Posted on 12/06/2005 1:05:08 PM PST by jmc1969
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, increasingly isolated in his own Democratic party because of his strong support for the Iraq war, today called on the White House and congressional leaders to form a special "war cabinet" to provide advice and direction for the war effort.
The Connecticut Democrat's "Bipartisan Victory in Iraq Administrative Group," designed to take some of the political edge off the war debate, would be modeled after similar panels during the Vietnam War and World War II.
Lieberman, whom the Bush administration has praised repeatedly for his war stance, defended the president. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
There was no immediate response from the White House or congressional leaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
I like him more and more everyday.
The anti-war, leftists, in the dem party are starting not to like uncle Joe.
Joe is going to need some bodyguards. The moonbats ain't happy.
> ... modeled after similar panels during the Vietnam
> War and World War II.
And the VN one worked so well, not.
So why is this the first time I've ever heard of such
panels? On just how involved was the WW-II panel, given
reports of how little VP Truman knew when he took over?
I actually think this is a good idea.
Well, according to ABC News, it would include a bunch of Democrat Senators and Representatives.
Don't like the idea. The war is progessing well now. Presumably this would be something like the 9/11 commission. Yuk.
What's with Loserman? He sounds more rational every day. He really sounded like a nutbag when he was running with the Goron.
Just switch parties Joe. We'll put you ahead of Chafee, Snow, Collins and Specter in the pecking order.
They can meet in a phone booth.
That is the devil.
I think it is a good idea as well. It will likely be nothing like the 911 pannel. And, even if it was we have Lieberman on the pannel as the deciding vote.
Great, as long as the president doesn't make any more stupid moves like putting Gorelick on the 9-11 commission. Each and every member should be first thoroughly vetted to make sure that their primary goal is total victory over terrorism as quickly as possible and party loyalty is completely secondary.
I feared that when I read the word "bi-partisan".
See, he's a liberal I can call an Opponent, who I disagree with on some issues here and there - as opposed to the liberals like Kennedy who is a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution and to whom I cannot extend the recognition of his being a countryman.
Really, I'm glad that Democrats like Lieberman do exist and make some noise. I wish we had a few more like him. I still wouldn't vote for him for President normally, and I wouldn't agree with 3 out of 4 issues that he addresses - but I don't doubt that he's FOR America.
The rest of the far-leftist totalitarian-admiring Fifth-Column scumbags aren't worth spit and I sincerely think they're going to end up trying insurrection out of infantile frustration. I don't consider them to be American - hell, for people like Michael Moore, I hardly consider them to be primates.
Just what we need -- more armchair quarterbacking Congresscritters -- with War Cabinet status.
[/sarcasm]
Lieberman is the McCain of the socialist party. - tom
Not a good idea if you let the Copperheads into the cabinet.
He's grooming himself for another VP spot on a Dem ticket.
It doesn't matter as long as Lieberman's in there then the pro-war side will always speak for the group as a whole because they will have the majority.
Pardon me but this is pure BS.... The President is commander-in-chief for a reason...we don't need to fight a war by committee especially one composed of partisan hacks. While the intent may have been good, the practicality of the matter is that the demogogueocrats would fight the administration at every opportunity.
This is one ploy to give the democrats more power than the constitution allows....sort of like demanding that the President accept their recommendations for court appointments.
Read and Follow the constitution it's worked for 230 years!
Waging war is a power enumerated (clearly) to the Executive, not the Legislative. Having more people with political agendas involved in the war effort will only make things go downhill.
Any Veep candidate has to be a parrot for the top of the ticket. Remember who Ronald Reagan's running mate was in 1976? Hint: He was from the same state as Specter, but made Arlen look like Jesse Helms.
I don't hold Joe responsible for anything he said in the 2000 Campaign. He was part of Gore's team, not a free agent. Had I lived in Connecticut when Joe first ran, I would have voted for him over that Leftist so-called Republican Lowell Weicker -- who was WAY Left of Joe.
IMHO there is NO more important issue facing this country than supporting the mission of our troops and achieving victory in the Middle East. Ed Koch agrees -- Ed disagrees with the President on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE but this one, but this one is what really counts.
Joe support the war, supports our troops, and supports our C-in-C -- so me for Joe.
Okay, as long as Lieberman is the only Democrat on the cabinet.
You know, I'm thinking I need to separate the dem party when I talk about them in terms of who is anti-American and who is a normal democrat like Joe Lieberman.
I feel such anger when I type about the anti-American demRat party that I don't even want to capitalize the first letter of their party. But at the same time I have a great deal of respect for someone like Joe Lieberman, who is showing himself as a true American and I want to show my respect.
It's like there is a split in the demoRat party. The good vs. the bad. If I type Democrat that term makes me cringe because it speaks for trash like dean, kerry, pelosi, durbin. So I need a term to use that doesn't make me cringe when I type about true Americans like Joe Lieberman.
Any suggestions? True Democrat? American Democrat? Something that shows respect but differentiates those who are all about America first from those who are anti-American.
What makes you think the the RATS would appoint Lieberman to the War Cabinet or anything else for that matter?
The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was made up of Republican Partisan Hacks in 1861-5, and they were useless at best. At times, they were a real problem for Lincoln and the war effort.
A Committee or "war cabinet" today might sound good on paper, but in practice I think it would be more of an impediment to victory than anything else.
At least Joe supports the war. He's OK by me.
Having Hillary on the cabinet would be funny as well. Because, it would just make her base hate her even more.
Good idea if we could get a War Cabinet full of people like Lieberman.
The smart Democrats with aspirations are distancing themselves from the likes of Dean and Kerry, and it's a little worrisome. Hillary's doing the same thing.
It wouldn't be their choice. Either Lieberman's on the cabinet or there is no cabinet.
Joe would worry me less than people like McCain, Warner, and other grandstanding gasbags on our side of the aisle.
If they did that, DU would have to close up shop. ;)
It will be always safe to call them Left wing liberals when talking about democrats (at least 50% of them) who are anti-American, anti-military, and TRAITORS.
It's the President's cabinet.
Joe is the last person I want giving military advice to anyone in this administration.
Who will he pick, his good friend Albore, Kookinitch, Sharpton?
The President is commander-in-chief for a reason...we don't need to fight a war by committee especially one composed of partisan hacks. While the intent may have been goodOf course you are right about the CIC. As for Joe's intent...it's to get him back into his own party's good graces... at least a little bit.
Why doesn't he just join the Republicans.
war cabinet= group of partisan hacks that loudly complain about the war, do not believe it can be won, and call for immediate pullout, that are locked in a small, sound proof room until the end of the war.
at least, that's my wishful thinking definition :)
I really think we could use this to further marginalize the far left and that is exactly what Lieberman is thinking.
Amen!
Alright! Finally some reason in the face of foolishness...
The dems want a foot in the door when the Iraq experiment proves successful. (Hello elections!) They have no ideas, nil, nada, zilch -- well, other than the same old, same old (Vietnam quagmire, etc.). They need something that will allow them to take complete credit for victory. The UN isn't fashionable right now in any way, shape, or form, and frankly, neither is anything Kerry says. Ever.
Considering the majority of the members would be who Bush and the pro-war dems want to put there and the far left and anti war dems would boycott the idea I think the administation wouldn't have a problem.
THis man, like BUsh, got a core.
Yes, they are TRAITORS for sure. And a few other terms that I should wash my mind out for thinking of when I think of them.
No. He would not pick those people.
He broke with Bore on the war long ago. Sharpie and Kookiness are so far gone he never had any commonality with them.
Does this say who would pick the President's war cabinet? I would guess it would be joint between the WH and the House and Senate, with all parties having to sign off on the members.
BTW, not pushing the idea, because I had given it no thought whatsoever.
Let'em go Joe... we'll take you in. There ain't one of your pals I'd WANT on a 'war cabinet'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.