Strip Lieberman of Committee Assignments? - Page 2

Ladewig · 11th August 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

See, whereas I see the idea that Democrats cannot disagree with one another on the conduct of the war, or express the rather unremarkable idea that withdrawal would embolden the enemy (a fact that we''ve seen when Israel has withdrawn from both Lebanon in the 1990's and from Gaza just last year).

Now, you might think that Lieberman is wrong and that there would be no emboldening of the enemy if we withdrew from Iraq. I think reasonable minds can disagree on that point.

I can heartily agree with your conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree on what should be done in Iraq at this point. The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating "the enemy we are fighting in Iraq" with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing.

BPSCG · 11th August 2006, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

As always, thanks for doing the research. Your dedication is awe-inspiring.

Well...

Quote:

You have brought statistical evidence, for which I have the highest regard. I will not take the time to do counter research. But I ask you again: Is Lieberman the only centrist Democrat in the senate? Is that your conclusion?

Well, let's see who's left: Salazar and Lincoln clearly are not. That leaves the Nelsons and Landrieu. Ben Nelson as noted earlier, is from a red state, and is clearly a moderate. Landrieu and Bill Nelson get ADA ratings identical to Lieberman. Now, if you want to say that a 77.5 average ADA rating over four years qualifies someone as a moderate, well, go right ahead. That would mean a Republican with an average 22.5 ADA score is at the other end of that moderate middle, and I don't think you want to go there.

What I'm saying is that Lieberman is as moderate as the Dems will allow, barring unusual circumstances like being a senator from Nebraska.

If this sounds like a shift in my position - from saying that Lieberman is a moderate to saying he's a liberal - then I plead guilty. Because the statistical evidence bears it out. I'd still vote for him if I lived in Connecticut, and if he were running for president, I'd have to give him strong consideration. But there's no way you can seriously argue that he's a moderate; the moderate is a vanishing species from our government. What the Connecticut voters have said is that it's not sufficient to be a liberal overall. Nor is it sufficient to be a liberal and have criticisms of the Iraq war's handling. No, you must be a liberal and be opposed to the fact of the war.

BPSCG · 11th August 2006, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating "the enemy we are fighting in Iraq" with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by that. Or else explain who this guy really was.

hgc · 11th August 2006, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

...
What the Connecticut voters have said is that it's not sufficient to be a liberal overall. Nor is it sufficient to be a liberal and have criticisms of the Iraq war's handling. No, you must be a liberal and be opposed to the fact of the war.

Maybe some of them. But I think the Connecticut Democratic primary voters are have a different concern. Many or most may be opposed to the fact of the war, but as I've said over and over again, Lieberman's faults are way beyond voting for the war, and continuing to support U.S. presense. As I've said, he repeatedly attacks the party's positions with Republican talking points. Having this happen from within the party, and coming from such a high profile insider lends unfortunate credibility to these talking points generally. That's why Connecticut Democrats, and all the others from around the country to jumped on the bandwagon, wanted Lieberman gone. All this was way more important than Lieberman's ADA score.

SezMe · 11th August 2006, 11:00 AM

C'mon, BPSCG, haven't we already had this discussion? When we went into Iraq, al-Zarqawi was NOT leading a significant, effective fighting force in Iraq that was playing any role in international terrorism. That he later became a major player is not in doubt. But that is because we invaded, not the other way around.

BPSCG · 11th August 2006, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I can heartily agree with your conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree on what should be done in Iraq at this point. The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating "the enemy we are fighting in Iraq" with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing.

Originally Posted by SezMe

C'mon, BPSCG, haven't we already had this discussion? When we went into Iraq, al-Zarqawi was NOT leading a significant, effective fighting force in Iraq that was playing any role in international terrorism. That he later became a major player is not in doubt. But that is because we invaded, not the other way around.

Look at Ladewig's quote again: "The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating 'the enemy we are fighting in Iraq' with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing."

Emphasis mine. Rove is speaking in the present tense. He's saying we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Is Ladewig denying that?

ponderingturtle · 11th August 2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Look at Ladewig's quote again: "The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating 'the enemy we are fighting in Iraq' with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing."

Emphasis mine. Rove is speaking in the present tense. He's saying we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Is Ladewig denying that?

The problem with this is that we are not fighting one enemy in Iraq, there are many enemies, and al Queda suports some of them. Does that mean al Queda is THE enemy in Iraq or just an enemy ammoung many others?

BPSCG · 11th August 2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The problem with this is that we are not fighting one enemy in Iraq, there are many enemies, and al Queda suports some of them. Does that mean al Queda is THE enemy in Iraq or just an enemy ammoung many others?

Does it really make a difference? This is from the June, 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden:

Quote:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

And the 9/11 Commission Report states it appears al Qaeda collaborated with Iran and Hezbollah on the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.

We're fighting all of them, in some places only one, in other places, two or more. The question is like asking an American in 1942 if we were fighting Germany or Japan, or asking Eisenhower if we were fighting the Luftwaffe or the Wehrmacht.

Who is Israel fighting in Lebanon today? Hizballah? Syria? Iran? If you don't answer, "All three," you have to stay after school.

Ladewig · 12th August 2006, 08:39 AM

I withdraw my comment.

SezMe · 12th August 2006, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Does it really make a difference?

I think it does. If AQ is a major player in Iraq, then one might well justify our being - and staying - there as a component of the WoT. If they are mainly on the sidelines, egging on one goup or another, then that justification falls apart.

Note that I am agreeing with you that the issue is not simply a black or white one. Sure, AQ is in Iraq. But I would assert that the level of their involvement is way, way below anything that would justify the huge expenditure of $$, troops, etc. that now are going down the rathole called Iraq.

ETA: Oops, we've kinda drifted off topic here. Oh, the shame of it.

BPSCG · 13th August 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I think it does. If AQ is a major player in Iraq, then one might well justify our being - and staying - there as a component of the WoT. If they are mainly on the sidelines, egging on one goup or another, then that justification falls apart.

Which do you think it is today?

What do you think it was before Zarqawi got his 72 virgins?

Quote:

ETA: Oops, we've kinda drifted off topic here. Oh, the shame of it.

I'm so ashamed...

SezMe · 13th August 2006, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Which do you think it is today?

I am inclined to believe AQ is a bit player in Iraq. But I don't trust the news I get because most of the reporting is not consistent. My inclination comes from an old (~several months) report out of the US Military that said only 7% of those captured were not Iraqi. The implication for me is that Iraq is, in fact, in a civil war with the main motives being religion and revenge.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

What do you think it was before Zarqawi got his 72 virgins?

Virginians, damnit, Virginians.

Same answer. Based on the same data (it came out before Zarqawi checked out).

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2006, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Does it really make a difference? This is from the June, 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden:And the 9/11 Commission Report states it appears al Qaeda collaborated with Iran and Hezbollah on the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.

We're fighting all of them, in some places only one, in other places, two or more. The question is like asking an American in 1942 if we were fighting Germany or Japan, or asking Eisenhower if we were fighting the Luftwaffe or the Wehrmacht.

Flawed analogy as you would need them to also be fighting each other and not cooperating.

Crossbow · 14th August 2006, 08:23 AM

Did anyone else catch the Sen. Feingold interview on Sunday?

In it he was asked about removing the Liberman committee assignments and Feingold said that he doubted that any such would be done. After the November elections, then there may be reassignments, but nothing until then.

Anyway, it looks like the Liberman assignments are safe for a while yet.

Hishighness · 14th August 2006, 09:23 AM

I don't think they should do that. He's still a senator until his replacement is sworn in. Not to mention the fact the Democrats aren't exactly dealing from a position of strength right now, and need all the votes on committees they can get.

hgc · 14th August 2006, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Hishighness

I don't think they should do that. He's still a senator until his replacement is sworn in. Not to mention the fact the Democrats aren't exactly dealing from a position of strength right now, and need all the votes on committees they can get.

They wouldn't be giving up committee seats, just filling their allotment with someone else.

Jocko · 14th August 2006, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Hishighness

I don't think they should do that. He's still a senator until his replacement is sworn in. Not to mention the fact the Democrats aren't exactly dealing from a position of strength right now, and need all the votes on committees they can get.

As I mentioned in your other thread, there may not be a replacement anytime soon if the current polls hold.

Net result if Lieberman wins anyhow: an even weaker democrat presence in the Senate. Wouldn't that be a bite in the @$$?

14th August 2006, 08:23 AM	#54
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 13,415	Did anyone else catch the Sen. Feingold interview on Sunday? In it he was asked about removing the Liberman committee assignments and Feingold said that he doubted that any such would be done. After the November elections, then there may be reassignments, but nothing until then. Anyway, it looks like the Liberman assignments are safe for a while yet.
	__________________ I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency. On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma.

14th August 2006, 09:23 AM	#55
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86	I don't think they should do that. He's still a senator until his replacement is sworn in. Not to mention the fact the Democrats aren't exactly dealing from a position of strength right now, and need all the votes on committees they can get.
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86

14th August 2006, 09:42 AM	#57
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,467	Originally Posted by Hishighness I don't think they should do that. He's still a senator until his replacement is sworn in. Not to mention the fact the Democrats aren't exactly dealing from a position of strength right now, and need all the votes on committees they can get. As I mentioned in your other thread, there may not be a replacement anytime soon if the current polls hold. Net result if Lieberman wins anyhow: an even weaker democrat presence in the Senate. Wouldn't that be a bite in the @$$?
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,467

11th August 2006, 08:15 AM	#41
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,099	Originally Posted by marksman See, whereas I see the idea that Democrats cannot disagree with one another on the conduct of the war, or express the rather unremarkable idea that withdrawal would embolden the enemy (a fact that we''ve seen when Israel has withdrawn from both Lebanon in the 1990's and from Gaza just last year). Now, you might think that Lieberman is wrong and that there would be no emboldening of the enemy if we withdrew from Iraq. I think reasonable minds can disagree on that point. I can heartily agree with your conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree on what should be done in Iraq at this point. The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating "the enemy we are fighting in Iraq" with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing.

11th August 2006, 08:53 AM	#42
BPSCG Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 17,539	Originally Posted by hgc As always, thanks for doing the research. Your dedication is awe-inspiring. Well... Quote: You have brought statistical evidence, for which I have the highest regard. I will not take the time to do counter research. But I ask you again: Is Lieberman the only centrist Democrat in the senate? Is that your conclusion? Well, let's see who's left: Salazar and Lincoln clearly are not. That leaves the Nelsons and Landrieu. Ben Nelson as noted earlier, is from a red state, and is clearly a moderate. Landrieu and Bill Nelson get ADA ratings identical to Lieberman. Now, if you want to say that a 77.5 average ADA rating over four years qualifies someone as a *moderate, well, go right ahead. That would mean a Republican with an average 22.5 ADA score is at the other end of that moderate middle, and I don't think you want to go there. What I'm saying is that Lieberman is as moderate as the Dems will allow, barring unusual circumstances like being a senator from Nebraska. If this sounds like a shift in my position - from saying that Lieberman is a moderate to saying he's a liberal - then I plead guilty. Because the statistical evidence bears it out. I'd still vote for him if I lived in Connecticut, and if he were running for president, I'd have to give him strong consideration. But there's no way you can seriously argue that he's a moderate; the moderate is a vanishing species from our government. What the Connecticut voters have said is that it's not sufficient to be a liberal overall. Nor is it sufficient to be a liberal and have criticisms of the Iraq war's handling. No, you must be a liberal and be opposed to the fact* of the war.

11th August 2006, 09:01 AM	#43
BPSCG Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 17,539	Originally Posted by Ladewig The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating "the enemy we are fighting in Iraq" with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing. I think you need to clarify what you mean by that. Or else explain who this guy really was.

11th August 2006, 09:07 AM	#44
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 15,892	Originally Posted by BPSCG ... What the Connecticut voters have said is that it's not sufficient to be a liberal overall. Nor is it sufficient to be a liberal and have criticisms of the Iraq war's handling. No, you must be a liberal and be opposed to the *fact* of the war. Maybe some of them. But I think the Connecticut Democratic primary voters are have a different concern. Many or most may be opposed to the fact of the war, but as I've said over and over again, Lieberman's faults are way beyond voting for the war, and continuing to support U.S. presense. As I've said, he repeatedly attacks the party's positions with Republican talking points. Having this happen from within the party, and coming from such a high profile insider lends unfortunate credibility to these talking points generally. That's why Connecticut Democrats, and all the others from around the country to jumped on the bandwagon, wanted Lieberman gone. All this was way more important than Lieberman's ADA score.

11th August 2006, 11:00 AM	#45
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,131	C'mon, BPSCG, haven't we already had this discussion? When we went into Iraq, al-Zarqawi was NOT leading a significant, effective fighting force in Iraq that was playing any role in international terrorism. That he later became a major player is not in doubt. But that is because we invaded, not the other way around.

11th August 2006, 11:15 AM	#46
BPSCG Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 17,539	Originally Posted by Ladewig I can heartily agree with your conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree on what should be done in Iraq at this point. The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating "the enemy we are fighting in Iraq" with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing. Originally Posted by SezMe C'mon, BPSCG, haven't we already had this discussion? When we went into Iraq, al-Zarqawi was NOT leading a significant, effective fighting force in Iraq that was playing any role in international terrorism. That he later became a major player is not in doubt. But that is because we invaded, not the other way around. Look at Ladewig's quote again: "The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating 'the enemy we are fighting in Iraq' with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing." Emphasis mine. Rove is speaking in the present tense. He's saying we *are* fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Is Ladewig denying that?

11th August 2006, 11:23 AM	#47
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,803	Originally Posted by BPSCG Look at Ladewig's quote again: "The part I find misleading (perhaps to the point of being despicable) is Rove's equating 'the enemy we are fighting in Iraq' with al Queda. They are not the same thing and they never were the same thing." Emphasis mine. Rove is speaking in the present tense. He's saying we *are* fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Is Ladewig denying that? The problem with this is that we are not fighting one enemy in Iraq, there are many enemies, and al Queda suports some of them. Does that mean al Queda is THE enemy in Iraq or just an enemy ammoung many others?

11th August 2006, 11:38 AM	#48
BPSCG Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 17,539	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The problem with this is that we are not fighting one enemy in Iraq, there are many enemies, and al Queda suports some of them. Does that mean al Queda is THE enemy in Iraq or just an enemy ammoung many others? Does it really make a difference? This is from the June, 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden: Quote: Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq. And the 9/11 Commission Report states it appears al Qaeda collaborated with Iran and Hezbollah on the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. We're fighting *all* of them, in some places only one, in other places, two or more. The question is like asking an American in 1942 if we were fighting Germany or Japan, or asking Eisenhower if we were fighting the Luftwaffe or the Wehrmacht. Who is Israel fighting in Lebanon today? Hizballah? Syria? Iran? If you don't answer, "All three," you have to stay after school.

12th August 2006, 08:39 AM	#49
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,099	I withdraw my comment.

12th August 2006, 06:03 PM	#50
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,131	Originally Posted by BPSCG Does it really make a difference? I think it does. If AQ is a major player in Iraq, then one might well justify our being - and staying - there as a component of the WoT. If they are mainly on the sidelines, egging on one goup or another, then that justification falls apart. Note that I am agreeing with you that the issue is not simply a black or white one. Sure, AQ is in Iraq. But I would assert that the level of their involvement is way, way below anything that would justify the huge expenditure of $$, troops, etc. that now are going down the rathole called Iraq. ETA: Oops, we've kinda drifted off topic here. Oh, the shame of it.

13th August 2006, 02:24 PM	#51
BPSCG Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 17,539	Originally Posted by SezMe I think it does. If AQ is a major player in Iraq, then one might well justify our being - and staying - there as a component of the WoT. If they are mainly on the sidelines, egging on one goup or another, then that justification falls apart. Which do you think it is today? What do you think it was before Zarqawi got his 72 virgins? Quote: ETA: Oops, we've kinda drifted off topic here. Oh, the shame of it. I'm so ashamed...

13th August 2006, 03:16 PM	#52
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,131	Originally Posted by BPSCG Which do you think it is today? I am inclined to believe AQ is a bit player in Iraq. But I don't trust the news I get because most of the reporting is not consistent. My inclination comes from an old (~several months) report out of the US Military that said only 7% of those captured were not Iraqi. The implication for me is that Iraq is, in fact, in a civil war with the main motives being religion and revenge. Originally Posted by BPSCG What do you think it was before Zarqawi got his 72 virgins? Virginians, damnit, Virginians. Same answer. Based on the same data (it came out before Zarqawi checked out).

14th August 2006, 06:54 AM	#53
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,803	Originally Posted by BPSCG Does it really make a difference? This is from the June, 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden:And the 9/11 Commission Report states it appears al Qaeda collaborated with Iran and Hezbollah on the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. We're fighting *all* of them, in some places only one, in other places, two or more. The question is like asking an American in 1942 if we were fighting Germany or Japan, or asking Eisenhower if we were fighting the Luftwaffe or the Wehrmacht. Flawed analogy as you would need them to also be fighting each other and not cooperating.

14th August 2006, 09:32 AM	#56
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 15,892	Originally Posted by Hishighness I don't think they should do that. He's still a senator until his replacement is sworn in. Not to mention the fact the Democrats aren't exactly dealing from a position of strength right now, and need all the votes on committees they can get. They wouldn't be giving up committee seats, just filling their allotment with someone else.