Posted on 12/04/2005 11:26:02 AM PST by wagglebee
Will Sen. Joseph Lieberman be tapped next year to become Secretary of Defense as a reward for his support for the Iraq war?
That's the prediction from former New Republic magazine editor Andrew Sullivan, who told NBC's "Chris Matthews Show" on Sunday: "Before the next congressional elections, Joe Lieberman will be asked to be Secretary of Defense to succeed Don Rumsfeld."
"That's the back story behind Lieberman's amazing defense of the administration this week," Sullivan insisted.
Asked if he thought the Connecticut Democrat would accept the appointment, Sullivan said: "I don't know - it depends on how things are going in Iraq. But I think he's being lined up."
On Tuesday, Lieberman confounded war critics within his own party with a stunning editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the Iraq war is being won.
"Progress is visible and practical," Lieberman wrote upon returning from his fourth trip to the war zone.
"People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it," he explained.
Lieberman also endorsed the Bush administration contention that the Iraq war has made America safer, warning: "If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East."
Lieberman is NOT honest!! He would Not hold Clinton accountable in the impoochment. Joe's a whiney-ass wuss who gets one thing right once in a while...big whoop.
Oh, well, Andrew Sullivan is on such good terms with this administration and conservatives in general. LOL
These Rummy will be replaced stories seem to be as unending as the reported deaths of zarquawi.
Leiberman is not going to leave to become SOD for two years assuming he's won his re-election for six more years in D.C. What is Sullivan on>
I'm counting on Rummy exiting the day G.W.B. does in 2009 defying his critics.
Rumsfeld would make an excellent President for 2009-16 cycle.
I agree, but it's not going to happen, see what I wrote in #35.
Let Rummy stay out this administration. Hated by the MSM they look for "anything" to slander him. He's a favorite to beat on. SECDEF, hawk, republican who does not pander to the MSM and embarrasses them even on occasion; they love to cut into him at every opportunity they have.
I don't think the US could have had a better SECDEF than we did. He weathered some bad times, had to make serious strategic decisions and adopted a DoD that was on a downward glide slope with no vision and decaying moral.
Id go as far as to say that moral is higher today than in 1999. Soldiers dont join an Army to sit in garrison. Most of those 20 something guys want to go. They want a CIB, a Combat patch. What soldiers see is when their Army suffers from a Peace dividend. When their pay and benefits erode. When housing areas dont get renovated and needed systems dont get bought because of a lack of funds. When money is so tight that the allocation for ammunition at ranges has to be adjusted. When soldier should shoot more because they barely meets the minimal standard, but they dont because there is a lack of funding. When Generals and the Command Sergeant Majors of the Army get fired for adultery, but the Commander in Chief commits the same, plus perjury but gets off with a slap on his wrist. Hes your boss. The DoD suffered from a lack of competent leaders, who were appointed because the toed the Clinton line but were sometimes grossly incompetent (i.e. Brown). When political statements are made and Clinton panders to the gay vote and pushes a Dont ask dont tell policy onto a conservative overwhelmingly male population. Those things hurt moral! But that the MSM didnt carte to report about. Clinton after all was their boy.
Rummy gets the negative press because he's not liked. But he makes all the right decisions.
Red6
Personally I don't trust ANY of them.
But I think what makes him a brilliant SecDef is the fact that he knows enough to realize the areas where the career military bosses are the ones who know how to run a war. He stays out of their way and lets them do what they have spent decades learning how to do.
I feel the same. He was a willing accomplice to Al Gore's attempt to steal the election, period.
Good point.
Never thought of it that way. But he took the pressure off of Bush, that's for sure!
Red6
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Lieberman is not the worst democrat by far but he's no Zell Miller and he's certaingly no Rumsfeld. Lieberman rolled over on his principles when it came to the impeachment vote and is fairly left of center on most things. His support for the war is directly related to his support for Israel, admirable certainly, but he's a one trick pony.
Let's see, McCain or Lieberman.
I trust Lieberman much more than McCain to do what he knows is right rather than politically expedient. The evidence is that McCain is much more interested in having his name associated with his new ideas rather than tried and proven acts credited to someone else, aka a legacy. This makes him extremely dangerous.
If he stands down does that mean Connecticut's Republican governor gets to replace him?
I dunno, he could be controlled somewhat within the Bush admin rather than voting liberal on the Senate floor.
Lieberman would make a great Defense Secretary, but I hope he stays in the Senate as a Democrat as his gracious presence annoys all of the right people.
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.