But don't you see, the best way to end the war is to introduce 20,000 or more troops. That's what Lieberman meant.
He's a sneaky one.
6:24 PM, December 15, 2006
Atrios lays it out pretty plainly: First Lieberman says things are getting better and we'll be able to withdraw troops soon. Then, during the campaign against Lamont, he claims that he wants to end the war. Now, he stands with McCain and calls for MORE troops. What a crock of shit. Why do people still take him seriously? Doesn't it matter that he was completely wrong? Or that his stance in the campaign was a transparent lie? No, not in the current distorted discourse. In these times, one must be a "centrist", even if that "center" is complete bullshit. Actually having been right that the war would be a disaster doesn't count for shit. Not one member of the ISG opposed the war, as far as I know. Only the people who were wrong get to make policy. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
By the way, the NCTimes article I link to above lists Lieberman as "Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn." That is just wrong. He caucuses with the Democrats (for which I am grateful), but his party is "Connecticut for Lieberman". So he should be "Joseph Lieberman, Lieberman-Conn." which is pretty fitting.
posted by Zachary Drake at 10:14 AM on Dec 15, 2006
"Lieberman is full of shit on Iraq occupation"
1 Comment -
But don't you see, the best way to end the war is to introduce 20,000 or more troops. That's what Lieberman meant.
He's a sneaky one.
6:24 PM, December 15, 2006