinformed.

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:25 PM

I'll grant you the Republicans threw gasoline on the fire. But Murtha's comments were on more than one network before the explosion took place.

But maybe I'm just being obtuse here.I believe your words were "they go apeshit," not simply that his "comments were on more than one network" (I believe you specified two networks, which is a long way from "going apeshit.") Going apeshit would have the character of a media frenzy, a media extravaganza, which only occurred after the Republican debacle on the floor of Congress. One or two network mentions is a far, far cry from going apeshit over one while completely ignoring the other. I still find it a bit disingenuous to say that Lieberman's comments were totally ignored, when they in fact were given prominent space in one of the most widely read papers in the country.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 01:27 PM

There was one WMD that we did find in Iraq and that was Saddam, good riddance

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 01:27 PM

There was one WMD that we did find in Iraq and that was Saddam, good riddanceFair enough.

patteeu

12-02-2005, 01:28 PM

I knocked Joe back in '00 for his invasion stance on decency, but he's been a treal stand up guy since. He's certainly the Dem of '04 I'd have come closest to voting for.

By Joe's own admission (implied), at earlier points in his career, he chose to do things other than what he thought was right:

But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."

patteeu

12-02-2005, 01:34 PM

I'll grant you the Republicans threw gasoline on the fire. But Murtha's comments were on more than one network before the explosion took place.

But maybe I'm just being obtuse here.

You were right the first time. The media was hot and heavy on Murtha before the Republicans did anything. I think Nightwish views Republicans as keystone cops who can't get out of their own way, but the truth is that they reacted to the media uproar, they didn't cause it. The Republicans blew on the fire a little bit, but it was already raging.

The truth is, it's the Republicans' actions that no one is going to remember. Murtha was going to be a media darling with or without the publicity generated by the vote on the Republican resolution.

Radar Chief

12-02-2005, 01:35 PM

There was one WMD that we did find in Iraq and that was Saddam, good riddance

Yea, doubt you’ll find much argument there.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 01:49 PM

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, Dec. 2, 2005 12:18 a.m. EST
MoveOn.org May Not Support Sen. Lieberman

Sen. Joe Lieberman stands virtually alone among Democrats after expressing his staunch support for the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

An official with the liberal activist group MoveOn.org said the group might go so far as to back a Democratic challenger to Lieberman in next year’s Senate race, according to the Hartford Courant.

On Tuesday Lieberman published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal – reported by NewsMax – saying that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him further that the U.S. should not abandon "27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.”

The next day in an address on the progress of the war, President Bush said those who have called for withdrawal timetables, including 38 of the Senate’s Democrats, are "sincerely wrong.”

He went on: "As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would ‘discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people.’

"Senator Lieberman is right.”

Lieberman was one of five Senate Democrats to oppose a Democratic-backed plan to require the president to set timetables for American troop withdrawals.

That has drawn some sharp criticism from the left. Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, said: "The war on Iraq has all the characteristics of Joe-momentum,” recalling a slogan Lieberman used during the 2004 presidential campaign.

"Just like he didn’t realize his presidential ambitions were in trouble, he doesn’t understand the war in Iraq isn’t going anywhere.”

Matzzie – whose organization claims more than 50,000 Connecticut members, according to the Courant – said that if his members ask, his group would back a Democratic challenger to Lieberman.

He added that when he was in New Haven last month, he found "the No. 1 question people asked me was, ‘What are we going to do about Joe Lieberman?’”

Norman Orstein, political analyst at Washington’s American Enterprise Institute, highlighted Lieberman’s isolation among Democrats.

He told the Courant: "A consensus on the war is forming in the Democratic center, that it’s virtually impossible to set a withdrawal date, but there should be a change in our approach to the war.

"Joe is not in that center, and I don’t see anyone else in the party where he is.”

recxjake

12-02-2005, 02:31 PM

hmm not to many libs besides nighwish responding to this thread! Looks like they can't take it

Nightwish

12-02-2005, 03:04 PM

hmm not to many libs besides nighwish responding to this thread! Looks like they can't take itMostly they just don't care. This issue seems to be news to you, but not to anyone else. It only suggests that you haven't been paying attention from the beginning.

Laz

12-02-2005, 04:10 PM

Joe Lieberman = John McCain

WMD programs ≠WMD

jAZ

12-02-2005, 04:29 PM

Do we really need another Joe Leiberman is a Neo-Con thread? Yes, he strongly supported the war and agrees with everything BushCo put out. He's one of our members of the party that is a part of this problem.

I'm not sure why this is sufficiently different from the other threat you posted about Joe Leiberman 2 days ago, for it to deserve it's own thread.

recxjake

12-02-2005, 04:53 PM

patteeu

12-02-2005, 05:01 PM

WMD programs ≠WMD

I disagree. I don't disagree in the technical truth of your statement, of course, but I do disagree in the practical significance of it. When Condi Rice made her often-mischaracterized "mushroom cloud" comment, she was talking about a nuclear weapons program and the uncertainty about how far along such a program was. Weapons programs matter because eventually they produce weapons. That's why we hear all this fuss about the Iranians now, not because they have nukes but because we believe they are engaged in a program to get them. Forget about missile defense, the best time to prevent a nuclear attack from succeeding is before the weapons are built.

mlyonsd

12-04-2005, 10:25 AM

Dang. I looked for ole Joe on all the Sunday shows this morning but all I could find was a few clips of him speaking on Fox.

Nope, instead the news shows decided to get the democratic view from Kerry, Boxer, and yes, you guessed it, Murtha. The Kerry interview was painful, he still hasn't figured out how to stay focused and not go around in circles.

Murtha, being the prominent democrat he is, well he would be if George Stephanapolis knew his real name and wouldn't call him Jack instead of John, was interviewed for the second straight week.

Yes I'm very cynical when it comes to the press. To the point where I don't think Lieberman was invited to a Sunday morning show because the media doesn't want to hear what he has to say.

Nightwish

12-04-2005, 12:02 PM

jAZ

12-04-2005, 12:59 PM

because this talks about WMD, somthing your party loves to use against Bushco
Yeah, so? It really doesn't justify another thread on it's own. You've taken a good deal of input about posting style to heart and I personally thank you for that. This is just a bit more advice in that area.

You love Joe Leiberman's support for the Iraq war. There nothing wrong with that, but keep it to a single thread. Every different reason why you like what Joe's saying doesn't justify a seperate thread.

I try to follow a similar approach and it helps limit my threads. I'd ask you to do the same.

mlyonsd

12-05-2005, 10:04 AM

Do you guys still have a corncob up your asses about Lieberman not getting shown on enough networks? What, repeating old news in the Wall Street Journal, one of the most widely read papers in America, wasn't enough for you? I thought it was the job of the newspapers to report news, not rehash things that have been common knowledge for the past three years. Lieberman is for the war. So? He's been for the war since day one, and has been vocal about it since day one. That's not news, folks. Get over it.

Right. A prominent Democrat that came very close to being VP who just visited Iraq is talking about how we are winning the war and it's not relevant in any way. Insead for the second straight weeke we get to listen to a Rep. that even the talk show host can't call by the right name

Sounds like you don't want to hear good news just like most of the media.

patteeu

12-05-2005, 10:43 AM

Right. A prominent Democrat that came very close to being VP who just visited Iraq is talking about how we are winning the war and it's not relevant in any way. Insead for the second straight weeke we get to listen to a Rep. that even the talk show host can't call by the right name

Sounds like you don't want to hear good news just like most of the media.

Murtha's mealy-mouthed surrender option is vague enough that Nightwish, democrats, and members of the media can read their own desires into it. Lieberman's position is more like a slap in the face so it must be treated as though it doesn't exist.

mlyonsd

12-05-2005, 12:03 PM

Murtha's mealy-mouthed surrender option is vague enough that Nightwish, democrats, and members of the media can read their own desires into it. Lieberman's position is more like a slap in the face so it must be treated as though it doesn't exist.

Funny thing is Lieberman was almost in Cheney's position. I still contend a Gore/Lieberman ticket would have dealt with Saddam in almost the same way.

Eye Patch

12-06-2005, 08:30 AM

Murtha's mealy-mouthed surrender option is vague enough that Nightwish, democrats, and members of the media can read their own desires into it. Lieberman's position is more like a slap in the face so it must be treated as though it doesn't exist.

Nighwish who claims everybody to move on from this subject... yet can't follow his own advice as he defends the liberal media…. Again…& again…

He claims there are many con-democrats who are for the war... yet rarely do I hear them in the media.

Where as when it comes to dems who slam the war they could do their own TV show just on the numbers alone. They are everywhere from national TV to major newspapers.

Yet he refuses to accept this obvious FACT.

It doesn’t matter because our centrist fair minded astute poster here just spins & spins with some of the most ridiculous excuses for his boys.

Btw… if anyone finds a thread with nightwish defending a conservative viewpoint against a liberal one… please let me know.

Mr. Kotter

12-06-2005, 08:33 AM

Lieberman's just a damn neocon.....;)

jAZ

12-06-2005, 08:49 AM

He claims there are many con-democrats who are for the war... yet rarely do I hear them in the media.
You think that might have something to do with them being politicians? You know this war isn't so popular right now and certainly NOT in the Democratic Party. I'm guessing there is a little self censorship going on for Dems on this subject that you are ignoring because you want the media to be your wipping boy.

jAZ

12-06-2005, 08:49 AM

Lieberman's just a damn neocon.....;)
Well, he is a neocon... so you are partly correct.

Eye Patch

12-06-2005, 09:39 AM

You think that might have something to do with them being politicians? You know this war isn't so popular right now and certainly NOT in the Democratic Party. I'm guessing there is a little self censorship going on for Dems on this subject that you are ignoring because you want the media to be your wipping boy.

I want the media to present both sides of an arugment and especially from a democratic presidential candiate. After all John Kerry is still getting ink for all his negative points on the war. Liberman gets one day on one show and very few newspapers. Murtha I'm still reading about and Howard Dean is still pitching gloom and doom.

I'm just pointing out that a democrat coming forward at this point in time and supporting the war is rare... whereas a democrat coming forward against the war is very commonplace…. Almost daily.

Yet there are some "fair minded" individuals who thinks the exact opposite and the reason why Liberman didn't get any face time.

Nightwish

12-07-2005, 12:30 AM

Nighwish who claims everybody to move on from this subject... yet can't follow his own advice as he defends the liberal media…. Again…& again…

He claims there are many con-democrats who are for the war... yet rarely do I hear them in the media.

Where as when it comes to dems who slam the war they could do their own TV show just on the numbers alone. They are everywhere from national TV to major newspapers.

Yet he refuses to accept this obvious FACT.

It doesn’t matter because our centrist fair minded astute poster here just spins & spins with some of the most ridiculous excuses for his boys.

Btw… if anyone finds a thread with nightwish defending a conservative viewpoint against a liberal one… please let me know.
Wow, you really hold a grudge, don't you? Still smarting from getting put in your place the first time we spoke? You might want to see somebody about that problem of yours. I could recommend a few good psychologists, if you'd like.

Nightwish

12-07-2005, 12:39 AM

Yet there are some "fair minded" individuals who thinks the exact opposite and the reason why Liberman didn't get any face time.Obviously, in your pathological grudge, you're referring to me. Obviously you've been very selective which words of mine you've chose to read and actually remember. Here, let me set it straight for you ... again.

I didn't say Lieberman isn't getting a lot of mainstream press because there are a lot of conservative Democrats who support the war. In fact, you're confusing multiple discussions. You really should make at least a sophomoric attempt at reading comprehension, sport. Liberman isn't getting a lot of press, because Lieberman's position on the war isn't news. He (Lieberman) has been supportive of the war from the word go. He (Lieberman) has been very vocal about his belief that Saddam had and still has wmds ... from the beginning. He (Lieberman) has been well-known for his conservative stance and hawkish viewpoints since before he ran for VP. Just how much of a story do you think the media is going to make out of information that damn near the entire country has already known for years? It isn't news ... sport! Now, if some other Dems come out in support of the war, Dems who weren't already known to be supporters of the war, THAT would be news. This isn't. So quit crying about it. The reason the mainstream media hasn't jumped on the Lieberman story is because it isn't worth the cost of ink to spread the news to the five people in America who didn't already know.

mlyonsd

12-07-2005, 06:38 AM

Liberman isn't getting a lot of press, because Lieberman's position on the war isn't news.

A prominent Democrat just coming back from Iraq says we're winning the war and that's not news? WTF? It's not his position but his message that's news.

It is news because the media reports on a nightly basis how bad the war is going. The fact they choose not to give Lieberman the same face time as Murtha indicates to me they don't want to hear his message. Simple as that, which, is not much of a surprise.

mlyonsd

12-07-2005, 06:41 AM

Oh yea....

Murtha watch....he was on that critically acclaimed news show "The Today Show" yesterday morning being interviewed by one of the top journalists and deepest thinkers in the country, Katie Couric.

Murtha's getting more face time than Hillary.

Mr. Kotter

12-07-2005, 07:01 AM

Radar Chief

12-07-2005, 07:02 AM

jAZ

12-07-2005, 08:13 AM

A prominent Democrat just coming back from Iraq says we're winning the war and that's not news? WTF? It's not his position but his message that's news.

It is news because the media reports on a nightly basis how bad the war is going. The fact they choose not to give Lieberman the same face time as Murtha indicates to me they don't want to hear his message. Simple as that, which, is not much of a surprise.
When it comes to Iraq, Leiberman cheering for the war is absoultely NO DIFFERENT than Dick Cheney cheering for the war.

He's saying the same things he's said for 4 years now. So no, it's not news.

Murtha is news because (as far as Iraq goes) he was Joe Leiberman 4 years ago... he's changed his position. That's news.

I hate the media as much as anyone but you people have got it entirely wrong. They do what's good for their shareholder's pocketbooks. That's it. And certainly that's favoring anti-regulations Republican policies and favoring anti-business tax Republican policies... and oh yeah, doing whatever they can on TV to attract the eyeballs of the consumers that their advertisers are targeting.

That's about it.

It's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's greed.

mlyonsd

12-07-2005, 10:13 AM

When it comes to Iraq, Leiberman cheering for the war is absoultely NO DIFFERENT than Dick Cheney cheering for the war.

He's saying the same things he's said for 4 years now. So no, it's not news.

Murtha is news because (as far as Iraq goes) he was Joe Leiberman 4 years ago... he's changed his position. That's news.

I hate the media as much as anyone but you people have got it entirely wrong. They do what's good for their shareholder's pocketbooks. That's it. And certainly that's favoring anti-regulations Republican policies and favoring anti-business tax Republican policies... and oh yeah, doing whatever they can on TV to attract the eyeballs of the consumers that their advertisers are targeting.

That's about it.

It's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's greed.

I just love it when you stick your head in the sand.

Radar Chief

12-07-2005, 10:16 AM

I just love it when you stick your head in the sand.

If you mean, “love” in a “point-n-laugh” kinda way then I agree. It’s at least entertaining. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter

12-07-2005, 11:04 AM

I just love it when you stick your head in the sand.

Sand? I'm thinkin' it's a tighter, smaller, and more odoriferous place....

Nightwish

12-07-2005, 11:10 AM

A prominent Democrat just coming back from Iraq says we're winning the war and that's not news? WTF? It's not his position but his message that's news.

It is news because the media reports on a nightly basis how bad the war is going. The fact they choose not to give Lieberman the same face time as Murtha indicates to me they don't want to hear his message. Simple as that, which, is not much of a surprise.
Some of you just don't get it. HEADLINE: LIEBERMAN IS SAYING THE SAME THING HE'S BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS. Does that look like news to you? His opinion has been well known and well publicized since the beginning, hell, since before the beginning!

A smoking gun would be news.
Proof of an administration lie would be news.
A new scandal in Washington would be news.
A prominent Dove who was previously against the war, but now believes it was the right thing and that we're winning it, would be news.
A prominent Hawk who was in favor of the war all along, but now believes we're losing the war, would be news. (That was Murtha).
Prominent politicians whose minds have not changed on the war since the beginning are growing admittedly fewer, but they're still a dime a dozen. Ask again in a couple years, and that might be news, but it's not news right now.

mlyonsd

12-07-2005, 11:46 AM

Some of you just don't get it. HEADLINE: LIEBERMAN IS SAYING THE SAME THING HE'S BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS. Does that look like news to you? His opinion has been well known and well publicized since the beginning, hell, since before the beginning!

A smoking gun would be news.
Proof of an administration lie would be news.
A new scandal in Washington would be news.
A prominent Dove who was previously against the war, but now believes it was the right thing and that we're winning it, would be news.
A prominent Hawk who was in favor of the war all along, but now believes we're losing the war, would be news. (That was Murtha).
Prominent politicians whose minds have not changed on the war since the beginning are growing admittedly fewer, but they're still a dime a dozen. Ask again in a couple years, and that might be news, but it's not news right now.

Oh I agree completely. It's not news to those that don't want to hear it. Thanks for making my point.

Nightwish

12-07-2005, 11:49 AM

Oh I agree completely. It's not news to those that don't want to hear it. Thanks for making my point.
You mean, it's not news to those who already know it. The purpose of the news media is to bring forth information that isn't already common knowledge, is it not? As I said before, for most of the mainstream media, the Lieberman story isn't worth the price of the ink to bring it to the five people in the United States who didn't already know.

mlyonsd

12-07-2005, 12:17 PM

You mean, it's not news to those who already know it. The purpose of the news media is to bring forth information that isn't already common knowledge, is it not? As I said before, for most of the mainstream media, the Lieberman story isn't worth the price of the ink to bring it to the five people in the United States who didn't already know.

Yes, yes, yes, I get what you are saying.

None of this is news:

The progress in Iraq is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite south remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad on the East, Tikrit to the North, and Ramadi to the West, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here too, there is progress.

Oh wait, I searched the leading news sources for recent reports telling me this but can't seem to find any.

Or this, can't seem to find anything on this:

All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly.

Wait, can't seem to find another perspective on this either:

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud, self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians, and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that Iraq now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

Nothing there. All of a sudden we have a democratic VP candidate saying Iraq already had the most democratic political system in the Arab world. I've heard that lots of time before. Was it Kerry, or Murtha? I get those two confused.

But then of course Lieberman has the audacity to state this obvious fact:

Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community which, when disappointed by the proposed Constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign going on in Iraq and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it. .....I mean you see a lot of Sunni's working on political campaigns on ABC and NBC.

Then of course it's not news when a member of a political party attacks his own:

The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment to Iraq. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead. ....yea, I hear that stuff coming from Dean and the like all the time.

Finally, there's tons of Iraqi opinion polls on our internet sites. They just jump right out at you:

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While public opinion polls in the U.S. show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.

Yes, Lieberman's recent trip to Iraq had more of the same old stuff he's always been saying. Which means none of it must be true.

But for the good of the nation Murtha will soon be guest hosting the Tonight Show and making stops on Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune.

Pathetic, especially when it's so obvious.

Nightwish

12-07-2005, 12:36 PM

But for the good of the nation Murtha will soon be guest hosting the Tonight Show and making stops on Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune.
Wow, this has really got you scared, hasn't it? ROFL

Radar Chief

12-07-2005, 12:45 PM

Wow, this has really got you scared, hasn't it? ROFL

I’m doubt’n “scared” = “disgusted”, but whatever.

mlyonsd

12-07-2005, 12:46 PM

Wow, this has really got you scared, hasn't it? ROFL

Yea, I don't like seeing troops getting killed for what the media is painting as no good reason.

Sybil

12-07-2005, 10:21 PM

Sand? I'm thinkin' it's a tighter, smaller, and more odoriferous place....
Why don't you come out and say it, dickweed? jAZ has his head burried up his ass. You feel better now, RUSH?