Sunday Cup Of Joe

More bullshit (4.00 / 4)

here:

In contrast, Lieberman said, Democratic candidates including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards oppose the Iraq war out of deference to ''vested interest groups within the left.''

''It's a very disappointing issue,'' Lieberman said. ''The leading Democratic candidates for president are competing with each other to see which one can more quickly pull more of our troops out of Iraq, while our troops are there fighting and now succeeding with a lot on the line.''

Lieberman spoke on ABC's ''This Week.''

1. I wish there was some competition as to who can get the troops out fastest.
2. Succeeding?

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 16:52:43 PM UTC

It's like a running joke... (4.00 / 4)

... that isn't funny.

It's like one of those Saturday Night Live skits that go on and on, and you keep waiting for the punch line and .... waiting .... and .... waiting....

In Joe's case, you're waiting for a media guy, a fellow Senator, anyone with common sense, to say to Joe, "Stop the bullshit! Just stop it!"

With wiretaps, the U.S. Gov't can listen in to any terrorist phone call it wants to -- with an easy-to-get warrant!! So, rather than wiretapping anyone the Bush Administration damn well pleases -- political opponents, liberal activists, journalists, etc. -- you hope that they're wiretapping people who may actually do harm to the country.

Joe says the "Surge" is working? That's just laughable. Why doesn't the media, a US Congressman, a Presidential candidate just say, "Joe, you've been wrong about this war from the beginning. Why should anyone listen to you now?"

Thankfully we have people-powered media -- the only place you'll hear a critical word about Joe Lieberman. Amazing.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 16:58:35 PM UTC

Correction (4.00 / 3)

It's good to see local writers at places like the CT Post, Fairfield County Weekly, and columnists like Colin McEnroe, put Joe in his place. Thank goodness for those folks.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 17:02:36 PM UTC

hi (0.00 / 0)

i am sal  from wesport  i work  for  dennis  kucunch  we need  a better  party  the dems in ct  hate us  so much  we need put the  pressure on  liberman  and  chris shays 

---

by: sal_liccione @ Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 17:58:39 PM UTC

Good for you, Sal. (0.00 / 0)

But I really don't think a lot of Dems in CT hate you or other progressives like you. Practically everyone in this site is on your side when it comes to Lieberman and Shays.

What is up for grabs right now is who among the Democratic presidential candidates deserves people's support. I'm happy for you that you have latched unto someone. Personally, I have not decided yet (thank god for me, because I know it would take too much of my time to "fall in love" with someone at this point in the game, unless it's GORE. Dr. Dean almost threw me into a depression after Iowa and his scream.)

FWIW, your typing is getting better. :-)

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 00:44:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Half of Baghdad is now under our control." (0.00 / 0)

Are you kidding me?!? This is what Lieberman means when he says "the surge is working"? Didn't Baghdad fall in April 2003? That's more than 4 years ago. Unbelieveable! Wasn't Saddam captured in his spider hole in December of 2003. And we're only getting half of Baghdad under our control, NOW?!?

Joe, you're brain is calling. Shut your mouth. You're talking out of your ass again!

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 00:33:19 AM UTC

hey (0.00 / 0)

joe is  a jerk  am  working  for  dennis  i  running the all state  off ct for  him  we helping un  a  buch ,local  cams to  from  norwalk to bridgeport and  all over  the state

---

by: sal_liccione @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:26:59 AM UTC

But Greenwich Time Loves Lieberman (4.00 / 1)

The Greenwich Time, that spent so much time and effort denigrating Ned Lamont as a "political neophyte," is positively ecstatic about Lieberman's changing his residency from New Haven to neighboring Stamford.  In an editorial this morning, the paper wrote this:

Joseph Lieberman the person is more than a local political figure. He is a symbol. More than anyone else we can think of, he represents the best of our local traditions and values. That is quite a statement, not made lightly.

"He represents the best of our local traditions and values."  Hmmm... I suppose that includes sending scores of young thugs to break up your opponent's political rally in downtown Greenwich last year.  Or intimidating your opponent by surrounding his campaign bus and screaming at his supporters at a scheduled appearance at a retirement home.  Or that includes lying to voters by telling them that you believe many of our troops can be withdrawn in 2007, then turning around and supporting an escalation of the war.  Or it means lying to voters by telling them that you intend to get the truth about George Bush's miserable handling of the Katrina disaster, then after the election covering up the whole matter and stating that it's not really important anymore.  Or continuing to tell the lie that Saddam Hussein was linked with the 9/11 attackers.  Yep, he represents the best, alright!!

And how 'bout this further down the editorial:

Polarization based on race, income and heritage is a factor in a lot of discussions today, both locally and nationally. Sen. Lieberman's appreciation and respect for others ought to be useful.

I wonder if that "respect for others" now extends to those who voted against him.  It certainly didn't during the campaign last year.  Lieberman and his supporters launched a vicious smear campaign against Lamont, insinuating that people were opposing Lieberman only because he was a Jew.  The editors of the Greenwich Time know all about that smear campaign, because one of their local columnists, Sarah Littman, herself Jewish, wrote a scathing column critizing Lieberman for it. 

Greenwich Time's editors suggest that he should talk to the folks back home a little more:

Sen. Lieberman says he was elected by the people to do what he thinks is right about this and other issues. Some constituents see it another way: They think he was elected to represent their concerns. This international question is the seminal issue of our time. Assuming it is civil, a face-to-face meeting with constituents would provide a forum for various points of view to be exchanged. Now that he has come home, we hope to see and hear more from our senator.

"Assuming it is civil..."  How much chance is there that a town hall meeting with constituents would be civil, now that Lieberman has been shown to be a lier about his commitment to remain a Democrat, about his commitment to ending the war, about so many important issues?  Slim, I'd say. Slim.  And where has the civility been on Joe Lieberman's side?  He would probably show up with more of his goons, like the Lieberman toughs who showed up at the polling station at Greenwich High School the morning of the general election and jostled Ned Lamont as he was being interviewed by the television media, and held Lieberman signs up behind him.  I know; I was there and I watched it.  The two thugs took off after Ned left.

There are times when stuff like this makes you sick to your stomach.  "The best of our local traditions and values" indeed!

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:04:41 AM UTC

"Now that he has come home"...? (0.00 / 0)

do they mean a town hall meeting with Greenwich residents? With a bunch of REPUBLICANS?  Why doesnt he go to Willimantic or Bethlehem or Bridgeport or Eastford or Meriden and talk to the people who knew the men and women who are dying in this war?

I didnt' see ONE NAME from Greenwich. NOT ONE.

And I'd venture to guess that everyone in Greenwich has health insurance.

Sounds like the type of people who Joe represents.. and to hell with the rest of the state.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:34:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, actually... (4.00 / 2)

A study cited by Democratic state representative candidate Ed Krumeich last year stated that 24% of Greenwich residents did not have health insurance.

And while only 22% of registered voters in Greenwich are Democrats, we Democrats turned out in record numbers in the August primary last year and gave Ned Lamont 68% of our vote.  Pissed the heck out of Greenwich Time, too, which had broken with a decades-old custom of not endorsing candidates in primaries to endorse Joe Lieberman.

And Ned Lamont received 19 out of Greenwich's 22 votes at the state Democratic convention last year (including mine).

Although we haven't had a fatality yet, there are Greenwichites serving in Iraq.  I met one young man who was a sniper over there.  And another marine came back and was interviewed about his experiences in Iraq by GT, and talked to students.  He certainly didn't sound gung-ho about it.

Greenwich contributed Ned Lamont.  And now Jim Himes has stood up to challenge Chris Shays on the war.  We may not be large in numbers, but Democrats in this section of the woods are doing all we can to get both of those hypocritical chickenhawks kicked out of Congress.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:44:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

every single person I know (0.00 / 0)

that lives in Greenwich works for a hedge fund.

24% of Greenwich residents did not have health insurance.  I find that hard to believe.. there is a small section of Greenwich that's really more Portchester.. and blue collar. but it's a VERY small portion.

Besides, Joe represents the WHOLE STATE not just one town. And he's like Bush in that he surrounds himself with sycophants.. hell, look at how he avoided the Code Pink protesters!


.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:53:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And were it not for those hedge funds... (0.00 / 0)

The Nutmeg would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.  Just as the insurance and defense industries carried the state for a long time, the hedge fund industry is now contributing a major share of tax revenues to the state of Connecticut.  Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:02:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." (0.00 / 0)

especially when there are no other geese moving in to help out. There is no push to bring 'smart' tech industry into the state.. in fact, small tech industries get no help.  None. It's a tough environment, and the climate is nicer elsewhere. I work in a small startup, and odds are if (hopefully when) things take off, we'll be based in NYS not CT. I've been down this road before, too.

And what will happen when the rest of the hedge funds suffer like Bear Sterns? They all took off all at once, and not good to put all those goose eggs in one basket.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 13:04:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Need to get to know more good folks from Greenwich... (4.00 / 1)

I know a bunch, none of whom work for hedge funds. I used to live there too.

The thing about Democrats in towns like Greenwich and Darien (where I live now) is that they belong to the party because they believe in Democratic principles, not because it's the party in power.

Darien voted 7-0 for Lamont at the Convention. How did Bridgeport do? How about New Haven? How about Norwalk?

By the way, that Greenwich Time editorial is pathetic. Hopefully one of the good Dems in that town will write a letter to the editor.

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:03:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More sanity from folks in Greenwich (4.00 / 1)

Check out this LTE that was in the Stamford Advocate yesterday - again, another great Democratic leader from Greenwich:

To the editor:

Aide Marshall Wittmann has presented a seriously flawed argument to defend Joe Lieberman's advocacy of war with Iran (Advocate Letters from Readers, June 22).

According to Wittmann, Lieberman advocates war with Iran because, "It is a prime responsibility of our elected officials to defend our troops." Bombing Iran is more likely to endanger our troops than defend them.

Although some "American officials on the ground in Iraq" share Lieberman's "concern" about Iran, most of the military and the vast majority of civilians are patently against the bombing of Iran. The debacle in Iraq is quite enough for them.

Wittmann quotes Major Gen. Caldwell as saying that the Quds force is "training, equipping and funding Shia extremist groups," but the Quds force may be operating outside the control of the Iranian government. Wittmann also quotes Gen. Petraeus, who chooses his words carefully when he claimed that, "The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us ..." Petraeus makes no mention of the Iranian government. The third quote is by Zalmay Khalilzad, a discredited neoconservative with an obvious agenda who also presents no evidence of a link to the government of Iran.

Meanwhile, we have incontrovertible evidence as to which government started a war with Iran's neighbor Iraq, which government is occupying Iraq with upwards of 150,000 foreign fighters, and which government continues to fund fighting to the tune of hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. Unfortunately, these foreign fighters have become victims - not just of sectarian violence, but of their own government's intellectual dishonesty, incompetence and cowardice.

Joe Lieberman is a leader of that government. He was re-elected last November after telling voters that "no one" wants to bring our troops home more than he. Now he wants to launch a war with Iran, without solid intelligence, without diplomatic negotiations and without regard for human life.

Peter E. Berg

Greenwich

As someone who grew up in working class Stamford, I understand reflexive prejudice against Greenwich.  But we have many progressive allies in Greenwich.  Also, the assumption that everyone in Greenwich is super-rich really hurts the  working class, middle class, and poor people who do live there.  18% of students in Greenwich Public Schools are learning English as a second language, minority students are 23% of the student population, and 7% are in poverty.  That's more economically and ethnically diverse than many towns in upstate CT.

---

by: Maura @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 13:32:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

? source of statistics (0.00 / 0)

18% of students in Greenwich Public Schools are learning English as a second language, minority students are 23% of the student population, and 7% are in poverty.

where do you get these statistics? I'm really curious as to who these people are. I worked in Greenwich (the Portchester side.. the 'poor' side, although it seemed like a nice area, but modest) for a couple of years and it seemed like a very small part of the Greenwich. It seemed like alot of the cooks and nannies and laborers who didn't live with rich folk came from surrounding towns (Portchester, White plains even as far as Bridgeport), they didn't live IN Greenwich.


.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 13:48:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not everybody in Greenwich is rich (0.00 / 0)

Stats come from the State of CT's strategic school profiles.

The stats are skewed a bit, because about 20% of school aged children in Greenwich attend non-public schools.  But that's true of many communities, so stats on kids served by the public schools is still a pretty good indicator of where things stand in the community.

As your experience in Greenwich suggests, the poor and working class residents aren't nearly as visible as the more affluent residents.  But that doesn't mean they aren't there.

---

by: Maura @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 14:47:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

but it's not the cheapest place to live either... (0.00 / 0)

I don't see why an impoverished person would choose to live there.  You could live better elsewhere on a budget.

I'm sure there are poor people in Greenwich.. but I'd venture to guess that living in Bridgeport or Derby or even parts of Stamford is a little worse if you're poor.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 16:47:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and besides its a moot point (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman is NOT going to be talking to these people. Or if he does.. he won't be listening.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 16:48:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Does lying to voters represent the "best of our local traditions and values"? (3.50 / 2)

Here's one of the classic Lieberman lies caught on videotape by one-and-only CTBob:

Add this to the lies about "progress" in the war in Iraq, his desire to "bring home the troops," etc., etc. and you have to wonder what "local traditions and values" the Greenwich Time is thinking of.

If a Greenwich Congressional Candidate would like to increase his name recognition in the 4th CD, perhaps there is an easy way to do it: Stand up to Lieberman. Expose him as the liar that he is -- in a very even-tempered, professional sort of way -- then do the same with Republican Chris Shays.

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:43:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWIW (0.00 / 0)

The editorial was also in the Stamford Advocate and Norwalk Advocate.

---

by: Maura @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 17:18:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]