Having it both ways, Joe
As the headlines around Connecticut have demonstrated this week, Joe Lieberman, you are a pioneer in the art of trying to have it both ways.
Are you Democrat? An Independent? What the heck are you? In the debate tonight, you sounded like a Bush Republican.
But it goes deeper than just that. Having it both ways is the only way you will have it.
You said that a timeline for Iraq is "dumb." But you also said you don't "want to be there indefinitely." Joe, what is the opposite of indefinitely? Or do you actually have a date in mind, but don't think the voters in Connecticut deserve to hear what it is?
When John Murtha first spoke up, retired generals joined him and the Democrats were beginning to find a voice on Iraq. But you didn't just say they were wrong... You said they were threatening America by undermining Bush's credibility. You took a page out of Karl Rove's book, painted your fellow Democrats as a threat to America and stifled the debate. Now you want to stand there, at a moment of accountability to the voters, and tell your constituents that Ned Lamont and the Democrats are trying to silence you? Whom do you think you are kidding?
You praised the Supreme Court for it's Hamdan decision, but because of your Gang of 14, that might be the last time the court ever stands against unchecked executive power. You also have some nerve praising the Court for standing up to the president's illegal actions when you and your colleagues abdicated your own responsibility to act as a check on that power.
You complained that Congress is filled with partisanship, claimed you know how to reach across the aisle and then tried to bash Lamont for working with local Republicans.
Staying the course in Iraq is wrong. You want to stick with a failed policy because there is uncertainty in the alternative. Sounds like a metaphor for the campaign you are running.
Are you Democrat? An Independent? What the heck are you? In the debate tonight, you sounded like a Bush Republican.
But it goes deeper than just that. Having it both ways is the only way you will have it.
You said that a timeline for Iraq is "dumb." But you also said you don't "want to be there indefinitely." Joe, what is the opposite of indefinitely? Or do you actually have a date in mind, but don't think the voters in Connecticut deserve to hear what it is?
When John Murtha first spoke up, retired generals joined him and the Democrats were beginning to find a voice on Iraq. But you didn't just say they were wrong... You said they were threatening America by undermining Bush's credibility. You took a page out of Karl Rove's book, painted your fellow Democrats as a threat to America and stifled the debate. Now you want to stand there, at a moment of accountability to the voters, and tell your constituents that Ned Lamont and the Democrats are trying to silence you? Whom do you think you are kidding?
You praised the Supreme Court for it's Hamdan decision, but because of your Gang of 14, that might be the last time the court ever stands against unchecked executive power. You also have some nerve praising the Court for standing up to the president's illegal actions when you and your colleagues abdicated your own responsibility to act as a check on that power.
You complained that Congress is filled with partisanship, claimed you know how to reach across the aisle and then tried to bash Lamont for working with local Republicans.
Staying the course in Iraq is wrong. You want to stick with a failed policy because there is uncertainty in the alternative. Sounds like a metaphor for the campaign you are running.
Labels: Lieberman
