I tell ya, I like this guy. If it wasn't for his plans to immediately roll back the Bush tax cuts, I'd have considered voting for him in 2004.
Or at least, I wouldn't have put my head in the toilet if he'd won, like I would have with Kerry.

I don't know. How can he? Why is he? You tell us. He's never going to lose his senatorial seat, is he? It amazes me that with Conn. being a state of moonbats that he gets elected.

Someday when they write the books, Lieberman is going to come across as the greatest Democrat of this era.

I swear to God, if he had won the nomination in 2004, I honestly would have had to flip a coin between him and Bush.

I agree with Ace. How can he be in a party where 70% of its members treat him with utter contempt?

How long will he stay in the party where 41% think the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power? I'm shocked that they actually admit it, if this story is right.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml

Damn, Joe! If you take away the barking "Bush lied" lunacy, the Democrats have nothing left.

This is one of those Emperor-Has-No-Clothes moments.

"He's never going to lose his senatorial seat, is he?"

It's possible. The usual suspects are excited about his primary challenger (his seat is up next year).

Remember the 2000 VP debates? I was a toxic moonbat at the time, but even I couldn't help thinking "Why aren't *these* guys at the top of their tickets?"

I'm originally from Connecticut and Joe Leiberman was the first of maybe 5 democrats I ever voted for in my life. It was against Lowell Weiker, who is the exact opposite, and Leiberman took his seat.

Unfortunatly, it bit me in the ass when Weiker ran for Governor, won, and imposed the State's first income tax.

I lost alot of respect durring the recount fiasco, but he is certainly earning it back here.

As to WMD in Iraq, two things have become clear to me since Saddam was toppled:

1. Our intelligence was way off. As it usually is. In this case, it was a big embarrassment, which Bush should feel a little bit stupid for. We expected WMD stockpiles that weren't there.

2. Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire and secretly continuing weapons research. He was going to restart his WMD program (including nuclear weapons) as soon as the pressure was off. I don't understand why everybody shrugs off stuff like buried centrifuge equipment as if it's irrelevant.

What Joe Lieberman is saying is self-evident. The fact that this is a big deal is a sad statement about today's democrats.

LET SADDAM GO!!!

FREE SADDAM!!!

Our intelligence was way off.

Not only in Iraq, but in Libya as well.

LET SADDAM GO!!!!!!

Good old Joe. I'm sorta comforted by his presence, but if he ever lays a hand on my violent video games I swear to God that I will never forgive or forget. But as long as he's on the right side of this one issue it's okay. For now.

Priorities.

I remember trying to patiently explain to loud people who assumed that it was "some right-wingers" having coronaries over GTA games that the politicians they were bitching about were Democrats. And they acted like I was crazy for pointing it out.

Joe made some sense before Clinton was impeached too but snapped back in line when Gore tapped him for VP.

He's a lefty and you can't believe a word he says.

It amazes me that with Conn. being a state of moonbats that he gets elected.

*hangs head in shame*

There's only so much that one Virulently- Neocon Hater can do, sweetie.

I will say that the afternoon lefty radio show was all but spitting venom about this the other day, discussing how entrenched Senators get and how there must be a way to unseat Joe.

They won't be happy until we have two completely irrelevant fringe-group Senators.

I don't think there is anyone challenging him yet.

Here are approval ratings for all of them as of 8/18/05. Joe is near the top and the moonbats are all towards the bottom. Will they ever figure it out?

Iraq did not have any ordinairy means of delivering a WMD against the US (ie ICBM's). Also if Saddam had attacked the U.S directly we would probably have vaporized Baghdad .I do not think that was a fear in the near term.

The real threat was that Saddam could have provided terrorists with a WMD or the material to produce one. This threat did not necessarily mean that Iraq needed to possess huge stockpiles of WMD's, the nature of WMD's is that a small amount of material (chem., bio or nuclear ) could be used to create a weapon that could produce death on a large scale.

Since Iraq did have the resources to produce one or more WMD's, there was no doubt that Saddam posed a serious threat to the U.S.

John makes a good point, and as Ace (I think?) pointed out the other day, where the hell did the Syrian's get all the VX they were trying to use against Jordan if not from Sadam, who was in fact manufacturing and using it in the 80's.

On the Liberman side, I looked at the whole thing and was struck by this quote, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right." Could he be speaking truth to power?

There's only so much that one Virulently- Neocon Hater can do, sweetie.
Make that two.
Okay, maybe not the "sweetie" part.
I assume, lauraw, you're talking about Bruce and Colin. I used to read Mcenroe all the time when he wrote for the Courant. He had the best Christmas story in his tome about his "freind" Dave. Now he has drunk the kool aid and lost it. He's just mean, now.

Yeah, that's who I'm talking about.

I always loved Colin's columns, and when he's not talking about politics I still enjoy his wry and sometimes just silly humor.

But there doesn't seem to be as much of that good stuff coming from him since he caught BDS from a toilet seat at the Capitol while covering the 2002 midterm elections.

He really hates the Bush man.
It seems that, originally, Bruce was supposed to be a middle of the road foil for Colin. Now he is just a yes-man. Bruce's 10:00 show (thankfully replaced by Jim Vicevich) was mostly just dull.

Oh I am so glad they changed up the morning lineup. I was one of the first callers on the Vicevich show, back when there was no queue.

"I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."

So we are to presume that everyone else in the Senate "not at that stage in their career" does what they think is not right?

Bob M; some are that way, politics being what it is. If that is what Senator Lieberman believes, then kudos to him. I may disagree with him from time to time, but that is an honorable position to take. A worthy opponent to whom it would be no dishonor to lose.

Sounds like he has passed beyond the stage of "It's all about me. What about that can't you understand?" which is so rampant all the time, in everytime, in politics. That is why W.S. Churchill is so respected and honored. And Abraham Lincoln. And George Washington.

Hate to be the turd in the punchbowl in this Leiberman lovefest, but let's not get carried away here. Joe's no conservative. His past shows a pretty much party line vote record. Oh, I know the MSM liked to gush over him as the "conscience of the senate" and such, but when push came to shove, Joe's famous conscience always managed to find a way to allow him to vote on all the hot issues the way the other Democrats were voting. Funny, that.

what are we talking about?

So we are to presume that everyone else in the Senate "not at that stage in their career" does what they think is not right?

I think we are to infer that prior to "that stage in his career" Joe made other calculations.