Lieberman, the treacherous "Democrat" now supports UNLIMITED BUSH POWERS for EXPANDING WARS. Connecticut voters DUPED by Treacherous Joe....

<< As an alternative to that measure and another broadly backed by Democrats, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent [TRAITOR] 'Democrat' from Connecticut, are trying to enlist support for a resolution that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad. >>

As usual, the WHORE New York Times (AIPAC partners in crime with Joe Lieberman and the "DON'T COUNT THE VOTES!" Bush administration) are LYING - their report is SO MISLEADING as to be an OUTRIGHT LIE. These are NOT votes about "ALTERNATIVE MEASURES" - it is about SUBORDINATING the ENTIRE UNITED STATES to the egomaniacal blood lust of a COWARDLY PRESIDENT who not only did not go to the Vietnam War when he had the chance, but REFUSED TO EVEN SHOW UP for his Alabama Air National Guard assignment as ordered.

The COWARDLY, LYING New York Times REFUSES to PUBLISH THE TRUTH ABOUT George W. Bush being AWOL from his Alabama ANG assignment (no one, anywhere, can recall seeing Bush at that post, even though the orders that sent him there are public record and on file), BUT WILL ENABLE THE COWARDLY C-in-C to send OTHER American's children on REPEAT, MANDATORY SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH TOURS, and not only subject troops to MANDATORY "stop loss" extended tours, but even DRAFT retired military personel BACK INTO THE SERVICE long after they have completed ALL the terms of their enlistments - ALL THIS because the Cowardly Commander-in-Chief was AWOL when the CIA warned him "Al Qaida is DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN AMERICA," and then, having the Congressional authorization to launch a war into Afghanistan, Mr. Bush ABUSED HIS war POWER to DIVERT TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN to an UNAUTHROIZED BUILUP and invasion of Iraq.

For centuries, people of the Jewish faith have complained about STEREOTYPES that portray Jews as manipulating, deceiving, money-grubbing and worse. To see ALL those stereotypes come to life, one needs look no further than JOE LIEBERMAN, who ran for re-election to the US senate as a "DEMOCRAT", but now votes for Bush unlimited and ever expanding war powers as a committed Republican, and the NEW YORK TIMES (owned by the Jewish SULZBERGER family), who are in a full-court press to PUSH THE NEO-CON, AIPAC, "more war, DON'T COUNT the votes, treat American taxpayers as disenfranchised serfs" agenda.


=============================================

Senate Allies of Bush Work to HALT Vote on Iraq War
By CARL HULSE and THOM SHANKER
Published: January 31, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/washington/31cong.html


WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The Bush administration’s allies in the Senate began a major effort on Tuesday to prevent a potentially embarrassing rejection of the president’s plan to push 20,000 more troops into Iraq.

With the Senate expected to reach votes on possible resolutions sometime next week, the signs of the new campaign seeped out after a weekly closed-door lunch in which Republican senators engaged in what participants described as a heated debate over how to approach the issue.

The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans.

Republicans skeptical of the troop buildup said some of their colleagues had begun to suggest that opponents of the White House plan ran the risk of undermining Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new military commander in Iraq, as well as Mr. Bush.

“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

As an alternative to that measure and another broadly backed by Democrats, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, are trying to enlist support for a resolution that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad.

The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

The debate over Iraq also resounded elsewhere on Capitol Hill, as senators attending the confirmation hearing for Adm. William J. Fallon, nominated to command American forces in the Middle East, heard his blunt assessment of the path ahead. He said “time is running out” for positive action by the government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to show it can quell sectarian violence.

At another Senate hearing, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that reported to Mr. Bush and Congress last month, disputed the White House’s contention that most of their recommendations had been incorporated into Mr. Bush’s troop increase plan.

“The diplomatic effort has not been full enough,” said Lee H. Hamilton, co-chairman of the study group with James A. Baker III. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hamilton described the initiatives begun by the administration in the Middle East as modest and slow, and added, “We don’t have the time to wait.”

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats began laying the constitutional groundwork for an effort to block the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

In advance of a possible Senate vote on the resolutions, Republican senators now appear widely divided over how to proceed. In trying to head off the resolution supported by Senators Warner and Collins, allies of the White House appear to be trying to muster at least the 41 votes they would need to prevent a vote on the measure under Senate rules. Mr. McCain is sponsoring the competing resolution that would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. He said the proposal also could be fashioned to give Congress more oversight.

Republicans were viewing Mr. McCain’s plan as a way to deter Republicans from joining in the resolutions more critical of Mr. Bush, and many Republicans said that would be preferable to one criticizing the troop buildup outright. Senators also said they were beginning to realize that the vote, while nonbinding, would be an important statement on Congressional sentiment regarding the war.

“We all know the world is watching,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.

The more sharply worded of the two measures critical of the White House is one approved last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and backed by the Democratic Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, as well as Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican. The second of the two measures is one backed by Senator Warner.

As those debates flared mostly in private, the confirmation hearing for Admiral Fallon as the new head of the military’s Central Command became a proxy debate not only over the president’s new strategy but also for the competing resolutions supported by senators of both parties.

But Admiral Fallon, currently in charge of American forces across Asia and the Pacific, declined to answer directly politically fraught questions about whether certain proposed resolutions would harm the military effort in Iraq or undermine the troops’ morale.

The admiral, who if confirmed as expected would be the first Navy officer to head the Central Command, said that he would always offer unvarnished military advice, but that he would avoid commenting on partisan political issues.

In his testimony, Admiral Fallon told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States might have erred in its assessments of how effectively the new Iraqi government could manage the nation’s affairs.

“Maybe we ought to redefine the goals here a bit and do something that’s more realistic in terms of getting some progress and then maybe take on the other things later,” Admiral Fallon said, adding, “What we’ve been doing is not working and we have got to be doing, it seems to me, something different.”

“Time is running out,” he concluded.

Senator Levin submitted a letter he co-authored with Senator McCain demanding that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice make public the administration’s requirements for actions to be taken by the government in Baghdad to earn continued American support.

Late Tuesday, Senator Levin’s office released a reply from Ms. Rice that stated assurances that the Bush administration supports Mr. Maliki but also listed deadlines already missed by his government. Among them were laws to guarantee an equitable distribution of the country’s oil wealth, to establish provincial elections and to reintegrate disenfranchised Sunnis into Iraqi political life.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the panel for the last two years, joined Democrats who asserted that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

“I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Mr. Specter said. “The decider is a joint and shared responsibility.”

Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat who acted as chairman for the hearing, said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi Army and police force. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline.

Jeff Zeleny and David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington, and John O’Neil from New York.

Lieberman REALLY IS an in-your-face LYING BushCo right-wing Rethuglican....

The irony is that CONNECTICUT, the state that gave us NED LAMONT, the FIRST Democrat to get national face-time for publiclly REPUDIATING the Bush REACTIONARY right-wing agenda, and especially Mr. Bush's disastrous war of corruption, lies, and incompetence in Iraq, is now the state that for the next 6 years will be identified with TRAITOR JOE LIEBERMAN.

It isn't even TWO WEEKS into his new term as Connecticut's senator, and joe lieberman is ALREADY REPUDIATING EVERY ONE of his year-long 2006 campaign pledges.

Lieberman, the TRAITOR who SABOTAGED Al Gore's 2000 campaign from the inside out (Lieberman GAVE Dick Cheney a FREE PASS for Cheney's DEALINGS WITH SADDAM's IRAQ while Cheney was Chairman and CEO of Halliburton Co. in 1998), is ONCE AGAIN REPRISING HIS ROLE as DESTROYING the Democratic Party.

This time, of course, neither Democratic voters in Connecticut (30% of whom voted for Lieberman) nor the Democratic Party can plead innocense: Lieberman's entire WRETCHED record - BETRAYING African American voters to Bush, Baker, and (Jeb) Bush's DISENFRANCHISEMENT schemes of 2000, SELLING ENRON workers, pensioners, and investors down the river in his wet-blanket NON-INVESTIGATION of Enron in his Government Affairs committee in 2001 - is now REPEATED by Joe Lieberman, with his pledge to NOT investigate KATRINA CORRUPTION in his Senate Committee in 2006.

IF there were any Black "leadership" in America, they would detail a posse to TAIL LIEBERMAN EVERYWHERE HE GOES for the next 6 years, carryings signs such as "HERE IS THE FACE of DEMOCRATIC BETRAYAL of Black voters and citizens, in Florida in 2000, Enron workers in 2001, and Katrina victims in 2006."

Well, at least Mr. Lieberman is CONSISTENT - a CONSISTENT TRAITOR to his own pledges as a candidate fighting for Democratic voters and citizens.

Thank you, Connecticut voters, for being STUPID ENOUGH to fall for Lieberman's BIG MONEY media whore coverage and campaign PR advertising.

=====================================

We Were Right About Joe Lieberman
by Cenk Uygur
12 Jan. 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/we-were-right-about-joe-l_b_38615.html

We we right. The people of Connecticut should have never trusted Joe Lieberman. One third of Democratic voters in Connecticut voted for Lieberman in the general election against Ned Lamont. And they screwed the whole country.

We could have had a real Democrat in that seat. Or at least someone who isn't madly in love with George Bush.
I wish Joe knew how to quit him.

First, Senator Lieberman who pretended to be a concerned moderate on Iraq during the election, and then immediately showed how extreme he is right after the election. There was no more talk about finding the best possible way out of Iraq. Instead, Lieberman immediately embraced escalation.

How many Democratic votes do you think Lieberman would have gotten in Connecticut if he had been honest and told the voters that he planned to support an escalation of the Iraq War as soon as he was elected? Not very many. That's why he had to lie, like he always does.

If you think that's too harsh, you haven't seen the latest news. During the 2006 election, Lieberman promised to hold hearings on how the Bush administration handled Hurricane Katrina if he was elected. He would be the head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He would be the one that would make the decision on what hearings to hold and what documents to demand from the White House. He promised he would hold them accountable.

Of course, as always he was lying. Instead, he has just announced that he will hold no such hearings and that he will ask for none of the documents that could show how the administration mishandled the crisis. Heaven forbid that he should do his job.

Any other Democrat in that position would naturally take this topic up. If we don't know what went wrong, we can't fix it for next time. But I guess Lieberman doesn't care. He doesn't care what happened to the people of New Orleans. He doesn't care to find out what went wrong and how it can be addressed. And he doesn't care if we make the same exact mistakes the next time.

I don't get his motivation on this. We always knew he was lying about Iraq. His pride would never allow him to support a withdrawal. Besides, he is a true neoconservative in foreign policy. There is not one senator who is to the right of Lieberman on foreign policy. He even makes Sam Brownback look like a liberal when it comes to warmongering.

But why screw the people of New Orleans? Is it because he is a pathological liar, so if he said he would do the right thing, he is forced by his condition to do the opposite? Is it because he has such a man-crush on George Bush that he can't countenance having him hurt in any way? Does he have some financial or political gain in keeping things covered up?

It doesn't make any sense. My best guess is that he is trying to protect the administration so that they can be as politically healthy as possible in order to carry out their plan for escalating the Iraq War. They are going to need all the political capital they can get. So, Lieberman is protecting them.

It could also be that he is trying to goad the Democrats into taking his chairmanship away, thereby giving him an excuse to switch parties. If he switched over to the Republican side, that would hand the Senate right back to the Republicans. And also add tremendously to their political capital -- which they would expend on Iraq.

I despise Joe Lieberman. I loathe him with the power of a thousand white hot suns. We knew he was going to do something like this. We knew he didn't give a damn about the Democratic Party. We knew all he cared about was making sure we escalated the Iraq War and never withdrew. And we knew he was lying to everyone in Connecticut to preserve his own power.

This man claims to be a moral standard-bearer and then deceives the very people that trusted him to protect their interests. As usual with these religious hypocrites, he doesn't have any morals at all. The only thing that matters to Joe Lieberman is Joe Lieberman. And oh yeah, screwing up Iraq as much as humanly possible.

There is no excuse for giving the Bush administration a pass on Hurricane Katrina. None. The people of Connecticut trusted him to do what he said he'd do. This is a gross violation of that trust.

We were right, and now it is patently obvious who Joe Lieberman really is. These are his last six years in the Senate, so he better enjoy it while it lasts. He isn't the senator from Nebraska (actually the Republican senator from that state is a thousand times more reasonable than Lieberman on foreign policy). He is the senator from one of the bluest states in the country, Connecticut. Well, at least he was.

Traitor Joe to Katrina victims: "Drop dead, if you haven't already"!

If we've said it once, we'll say 1,000 more times! Joe Lieberman and NY Times columnist (and former Nixon speechwriter) William Safire, are SUCH APOLOGISTS for the unlimited powers of the wartime state, that if they were of the "proper" race in 1930s Germany, they would undoubtedly have APPLAUDED the creation of Concentration Camps.


Lieberman to Katrina victims: Drop Dead
By Mary MacElveen
January 13, 2007
http://www.marymacelveen.com/blog/_archives/2007/1/13/2645071.html

In a statement released by Leslie Phillips who is Senator Joe Lieberman’s chief committee spokeswoman and as reported by Newsweek she stated, “The senator now intends to focus his attention on the future security of the American people and other matters and does not expect to revisit the White House’s role in Katrina,” In my previous column blasting Lieberman for his support of Bush’s plan as it pertains to Iraq and beyond, I asked whose side is Joe Lieberman on when it comes to our country. In this heartless statement by his spokeswoman, he just told New Orleans to drop dead as if they did not have enough death when it came to Katrina.

If we were to relive a civil war today within this country I would suspect that the people of Louisiana would march on Connecticut embroiled in anger that they chose to re-elect a man who has turned his back on their citizens. Living in the North, I would be on the side of this southern state. I sincerely hope that the people in Connecticut who voted for Lieberman are ashamed since they ought to be.

In blasting Senator Chuck Hagel he called him partisan, and I want to remind everyone that Katrina is not a partisan issue, but a human issue.

As his spokeswoman stated, “The senator is an independent Democrat and answers only to the people who elected him to office and to his own conscience.” Let us make one clarification here. He is not a Democrat, but an Independent. He is only caucusing with the Democrats and basically holding the senate hostage. If he were to decide to caucus with the Republicans, then the balance of power would shift.

In a dedication piece once written for the late Senator Paul Wellstone, I wrote, “When people are elected to the office of senate, their constituents are from all walks of life and from every corner of this great land of ours.” Lieberman does not only have to answer to the people of Connecticut, but to those living across America since he holds a powerful position within the Senate. Presently he is the head of the Homeland Security Committee which means he is in charge of not only Connecticut’s security, but the rest of the nation.

How could a man of conscience turn his back on people trying to restore their lives and in the same breath look to increase our troop levels in Iraq? He has turned his back on those that did die in that storm and he is turning his back on our soldiers as many more will head off to Iraq.

Call it media bias, but when Newsweek identifies Danielle Brian who is executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, they state that it is a “liberal” watchdog group. Danielle Brian had this to add within this article, “For the Congress not to be willing to stand up to the White House and demand to know who's accountable is a total abdication of their responsibility. How serious about oversight are they if they're not willing to flex their muscle over this one? Wasn't the election about holding the government accountable? Congress has the power for oversight, and the mandate. Does it have the will?” Many are beginning to wonder the same thing. Over the past six years, this White House has not been accountable to the people and I do not think they will ever be held accountable if committee heads like Lieberman will turn their backs on the citizens of that storm ravaged region.

I would love it if every single victim of Hurricane Katrina were to call up Lieberman’s office asking him, whose interests does he serve? I would also love it if journalists such as Anderson Cooper were to put him on the hot seat as he turns his backs on these people. I remember how Cooper was visibly shaken in covering that story as he saw the bodies float right by him. In fact, at one moment, he had to turn the cameras off to gain his composure. I seem to remember him going off on Senator Mary Landrieu as she congratulated many elected officials. One could feel Anderson Cooper’s wrath and I would love to see that wrath turned on Senator Lieberman.

The one man that I would especially love to see confront Senator Lieberman is, Herbert Freeman Jr. You may be asking who he is. His mother Ethel Freeman was the woman photographed dead in a wheel chair. She was 91 years old at the time of her death. In this article Remembering Ethel Freeman, her son stated, "Before this happened, no one knew she existed. I will go to my grave to return her dignity and respect, through the court system and through God." I ask that you read that article in full to realize how this elderly woman was left behind by the Bush administration.



Perhaps in Ethel Freeman’s memory and to help her son Herbert find justice for his deceased mother, you who read this piece can take a moment of your time by calling Senator Joe Lieberman’s office and state that it is time for him to actually give a damn for those that live within this country. These victims have suffered enough and for him to turn his back on them is unconscionable. His phone number in Washington, D.C. is (202) 224-4041.