• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Prominent democrat rebutts party and says real progress in Iraq.

Navy Pride said:
Senator Joe Leiberman a prominent democrat rebuffs his party after returning from Iraq by saying real progress being made ...

Why doesn't the media ever print stories like this?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

For the same reason stories like this dont get widely printed:

Representative Doug Bereuter, a 26-year member of the US House of Representatives from southeastern Nebraska, has sent a four-page letter to his constituents saying he has reconsidered his previous support for the US invasion of Iraq and concluded that the war was a disastrous mistake.

Bereuter’s letter was first reported August 18 by the Journal Star newspaper, which is published in the state capital of Lincoln, the largest city in Bereuter’s 1st Congressional District. The letter has added significance because Bereuter is vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the panel responsible for reviewing the intelligence claims advanced by the Bush administration to justify the March 2003 invasion. The veteran Republican congressman is also a senior member of the House International Relations Committee.

Earlier this year, Bereuter announced that he would leave the House of Representatives as of August 31 to take the post of president of the Asia Foundation—a fact that undoubtedly helps account for his willingness to publicly break ranks with the Bush administration and the Republican Party on the war.

Its also funny you didnt get such a hard-on over this article from the New York Times on Nov 15th:

Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times

Tuesday 15 November 2005

Washington - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

Now, what I have seen from this whole thread is Chief getting a boner of a democrat's opinion written as an editorial...now he has been there 4 times and he has a well formulated opinion based on direct observation...GREAT!

So other opinions and observations are presented...and greeted with typical party towing, right-wing lock-stepping dismissal complete with a flawless O Reilly rhetoric. So, proof is offered. No acknowledgement. I dont get you people who cant accept when proof is put right in front of you. Kerry...I will be the first to say, bad guy. No decency at all. Kennedy...really bad guy. Dont even need to elaborate.And just for kicks...Moore and Sheehan. (Thats more so navy doesnt pull a "well well...ummm, what about Sheehan/Moore/anyone else I might not have mentioned).

Now come on...you got to admit. Bush...idiot. Got us into war without thinking it through...and most likely lied about why we went. Rove...spiteful, vengeful power monger looking out for his business ties. Cheney...see description of Rove. O'Reilly hasnt had an original thought since he decided to become the republican mouth and Coulter is a frigid beyotch.

Our political system is messed up because of bipartisan politics and extremism on both the left and the right. Its sickening that this partisan rhetoric steeps into the depths of our voting philosophies...that it produces thougtlessness as seen in Chief and a total refusal to accept fact presented just because it came from the wrong messenger. You got champs who refuses to accept the validity of the war effort just because the instigator was on the wrong side of the political fence. Moral decisions have to blend with party colors and there is no need to think beyond a straight ticket ballot in these people. Its infuriating...tragic.
 
scottyz said:
He was a VP candidate 5 years ago.... Carl Levin is the SENIOR Democrat on the armed services committee. :lol:

He was a presidential candidate in 2004 and the only smart democrat in the senate...........:lol:
 
scottyz said:
So is the woman that accused Bush of rape also telling the truth?

I would say that it might be questionable since it was 1 women 30 years ago because there is no pattern there but with "Slick Willie" when there are 4 or 5 women and the accusations are recent, and we know what happened in the oval office there just might be a pattern there..........
 
Navy Pride said:
I would say that it might be questionable since it was 1 women 30 years ago because there is no pattern there but with "Slick Willie" when there are 4 or 5 women and the accusations are recent, and we know what happened in the oval office there just might be a pattern there..........
The woman filed her complaint in 2002, the alleged rape occured in 2000. Yet another story the mainstream press ignored.
 
jallman said:
For the same reason stories like this dont get widely printed:



Its also funny you didnt get such a hard-on over this article from the New York Times on Nov 15th:



Now, what I have seen from this whole thread is Chief getting a boner of a democrat's opinion written as an editorial...now he has been there 4 times and he has a well formulated opinion based on direct observation...GREAT!

So other opinions and observations are presented...and greeted with typical party towing, right-wing lock-stepping dismissal complete with a flawless O Reilly rhetoric. So, proof is offered. No acknowledgement. I dont get you people who cant accept when proof is put right in front of you. Kerry...I will be the first to say, bad guy. No decency at all. Kennedy...really bad guy. Dont even need to elaborate.And just for kicks...Moore and Sheehan. (Thats more so navy doesnt pull a "well well...ummm, what about Sheehan/Moore/anyone else I might not have mentioned).

Now come on...you got to admit. Bush...idiot. Got us into war without thinking it through...and most likely lied about why we went. Rove...spiteful, vengeful power monger looking out for his business ties. Cheney...see description of Rove. O'Reilly hasnt had an original thought since he decided to become the republican mouth and Coulter is a frigid beyotch.

Our political system is messed up because of bipartisan politics and extremism on both the left and the right. Its sickening that this partisan rhetoric steeps into the depths of our voting philosophies...that it produces thougtlessness as seen in Chief and a total refusal to accept fact presented just because it came from the wrong messenger. You got champs who refuses to accept the validity of the war effort just because the instigator was on the wrong side of the political fence. Moral decisions have to blend with party colors and there is no need to think beyond a straight ticket ballot in these people. Its infuriating...tragic.

Sorry jallman I don't read the NY Times or moveon.org.........They have the same creditability.........
 
Navy Pride said:
Sorry jallman I don't read the NY Times or moveon.org.........They have the same creditability.........

I dont know where you got the moveon.org from...wait, yes I do...from the same place you get all your other wild assumptions. And I think a more accurate assessment would be that you refuse to accept the gray areas of truth because black and white is the only thing you can comprehend.

A proper rewording would be...

Sorry jallman I dont acknowledge any source that refutes my myopic partisan view point..........My mind would explode if I knew there was any credibility outside what my right wing pundits tell me to think.
 
G-Man said:
Maybe he meant real progress in that we are now managing to get some of that oil back to our shores and into our fuel tanks.

I know you "study science" and are used to requiring "hard facts", so please, supply us with some data to back this up. Thanks.
 
jallman said:
I dont know where you got the moveon.org from...wait, yes I do...from the same place you get all your other wild assumptions. And I think a more accurate assessment would be that you refuse to accept the gray areas of truth because black and white is the only thing you can comprehend.

A proper rewording would be...

Sorry jallman I dont acknowledge any source that refutes my myopic partisan view point..........My mind would explode if I knew there was any credibility outside what my right wing pundits tell me to think.

Evidently the point I was trying to make with you did not get through my liberal friend......I was trying to say I put the NY Times in the same class as moveon.org........
 
scottyz said:
The woman filed her complaint in 2002, the alleged rape occured in 2000. Yet another story the mainstream press ignored.

And you believe it right.......Hey Cindy Sheehan is waiting for you down in Texas........:lol:
 
Navy Pride said:
Evidently the point I was trying to make with you did not get through my liberal friend......I was trying to say I put the NY Times in the same class as moveon.org........

That may have been the point you were *trying* to make, but the point you *actually* made was


I'm going to call you a liberal, not speak to any of the points in your post, and be satisfied that I am still not thinking for myself.
 
Navy Pride said:
And you believe it right.......Hey Cindy Sheehan is waiting for you down in Texas........:lol:
So if someone makes a accusation against Clinton it's true, but if it's an accusation against Bush it's not true?
 
Navy Pride said:
He testified under oath to a congressional committee.......This was hashed out the whole year before the 2004 elections...If this was something current I would provide a link for you but it is laughable that your the only one that follows politics in the whole USA who has not heard about this....

I really don't care if you believe me or not............

You put words in people's mouths that aren't true and then when called to task you turn tail and cut and run. I've come to expect that from you.
 
scottyz said:
So if someone makes a accusation against Clinton it's true, but if it's an accusation against Bush it's not true?

The difference is there is a pattern against Clinton....You have several women accusing him........Against President Bush if there is and accusation it is only from one disgruntled left wing Bush hater.........
 
Iriemon said:
You put words in people's mouths that aren't true and then when called to task you turn tail and cut and run. I've come to expect that from you.

Because you have no clue about what happened in the run up before the 2004 elections it is not my responsibility or my job to educate you and bring you up to date....If you want to know what happened go back and read about it.....Its ancient history now and "Lurch" got his butt kicked thankfully...

It is amazing though that you are probably the only person that did not hear about Kerry's traitorous acts when he came back from Nam or maybe you are in a state of denial...............
 
Navy Pride said:
Because you have no clue about what happened in the run up before the 2004 elections it is not my responsibility or my job to educate you and bring you up to date....If you want to know what happened go back and read about it.....Its ancient history now and "Lurch" got his butt kicked thankfully...

It is amazing though that you are probably the only person that did not hear about Kerry's traitorous acts when he came back from Nam or maybe you are in a state of denial...............

I thought everyone knew that. Is Iriemon having selective partisan memory lapses again?
 
Navy Pride said:
Senator Joe Leiberman a prominent democrat rebuffs his party after returning from Iraq by saying real progress being made ...

Why doesn't the media ever print stories like this?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress 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 to 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.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. 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 by 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.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls 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. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut

Mr. Lieberman is also the reason that I supported Bush in 2000
He hasn't been a prominent democrat for 5 years.
 
KCConservative said:
I thought everyone knew that. Is Iriemon having selective partisan memory lapses again?


its amazing when it comes to Kerry that so many of our liberal friends are in a state of denial and cannot see that in 2004 he was at worst a fraud and at bes a very flawed candidate.......
 
galenrox said:
Mr. Lieberman is also the reason that I supported Bush in 2000
He hasn't been a prominent democrat for 5 years.
And so this means what? That he is wrong about what he saw while in Iraq?
 
galenrox said:
Mr. Lieberman is also the reason that I supported Bush in 2000
He hasn't been a prominent democrat for 5 years.

That is funny because he was the only true moderate to run in 2004 for the democratic party and is someone I might have voted for had he got the nomination and I really think he had a chance to defeat President Bush........
 
Navy Pride said:
That is funny because he was the only true moderate to run in 2004 for the democratic party and is someone I might have voted for had he got the nomination and I really think he had a chance to defeat President Bush........
Are you joking? If Lieberman had gotten the nomination Bush would've won in a LANDSLIDE, hell, I would've probably voted for Bush and I HATE Bush.
Plus, no offense, but when it comes to assesing whether or not someone is a moderate, you're not the guy I'm gonna ask, considering you consider me a far left wing liberal, when I'm a moderate liberal if liberal at all.
 
KCConservative said:
And so this means what? That he is wrong about what he saw while in Iraq?
Nope, that's not what I meant. I was commenting on how the title of this thread is misleading, intentionally. The message intended with the title of this thread is "Democrats are becoming pro war" essentially, when Joe Lieberman is definately not a man whose actions provide any sort of a signal about other democrats are going to do.
I applaud Lieberman for saying this, cause it took courage, regardless of your stance on the war you have to admit that a democrat from Connecticut saying anything pro-war takes a lot of courage.
And I think his assesment should be taken into account.
 
Navy Pride said:
The difference is there is a pattern against Clinton....You have several women accusing him........Against President Bush if there is and accusation it is only from one disgruntled left wing Bush hater.........
So rape accusations should be ignored if there isn't a pattern?
 
scottyz said:
So rape accusations should be ignored if there isn't a pattern?
No, he should have gone to jail the first three times.
 
galenrox said:
Are you joking? If Lieberman had gotten the nomination Bush would've won in a LANDSLIDE, hell, I would've probably voted for Bush and I HATE Bush.
Plus, no offense, but when it comes to assesing whether or not someone is a moderate, you're not the guy I'm gonna ask, considering you consider me a far left wing liberal, when I'm a moderate liberal if liberal at all.

No offense taken, I just consider the source.........That said if Leiberman had got the nomination I might have very well voted for him........I think he is a good man and not a flip flopper like most democrats as shown by they way they a flip flopping on Iraq..........
 
scottyz said:
So rape accusations should be ignored if there isn't a pattern?

I think a pattern of alledged rape is important and I think you have to consider the source of the accusation...........I do believe that anyone accused of rape if there is proof should be indicted and prosecuted........
 
Back
Top Bottom