I'm confused, help me out..

[V. Barbarino]

If Liberman was a few votes away from becomming our VP, even some claim Bush stole the election thus Liberman should have been our new VP, then how come the Dems voted him out of office as a Dem forcing him to run as an independent???

Am I wrong or what we have here is a clear case of if you voted for the war, the Dem party will turn their backs on you?

This is a disaster for the Dems.. Their party is fractured..

ps, Libermann is still gonna win..

[Devilicious]

I think the problem is that he has continued to support the war...

Along the same lines, I think one of the worst things about the Bush administration is that they have not admitted how wrong they were [and continue to be].

[tres-b]

Liberman has an excellent opportunity to win. The Dems have become an anti-war party. The psycho-left(Howard Dean types) are driving the bus. Dems that represent moderates(Liberman) are getting ostracized. BAD NEWS for Dems.

The reality is that most of America is moderate and most of America(at their core anyway) are hawks. America did not get where we are by sitting on the sideline by letting camel jockeys with bombs push us around.

Just out of curiosity, were John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc wrong to sign the war resolution...none of you Dems ever call them out for supporting the war. It is laughable how quickly liberals re-write history.,

[pod]

It's like I've always said. I had no problem with deposing Saddam. He was an asshole and had to go. What I disapproved of is the "story" that the administration concocted, and the methods.

We could have taken out Saddam and his cronies with less than 1,000 men, from the people who executed it, to the planners, to the intel teams, and the brass.

We could have hauled them here back to the US and executed them at Fort Leavenworth.

Case closed.

[tres-b]

In theory, you are right but I think that the prospects of tracking down Saddam would have been difficult. Heck, it was difficult and we had a major force in place.

The power vacuum created by removing Saddam in that way would have created more instability in the region than the way we have gone about it. But that is pure speculation...

[slamminshaun]

Democrats are the party of extremists. You all might hate Bush and that's fine, but who are the moderates in politics today. The only moderate I could name on the Democrat side of the fence was Joe Liebermann, and they gave him the boot. Even Bill Clinton couldn't save this man.

On the other hand, moderates are plentiful within the Republican party. Giuliani, McCain, Schwartzenegger....those are the high profile guys. Conservatives will vote Republican, moderates will vote 70/30 in favor of Republicans. Left wing nut jobs will vote for the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton, Boxer, Reid, and especially Dean.

I hope to see a McCain/Liebermann or Giuliani/Liebermann ticket in 2008. Clinton won't stand a chance.

[coach]

Originally Posted by tres-b

Just out of curiosity, were John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc wrong to sign the war resolution...none of you Dems ever call them out for supporting the war. It is laughable how quickly liberals re-write history.,

Didn't you read the story, the demz DID just call out a democratic war supporter in Liberman. Kerry didn't win the presidency (at least not by a good enough margin), so I'd say he got called out, too. I don't know if they others have been up for re-election.

Personally, I cannot stand that the democrats have taken this on as an issue. I'm about as liberal as they come and even *I* know we cannot get out of Iraq at this point without causing major havoc. I think we need to blackmail the rest of the world to get off their ass and get in there and help us fix the problem. Overwhelming force and all. The war is NOT a liberal/conservative issue. Things like social security and healthcare are.

[trancepriest]

Civil War. ;D

[pod]

Originally Posted by tres-b

In theory, you are right but I think that the prospects of tracking down Saddam would have been difficult. Heck, it was difficult and we had a major force in place.

The power vacuum created by removing Saddam in that way would have created more instability in the region than the way we have gone about it. But that is pure speculation...

Like they say, work smart, not hard. I'm sure paying off some people and with some creative problem solving, we could have found him, and had a suitable leader installed in his place.

[trancepriest]

Originally Posted by pod

Like they say, work smart, not hard. I'm sure paying off some people and with some creative problem solving, we could have found him, and had a suitable leader installed in his place.

Pod we can't fight this war smart. You are an unpatriotic mofo for even suggesting it. We have to blow shit up man... they have to pay. I'm all for attacking the UK and Saudi Arabia. Its about time we hit the homes of these terrorist... there dwelling places, the very caves they came from, we have to smoke them out. We should be shelling London in 10 minutes... these fuckers have to pay. Scotland Yard and all these liberal organizations got to pay.