Is Lieberman a Trojan Horse?

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:01 pm

Is there a Rovian stink to Lieberman's confirming that he will run as an independent Democrat if he doesn't win his state's primary? He's been so cozy lately with Bush and the Repugs that I have to wonder if he considered switching parties. It would be so like Rove to convince Joe to continue to run as a Dem instead of switching parties, creating disruption between the Dem maching and its grassroots. Let's face it, the Dem machine is not in sync with the grassroots on this one. So, is Rovero once again moving ahead to create a new reality while our side debates and dithers on the old one? <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/07/03/lieberman_to_gather_signatures_for_independent_bid.html">politicalwire.com/archive...t_bid.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 7/4/06 12:03 pm

by **novistador** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:45 pm

Seems like it. If he doesn't win the primary, he'll have little chance of winning the final vote as an independant. And like you said, it will simply create a split between progressives / liberal dems and party-line dems and siphon campaign dollars from the dem frontrunner. Of course, handing victory to a republican will never lose you too many friends in washington.

by **bvonahsen** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:46 pm

YEs, and so is Kerry. Here in Minnesota the former govenor of St. Paul and supposed democrat, Steve Kelley, was defeted last election cycle. He was infamous for his brown nosing of Bush and Cheney. He was reported to have met in secret with GOP gov Tim Pawlenty and Legislative leader Steve Swiggum. I believe that he was a trojan, a plant, meant to disrupt the DFL party in Minn. when Kerry anounced his conssesion to Bush and said "Let the healing begin!" my initial gut reaction was he was bought off. Friends of mine less politically active commented on it and had the same reaction. When Alito was up for appointment to the SCOTUS the democrat opposition was holding back on a filibuster and save it for a full on assault at an appropriate time in the process. Kerry called in from a ski vacation in the Alps to announce his support for a fillibuster at exactly the wrong time. Pay attention to what Kerry does, you'll see, I believe, that he consistantly undermines the democratic position. Even when he appears to support the dem leadership he does so in a way that is less than helpfull. I don't know if this is because Kerry is loyal to his Skull and Bones buddy or because he has been fully compromised and his sexual activities filmed so he can be controlled and managed by the shadow government. I suspect both. I suspect most if not all reps and senators are also compromised. This has apparently been going on for decades.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:30 pm

I just can't believe it. This man who has been brown-nosing Bush big time, now whines that there's too much hate. Stupid jerk. "I have one goal, and it is to be the Democratic nominee and win this primary," Mr. Lieberman said after an Independence Day parade in this eastern Connecticut town, where he marched with a few dozen people, drawing both cheers of support and shouts of opposition. Speaking to reporters at the end of the parade route, Mr. Lieberman decried what he saw as too much hatred in politics. "Once you start hating, you lose the ability to get anything done," he said. Yeah, well, Senator Lieberman, the party that you have been sucking up to so powerfully that there's no chrome left on the bumper is the same party that has polarized this country with its divisiveness and hate since the days of Reagan. This division is so serious now, thanks to people like you, that we are in danger of another "civil war". <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/nyregion/04cnd-lieberman.html?ex=1309665600&en=5227ea8a0046a186&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">www.nytimes.com/2006/07/0...yt&emc=rss</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 7/4/06 8:32 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:35 am

People need to know this about Kerry's instant capitulation in '04- The US military was poised to wipe out Fallujah the instant the (s)election was wrapped up. Soldiers who were in Fallujah have been interviewed on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now program confirming this. So imagine the pressure put on Kerry by the Pentagon which probably told him that Iraq would be his worst wishes, Vietnam II, unless he got the hell out of the way and let them put out the fires of resistance in Fallujah. What a horrible position for a former spokesman for Vietnam Vets Aganst the War to then be in, having the massacre of Fallujah that then began make the My Lai massacre look like a picnic by comparison. Even fake Democrat General Wesley Clark went into ass-covering mode for his beloved Pentagon with this Washington Post commentary called 'The Real Battle, Winning in Fallujah is Only the Beginning.' This makes me want to throw things everytime I read it- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47034-2004Nov12.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Nov12.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Real Battle Winning in Fallujah Is Just the Beginning By Wesley K. Clark Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page B01 Americans scouring news reports of the U.S.-led assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah can be forgiven if they are experiencing a degree of confusion and uncertainty. Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assures us that U.S. and Iraqi government forces have moved steadily through the insurgent stronghold and that the assault has been "very, very successful." Last night, even as troops fought to secure the final section of the Sunni city, senior Iraqi officials declared it "liberated." .... An attack on Fallujah has been inevitable for many months. If we are to succeed in the democratization of Iraq, the interim government and its U.S. and coalition allies must have a "monopoly" on the use of force within the country's borders. There can be no sanctuaries for insurgents and terrorists, no fiefdoms run by private armies. Fallujah could not continue to be a base for those waging war on the Iraqi government and a no-go place for those organizing elections. Now that we have engaged, there cannot be any doubt about the outcome. It, too, is inevitable. U.S. forces don't "lose" on the battlefield these days. We haven't lost once in Iraq. Nor in Afghanistan. Not in the Balkans, or in the first Gulf War. Nor in Panama. We fight where we are told and win where we fight. We are well trained, disciplined and, when we prepare adequately, exceedingly well equipped. We will take the city, and with relatively few U.S. casualties. And we will have killed a lot of people who were armed and resisting us. But in what sense is this "winning?" To win means not just to occupy the city, but to do so in a way that knocks the local opponent permanently out of the fight, demoralizes broader resistance, and builds legitimacy for U.S. aims, methods and allies. Seen this way, the battle for Fallujah is not just a matter of shooting. It is part of a larger bargaining process that has included negotiations, threats and staged preparations to pressure insurgent groups into preemptive surrender, to deprive them of popular tolerance and support, and to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and to others that force was used only as a last resort in order to gain increased legitimacy for the interim Iraqi government. Even the use of force required a further calculus. Had we relentlessly destroyed the city and killed large numbers of innocent civilians, or suffered crippling losses in the fighting, we most certainly would have been judged "losers." And if we can't hold on and prevent the insurgents from infiltrating back in -- as has now occurred in the recently "liberated" city of Samarra -- we also shall have lost. The battle plan was tailored to prevent significant destruction. It called for a slow squeeze, starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties. We have superior mobility, with heavily armored vehicles; we have superior firepower, with the Bradley's 25mm cannon, M1A1 Abrams tanks, artillery and airstrikes; we have advantages in reconnaissance, with satellites, TV-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles and a whole array of electronic gear. But urban combat partially neutralizes these advantages. A weaker defender can inflict much punishment with only a meager force fighting from the rubble, provided they fight to the death. So this has not been a "cakewalk." This has been a tough battle, and the men and women fighting it deserve every Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star or Purple Heart they receive. During the recent presidential campaign, there was a lot of talk about supporting our troops in wartime. And yet calling what's going on in Iraq "war" has distracted us from marshaling the diplomatic and political support our troops need to win. <hr></blockquote>

by **Gouda** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:31 am

I don't think Lieberman or Kerry or Clark need Rove or other republicans to lure them or convince them of anything. They have assessed the stakes and the dire situation the world is in, and they have chosen the side we are not on. Moreover, the democratic party itself is so thoroughly an agent of the system we claim to fight against here, that it should be no surprise that its leaders act in virtual unison with oligarchs wearing different team uniforms - after the show is over, they all retire to the asspatting locker room to negotiate over those compromising vids and photos, offshore accounts, contracts to be had etc...

Is Lieberman a Trojan Horse?

Is Lieberman a Trojan Horse?

RE: Trojan Horse?

Re: RE: Trojan Horse?

OMG, "Too much hate"?

Re: Kerry's post-(s)election concession and Fallujah.

Re: Kerry's post-(s)election concession and Fallujah.

Who is online