Lieberman concedes

[gldstwmn]

Announces his run for Senate as an independent live on CSPAN just now.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/08/democratic.primaries/index.html

Lieberman concedes to Lamont, vows to run in November
Georgia's McKinney loses to primary challenger

Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Posted: 11:29 p.m. EDT (03:29 GMT)


Sen. Joseph Lieberman vowed to run as an "independent Democrat" this fall, despite losing Tuesday's primary.
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Sen. Joseph Lieberman conceded to cable executive Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for the Connecticut Senate nomination Tuesday night but vowed to run as an "independent Democrat" this fall.

With 94 percent of the precincts reporting, Lamont led Lieberman 52 percent to 48 percent, according to The Associated Press.

Lieberman, who was former Vice President Al Gore's running mate in 2000, is seeking a fourth Senate term. Lamont, a former Greenwich city councilman, is running his first statewide campaign.

After telling his supporters that he had called Lamont to congratulate him on his victory, Lieberman said "We've just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead, but, in the second half, our team -- Team Connecticut -- is going to surge forward to victory in November"

The three-term senator said he was disappointed by the results but said he was more disappointed in how the primary campaign was conducted.

"The old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, and I cannot, I will not let this result stand."

Lieberman had threatened to run as an independent in November's if he failed to claim the party's nomination, further enraging party activists and many Web commentators, who have boosted Lamont.

A source close to Lieberman told CNN that Lieberman has the 7,500 signatures necessary to get on the ballot as an independent candidate.

Voter turnout was high in the high-profile primary fight, according to Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz. Bysiewicz predicted Tuesday that turnout for the primary could reach 45 percent to 50 percent, nearly double the normal turnout for a primary election.

Bysiewicz's office said turnout was high, compared to previous elections, in Greenwich -- Lamont's hometown -- as well as Hartford, Danbury and New Briton.

New Briton and Hartford are considered liberal areas, with votes in the 2004 presidential election for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry exceeding two-thirds in both cities.

Both Lieberman's and Lamont's campaigns claimed that high voter turnout would help their chances for victory.

Meanwhile, Rep. Cynthia McKinney -- a vehement critic of President Bush who recently avoided charges in a March scuffle with a Capitol Police officer -- lost in a runoff against Hank Johnson, a former county commissioner in her suburban Atlanta district, the AP said.

With 89 percent of precincts reporting, Johnson led McKinney 59 percent to 41 percent, according to Georgia's Secretary of State.

In Missouri, as expected, Claire McCaskill won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate and will face Republican Sen. Jim Talent this fall, according to the AP.

Primaries are also taking place in Colorado and Michigan, but the Democratic race in Connecticut is the most closely watched of Tuesday's races.

All eyes on Connecticut
Lieberman was an unsuccessful contender for the Democratic presidential nod in 2004. He has been blasted by many Democrats in Connecticut and nationwide not only for his outspoken support of the war in Iraq, but also for his criticism of fellow Democrats who disagree. (Watch Lieberman's fans and foes among the voters -- 1:36)

"I think too often, Sen. Lieberman goes out of his way to undermine the Democratic message," Lamont said Monday.

In a state President Bush lost by a 10-point spread in 2004, Lieberman's critics have crystallized their complaint in a single image: Bush's embrace of Lieberman before the 2005 State of the Union address. Lamont boosters have mocked the scene with a pickup-mounted replica of the scene, dubbed "The Kiss."

Lieberman calls accusations that he has been a "cheerleader" for Bush "ridiculous." Former President Bill Clinton, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland and fellow Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd have campaigned for him in recent weeks.

"I have opposed most of what this president has asked us to do in Congress," he said. "And secondly, that somehow I am not a real Democrat? It is outrageous."

Lieberman trailed Lamont by 6 percentage points in a Quinnipiac University poll out Monday -- about half the spread he faced the previous week.

However, despite the recent polling, Lieberman told campaign supporters that he expects to be the winner at the end of the evening.

"I gotta tell you, I have a very good feeling as we begin this primary day," Lieberman said. "This primary is not a referendum on George Bush. This is a choice they have between their senator, Joe Lieberman, and a guy coming up without any experience, running on one issue and running a negative campaign."

On Tuesday afternoon, Lieberman's campaign accused Lamont's of "dirty politics" on Tuesday after a denial-of-service attack knocked out the Lieberman campaign Web site. Lieberman spokesman Smith compared the hack to the kind of tactics used by Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser. (Full Story)

"There is no place for these Rovian tactics in Democratic politics, and we demand that our opponent calls off his supporters and their online attack dogs," Smith said.

The Lamont campaign has denied any involvement.

When asked by reporters at a campaign stop Tuesday if he or his campaign was responsible for the incident, Lamont said, "No, it's just another scurrilous charge."

Liz Dupont-Diehl, a Lamont spokeswoman, told CNN that the campaign "denounced and condemned" the action, and she denied any involvement by Lamont or members of his campaign. She added that the Lamont campaign did not know who was behind the incident.

McKinney trails challenger
Meanwhile, McKinney appeared to face an uphill battle in Georgia's 4th Congressional District, a largely African-American district she has represented for most of the past 14 years. Published polls showed her trailing Johnson, who has called her "an embarrassment" to the district.

McKinney, an outspoken liberal, calls herself Bush's "worst nightmare." She lost her bid for a sixth term in Congress in 2002, after she suggested that members of the Bush administration stood to profit from the war that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington -- but won the seat back in 2004.

In March, she clashed with a Capitol Police officer who stopped her to check her credentials. She announced later that she was sorry for what happened, and a District of Columbia grand jury that looked into the matter brought no charges. But she's still defending herself.

"The fact of the matter is, I was never charged with anything," she said in one of her debates with Johnson.

She fell short of a win in a three-way race in July's Democratic congressional primary, leading Johnson 47 percent to 44 percent. Johnson said her scuffle with the police was "one more controversy that could have been avoided."

He says he's running on the "ABC" ticket -- "Anybody but Cynthia" -- and promises to be a less divisive figure if elected.

[vermicious knid]

What doesn't he get? He is not wanted.

[gldstwmn]

Gotta love this headline from the WaPo:

Lieberman Concedes to Antiwar Challenger

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800596.html
HARTFORD, Conn., Aug . 8 -- In a stunning repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war and what opponents charged was his failure to challenge President Bush's war policies.

Full story at the link. :blob2: :blob2: :blob2:

[SuzeQuze]

Crap, there was a good headline about this that made me lol this am but can't remember it. Running as an I should get him real far. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

I think it is a little odd that people are celebrating this concession when it was to a complete neophyte.

It will be interesting to see how L does in the main election as many R's may vote for him over this unknown D.

[DavidMn]

It will be interesting to see if he can win in November.

[Nixxxed]

This appears to be just posted on several blogs:

According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

http://abcnews.blogs.com/theworldnewser/

[Rickypt]

It will be interesting to see if he can win in November.

Impossible. The Democratic establishment will not support him, meaning he won't be able to raise money.

Hooray for Connecticut! I'm loving you today.

[DavidMn]

Impossible. The Democratic establishment will not support him, meaning he won't be able to raise money.

Hooray for Connecticut! I'm loving you today.Ok, I can understand that, but it's not llike this Lamont came from nothing either. His family has PLENTY of money. Not that that makes him a bad guy.

[Rickypt]

Ok, I can understand that, but it's not llike this Lamont came from nothing either. His family has PLENTY of money. Not that that makes him a bad guy.

Actually, I'm agreeing with you on this. Lamont has tons of money and Lieberman will not be able to raise much because the Democratic Party won't support him. Maybe he can raise from Republicans, but that will turn even more Dems and Independents off.

I don't even know much about Lamont, but this anti-war statement was really important, especially going into the November elections.

Lieberman will be okay, I'm sure there's a nice Cabinet post waiting for him in the Bush Administration.

[SuzeQuze]

So would this mean the Rs wouldn't run an R?

[DavidMn]

Actually, I'm agreeing with you on this. Lamont has tons of money and Lieberman will not be able to raise much because the Democratic Party won't support him. Maybe he can raise from Republicans, but that will turn even more Dems and Independents off.

I don't even know much about Lamont, but this anti-war statement was really important, especially going into the November elections.

Lieberman will be okay, I'm sure there's a nice Cabinet post waiting for him in the Bush Administration.I have an idea about a new cabinet position aince the current administration seems to enjoy creating new ones. How about chief Ass-kisser? maybe Joe could fill that nicely.:laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

So would this mean the Rs wouldn't run an R?

The reason I ask is if a D and an R are running with Lieberman as an I then the votes will be skewed and I'm betting that will be to the D. With 3 contenders it is easier to win. Also, any "help" from Bush will polarize most voters toward the other side.

[Nixxxed]

The reason I ask is if a D and an R are running with Lieberman as an I then the votes will be skewed and I'm betting that will be to the D. With 3 contenders it is easier to win. Also, any "help" from Bush will polarize most voters toward the other side.
I've heard every possible permutation of this scenario has been discussed the last few days, and I have no idea how it will play out (nor do I think anyone else does). The problem seems to be that most voters in Connecticut are actually Independents (more than D and R combined), and no one really knows how they'll vote.

The Rs do have a candidate -- in the link I posted, the theory is that Dubya's help may be in getting the R candidate to drop out and skew his votes to Loserman. The D primary gap last night was only 10,000 votes... The Rs win if either their candidate or Joe wins.

[estranged4life]

come get another of your lost village idiots, he is contaminating the Independent party pool :lol:

[Nixxxed]

come get another of your lost village idiots, he is contaminating the Independent party pool :lol:

:lol:

I know - it's awful when your trash blows out of the bed of your pickup.

[irishgrl]

I doubt he'll get many votes from anyone :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I doubt he'll get many votes from anyone :shrug:

Well, he got a bunch in the primary :shrug:

Personally, I think it was idiotic of them to oust him in favor a no name who will be powerless in Washington. But, that is the way the chips fell.

[Rickypt]

Well, he got a bunch in the primary :shrug:

Personally, I think it was idiotic of them to oust him in favor a no name who will be powerless in Washington. But, that is the way the chips fell.

I call it democracy in action. I'd rather have a junior senator with less power than an established one who doesn't represent my viewpoints. I'm sure Lieberman knew his position on the war and his defense of the Bush Administration was out of sync with the majority of his supporters.

[gldstwmn]

So would this mean the Rs wouldn't run an R?

There is already a Republican candidate. They interviewed him last night but I can't remember his name.

[strandinthewind]

I call it democracy in action. I'd rather have a junior senator with less power than an established one who doesn't represent my viewpoints. I'm sure Lieberman knew his position on the war and his defense of the Bush Administration was out of sync with the majority of his supporters.

With all due respect, the war was one issue of thousands and L has vored against W something like 70% of the time if I remember correctly. Moreover, anyone who voted for Kerry or Gore or Clinton for that matter seemingly is hypocritical as Clinton killed in the name of the phantom WMD and still asserts, as do Kerry and Gore, that W was not wholly in error in Iraq, though the after result they disagree with.

Here is an interesting article from time.com

Wednesday, Aug. 09, 2006
Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss
At a time when the GOP should be back on its heels, Connecticut voters' rejection of a centrist Senator gives the party a potentially powerful new weapon to use against the Democrats this fall
By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON
From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvaina, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the oppposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.

One of the nip-and-tuck Senate races this year is in Missouri, and backers of Sen. Jim Talent are preparing an attack on his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, that is emblematic of the sort that will be seen all over the country within 24 hours. "Does Claire McCaskill support the wishes of the angry left by endorsing Ned Lamont's candidacy or will she support the man who was chosen by Al Gore as the Democrat's 2000 nominee for Vice President?" Republicans ask in a statment that will force McCaskill to talk about messy party business instead of her favored issues of government accountablity and affordable health care.

House candidates planned a similar tack, and the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a memo this morning playing up the potential distraction of Lieberman's independent candidacy in a state where three GOP incumbents — Reps. Rob Simmons, Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson — are perennially endangered. The memo said Connecticut Democrats "will now continue to train their attention on vanquishing Senator Lieberman when their three House candidates need all the help the can get."

Some senior Democrats hoped Lieberman would bow out to avoid underscoring party divisions. But Dan Gerstein, a strategic communications consultant who is a senior adviser to Lieberman, tells TIME that the independent campaign — formally called "Connecticut for Lieberman" — is "full steam ahead" and that the Senator's remarks on election night were "a point-of-no-return speech." Lieberman was doing a series of interviews, mostly with Connecticut reporters, and plans some campaign stops on Thursday with Democrats who supported him and will continue to do so. Organizers shied away from calling it a kick-off tour, instead saying it is a new phase of the campaign. "He's committed," Gerstein said. "He feels liberated and he feels very strongly it's the right thing to do." Gerstein said the Senator is prepared to have some tough conversations with senior Democrats, perhaps even former President Bill Clinton, who may pressure him to withdraw. "He feels there's something much larger at stake," Gerstein said.

Gleeful Republicans across the country mocked their opponents as isolationist "Defeat-ocrats," and even some Democratic officials said they can already imagine the ads in November races saying that Lieberman, once within a few hundred votes of being Vice President of the United States, is now "not liberal enough" for the Democratic Party. Republican officials, who have had little but bad news for months as Iraq festered and U.S. voters showed increasing signs of pessimism and discontent, said the Ned Lamont victory gave them a chance to paint Democrats as a party that had become captive to the liberal wing symbolized by the MoveOn.org civic action group. Mary Matalin, an outside adviser to the White House, signaled the message when she said on Fox News Channel shortly after the polls closed: "MoveOn is not fringe. They're the heart of the party."

On television and in speeches in coming days, party officials and strategists plan to talk about their respect for Lieberman as a distinguished public servant and argue that Lamont's victory represents the end of the long tradition of strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. The GOP plans to try to broaden the argument beyond Connecticut, a liberal stronghold, and work to convince viewers and voters that Democratic nominees across the country have more in common with Michael Moore and liberal bloggers than Main Street America.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a ?blame America first? attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

Trying to look on the bright side, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement this morning pointing to strong turnout in the primaries and declaring that Democratic voters "are energized." The challenge for Dean, and his party, is to channel that energy in a direction that makes victory more likely, not less.



Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Privacy Policy

[markolas]

With all due respect, the war was one issue of thousands and L has vored against W something like 70% of the time if I remember correctly. Moreover, anyone who voted for Kerry or Gore or Clinton for that matter seemingly is hypocritical as Clinton killed in the name of the phantom WMD and still asserts, as do Kerry and Gore, that W was not wholly in error in Iraq, though the after result they disagree with.

I didn't vote for Gore because I supported him, I voted for him because the alternative was fascism. Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry are not real liberals or progressives...and Clinton in particular sold out the GLBT community...Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry probably would too, if they had the chance. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw my shoe, but look at what the alternative is.

Lieberman is scum.

[strandinthewind]

I didn't vote for Gore because I supported him, I voted for him because the alternative was fascism. Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry are not real liberals or progressives...and Clinton in particular sold out the GLBT community...Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry probably would too, if they had the chance. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw my shoe, but look at what the alternative is.

Lieberman is scum.

See, I do not see it that way. Though I disagree with the way W went to war in Iraq and the way he handled the invasion and the after stuff, I do agree that W was correct in putting SH's feet to the fire and forcing him to account for the WMD the world unanimously (though the UN) thought he probably had - remember SH had defied the UN's unanimous orders to account. Like almost all people, I think 9/11 changed the way the world has to deal with people like SH and the possibility that he may have WMD. As an aside, it is interesting to me how no one on the far left is willing to even contemplate that the war in Iraq is all SH's fault. After all, SH orchestrated the corruption at the UN - SH refused to cooperate for 10+ years - and he still refused to cooperate until the very end, when he started cooperating, which IMO was a little to late. I mean if you had a friend that fed you utter BS for years and then when you finally held their feet to the fire, they acted like they were stopping the BS - would you believe them? I suggest most if not all of us would not. But, anyway, here is a site listing L's record, which I submit is pretty good.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

On edit - I do, by the way, agree with you that we almost have to vote for the lesser of two evils, which sucks.

[strandinthewind]

Here is another article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/joe-lieberman-spoilered_b_26880.html?view=print

Also, I am no huge fan of L. I am just saying that his position on the war was shared by the vast majority of D's. Yet, he alone seemingly is being villified.

[markolas]

See, I do not see it that way. Though I disagree with the way W went to war in Iraq and the way he handled the invasion and the after stuff, I do agree that W was correct in putting SH's feet to the fire and forcing him to account for the WMD the world unanimously (though the UN) thought he probably had - remember SH had defied the UN's unanimous orders to account.

The invasion of Iraq had not one thing to do with WMD or 9/11. These fascists in office want control of the entire Middle East, because they want oil and to make Jesus come back.

Like almost all people, I think 9/11 changed the way the world has to deal with people like SH and the possibility that he may have WMD. As an aside, it is interesting to me how no one on the far left is willing to even contemplate that the war in Iraq is all SH's fault.

9/11 is a smokescreen. But I can't talk about this because it makes me so mad I could spit fire. This entire planet is overrun with greed, greed, greed. It's destroying the whole planet. The human race will be extinct in 200 years, tops.

[markolas]

Also, I am no huge fan of L. I am just saying that his position on the war was shared by the vast majority of D's. Yet, he alone seemingly is being villified.

He alone isn't being villified. He's just the one we happen to be discussing at the moment. I'll be happy to villify the others if you'd like. :D I'm in a villifying sort of mood, anyway.

[strandinthewind]

Nice to know your outlook is positive :laugh:

Seriously, 9/11 opened the war on terror. You certainly do not think that capturing OBL would have been enough. If so, then I suggest you are not up to date on how much the entire Middle East, which includes more than Al-Q or OBL, hates us. I think most people correctly agree that 9/11 showed us (as did OKC IMO) that groups of crazy radicals (some state supported) can attack us on our shores to devastating results. Thus, the appeasement policy of Iraq - who previously attacked our ally and therefore us - could not stand. In the end, I hope all this bloodshed, which I agree was unnecessary now but I think would have happened anyway in the furture, will lead to a better place to live for those people. Sadly, W has done realtively nothing to achieve that goal.

On edit - I readily agree the war on terror, while IMO necessary, has been and will forever be exploited by greed.

Also - you do not see that if SH had complied a decade before, the war in Iraq would have been unnecessary. So, while I cannot stand W for truncating the inspections and rushing into Iraq with no plan to win the peace and some trumped up evidence, I have to say that SH's lack of cooperation for 10+ years sure made it easy for W to do so.

[strandinthewind]

Then again . . .
_______________________________________________________________

Control of Congress could change in '06, poll shows

(CNN) -- Most Americans believe the GOP-controlled Congress has been a failure and say they plan to vote for Democrats in November, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Fifty-three percent of registered voters polled by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN said they were supporting Democrats, while 40 percent said they were leaning Republican. The remaining 7 percent either planned to support another party or had no opinion.

As for changing their minds when they get to the ballot box, only 43 percent of those planning to vote for Democrats said that was a possibility as opposed to 54 percent of those saying they plan to support Republicans.

Fifty-four percent said that since 1995, the GOP-led Congress has been a failure. Forty percent called it a success. In a similar 1998 poll, 58 percent of respondents called Congress successful.

Despite the apparent lack of confidence in the GOP, another question seemed to show that the respondents' confidence in Democrats was shaky, too. Asked which party would move the nation in the right direction, 43 percent said Republicans, compared to 41 who said Democrats.

But the national mood may not be as sour as it would appear -- 55 percent of people polled said things are going "very well" or "fairly well" in the United States.

Asked which issues facing Congress this year were "extremely important," the respondents said in order: terrorism, gasoline prices, Iraq, the economy, immigration, the Middle East, the minimum wage, prescription drugs for seniors, the cost of electricity, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriages.

Forty-eight percent of respondents said terrorism was extremely important. That was followed closely by fuel prices, at 47 percent; the situation in Iraq, at 45 percent; and the economy, at 40 percent.

The poll was conducted by telephone August 2 and 3 with 1,047 adult Americans responding.

The sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points, except for the questions on congressional success and which party would lead the nation in the right direction. Those questions were asked of a half sample, or about 524 people, and the sampling error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/09/election.poll/index.html

[markolas]

Nice to know your outlook is positive :laugh:

I don't see how anyone could see what I see and come to any different a conclusion. The environment is rapidly disintegrating, the world is becoming more centered around money and greed every minute, and people with very dangerous (and wrong) "religious" beliefs are infiltrating governments all over the world.

Seriously, 9/11 opened the war on terror.

It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a "war on terror" to fix what's wrong with the Middle East, or the whole bloody world, for that matter. The "war on terror" has just made things worse.

You certainly do not think that capturing OBL would have been enough. If so, then I suggest you are not up to date on how much the entire Middle East, which includes more than Al-Q or OBL, hates us.

You really want to get me started on this, don't you? :laugh:

Hmm...on second thought, I don't know if it's a good idea to air my thoughts on this in public. I will say that, yes, the entire Middle East hates us, and no, capturing OBL would have solved nothing (assuming we haven't already captured or killed him). But I don't think Bush and his cronies have any interest in protecting America from terrorists. It's all a smokescreen.

I think most people correctly agree that 9/11 showed us (as did OKC IMO) that groups of crazy radicals (some state supported) can attack us on our shores to devastating results.

Crazy radicals have been attacking Americans for decades. And 9/11 wasn't the first time they bombed the WTC. Like I said, if these people were interested in protecting us from terrorists, they would've started long before 9/11. War on terror my @$$.

[markolas]

Also - you do not see that if SH had complied a decade before, the war in Iraq would have been unnecessary. So, while I cannot stand W for truncating the inspections and rushing into Iraq with no plan to win the peace and some trumped up evidence, I have to say that SH's lack of cooperation for 10+ years sure made it easy for W to do so.

It made it easiER. If SH had complied, Bush would've found another reason to invade. I don't believe it had anything to do with WMD. That was just a convenient excuse.

[strandinthewind]

Well, not really. Al-Q was the only one in recent history :shrug: I suppose OKC could be counted, but I am unsure or unconvinced that AlQ did not have their hand in that one as well.

But, I agree that the problems in the Middle East cannot be repaired, if at all, by this or any other war. For the Middle East problems to be resolved, the US must pull all support from Israel (as a huge start) - and that will NEVER happen.

[strandinthewind]

It made it easiER. If SH had complied, Bush would've found another reason to invade. I don't believe it had anything to do with WMD. That was just a convenient excuse.

I am unsure he could have found any excuse if SH had complied. But, I suppose we will never know. Of course, had SH complied during any administration, that could have provided a more peaceful avenue to the oil. Interestingly, the US still does not have Iraq's oil and France and Russia have made billions off of Iraq while it was under "UN" watch, etc. One day, hopefully, all will be known.

[markolas]

For the Middle East problems to be resolved, the US must pull all support from Israel (as a huge start) - and that will NEVER happen.

What do you know, we finally agree on something. :D:thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

What do you know, we finally agree on something. :D:thumbsup:

We agree far more than you think.

For example, like you, I am not a huge fan of L. I just think that ousting him for this unknown and on an issue that was one of many - perhaps was not the wisest thing to do.

[markolas]

I am unsure he could have found any excuse if SH had complied.

It's not like he would've needed one anyway. The rest of the country would be too wrapped up in Tom Cruise's baby to even notice.

[strandinthewind]

It's not like he would've needed one anyway. The rest of the country would be too wrapped up in Tom Cruise's baby to even notice.

I submit Clinton would have done it as well. Interestingly, I still say that the average American cares not one foock about whether SH was complicit in 9/11 because most Americans want the Middle East destroyed and all "towel heads" with it. Therein lies the problem.

[markolas]

I submit Clinton would have done it as well.

He's not much better than Lieberman, in my book. And neither is Hillary.

Interestingly, I still say that the average American cares not one foock about whether SH was complicit in 9/11 because most Americans want the Middle East destroyed and all "towel heads" with it. Therein lies the problem.

Of course they don't. Most Americans hate them as much as they hate us. Everyone looks out for number one and hates everyone else. And it's just getting worse. Hence my statement that the human race has about 200 years left, at most.

[markolas]

And greed, greed, greed. Businesses are out to take your hard-earned money, and most of them *hate* poor people. If you live paycheck-to-paycheck, watch out. They'll stick it to you, and then if you can't pay, they'll report you to the blacklist known as the credit bureau. That's another big f-ing racket. Have you taken a look at an apartment leasing contract lately? If you have even one rough month, they're waiting like vultures circling a dead armadillo.