Lieberman responds to the DFA letter....says the same thing as before.

[madfloridian]

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/007279.html

Sen. Lieberman's Reply to Jim Dean
DFA Chair, Jim Dean delivered your letter to Senator Joseph Lieberman's office in Hartford yesterday. The Senator replied in writing. We at DFA believe in free speech and giving those we may disagree with an opportunity to make their case. In that spirit, here is Senator Lieberman's letter (click for full-size PDF):

Dear Jim,

Thank you for writing. Your opinion is important to me, even if it is critical of a position I have taken. Debate is the nature of our system. In fact, it is one of the enduring sources of our national strength.

I know we disagree on the war in Iraq, and I want to be clear: I believe we were right to go into Iraq and I believe we are pursuing worthy and achievable goals. I also believe our country, as well as the Iraqi people, will be far better off if we, and they, are successful there than if we fail there. I have visited Iraq four times in the past 17 months and I have seen the progress there on the military, political and economic fronts. It is enough? No. Would I like to see it happen more quickly? Yes. But we are making progress.

In a recent series of speeches, essays and interviews, I have been trying to encourage a conversation in Iraq that will focus our nation's minds and hearts on what can be done to win in Iraq. And on a subject so important, I have asked that it be a debate free of politics and posturing on all sides.

I have been clear all along that I believe the Bush Administration made many mistakes in the run-up to the invasion and its aftermath. I have encouraged and supported debates and Congressional investigations into those mistakes, whether in intelligence, war planning, or Iraqi reconstruction. I have always believed that out of those types of debates, even on sensitive issues, comes better public policy, and a healthier, more vibrant democracy, especially when those debates are respectful and bipartisan. We must find out what went wrong so we can fix it now and make sure it never happens again. And we must hold those who have made mistakes accountable.

But I also believe we must be careful not to allow debate about why we over threw Saddam and who is responsible for the mistakes to draw our attention away from the national focus we must maintain now to try to find a way to achieve a stable democracy in Iraq. It is crucial for the security of the Iraqi people, for the Middle East, for our nation, and for the world. I believe a debate about how best to do that is necessary to achieve our national goals while protecting our men and women in uniform.

Don't debate the bad stuff, just let it go. No, Joe Lieberman, you are wrong. What you want to do is stifle dissent.

[Loonman]

1. Who keeps voting this idiot into office?

Is what I want to know.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. The voters of Connecticut

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000senate.htm#CT

[bigscott]

14. yes but...

Considering Phil Giordano is now in prison for having sex with children, the Dems/Indies in CT HAVE to be able to run a decent challenge in the primaries! Jesus H Christ, if my fellow Nutmeggers give 35% of the vote to a pedophile and 60+% to Lieberman - I am MOVING

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. When was the last time he has had a primary challenge?

:shrug:

[400Years]

2. give joe a gun and air drop his ass over Bagdhad

got that joementum workin'

[Cha]

9. Best advice I've seen

today and I've seen a lot, already!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. "Just a boy and his dog."

[Cha]

10. That's a yella dog!

That's funny!

[WLKjr]

4. I blame not only a flawed vote in FL, but Joe as well for 2000 n/t

[Cha]

11. Oh Yeah, lieberman

was a drag on the Democratic ticket..and I'm not sure if Gore chose him to heft up the "morals" vote or if he had to listen to a bunch of advisors who pressured him into it for the same damn reason. Either way, I know Gore must regret it..the way things turned out.

[WLKjr]

21. IT was the ADVISORS

they were a bunch of what I like to call "p***ies".

[robbedvoter]

18. He yelled that the phony military ballots should be counted

That was Gore's victory right there - by 202 votes - as counted by New York Times.

[mmonk]

5. A "democrat" that says

"we must be careful not to allow debate about why we overthrew Saddam"? I remember during the primaries when this clown kept questioning the democratic credentials of Clark. What a joke.

[Cha]

13. That's good to know...

How ironic that lieberman turned out to be the one whose "democratic creditials" is a national issue!

Like the political strip that "RummyIsFrosted" has up thread.

[Burried News]

6. "I believe a debate " Joe Liberman - master debater

[Cha]

8. What a Weird little dude..

"Debate is the nature of our system. In fact, it is one of the enduring sources of our national strength."

BUT!.."But I also believe we must be careful not to allow debate about why we over threw Saddam and who is responsible for the mistakes to draw our attention away from the national focus we must maintain now to try to find a way to achieve a stable democracy in Iraq."

Now, he's lost me and I hope millions of others! We don't even have a freakin' democracy here in the USA, lie-ber-man.

[Larkspur]

12. Looks like I'll be sending Lieberman DOD enlistment forms with his kids

names on them. And maybe I'll add his wife and him too.

If he thinks this war is so important, then he should willingly sacrifice his kids, especially since he's enthusiastic about shipping other people and their kids off to that hell hole called Iraq.

[mattclearing]

15. I understand the knee-jerk reactions here, but his response isn't that bad

While I think Lieberman is a bit too eager to support the right-wing goals in Iraq and elsewhere, and he is basically saying that the invasion was right, but the execution was shoddy, I do think it's irresponsible to leave abruptly without having reinforced the government we've put in place.

My personal feeling is that we need to get American soldiers off the streets, and train these Iraqi recruits in private. The perception of an occupying force (and the very real destruction wrought by it) is destroying any hope that a U.S. friendly government could be accepted by the populace.

Ultimately, we want that government to be U.S. friendly. To say otherwise is basically to say, "We want to let the country collapse into chaos because we are still bitter over losing the battle over whether to invade. It's selfish and destructive, and is bad for both the U.S. and the Iraqi people.

I think the way to accomplish stability is to get our troops out of sight, if not out of the country. Only then will the people of Iraq embrace their fledgling government. Only then will their troops get cooperation. Only then will the insurgents find themselves at a loss for recruits. Only then can we declare victory and head home.

[mmonk]

19. So

should we debate the next war or not?

[mattclearing]

20. Like last time, I will be on the side of not invading.

But in the event that like last time, the government completely ignores me, I will be on the side of making the best of a bad situation. :)

[DemonFighterLives]

16. It doesn't look like he will ever get it

He loves the war and his daddy dubby!
Oh it is getting so good over there Joe. How about- still worse than before we went in?

Edit: It has been getting better for so long, it must be a virtual Utopia there now. Hard to see how it can improve any further.