Joe Lieberman: Democrats and our Enemies

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Russia had nukes two countries armed to teeth forced diplomacy, there was conditions always being set by both sides as talks went on, America fought the war also through economic pressure using it wealth to bankrupt Russia fighting wars it could not afford to fight

Lieberman doesn't mention that does he? He claims Democrats were all about fighting communism.

I think the ideas that having talks, or using tactics other than war, somehow mean you are going to give terrorists everything they want, is where Lieberman's opinion fails. To me.

[chomerics]

I didn't see it that way, Chom. He's not talking about Iraq. I'm not talking about Iraq. He's talking about dealing with Iran, and I agree with him. "Bush screwed up in Iraq" is not an excuse to ignore any criticism of Obama's platform.

Come on now Henry, it is a joke, and you know it. He is bashing Obama, praising McCain and promoting a neo-con agenda, there is no way around it. He puts the spin and glowing BS like "we should all be together" and then bashes people who don't think like Bush.

Here, let me point out what I am talking about. . .here is an excerpt from the middle of his speech

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Really??? The democrat party is further left than any point since 1988??? Are you serious? They ran on a centrist platform! They don't consider centrism a "collaboration with the enemy" they EMBRACE IT!!!

It is the right side of the party that is so far right, it makes everything else skewed, and Liebermann doesn't criticize the right for an ignorant foreign policy, he chastises democrats for realizing the foreign policy is a blunder and trying to fix it!!! he doesn't chastise the right for calling EVERYONE who is not on "their side' the enemy, he says the democrats are doing it??!?

Are you serious???? The right has done everything they can in the past 6 or so years to castigate, humiliate, call a traitor, and slander anyone who dares criticize them. They are the ones who consider the middle ground traitorous. You have their actions over the past 6 years as evidence, but not according to Joey boy, nope, the dems think the centrist platform (the one they have embraced) is traitorous. What a freaking joke he has become.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

More neo-con propaganda. Did you ever think that maybe the democrats are right Joe? Did you ever think that maybe you can't do this "cowboy" approach where you ignore all your detractors? Do I need to mention that Bush has not stood up to the right wing on a single issue for 7 god damn years???? instead of looking to fix the problem, he is attacking someone with actual solutions, how republican of you Joe.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

Stubborness and ignorance are not traits I want in my president. I don't know what the past 6 years have shown old Joe here, but "doing what you think is right" and "having the courage" to go at it alone are not good traits, they are horrid traits because you will never know if you are wrong. That is how we got into the mess in Iraq to begin with. Ignore or fire those who don't agree and surround yourself with yes men :doh:

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

Hmmm did or did not Reagan have his cabinet members meet with Hussen??? Did he not meet with Gorbachev? Did HE, the great Ronald Reagan, talk with the enemy? What selective judgment you have there Joe, selling your party down the river yet again, and propping up the right wing. What, are you going to run with McCain, is that is?

I'm not against talking with nations like Iran. However, I am wary of, "talking without preconditions."

Taken at face value, that appears exceedingly naive. In my opinion.

When is it ever naive to sit and listen to your enemies? Every great leader does this, it is how you know of their intentions, and how you get to understand where they are coming from. You should, as a great leader, listen to EVERY opinion and every option out there. You should try to understand what makes them tick and get to know them intimately. That is what is EXPECTED of our leaders.

This is nothing more than the normal trash from Joe propping up the right and sending the dems down the river. It is what he has been doing since the 02 elections, and he was paid handsomely for it with some nice contracts going to the defense contractors in Connecticut. I guess he is doing his job for his state, but he is failing miserably at doing his job for his country.

:2cents:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We don't have to go to war with every country, but every country has to know we are willing and capable of using force if necessary. That's the difference. Talking with other nations doesn't bug me. Talking with them 'unconditionally' does. I'm not yet convinced Obama has made a proper distinction between the former and the latter. If he has, please feel free to enlighten me. That's why I brought this up.

Where we disagree is: how does talking with a country, even unconditionally, give anyone the idea that war is not an option still for America? I simply don't see the connection. You could have an unconditional talk with a country and say "if you don't do this, we are going to have to take serious action, and one of them may be war against your country."

I'm not sure Lieberman claimed Democrats are anti-American or ashamed to be American. Maybe I missed that.

I was referencing this quote, which to me made it sound like Democrats these days are un-American:

"This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided."

As for the personal interest Lieberman has in protecting Israel, I base that more on his comments about what our Israel-Palestine policy should be. I guess I have made the judgment in his mind that it must be coming from his personal interest, but he is probably the most pro-Israel senator we have. Is that coincidence? And do you disagree that America's place is to protect the law abiding Palestinian citizens just as much as the Israeli citizens?

[Henry]

Come on now Henry, it is a joke, and you know it. He is bashing Obama, praising McCain and promoting a neo-con agenda, there is no way around it. He puts the spin and glowing BS like "we should all be together" and then bashes people who don't think like Bush.

I define "Bashing" as calling him an American-hating Muslim Communist. Criticizing policy is not bashing. It's criticizing policy.

Bush critics shouldn't be called traitors to America. Well, Obama critics shouldn't be called traitors to the Democratic party. That just legitimizes those dirty tactics.

Really??? The democrat party is further left than any point since 1988??? Are you serious? They ran on a centrist platform! They don't consider centrism a "collaboration with the enemy" they EMBRACE IT!!!

I gotta be honest with you, Chom. As a moderate liberal it appears to me that the Dem party really has moved pretty far to the left lately.

It is the right side of the party that is so far right, it makes everything else skewed, and Liebermann doesn't criticize the right for an ignorant foreign policy, he chastises democrats for realizing the foreign policy is a blunder and trying to fix it!!!

...

When is it ever naive to sit and listen to your enemies? Every great leader does this, it is how you know of their intentions, and how you get to understand where they are coming from. You should, as a great leader, listen to EVERY opinion and every option out there. You should try to understand what makes them tick and get to know them intimately. That is what is EXPECTED of our leaders.

It is possible to disagree with Lieberman on Iraq and still agree with him on the point he's trying to make. I still haven't yet heard anyone address the phrase 'without preconditions.' Again, I don't have any issue with simply opening up a dialogue with other nations. That's not what the article is talking about.

Can we stop shooting the messenger please? I'm not Sarge. I think Lieberman makes a valid point here.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It is possible to disagree with Lieberman on Iraq and still agree with him on the point he's trying to make. I still haven't yet heard anyone address the phrase 'without preconditions.' Again, I don't have any issue with simply opening up a dialogue with other nations. That's not what the article is talking about.

I just addressed that (and I'm interested in your response).

[Corcaigh]

What are the 'pre-conditions' that you think must be in place before any dialog with Iran could be productive?

[Henry]

Where we disagree is: how does talking with a country, even unconditionally, give anyone the idea that war is not an option still for America? I simply don't see the connection. You could have an unconditional talk with a country and say "if you don't do this, we are going to have to take serious action, and one of them may be war against your country."

You made the connection when you said "The thought that we have to go to WAR with every country that we have a foreign policy dispute with is uneducated, irresponsible, and lacks any foundation in the history of this country."

How does saying "dismantle your program and then we'll talk" equate to going to war?

There is a middle ground between attacking everyone that looks at us funny and visiting with every leader belligerent to our nation as soon as you take office. I'd like for you next President to find it.

[Midnight Judges]

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

This is nothing more than a straw man argument. I would challenge Lieberman to back up this assertion with some actual quotes and positions by the Democratic leadership. He can't and he won't.

This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense

We've spent $100 billion on missile defense and the damn thing doesn't work. It currently has a 33% chance of stopping a missile from N. Korea but it wouldn't stop nuclear attacks from Russia or China. It's also in defience of treaties we signed.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.

Here Lieberman fails to make the distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a politically convenient tactic that has no merit. The war in Afghanistan was justified and Americans were unified behind that cause. Lieberman was duped into supporting the unnecessary war in Iraq. No amount of faux patriotism will outweigh the fact that he was duped into voting for the biggest blunder since Vietnam.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

This is utterly false. Obama stood up to the left wing by advocating bombing Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Not sure if Lieberman thinks he is covering Obama's opposition by claiming it to be not significant. Pakistan and Afghanistan, not Iraq, are the central fronts in the war against terrorism. This is as significant as any stance in the GWOT.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

Reagan negotiated with Iran via the CIA. Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam. Kennedy made his mistakes via the CIA in Cuba. Nixon went to China. Adams went to England. Lincoln communicated with the South. Roosevelt/Truman communicated with the Japanese. Shall I go on?

These types of arguments are for public perception/consumption but they have jack squat to do with reality. In reality, Presidents of all stripes talk to and negotiate with all sorts of bad guys behind closed doors. Lieberman manipulates his readers by painting a picture of Obama sitting down with Chavez or Achmadinejad, but in truth Obama would most likely use a cabinet level position to do this just like Reagan did when he sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam Hussein's hand.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

This is pure fantasy. Nobody said anything about "embracing."

It's clear to me that Lieberman is in full scale campaign mode for John McCain because this editorial is full of partisan talking points that ignore history, defy common sense, and are aimed at the ignorant masses rather than the informed. I know for a fact that Joe Lieberman is intelligent and fully capable of seeing the folly in his arguments presented. Sadly, this proves that he is not after intellectual debate or real foreign policy discussion, he's after votes.

[Thiebear]

Some reasons you DONT!

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=12162

[Henry]

MJ, you make some good points. That's the kind of response I was looking for.

Reagan negotiated with Iran via the CIA. Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam. Kennedy made his mistakes via the CIA in Cuba. Nixon went to China. Adams went to England. Lincoln communicated with the South. Roosevelt/Truman communicated with the Japanese. Shall I go on?

I don't think most of those examples are comparable. Reagan got raked over the coals for dealing with Iran. Meeting with Saddam does not put a checkmark in the success column. Adams went to England after relations had been normalized, and he wasn't the President. Wartime Presidents offering terms, well, that's an entirely different set of circumstances.

But I do see your point. I hope Obama continues to define what he hopes to accomplish with his meetings, and how. It is an aspect of his policy I find troubling.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You made the connection when you said "The thought that we have to go to WAR with every country that we have a foreign policy dispute with is uneducated, irresponsible, and lacks any foundation in the history of this country."

How does saying "dismantle your program and then we'll talk" equate to going to war?

There is a middle ground between attacking everyone that looks at us funny and visiting with every leader belligerent to our nation as soon as you take office. I'd like for you next President to find it.

My substantive response to that would be a) you make a good point, but i still disagree. and here's why:

I think we've been doing it like you've said now for at least the last 7 years. And I think the outcome we see is a path to war. Bush made his now famous "ingenious argument" comment with regards to saying Iran has to do something or.... what? Is he not leading us down a path to war by saying, you have to do this or else? Or is he not saying "or else?" I think saying dismantle your program and then we'll talk has the following effect: a) they don't dismantle their program because they have no reason to; they gear up for war once their program is complete; and c) they are pissed at us for disparaging them.

I think the middle ground is saying, "look, we have big problems with you and your country, and you are going to have to change some things, let's discuss what we need to work on." And at the same time saying, "don't think this means we arent going to do ALL that is necessary to protect American citizens."

I suppose I fail to see how talking means war is off the table, and you disagree with us saying we aren't talking with you is leading us to war? (not to put words in your mouth, which i guess i did).

[Burgold]

Really?

He is claiming that this is a central principal of the Democratic Party?

In reality it is Lieberman's friend GW Bush that has endorsed and enabled Putin's new Russian dictatorship because Bush could see into Putin's soul that he is a good man. Right. :doh:

Yeah, that's the quote that made me go "Whaaat?" I don't think I ever heard the political thought that we were enemies with the Soviet Union because the United States were aggressive bullies that made the Soviets dislike us.

Especially not in mainstream Democratic circles. Heck, I don't think I even heard this as a fringe line of thinking.

I think that is either a stretch or a piece of fiction. Discredits much of his logic.

[Midnight Judges]

MJ, you make some good points. That's the kind of response I was looking for.

I don't think most of those examples are comparable. Reagan got raked over the coals for dealing with Iran. Meeting with Saddam does not put a checkmark in the success column. Adams went to England after relations had been normalized, and he wasn't the President. Wartime Presidents offering terms, well, that's an entirely different set of circumstances.

But I do see your point. I hope Obama continues to define what he hopes to accomplish with his meetings, and how. It is an aspect of his policy I find troubling.

Agree, the examples I cited are not all directly comparable. And the ones that are hardly constitute success. But Lieberman's quote annoys me because of it's implications that Reagan would never talk to Iran without pre-conditions, when in fact he did. And Lieberman knows this, but he also knows that the masses are unaware of this technicality. The CIA serves at the behest of one man: the POTUS.

And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

To me, this quote is a perfect example of shrewd calculated politicking that has little to do with real foreign policy debate.

[Vicious]

Cuba is much closer

Cuba had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not.

[Thiebear]

Cuba had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not.

How do you know Cuba did?

The soviets, french, germans and britain say it was probably true?

[Midnight Judges]

This is from the part of the article not quoted:

"That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign."

Forget national security and international economic issues, on what issue period has he stood up to the party's left wing?

bombing the tribal areas of Pakistan.

leaving residual forces in Iraq to combat terrorism

increasing troop levels in Afghanistan

healthcare plan is not mandated

favors nuclear power

[Vicious]

How do you know Cuba did?

The soviets, french, germans and britain say it was probably true?

Would we have removed our missile's from Turkey if there weren't?

[chomerics]

I define "Bashing" as calling him an American-hating Muslim Communist. Criticizing policy is not bashing. It's criticizing policy.

Bush critics shouldn't be called traitors to America. Well, Obama critics shouldn't be called traitors to the Democratic party. That just legitimizes those dirty tactics.

It is semantics between "bashing" and "criticizing", but they both accomplish the same goal do they not? Prop up one side while sending the other side down the river.

I gotta be honest with you, Chom. As a moderate liberal it appears to me that the Dem party really has moved pretty far to the left lately.

What is a leftist agenda? What move has made them go far left? Healthcare? They installed a pay go system, is that now moving left? They paid for benefits for vets, is that now moving left? I read all the time in publications "the most liberal senator", or "100% on liberal causes", well maybe yea his party is in power. But when was paying for things something bad? When was educating a society and our soldiers bad? I don't agree with everything they have done so far, and I think the rebate check is a scam, but all in all they have done a fairly good job over the past year since they had power. Look at what was passed, what got got vetoed and what the parties put through.

If you think it is a "far left" platform, where is the government taking over business'? Where is the government expanding and bloating to become intrusive in our lives? Where is the outcry for a government that will tell business how to run? There is non of that. On the other hand, you have the right, which allows corporations to write laws which govern their area of trade, and that IS fascism. The country to a huge swing right, and all we hear about is how "left" we are becoming, and I am saying it isn't true. Don't believe what people tell you believe what you see. I really don't see any communist takeover of the party of the country anytime soon Henry. A far left platform would be when government runs business, and that is decidedly not the case at all. If anything, it is the other way around.

Now, if you want to argue social progress as a "far left" agenda, sure, they will always be for social progress. They will always be for treating people as equals, no matter what race, religion or creed. That is the way the party operates, and what drives them. They are on the forefront of breaking down stereotypes, racism and hatred, and that is a good thing. If gay marriage is an issue you are uncomfortable with, fine, don't marry a man. Just don't think you can tell anyone else how they can and should live their lives. We are Americans made up of all people from all cultures. We should embrace the differences, not castigate them out. If you think the party is moving far left socially, well, they have always been there, there. They think social progress is a good thing, and so do I. They think that people should be treated equal, and so do I. If that is what you call far left, so be it, I am out in leftsville anyway.

It is possible to disagree with Lieberman on Iraq and still agree with him on the point he's trying to make. I still haven't yet heard anyone address the phrase 'without preconditions.' Again, I don't have any issue with simply opening up a dialogue with other nations. That's not what the article is talking about.

The preconditions are for what? To insure that the other side will not sit down at the table and talk with you. The "pre conditions" to talk, would be what with Iran? Hmmm, I don't know, give up your nuclear program? Is that something they are willing to do? heck no, they would not, and we would never sit down there. Now, why would he want these "preconditions" if he knew they would never happen? Because it is a weasel way to point the finger at someone and say "look he is not doing what I said", whiles never acknowledging the "cowboy way" is what he is talking about. Liebermann has no intentions of ever talking to Iran, it is not in his best interest politically. He would love to be at war with them because it would mean more contracts for his state. Sitting down with existing "pre conditions" is another way of saying that either you give up your program or we are going to war. That is the truth behind his rhetoric, and he knows Iran will not give up their program. So in other words, it is a backwards way of declaring war with a nation.

BTW, didn't we have those "pre conditions" with Iraq? Wasn't the "pre condition" for him to get rid of his WMD program? Didn't Hans Blix go to the UN and thell them that they found no evidence of any WMD program? They then used that "pre condition" as a reason to invade a country which was doing what we told them to. You are intelligent Henry, don't fall into the trap. . .

From 2000-2004 Ct. received an increase from $3.0Billion to $9.7Billion dollars in federal contracts. Compare that to Mass which went from $6.3 to $9.3Billion over the same period. In other words CT got well over a 300% increase in federal grants and MA got a 50% increase. . .Do you think that has anything to do with Liebermann backing Bush? Do you think that has anything to do with his speeches and rhetoric the past 6 or so years? I certainly do, it is why the people of CT re-elected him this past term, because he brought them a boatload of federal dollars to the state.

If you want to do 2000-2007 the numbers are a little better, but still favor CT. Going from $3-$8.5 billion or about a 287% increase when the other states got on average a 190% increase.

You can find out all the numbers here. . .

http://www.fedspending.org/

Can we stop shooting the messenger please? I'm not Sarge. I think Lieberman makes a valid point here.

I'm not shooting the messenger here Henry, I am telling you to look at what he has said over the past 4 or so years, who he has backed, and how he turned his back on the democrats in order to get an influx of money for his state. I really don't think he brings up any good points, and I think he is just playing lip service to people like you, trying to sway you towards McCain. He ignores every single mistake the right has made, even though he backed those mistakes 100% and tries to poke holes in Obama's belief that you should actually *gasp* sit down at the table with people and try a diplomatic route before bombing them. Seriously where is the harm in that?

[DjTj]

I gotta be honest with you, Chom. As a moderate liberal it appears to me that the Dem party really has moved pretty far to the left lately.

This is still the primaries, and Obama is still talking to a relatively left-wing audience. Wait a few months, and the Democratic campaign will speak more to the issues in the middle ... maybe we'll even figure out what "preconditions" are.

It is possible to disagree with Lieberman on Iraq and still agree with him on the point he's trying to make. I still haven't yet heard anyone address the phrase 'without preconditions.' Again, I don't have any issue with simply opening up a dialogue with other nations. That's not what the article is talking about.

Here is a really good blog about "preconditions":

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/parsing_obama_without_precondi.php

I find it somewhat amusing that the word "preconditions" was first injected into the campaign by a YouTube debate question. Obama answered unequivocally, and his campaign has embraced the message because it seemed to get some good political traction at the time.

Unfortunately, I don't think any real policy analyst has defined a "precondition" and I doubt Obama even knows exactly what he means by that - after all, it was first used by a YouTube questioner. It's a strange world we live in...

[Henry]

Chom, why is it every time a political thread appears we have to get your Manifesto?

I know where you stand politically. I swear.

That's not particularly helpful here. I've gotten some good discussion in this thread, but quite frankly your posts are starting to turn into white noise.

[Henry]

This is still the primaries, and Obama is still talking to a relatively left-wing audience. Wait a few months, and the Democratic campaign will speak more to the issues in the middle ... maybe we'll even figure out what "preconditions" are.

I tend to agree with you. That's why I've said I hope to hear more elaboration in the future.

Here is a really good blog about "preconditions":

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/parsing_obama_without_precondi.php

I find it somewhat amusing that the word "preconditions" was first injected into the campaign by a YouTube debate question. Obama answered unequivocally, and his campaign has embraced the message because it seemed to get some good political traction at the time.

Unfortunately, I don't think any real policy analyst has defined a "precondition" and I doubt Obama even knows exactly what he means by that - after all, it was first used by a YouTube questioner. It's a strange world we live in...

Thank you.

Thank you thank you.

I will definitely check that out.

[JohnLockesGhost]

James Baker says, "Talking to an enemy is not appeasement."

[DRSmith]

Lieberman doesn't mention that does he? He claims Democrats were all about fighting communism.

I think the ideas that having talks, or using tactics other than war, somehow mean you are going to give terrorists everything they want, is where Lieberman's opinion fails. To me.

Terrorists should be told they have to stop attacking others before they will be listened to and dealt with in a civilized matter.

North Korea is agreeing to destroy things in order to get the aid they need as well getting business ties to the N American market

[DRSmith]

Cuba had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not.

No Iraq had a bad leader but it did have infrastructure all of which has been destroyed and America does know owe it to the innocent people there to be left with a functioning government that can protect them so bases may have to be left in the area as they were left in Asia

[chomerics]

Chom, why is it every time a political thread appears we have to get your Manifesto?

So now it is a Manifesto? Just because you don't happen to agree with my views doesn't make them any more or less viable then yours.

That's not particularly helpful here. I've gotten some good discussion in this thread, but quite frankly your posts are starting to turn into white noise.

And what part of what I said, and quoted was not good discussion? Would you rather the I am rubber you are glue approach used here so often?

You stated 2 things in your post which I did not believe to be true, and I elaborated on them. If you disagree with them then fine, tell me why you disagree with them.

When you say he is promoting a "far left" agenda, what do you consider far left? Do you consider government control of business far left? I do. Where is your definition of "far left". That was the whole point I was making, which you ignored, the "far left" is different to everyone, and when a moderate person who is intelligent, such as yourself, throws out talking point terms like that, I want to challenge them to see WHY they think that. It is not a bad thing, it is a good one.

The second thing was your "pre condition" which you said he should use before sitting down. Again I elaborated on what I think a typical "pre condition" would be, and how it would be nothing other than an excuse for war. I also showed where Liebermann has made out very handsomely for backing Bush, and what his motives were for turning his back on the democrat party.

You see, maybe you respect him, maybe you don't like to see his stuff ripped apart, but I could care less about him. It is just another typical rant posted by a politician who is trying to disguise himself as taking the middle ground, that is what I see, and I told you why I see it. i also told you why "pre conditions" are a joke.

Maybe you could enlighten us, maybe you could tell us what these pre conditions are which you would like to see, we can debate them and talk about them. I put down why I think they are a bad idea, why don't you put down why you think they are a good idea, and what they might be.