Lieberman Delivers Major Address on "The Politics of National Security"

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Thursday, November 8, 2007, Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) addressed a Center for Politics and Foreign Relations/Financial Times breakfast at The Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. The subject of Senator Lieberman’s talk was “The Politics of National Security,” in which he spoke about the future of the Democratic Party and its response to the threat of Iran.

In the address, Senator Lieberman stated, “Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”

Senator Lieberman also indicated, “…there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.”

---

Is that the change Americans voted for in 2006?

The left constantly reminds us that Americans are overwhelmingly against the Iraq war, are Americans for America's defeat?

I think it was DK that asked earlier, when did things change? When did Democrats become "more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops?" Does that trouble you?

I don't listen to any rhetoric by Jewish men because they have a natural bias because of the location and threats to the State of Israel by Islamic leaders, so they have an overwhelming emotional stake in having America in the Middle East ENDLESSLY regardless of the OIL situation. That said, that does not mean that I am against Israel, quite the opposite. That does not mean I am against Jewish men, quite the opposite.

We need a CHANGE in politics and Hillary has said
"WHEN I get to be President AGAIN"
And
"WHEN I ran the White House"
A couple times
So of course we need a change
From ALL Bushs and Clintons!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I don't listen to any rhetoric by Jewish men because they have a natural bias because of the location and threats to the State of Israel by Islamic leaders, so they have an overwhelming emotional stake in having America in the Middle East ENDLESSLY regardless of the OIL situation. That said, that does not mean that I am against Israel, quite the opposite. That does not mean I am against Jewish men, quite the opposite.

---

LOL, that's the most convoluted, double-tongued - and bigoted - answer I've ever seen here.

Nice link speech.

From the same speech:

As many of you know, Paul Nitze was a Democrat, but he worked for Republican presidents as well as Democratic ones. He did so because he understood that, whatever domestic political differences divide us, they must never blind us to the far more profound national security challenges we face together from abroad.

Throughout his long career, Nitze put country before party, policy before politics. Although he was a Democrat, he did not look to the Democratic Party to tell him how or what to think about foreign policy...

I ask that as future practitioners of foreign policy, you do not become so wedded to a party that you are unwilling to diverge from it, when your convictions diverge from it. Let your views about national security determine your politics, rather than the other way around.

If you choose to identify as a Democrat or a Republican, in other words, I encourage each of you to be independent Democrats and independent Republicans.


I really respect Senator Lieberman

In spite of being stereotyped, Lieberman's stance is not rhetoric. He has been more consistent on the Iraqi issue than many other politicians, regardless of party affiliation. I agree with him on our continued efforts in Iraq, although I do have stipulations that probably separate his ideas from mine to some degree. It will be interesting to see how all the candidates would resolve the Iranian threat. Lieberman, although not going into specifics on what he would do, is clear that he doesn't want politics as usual, party, or polls to guide his eventual decisions. Lieberman is being practical about the possibility of action. When I hear of politicians, such as Lieberman, making honesty a priority over self or career, I almost like politicians. :)



Bobby

While I might not agree with everything that Lieberman says on all topics, one thing about him that I absolutely agree with: he will favor his conscience and his belief on what is right and wrong over party politics every time. He sounds a lot like the old-school democrats I remember from my youth, when I would sit around the table listening to the old men yammer on about politics.

This is what I've been saying all along. So long as people cannot see that the "other side" might, just might, have an idea worth having, all will be lost. Seriously pondering another viewpoint is not a mandate for accepting that viewpoint. But this ongoing refusal to even consider that the other guy could possibly have anything worth saying will eventually spell doom for our system, and possibly our country.

Kudos to Joe for having the courage to speak his convictions at the probable expense of his standing in the party.

Steve,

"So is a Cowboys team that's 8-1 :)"

'Bout time, ain't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

Kudos to Joe for having the courage to speak his convictions at the probable expense of his standing in the party.

---

Hello Dennis:

He's a nice Jewish boy, so I don't doubt his convictions. It's his conclusions I doubt.

Uhhhh, he had NO standing in the party to lose.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

Steve,

"So is a Cowboys team that's 8-1 :)"

'Bout time, ain't it?

---

12 long years my friend. And tom, Owens may not need to score any more TD's on the Giants this year :D

I have to admit to a few mixed feelings still watching Owens in a Cowboys uniform - but that all goes away with 2 TD's, 125 yards and 20 plus fantasy points in a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

1tomder55 agrees: catch you gain in the Championship game.

---

I have to admit to that possibility and the difficulty of beating a team 3 times in a season. But if the Boys make it to the championship game I'll be happy.

Quote:

---

excon agrees: Tony Romo is my fantasy QB. Yippeeee

---

My best teams feature a lot of Romo-magic :)

Back to the subject - sort of - Lieberman isn't the only speaking honestly, Obama did so on Meet the Press:

Quote:

---

I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with Reverend McClurkin. But understand, Tim, part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don’t agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven’t been reaching out to them, and I think that if we’re going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, whether it’s education or healthcare or energy or our foreign policy in this country, we’ve got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don’t like.

---

At least he admits Democrats don't like evangelical Christians.

Since you mentioned Obama... did you notice that he started hitting on his new theme about bridging the divide caused by the baby boomer generation the same week that the Atlantic Monthly featured him on the cover ;and their main article is Andrew Sullivan's thesis that Obama is the best candidate to bridge the divide ? Marc Ambinder (November 02, 2007) - Sullivan: The Argument For Obama

Goodbye to All That

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

since you mentioned Obama ....did you notice that he started hitting on his new theme about bridging the divide caused by the baby boomer generation the same week that the Atlantic Monthly featured him on the cover ;and their main article is Andrew Sullivan's thesis that Obama is the best candidate to bridge the divide ? Marc Ambinder (November 02, 2007) - Sullivan: The Argument For Obama

Goodbye to All That

---

Actually I haven't noticed much about Obama at all lately. So Obama's face alone will ratchet up America’s soft power by a 'logarithm?' Obama may indeed be the best candidate to bridge the divide, but I doubt it. I cannot see the current Democratic leadership allowing for any 'bridge building' (in America), they seem to want absolute power.

"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. "

So is Mr Sullivam implying that we have to appeal to the racial and religious intolerance of
This "pakistani muslim?"

Is that all it takes to win the war on terror ? :confused:

Wait, the Sunnis and Shia are both Muslims, and forgive me, they look alike to me, so why can't they get along?

Elliot,

Shame on you for insulting me YET AGAIN!

The fact that I *consider the source* of all political opinions especially important when assessing the state of affairs in the Middle East is ONLY AN INDICATION that I am careful about how I get information regarding WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. I don't listen to Jewish men, nor do I listen to opinions from certain other sources.

Get over yourself and leave me alone. Rein in your emotions.

EVEN MORE SHAME ON YOU.

When I was a social worker, a Jewish colleague asked me to marry him, but I had to turn him down because of a slight drug issue. He was a great guy and his father was a Chicago judge. ;)

Tex,

It's time you spent time thinking about your shortcomings instead of spending time *attacking me* for no reason whatsoever except that you and your friends here, as Bush fascists, feel empowered to make ad hominem and other type of attacks to promote your hidden political agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Tex,

It's time you spent time thinking about your shortcomings instead of spending time *attacking me* for no reason whatsoever except that you and your friends here, as Bush fascists, feel empowered to make ad hominem and other type of attacks to promote your hidden political agenda.

---

You're really funny, Choux. Seriously, I always get a good laugh reading your responses. But for those who care, I admit to many shortcomings and there's nothing hidden about my agenda. I am proudly conservative, an unworthy Christian and it is my goal to defeat radical liberalism and expose them for the pathetic, lying, hypocritical, intolerant, insufferable moonbats they are. Nothing hidden about that. :D

I am closing this thread and reminding ALL participants that its OK to debate and attack a person's arguments. But as soon as you start attacking them personally you cross the line. The use of buzzwords and stereotypes to insult and abuse others won't be tolerated.