Posted on 02/07/2007 9:03:41 PM PST by FairOpinion
It came as little surprise that when Senate Republicans blocked debate Monday on a resolution that would have opposed President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, erstwhile Democrat, sided with them.
But Mr. Lieberman also went further, accusing Democrats of giving strength to the enemy and abandoning the troops, and arguing that an alternative resolution that he and many Republicans backed was “a statement of support to our troops.”
Defeated last year in the Democratic senatorial primary in Connecticut but then elected as an independent to a fourth term, Mr. Lieberman has kept a promise to caucus with the Democrats, giving them a majority of only 51 to 49 and earning for him a designation as “the most influential man in the Senate.”
But on Iraq, the issue that made the last year the most difficult of his political life, he has moved farther and farther from the party, winding up to the right of many Republicans who now embrace what six months ago was almost solely a Democratic position on the war.
At hearings on Iraq, Mr. Lieberman frequently leads witnesses to testimony in support of the president. Isn’t it true, he asked Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the departing commander of American forces there, that over all, the policy in Iraq has been a success? Doesn’t Mr. Bush’s strategy offer “a higher probability of working than any other plan?”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If the RINOS had half the balls that Joe L (as reported) has, then the Republicans would be in a lot better shape.The Dem/RINO show is a pathetic revue. Coleman, Warner and the rest, what the f are you thinking? even if hitlery makes it in, do you have a spine for God's sake????
Effing hypocrites.
Anyone who takes a stand opposed to the position approved by the Dems is a brave guy, in my book.
Wrong thread. Go grind your axe elsewhere.
You think Joe's Democratic collegues wish they had supported him?I'll bet Chris Dodd does!!
I like Joe, he's a reliable supporter of our brave troops, as opposed to that a$$hole Chuck Hagel, who has as much a chance of winning the presidency as I do.
What is the object of the 'surge'?
Isn't it designed to root out terrorists and make Baghdad more secure?
To reduce Iraqi civilian and US troop casualties?
If so, How can the Dims claim to 'Support the Troops' on one hand and on the other refuse a tactical operation that would result in fewer casualties??
Interesting how the Dems win the Senate but at the same time a pro war liberal has to run as an independent and wins. so instead of it being 51-49 against the war its 50-50. Of course then Johnson has a stroke and the pro war numbers get the majority. Good for Joe that Zionist. /sarc
Lieberman is clearly for victory. Lieberman is not a "spork".
Thank you, Senator Lieberman, for having the guts to stand up for what is right and exposing the democrats as anti-American and traitors.
History is going to be very kind to this man. We won't be around to read them, but I guarantee you that someday there will be a slew of Phd dissertations written about this guy's courageous commitment to the resistance against islamofascism and its ennablers within his own party.
Extraordinary.
Do I hear the wind blowing again?
THAT's the truth.
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.