I wish he’d make up his mind

For those keeping score at home, Sen. Joe [tag]Lieberman[/tag] (I) wanted Defense Secretary Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] to step aside, then he didn’t, and now he does again. It’s getting a little confusing.

Yesterday, Lieberman walked a fine line between supporting the war and criticizing the administration.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to [tag]resign[/tag] but said the United States cannot “walk away” from the Iraqis.

Lieberman, the one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate, is running as an independent in his bid for a fourth term since losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont, who harnessed voters’ anger against the war in Iraq. Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.

“With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

To his credit, this wasn’t new. As he noted on the air, Lieberman did call for Rumsfeld’s ouster in 2003, saying, “If I were President, I’d get a new secretary of defense.”

It’s what he said in between 2003 and 2006 that’s the problem.

In May 2004, in the midst of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Lieberman wrote an item for the Wall Street Journal taking a far different position.

“Many argue that we can only rectify the wrongs done in the Iraqi prisons if Donald Rumsfeld resigns. I disagree. Unless there is clear evidence connecting him to the wrongdoing, it is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. I have yet to see such evidence. Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.”

Indeed, it was Lieberman’s behavior during the Abu Ghraib affair that officially lost me. I was bothered by his constant tendency to undermine the Dems’ message, and his enthusiastic defense of the war in Iraq was inexplicable, but when he said the United States had no reason to apologize for the torture scandal because “those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized,” I was officially done with Joe Lieberman.

But back to the point on Rumsfeld, Lieberman was disappointed earlier this month when the media widely reported Sen. Hillary Clinton’s call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. “I had to laugh at — I don’t mean laugh, but be surprised at all the attention to Senator Clinton calling for Rumsfeld to resign,” he said, reminding everyone that he had already done so in 2003.

Yes, but Sen. Clinton never wrote an item for the Wall Street Journal saying, “Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq,” now did she, Joe?

Lieberman doesn’t understand his own position. Then again, he probably hears himself talk and falls asleep, like the rest of us.

  • “Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight … domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.”

    Yes, actually it would because, finally, someone in this Administration would be held accountable for the disaster that is Iraq. And that would be a problem because….?

  • Once again “Token Joe”—the token Dem in the GOP camp—demonstrates his superior inferiority, right up to the superlative level of intellectual implosion. Actually, maybe I ought to fix the spelling, and call him “Tokin’ Joe.” He’s got to be smoking something highly illegal….

  • “As he noted on the air, Lieberman did call for Rumsfeld’s ouster in 2003, saying, ‘If I were President, I’d get a new secretary of defense.'” – CB

    Of course he would. Did expect that Don Rumsfeld would work for a pansy-ass liberal like him if he won the election? That’s not a call for Rumsfeld’s ouster, that’s just an amazing grasp of reality from a man who grasps so little of it.

  • Watching Joe is like trying to balance speakers on a stereo system. The more he moves to the left the more of his Reublican votes he loses, the more he moves to the right the more Dems he loses. What he doesn’t realize is that he is not starting from the center at all. He’s fine tuning way off to the side. The man needs a major adjustment.

  • He really doesn’t have a position … other than the one he’s trying desperately to regain, his Senate seat. Nothing else — not honor or integrity, the great state of Connecticut, the United States of America, or world peace and development — matters. His lack of character is, in fact, what keeps his fall from being the subject of great tragedy (or comedy). It’s only pathetic groveling. I’d compare it with Gollum and his fondness for “precious”, but Gollum had more soul.

  • Here’s a quote about Lieberman when he was selected to run for VP.

    “Joe gets along with just about everyone in the [Democratic] caucus,” said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) “He’s taken some independent stances from time to time but he hasn’t offended anyone by that.”

    I just noticed that Lieberman’s middle initial is “I”. That’s appropriate.

  • My daughter in middle school could fashion a political ad on all of the flip-flopping that Holy Joe has done on Rumsfeld. I hope that the Lamont camp is paying attention.

  • “… but when he said the United States had no reason to apologize for the torture scandal because “those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized,”

    Yep.

    That does leaves him awkwardly exposed:
    His hate clearly goes before his wisdom.

    Not the sort of person one ought ever to elect.
    Unless… you too value hate more than wisdom.

    Which a lot of people did:
    Ergo the 2004 presidental election results.

    [Note: The hate may be abating in our culture. Without another 9-11 it is hard to maintain venom for 5-8 years. A majority of people no doubt nodded in agreement with Joe when he stuck out his weak chin and said “no apologies!”
    Now? Well.. maybe, just maybe, wisdom is starting to reassert itself.
    See this great Jimmy Carter interview for his take on the ying and yang of cultural self-correction.]

  • “The hate may be abating in our culture.” – koreyel

    Hopefully not. But maybe Iraq has demonstrated to the American People that just hating, without understanding why those you hate have done you harm, is not a very cleaver idea.

    And maybe the slogan “they hate our freedoms” coming from a man trying to deprive Americans of their freedom of speech, electorial representation and from warrantless search and seizure doesn’t work so much anymore.

    Al Qaeda deserves all the hate that all of America can generate. They are a sick bunch of people who, unable to gain power in their own countries, concote a load of crap list of grievances along with an impossible political gaol and try to promote them by attacking innocent people far from their homes. ObL and all his ilk deserve to die slowly crushed in a dark cave-in that just pins them enough to prevent them from getting out but not enough to kill them directly. They deserve to listen to the voices of their would be rescuers calling for them, but lack the ability to call back. They deserve all this and more.

    But that doesn’t mean that American soldiers and marines should have to stay in die in Iraq so that Boy George II can get his jollies thinking he is more of a man than his Poppi.

  • “…..Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.”

    You mean, 60% of the country?

  • The Lieberwhiner subsists on a kool-aid cocktail of his own creation. He seems to like it, but it makes me very tired.

  • I have this sick feeling that the NetRoots biggest accomplishment in 2006 will be defeating a Democrat.

  • There is a strong parallel between Al Quaeda and Neo-con Bushqueda.
    They both hate freedom, and exploit terror for political advantange.
    They both have a faith based ideology to control the world for their special interest group, and they both need the other to to hate and keep the terror dance going.
    Round and round we go on the march towards a state of permanent war justifying our yielding of “emergency powers” to an emerging totalitarian state. ( 1984 to 2006- Orwell was only 22 years off)

  • I forgot to add..
    and when Lieberman tells us that we need to support our war time president, he also becomes a terrorist.

  • Comments are closed.