"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there."
--Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday

From his interview on Sean Hannity's radio show about Saddam and WMDs

Quote :

"Friday, Dec. 2, 2005 1:24 p.m. EST Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003. "The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday. "[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb." "I have no regrets" that the U.S. toppled Saddam, the former vice presidential candidate explained. "I think we can finish are job there, and as part of it - really transform the Arab-Islamic world." Lieberman said that his fellow Democrats haven't taken kindly to his decision to buck his party on Iraq. "There's been some grumbling," he told Hannity. "In Connecticut there's a 'Dump Joe' web site that has cropped up." But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right.""

Thank you, Senator, for being a man and standing up for what you think is right.

12/2/2005 4:56:24 PM

http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/021205Thumbs_up.htm

Quote :

"Globalist Left Arm Gives Thumbs Up To War Steve Watson | December 2 2005 Within the past two days Leading Democrats have all stated their support for the war in Iraq, once again highlighting how we must see beyond the false left / right paradigm and make it known to others that the Republicans and the Democrats are left and right arms used for the same agenda by the elite policy makers. First it was Joe Lieberman who declared his unyielding support for the administration's conduct of the Iraq war. This led to a warm pat on the back from George W Bush: "As Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would `discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people... Sen. Lieberman is right," the president said at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. Other Democrats have been up in arms over Lieberman's conduct, yet this is just another indication that the leading Democrats, the one who institute policy, who VOTED FOR THE WAR, support the action in Iraq."

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 5:02 PM. Reason : `]

12/2/2005 5:02:21 PM

Lieberman is a DINO.

12/2/2005 5:10:38 PM

And he's Jewish! So you know he has the global conspiracy thing down pat.

12/2/2005 5:11:13 PM

Quote :

""Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm "

Thank you Republican Senator Hagel.

12/2/2005 5:14:43 PM

^^i wouldn't say that. that's like people calling Sen McCain a RINO. it's not really true.

Lieberman is just socially moderate.

12/2/2005 5:16:11 PM

So you had to dig up an article that is over a half a year old in order to make your counterpoint? Things may have changed just slightly since then, don't ya think?

12/2/2005 5:18:49 PM

^no, i believe he doesnt think...

12/2/2005 5:23:11 PM

^^ They did. They got worse.

12/2/2005 5:27:56 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: So you had to dig up an article that is over a half a year old in order to make your counterpoint?"

Though he did, he didn't really have to.

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Things may have changed just slightly since then, don't ya think?"

Apparently not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501450.html

Quote :

"Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy Administration Calls Statements by Democrats Harmful to War Effort, Troops Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them." With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible." "To not question . . . is unpatriotic," Sen. Chuck Hagel said. (Linda Spillers - AP) Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late." "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices." Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of "dividing the country" with its rhetorical tactics. Hagel supported the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, but he has emerged as a strong skeptic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In his speech, he called for a regional security conference to help invest Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize the country. At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined other administration officials yesterday in attacking critics of the Iraq war for attempting to "rewrite" history, warning that setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops could "give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us." At the same time, Rumsfeld acknowledged what he called honest mistakes in the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. "There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in . . . the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations," he said at a news briefing. Rumsfeld described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction. However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program. Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it."

I thought you actually read the news...

12/2/2005 5:31:48 PM

<--- directed at MathFreak's hit and run response that is based far more on his inner feelings than in reality

Gamecat: The Post makes a lot of assumptions about Hagel's position. Hagel is more critical about the need for open debate, not that we're necessarily losing the war in Iraq. The strongest point the article uses is that the Post says that he "suggested" that the argument could "possibly" be made that things "could" be worse off. If that's the strongest evidence that you have to counter Lieberman then you don't really have much of an argument.

Besides, when it comes to the news of the day, I prefer to read the real paper in DC, The Washington Times.



[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 5:44 PM. Reason : more]

12/2/2005 5:32:32 PM

That's better than a real reply, I guess.

12/2/2005 5:36:17 PM

bump for the edited reply

12/2/2005 5:45:08 PM

Quote :

"hit and run response"

CUT AND RUN
CUT AND RUN

12/2/2005 5:49:15 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Hagel is more critical about the need for open debate, not that we're necessarily losing the war in Iraq."

Is that so?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/

Quote :

"Hagel: Iraq growing more like Vietnam Republican Senator says Bush should meet with protesting mom(!) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday said the United States is "getting more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war. The longer U.S. forces remain in Iraq, he said, the more it begins to resemble the Vietnam war. Hagel mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in June that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes," saying the U.S. death toll has risen amid insurgent attacks. "Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN. "If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do." On Thursday, Cheney told a veterans group that "Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror, and victory there is critical to the future security of the U.S." "Every man and woman who fights and sacrifices in this war is serving a just and noble cause," Cheney told the 73rd National Convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Springfield, Missouri. Hagel, an Army infantry squad leader during the Vietnam war, sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and supported the October 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. But he said the United States risks losing more public support for the conflict amid a rising cost in blood and money. "The casualties we're taking, the billion dollars a week we're putting in there, the kind of commitment we've got -- we're not going to be able to sustain it," he said. Iraq and Vietnam still have more differences than similarities, he said, but "there is a parallel emerging." "The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States," Hagel said. Hagel also did not back away from comments he made in June to U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq." "It gives me no great pleasure to have said that and to say that now," he said Thursday. He said the U.S. death toll has continued to rise "at a very significant rate -- more dead, more wounded, less electricity in Iraq, less oil being pumped in Iraq, more insurgent attacks, more insurgents coming across the border, more corruption in the government." A total of 1,861 American troops have died in the war since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, including four who were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in Samarra. (Full story) Cheney said in June that the insurgency is "in the last throes," and he predicted that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office. (Full story) In the CNN interview Thursday, Hagel mentioned Cheney's comments about the insurgency and quickly added, "The facts speak for themselves." Hagel did say he agrees with President Bush that the United States should not set a timetable for troop withdrawal, but he also predicted the United States would begin "withdrawing troops from Iraq next year." "I don't like time frames because it gives the president no flexibility, and I think you always must have flexibility in these things and a judgment call by the president," he said. Ultimately, he said, it's up to the Iraqis to control their nation's fate. "That means they are either going to have to be in a position sometime next year to really step up in governing themselves, defending themselves, supporting themselves, or we can't continue to stay there indefinitely," Hagel said. The next six months will be "very critical" in Iraq, he said. "Not just the constitution writing, referendum, the election -- but also within that six months' period we're going to see whether the Iraqis are really going to be capable of defending themselves," he said. On another Iraq-related issue, Hagel said Bush made the wrong decision by not meeting again with Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq who has camped outside the president's Texas ranch. (Full story) Sheehan "deserves some consideration, and I think that should have been done right from the beginning," Hagel said, noting that Bush did meet with her shortly after her son's death last year. "I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her in to the ranch. It should have been done when this whole thing started. Listen to her.""

I'm not so sure you're right about this. When Hagel says stuff like "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq," I think he means what he says.

...but since you like the Moony Times so much, here you go:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050822-120037-6508r.htm

Quote :

"Hagel compares Iraq to Vietnam A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said yesterday that the war in Iraq is looking more like the Vietnam War from a generation ago. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, said the U.S.-led invasion has destabilized the Middle East. "We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Mr. Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur." "Now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Mr. Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." But Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican who also is considered a potential presidential candidate, rejected the Vietnam comparison in the same ABC segment. "There was a government, so to speak. It was North Vietnam," he said. "Here the terrorists don't have any government. They are just there to wreak havoc, to intimidate." Mr. Allen also said the recent reports of militias with local ties forming in Iraq are not so troubling. "Just think of how this country started; they were all state militias. And so they were loyal to the communities, their homes, their counties, or in some cases their states," he said. "That's not unusual." Still, Mr. Hagel said, the similarities are increasing. "What I think the White House does not yet understand -- and some of my colleagues -- the dam has broke on this policy," Mr. Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities are going to come together." President Bush was preparing for speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. The Army's top general, Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well more than 100,000 -- for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled patience. "The worst-case scenario is not 'staying four years.' The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Mr. Graham said on "Fox News Sunday." Mr. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly." "I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Mr. Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years." Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, last week called for a Dec. 31, 2006, deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq, arguing it would take the wind out of the insurgency's sails. Yesterday, he told NBC's "Meet the Press" that a target date would dampen U.S. public disillusionment. "The president is not telling us the time frame ... what's happening is that the American public is despairing of the situation," he said. "I felt it was time to put on the table an idea and break the taboo.""

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ...]

12/2/2005 5:55:16 PM

Find relevent information, please. 2 articles from August on the war is neither current or relevent.

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2005 6:04:57 PM

And what pray tell has changed since then?

12/2/2005 6:11:55 PM

Here's something from Hagel that is actually relevent and *gasp* within the past couple of weeks.

http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219401&Month=11&Year=2005

Quote :

"There have been positive, recent developments in Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. To maximize the potential of these developments, the United States must demonstrate diplomatic agility to adjust and respond to the uncertainties, nuances and uncontrollables that the region will continue to face. Iraq held a successful constitutional referendum on October 15. Iraqi political parties are now preparing for parliamentary elections on December 15 leading to the formation of a constitutionally-based, freely-elected government. As Iraq moves toward achieving a formal political transition, the United States should recognize that we must act to help build an international consensus on Iraq and address the regional complexities of the Middle East. We have few good options. Our strategic goal should be to get out of Iraq under conditions that offer Iraq the best possible opportunity for success – Iraqi success being defined as a free and self-governing country. This is not about setting a timeline. This is about pursuing policies designed to gradually pull the United States further away from the day to day responsibilities of defending Iraq and de facto governance of Iraq, and encouraging and demanding more responsibility from the Iraqis. The future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people and its leaders. The new Iraqi government will have the potential for a wider vision and a longer horizon, establishing more stability and more confidence to engage the challenges that lie ahead. The recent decision by the UN Security Council to extend the mandate for the multinational forces in Iraq until the end of 2006 helps the next Iraqi government develop its capabilities to govern, defend and support itself, while continuing to limit America’s role as the only real "enforcer" in Iraq. "

12/2/2005 6:17:00 PM

OH MY GOODNESS!

LIEBERMAN IS DEFENDING THE WAR YOU SAY?

12/2/2005 7:36:51 PM

I don't think either of you know what you're arguing about here.

12/2/2005 8:07:32 PM

Quote :

"2 articles from August on the war is neither current or relevent. "

So, going by your judgment, I guess that British intelligence in July of 2002 regarding Saddam obtaining uranium from Niger wasn't current or relevant informationfor a speech in January 2003.

Also, how is this not relevant?

Quote :

""Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," he said. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is, we're losing in Iraq." "

You also forgot this part in Hagel's memo from a couple weeks ago:

Quote :

"The challenges that we face in the Middle East are more real today than a year ago. The unity of Iraq is not assured and its insurgency risks further destabilization of its neighbors. The shakiness of the Assad regime in Syria, the recent terrorist bombings in Jordan, and Islamic extremism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region continue to pose dangerous threats to regional stability. Many Arab states are concerned that Iran is emerging as the big regional winner. Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded. We are seen by many in the Middle East as an obstacle to peace, an aggressor and an occupier. Our policies are a source of significant friction not only in the region but in the wider international community. Our purpose and power are questioned. We are at the same time both a stabilizing and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. "

12/3/2005 12:59:19 AM

i thought joe lieberman was a sore losing christ-hating jew?

12/3/2005 1:29:51 AM

boo yah

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 10:17 AM. Reason : sp]

12/3/2005 10:16:55 AM

when jews agree with me they are cool but when they dont they killed christ.

12/3/2005 10:34:44 AM

I guess the two ^ & ^^^ who make the assumption that Christians hate Jews obviously know little about Biblical Scripture. I will refer you to Matthew 27:25 and the 2nd chapter of Acts and see if you can put two and two together. When you can't given that the Bible is a collection of letters for those who actually believe in Christ, get back to me and I'll give you the answer.

12/3/2005 7:59:04 PM

this is straight from republicans talking points. nobody cares becuase we already knew he supports the war.

unlike murtha, his position didnt changed. unlike murtha, he isnt a war hero.

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 8:03 PM. Reason : -]

12/3/2005 8:02:48 PM

nm

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2005 8:03:24 PM

Hahaha, yes the evil GOP held a gun to Senator Lieberman's head and made him say that he supports the war. Pure genius.

You people like to paint this picture like nobody is in support of the war. Why don't your anti-war heroes propose amendments to set up a time table?

Murtha is a decorated war veteran but he has done a very poor job of even getting his fellow democrats to vote with him to remove the troops. Unfortunately, Murtha has been used as a scapegoat by Nancy Pelosi.

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2005 8:15:16 PM

You are quoting Joe Lieberman to support your point. You already lose.

12/3/2005 8:18:04 PM

^ So now you're deciding whose quotes are legit or not? You people never cease to amaze me with the ever changing rules of the game that you keep losing.

Keep painting yourself into an ever tighter corner.

12/3/2005 8:20:00 PM

Quote :

"So now you're deciding whose quotes are legit or not"

hhahahah haven't you done that continually?

Quote :

"You people never cease to amaze me with the ever changing rules of the game that you keep losing. "

and I suppose Republicans are doing quite well right now, right?

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 8:29 PM. Reason : wow]

12/3/2005 8:29:13 PM

With regards to whom? Senator Hagel perhaps?

12/3/2005 8:30:05 PM

not even gonna lie, I've vaguely parused this thread

Just going on past observations.

12/3/2005 8:31:21 PM

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051201-114744-1406r.htm

Murtha doesn't know what he's talking about. He claimed that the army is broken, that they do not have equipment and are living hand to mouth. Those who have actually been in Iraq (this seems to be a huge sticking point for qualifying who is right or not on the war according to some on this board like pryderi) say otherwise.

12/3/2005 8:40:34 PM

dude the army need more supplies, more money and more TROOPS.

army commercials appear on tv like every 4 minutes

they are broken, and they will never win, becuase nation building doesnt work.

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 10:19 PM. Reason : -]

12/3/2005 10:18:31 PM

Quote :

""If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road.""

George W. Bush
October 3, 2000

12/3/2005 10:24:39 PM

yea but 911 changed

EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!

12/3/2005 10:32:21 PM

NWO4Life made this test, and you keep getting all the questions wrong. only he has the answer key.

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 10:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2005 10:34:57 PM

Quote :

"But that view began to shift this year, Mr. Murtha said, as he watched attacks on American soldiers rise and became convinced U.S. troops "had become the target." His latest visit to Iraq two months ago reinforced his view about conditions on the ground. "

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05324/609608.stm

12/3/2005 11:05:18 PM

uhhh...ive never heard of the post gazette

12/3/2005 11:16:13 PM

the one and only pittsburgh post-gazette, the paper from murtha's home distric, located at the foot of beautiful mt. washington and the intersection of the three rivers.

12/3/2005 11:49:51 PM