Joe wonders if party is on a "kind of crusade or jihad"

[Rose Siding]

David S. Broder
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page B07
snip>
"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."

That was the point of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Lieberman wrote last November endorsing the president's announced strategy to defeat the insurgency and establish a democratic government in Iraq. That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. "It was decisive," Lamont told me in an interview. "Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong."

"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."
...
"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601561.html

[Vincardog]

1. Another RW talking point It was a moment to put the national interest

above partisan interest. While they put their personnel interests above either party or country.

The death cult has been successful at having everybody toe the line, just look at hate radio or the daily Talking points out out by the GOP.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. huh?

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Interesting post over at firedoglake:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/14/the-democratic-incumbency-protection-racket/

This from Digby (#9) was priceless:

“Here’s the plan. First, the Democratic terrorists are going to kick Lieberman’s ass. After that, they are going to kick the Republican party’s ass. And finally they will kick bin Laden’s ass. We didn’t create this hard core political environment, the Republicans did, with the help of self-serving Dems like Lieberman. Now somebody has to clean up all these messes. The crazed Democratic terrorists who are willing to cast aside all morality by ruthlessly supporting a primary challenger (who is not a travelling Deadhead, but rather a middle of the road self made millionaire) seem to be the only ones who are willing to do it.”

[glitch]

5. Great. Now he's implying Democratic opponents are jihadists.

Rather blatantly too.

How low can you go Joe?

[mmonk]

9. There is no bottom. I've always known that,

especially during the primaries last time with his attacks on Clark. His side of the party is the reason we are in an elective war based on lies still and there are extremists now in the court system that will systematically remove our constitution from existence. This nearly complete takeover would not have been possible without help (they didn't have the numbers to completely create this dictatorship if there had been united opposition).

[glitch]

16. I think you are correct. This is a genuine coup, and what kind of coup

wouldn't include moles?

[SoCalDem]

6. Nope, Joe.. Just cleaning house..

Time to throw out the trash :)

[Cha]

19. We like Diversity..just not the

bush kind.

[madfloridian]

7. Is Joe calling us Jihadists? Not a very good idea.

BTW, did you see his bear ad? It was up at Kos.

[Cha]

21. joe IS calling us

Jihadists. Doesn't he get that from the magazine you showed us..I forget the name but it had "jihadists" on the front?

[madfloridian]

29. Ah, yes, I remember that cover well.

Still got bruises from posting it once...don't think I'll do it again.

:hi:

[Cha]

37. It was a dlcer

wasn't it }(

:hi:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. "No successful political party has ever done that." LOL, haven't

been reading the papers much the last 10 years or so, eh Joe?

[corkhead]

10. Call me a Joehadist, I'll wear it proudly

[Cha]

22. No mo' "joemomentum"..took a

sharp right into "joehadist"!

[yardwork]

11. The Democrats are "on a crusade or jihad." Un-freakin-believable.

Please get rid of Joe.

[Fleshdancer]

12. First of all, can we all agree that the word "jihad" is greatly abused?

Everything is a goddamn "jihad" these days and it's getting extremely ridiculous.

Having said that, can anyone explain to me how invading and occupying Iraq and continually putting our brothers and sisters in a dangerous urban warfare environment for long stretches of time is a National interest? Would it still be a National interest if he had relatives fighting and dying over there? Somehow I doubt it.

:eyes:

[mmonk]

13. Which one will work?

I'll be for that.

[Marr]

14. He compares his Dem constituents to terrorists and wonders why

they question his loyalties.

Joe needs to look up the word "representative". His constituents are not obliged to accept his 'different positions'.

Just go to the Republicans, Joe. You'll be right at home there- you can compare those Democratic citizens to terrorists all you like.

[NI4NI]

15. Lieberman said he "wasn't thinking of Democratic unity"???

No shit, Sherlock! He's a master of the obvious. What is Lieberman drinking and thinking that it's a "challenge to accept (his) diversity of opinion" when (his) opinion supports a failed, fatal, and selfish "strategy" in Iraq; Or, that Commander Chuckle Nuts has any "credibility" to undermine?

[Cha]

17. Hey Fuckheadjoe! The question is

..Do you accept diversity of opinion or are you on a kind of crusade or jihad? I'll just throw that stupid question back in your face where it's deserved.

[sandnsea]

18. Hey Joe, it isn't partisan - the president has no credibility

That's the friggin' point.

[paulk]

20. if it's ok for Lieberman to make judgements

it's also ok for voters to judge him on them.

He doesn't seem to understand this.

And his "crusade or jihad" nonsense is over the line.

Joe is showing himself as completely out of touch.

[Cha]

24. joehadist is a little full

of himself after that smooch from bush.

[paulk]

31. Joe's full of something, all right

and it's not in the "national interest" to give Bush a free pass.

What a maroon.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. If Lieberman's case for continued war had any merit, it would be different

However, he not only continues to advocate for more of the same, he will not even admit to the obvious mistakes and duplicity that have gotten us where we are now.

[walldude]

25. " Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining

the credibility of the president." Yeah thats it :eyes: Bush isn't undermining his own credibility, it's the people who are pointing out the errors, mistakes, bad policy, and general apathy of the administration who are "undermining" his credibility. So liberals need sit back shut up and let the country go to hell in a hand basket so the "president" can keep his credibility. :eyes:

[charlie]

26. "...challenge from the left of the party"

The challenger your ad says sides with Republicans 80% of the time. The one whose stance on his prime issue is supported by most people in the country. That left, Joe?

"...forced to run as an independent."

Cut the dramatics, Broder. Joe isn't forced to do anything.

[AndyTiedye]

27. But What About the National Interests of OUR Nation?

"Lieberman is all about putting country above party.
Unfortunately that country is Israel."

[Beelzebud]

28. Joe says WE'RE on a JIHAD? FUCK YOU JOE

Jihad

Crusade

Joe. Go FUCK YOURSELF

[Zorra]

30. 2,500 dead, 8,000 crippled for life, $300 billion borrowed & wasted,

et-effing-cetera, and Joe says this is in our national interest?

WTF is he smoking? Jimsonweed laced crack?

Senator, are we Democrats going to believe what we see, or what you tell us? You want Democrats to follow you and Bu*h off that cliff, you can just forget about it.

It's not a simple matter of opinion. It is a matter of reason, logic, and common sense.

The Occupation of Iraq is bad for all Americans, not just Democrats, and there is absolutely no reason on God's green earth that we should condone the policies of dangerous lunatics.

[oasis]

32. Ask Hannity to campaign for ya Joe. You're the Rethug dream candidate.

:loveya:

[jaysunb]

33. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity.

That....about says it all. :evilfrown:

[fishwax]

34. what a crock of shit

When you take positions that are wildly unpopular with the people you're supposed to represent, then there's a decent chance they might choose to have someone else represent them. That's not jihad, that's democracy.

To whine about people in the party who work to elect someone who actually represents the masses on one of the most crucial issues of the day is bad enough. But to allude to jihad or crusade in the process is to employ political rhetoric of the basest order and (not coincidentally) happens to echo the talking points of the party and ideology we as Democrats oppose.

So screw Joe Lieberman. He has a better liberal record than most realize, but it is severely undercut by his support of the war, and completely and thoroughly undermined by his willingness to embrace and echo this administrations attacks on democrats and anti-war voices. If anyone's fighting a jihad, it's lieberman, who continues to imply that anyone who doesn't take his position on the war is not voting with the best interests of america at heart.

I hope Lamont wins.

[paulk]

35. the challenge for the party is not

"whether it will accept diversity of opinion" - it's whether or not they'll accept Lieberman's opinions and renominate him.

Lieberman seems to think he's entitled to the nomination.

[Pithy Cherub]

36. Joe put his own IED in the middle of his career

and wants to be a vapid victim, magpie martyr or a panderbear politician. JL is stunningly capable of making all three his platform. Joementum, drank bush's kool-aid, jumped Spielberg's shark and fetched Cheney's paper. He is the esscence of a Democratic troll.

No successful politician has ever done what Joementum has done either over war.

[ProSense]

38. Perfect example of why Democrats shouldn't spew RW talking points!

Lieberman does it so well, and it only serves to try to undercut the efforts to stand up for Democratic values. About 33% of Republicans think the war is a mistake, but Lieberman toes the Neocon line! Bush is a liar, yet Lieberman believes himself justified in mischaracterizing opposition to lies and failed policies and a demand for accountability and truth-telling as a crusade! Wow!