I'm more confused than a Republican in an ethics class. First, Joe Lieberman loses in the primaries. Then the Bush ADDministration backs Joe as an independent, over the Republican candidate for the senate seat in Connecticut. Now today, we have Lieberman Calling for Donald Rumsfeld to step down. More campaign rhetoric from a man trying to distance himself from the Bush regime, or a portent of a shake up already in the works.
Rumsfeld has been the point man for criticism of the way the war has been handled, because he has been handling it very poorly. he bought into Cheney's rhetoric that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet, and claimed he knew where those non-existent WMD were. Then there was Hilary's pillorying of Rumsfeld last week, where it seemed even the propagandists in the corporate media were mocking him. Does Cheney want someone else in the DoD for Iran and Syria?
Lieberman, for his part, criticized the Bush ADDministration, now, after he lost the primary because of it, for poor planning in it's invasion of Iraq, which he still cites as a good thing. (Even though it was a violation of international law)He said the ADDministration must put pressure on the Iraqi government to end sectarian violence in that country. WTF? How do you propose we do that Joe? Take away their running water, their electricity, their oil? We've already done that, thanks to the war, people who had all that 24/7 under Saddam, are now having to do with out under the US puppet regime.
And once again, like all the bought and paid for politicians, Lieberman links the war in Iraq to the war on terror, "we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.
If it was meant to end terrorism, it didn't work.
So, is Lieberman distancing himself from the Bush regime? Is he doing it by calling out the one person who is probably on the way out anyway? Or is Rumsfeld the easiest to criticize? (In this administration, who isn't?)Whatever the reason, Bush has allegedly refused Rumsfeld's resignation before, I doubt he'll listen to Joe, no matter how good a kisser he may be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I was in the middle of reading your post when you commented on mine. Coinkydink? I think not! Maybe if Lieberman goes a little further with Bush, I mean he wouldn't want to give away the whole enchilada, but he could push Bush to the brink. Oh, wait a minute. Bush is on the brink. Never mind.
Lieberman is a louse. Just like the one that he bows down to and worships, he is the barnacle on the butt of life. He cannot be taken seriously. And I take it that you are tired of all the JonBenet stuff floating around eh?
Joe is so done. He is like that guy at the party, who made a fool out of himself and was asked to leave but he keeping hanging around. I love it when incumbents lose
Oh, you guys, Lieberman has to be taken seriously, because he can actually win as an independent. THAT is a problem. The Republicans have endorsed him, over the Republican candidate; Lamont defeated him in the primary, yes, but the margin wasn't huge. Lieberman is going to take votes away from Lamont AND the Repbulican. He's getting coaching from Karl Rove.
I think Lew's quite right, Lieberman's calling for Rumsfeld to resign is probably an indicator of something already in the works.
Could there be a greater indicator of the lack of distinction between the parties? Asked what we need to do he said "win". I say hand him a M16 and turn Israels favorite son loose. Or have him wash corpses for a month.
I think that it's the former, as Diva mentioned. Rumors abound that Rumsfeld is already preparing to exit. So for Lieberman it's merely a matter of convenience.
BTW: Lew...you won the GOP campaign slogan contest! So the punishment/prize is your's to determine. Just let me know...
Post a Comment