Joe Lieberman: Schumer Crossed 'Diplomatic Red Line'

Joe Lieberman was shocked by Chuck Schumer crossing a diplomatic red line and assaulting the people of Israel.

Joe Lieberman's Final WSJ Op-Ed

Lieberman's final article now reads like an epitaph.
Lieberman was the first victim of the Democratic Party's embrace of anti-Semitism in his 2006 primary against Ned Lamont.

Schumer Has Crossed a Red Line Over Israel https://t.co/36E6FIvog9

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) March 27, 2024

Joe Lieberman R.I.P.

🚨BREAKING🚨Joseph Lieberman dies at 82 https://t.co/UYt6SlbAs1

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 27, 2024

Former Connecticut senator and 2000 Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman has died. pic.twitter.com/gJ8Z54hMzK

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) March 27, 2024

Rest in peace.

Statement from the family of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman

🙏 pic.twitter.com/yUzbj1NqoP

— Mike Emanuel 🇺🇸 (@MikeEmanuelFox) March 27, 2024

John McCain's Funeral

Another day of attacking Trump via McCain weeklong memorial with media amplification. Terrible.

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) September 1, 2018

What kind of dumb media coverage is this?Trump wasn’t invited to any of the McCain memorial events. And he’s being dissed repeatedly. Is Trump supposed to sit in a corner at the White House all week? This is twisted. https://t.co/a3Krh8UuPF

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) September 1, 2018

I watched some of John McCain's funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral on Saturday morning.

I came in when Joe Lieberman was speaking, so I missed Meghan McCain's remarks.

I got lucky.

Personally, I don't care for a funeral masquerading as a political rally.

Perhaps John McCain wanted his funeral to be a televised forum to attack President Trump. I hope that was his wish because that's what he got.

I think it would have been better to honor John McCain and celebrate his life without all the bitterness and anger. Trump should not have been the focus. It's unfortunate that rather than honoring McCain the service was used as an opportunity to belittle Trump. Of course, some moments were beautiful, but sadly those were lost amid the classless attacks on Trump. There was a disturbing lack of civility.

Why make Trump the focus?

I don't understand why John McCain and his family would want the funeral to go in that direction, but clearly they intended it to go that way.

After a week of media obsession over slights and gibes and hating on Trump and Sarah Palin, it's over.

John McCain will be buried today at the U.S. Naval Academy.

May he rest in peace.

Joe Lieberman Retires

Democrat/Independent Joe Lieberman is not seeking a fifth term in the U.S. Senate.

From the Washington Post:

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) will not seek a fifth term in 2012, according to two Democratic sources familiar with the decision.

Lieberman's office did not offer any comment on his plans, saying only that he would make an announcement tomorrow in Stamford, Conn. "The Senator's remarks tomorrow will stand on their own," said a Lieberman spokeswoman.

Lieberman will be the second senator who caucuses with Democrats to make public his plans to leave the chamber in the past 24 hours. On Tuesday morning, North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad said he would not seek a fifth term in 2012.

...Lieberman's long-awaited decision means an end to a political career that took him from the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nomination to a 2004 Democratic presidential candidacy to a speaking role at the 2008 Republican National Convention in support of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Lieberman's increased alienation from the Democratic Party -- primarily over his ardent support for the war in Iraq -- led to his defeat at the hands of cable television executive Ned Lamont in 2006. But Lieberman formed his own independent party and beat Lamont in a general election to win a fourth term.

His numbers among Democrats only declined since that time, however, making it next-to-impossible for Lieberman to run and win as a Democrat in 2012.

The Dems consider Lieberman's plans to retire to be good news because he won't be splitting the Dem vote.

Still, even though Lieberman won't be in the race, he does have supporters, people with more moderate leanings put off by liberals like Ned Lamont.

I think it's a mistake for the Left to assume that Lieberman Democrats and Independents will automatically vote for a Dem.

Remember Massachusetts and Scott Brown?

Al Franken and Joe Lieberman (Video)

Al Franken threw his weight around today, refusing to allow Joe Lieberman to complete his remarks.

John McCain was really ticked off by Franken's heavy-handed tactics, punishing Lieberman.

This is your federal government under Democrat control. This is what Obama's promised "change" looks like in practice.

Total BS.

This isn't even the status quo that Obama always moans about. It's worse than the same old, same old. This is the oppposite of improvement.

Frankly, the Obama regime sucks.

Joe Lieberman: Terrorist Attack, Fort Hood

I don't understand why anyone would be bent out of shape over the statements Joe Lieberman made on FOX News Sunday regarding Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous attack at Fort Hood.

Lieberman had the audacity to suggest that an investigation into the slaughter last Thursday was in order. He dared to call it a possible terrorist attack.

That definition is more than some people can handle.

From the Wall Street Journal:

A senior U.S. senator on Sunday said the shootings at Fort Hood could have been a terrorist attack, and that he would launch a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress.

...Mr. Lieberman, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," cautioned that it remained too early to draw any definitive conclusions. He said his comments were based on "reports that we are receiving" about Mr. Hasan's actions and comments.

The Army's top officer, Gen. George Casey, wouldn't rule out that the shooting was an act of terrorism, but cautioned against speculation at this point. "We all want to know what happened and what motivated the suspect, but we need to … let the investigation take its course," he told ABC News's "This Week."

Mr. Lieberman said that if news reports were true that Mr. Hasan had turned to Islamic extremism, "the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most-destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11."

"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Mr. Lieberman added.

The lawmaker said he would begin a Senate investigation aimed at uncovering Mr. Hasan's motives and asking "whether the Army missed warning signs." He also called on the Pentagon to begin an independent investigation to determine whether "warning signs were missed."

Mr. Lieberman said preliminary evidence suggested that Mr. Hasan had denounced the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech," the senator said. "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."

Why is what Lieberman said controversial?

It's a no-brainer that there should be an investigation.

I completely agree that there should be zero tolerance when someone in the U.S. Army is talking like an Islamic extremist.

...Gen. Casey said the Army was conducting an investigation to try to determine the motivation behind the shootings. "We in the Army will take a very hard look at ourselves and ask ourselves some very hard questions," he said.

He expressed concern that speculation about the shooting could result in a "backlash" against Muslim soldiers. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even-greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," he said. "We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength."

Oh, no! We can't have a "backlash"!

I am so sick of hearing about the dreaded "backlash."

Instead, of worrying about these "backlashes" that never materialize, the Army should be focusing on keeping all our troops secure and safe from any U.S. soldiers who decide to lash out at Americans and, in effect, become the enemy.

With thirteen Americans killed and dozens of others wounded, I hardly think the priority right now should be to protect potential shooters or worry about hurt feelings.

If a soldier gives others reason to doubt his or her loyalty, appropriate action should be taken to assure the safety of the troops.

On page one of the New York Times today, an article by Andrea Elliot examines the difficulties that Muslim soldiers are facing in our wars in Muslim countries, "Complications Grow for Muslims Serving Nation."

Abdi Akgun joined the Marines in August of 2000, fresh out of high school and eager to serve his country. As a Muslim, the attacks of Sept. 11 only steeled his resolve to fight terrorism.

But two years later, when Mr. Akgun was deployed to Iraq with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the thought of confronting Muslims in battle gave him pause.

He was haunted by the possibility that he might end up killing innocent civilians.

“It’s kind of like the Civil War, where brothers fought each other across the Mason-Dixon line,” Mr. Akgun, 28, of Lindenhurst, N.Y., who returned from Iraq without ever pulling the trigger. “I don’t want to stain my faith, I don’t want to stain my fellow Muslims, and I also don’t want to stain my country’s flag.”

Thousands of Muslims have served in the United States military — a legacy that some trace to the First World War. But in the years since Sept. 11, 2001, as the United States has become mired in two wars on Muslim lands, the service of Muslim-Americans is more necessary and more complicated than ever before.

In the aftermath of the shootings at Fort Hood on Thursday by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan of the Army, a psychiatrist, many Muslim soldiers and their commanders say they fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult.

This makes no sense to me.

Why should fighting America's enemies give members of the U.S. military pause?

Throughout our history, millions of Americans have been called to fight against an enemy with which they share a common heritage or faith. Conflicts of conscience are nothing new.

The onus was on them to prove that they were loyal Americans through their actions, by serving their country honorably.

For instance, how many Americans of German heritage fought and died in the World Wars?

They showed that their allegiance was to America, not Germany. If they were sympathetic to the enemy, then they certainly didn't belong in the U.S. Armed Forces. End of story.

We have a volunteer military. If Muslims in our military don't want to harm other Muslims, the radicals who are our enemies, then they should get out.

Of course, an investigation needs to be done into Hasan's attack. That's what Lieberman wants. Where's the problem?

It's nuts to expect him, a U.S. senator, to dance around reality when discussing the violence at Fort Hood.

Hasan targeted an Army base. He intended to kill people and he succeeded. It's possible that he adopted the mindset of an Islamic extremist.

If an investigation shows that Hasan's actions had something to do with extremist Muslim beliefs, if he lashed out because he disagreed with U.S. policy and was fighting against the U.S., then what he did should be defined as terrorism. He did the work of a terrorist.

It was an act of war.

There should be a "backlash" against members of the U.S. military siding with the enemy.

Lieberman isn't the one acting like an extremist.

He's acting responsibly.
______________________

Transcript: Sen. Lieberman on 'FNS'

SNL: Message from Rahm Emanuel (UNAIRED)

UPDATE, February 6, 2010: An Even-Tempered Apology from Rahm Emanuel
_________________

This skit wasn't aired on Saturday Night Live. It's a WEB exclusive.

Transcript

DON PARDO: And now message from White House Chief of Staff-designate Rahm Emanuel.

ANDY SAMBERG as RAHM EMANUEL: Hello, I'm Rahm Emanuel, one-time congressman of Illinois' 5th District, and now, White House Chief of Staff-designate for President-elect Barack Obama. I believe we are at the dawn of a great new age in American politics. And I am proud and excited to be a part of it. At the same time, I understand that our country is facing great challenges, challenges that are going to require both parties to come together to find solutions.

Now, some on the right, such as minority leader John Baynor, have criticized my appointment as being hyperpartisan and have accused me of being prone to bare-knuckle tactics and profanity-laced tirades in the past. While it is true that my nickname is 'Rahmbo' and it is also true that my brother Ari is the basis for Jeremy Piven's character on Entourage, I want to assure you that I took this job for one reason only -- to support Barack Obama's message of hope and change.

Although I should say to anyone thinking about crossing me, I will f------- end you. You will never even see it coming. One day you will be here, and the next day you will f------ disappear.

And John Boehner? You seriously wanna f--- with me? You're losing seats in Congress like it's a game of f----- Musical Chairs, and you issue a press release about me, you f----- idiot? About me? You pull that s--- to my face, Baynor, and I will send you back to Ohio in a f------ box.

And that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. You will get in f------ line or I will personally stamp your ticket. None of your f------ b---s--- on my watch, Lieberman. If it was up to me, we wouldn't just strip you of your chairmanship, we would strip you naked and make you walk your McCain-loving a-- back to Connecticut, you f------ turncoat.

You don't believe me? Ask Howard f------ Dean if I'm for real. He s---- himself when he hears me on the radio.

I'm sorry. Did you f------ say something? Are you f------ sure? Yeah, you better be f------ sure.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you tonight. I look forward to the coming months to setting out together on what I promise will be an incredible journey. Seriously, it's gonna be f------ amazing.

Chris Matthews, Joe Lieberman, and Revenge

Chris Matthews wants revenge. He wants Lieberman to be punished for supporting John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

Tuesday on Hardball, Matthews said, "Unity bites."

Tuesday night when Matthews was a guest on The Tonight Show, he gave a different impression about unity. Matthews said this about Barack Obama:

One thing about this, the guy promised us unity, and we thought all that's gonna be great. Well, sometimes unity's tough to take. You gotta put everybody in the tent, and he's trying to bring McCain in and work with him. It doesn't make you real happy 'cause you're used to the fight and you sorta like the fight. And he's saying, 'No, I'm bigger than this.' He's like Abraham Lincoln again. 'I'm gonna bring everybody in the tent.' Well, it's dramatic stuff. We'll see if it works.

So, unity is Lincolnesque. I guess that means Matthews is no Lincoln, but then neither is Obama.

Clearly, Obama and the Dems are making nice with Lieberman because they're hoping to hit that magic number of "60" in the Senate.

Matthews knows that, but he still can't forgive Lieberman.

From NewsBusters:

MSNBC host Chris Matthews suggested to Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza that Joe Lieberman really shouldn’t get to keep his committee chairmanship after backing McCain. Metaphorically, Matthews suggested, Lieberman should be executed:

Well you know George Washington, Chris, executed the spy in the, in that case, Benedict Arnold case, Lieutenant Andre, and nobody liked to do it, because he was a good guy but he had to do it to prove his authority. Doesn’t, at some point Barack Obama have to say loyalty counts?

I can't imagine a conservative metaphorically suggesting that Obama should be executed and getting away with it.

Connecticut Dems Censuring Joe Lieberman

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut Democrats, angry that Sen. Joe Lieberman is campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate and criticizing his own party’s nominee, agreed Wednesday to circulate a resolution to censure the veteran politician but won’t consider acting on it until after Election Day.

The state party’s central committee Wednesday agreed to send copies of the resolution to every Democratic town committee in the state. The resolution condemns Lieberman for speaking at the Republicans’ convention and backing John McCain.

Party officials said the group plans to get input from the town officials and revisit the issue in December.

...Lieberman, speaking earlier Wednesday to a radio station, said that he was surprised by the move to censure him.

“Honestly, I thought that was the kind of thing that happened only in the former Soviet Union. I understand that people are unhappy, but, you know, I’m doing something that I really believe,” Lieberman told WICH-AM. “I thought in this country you don’t get punished for that. So, I hope that in the end, my colleagues will understand and life will go on either way.”

On most issues, Sen. Lieberman votes with the Dems.

That's not good enough. It's all or nothing at all with them.

Once again, the Dems display that you must march in lockstep or you should be marching with someone else.

Joe Lieberman's Speech

After Fred Thompson left the stage, INDEPENDENT Joe Lieberman addressed the Republican National Convention.

Just like Thompson, Lieberman first talked about Hurricane Gustav.

He said it shouldn't take a natural disaster to bring Americans together.

Basically, Lieberman's speech was about putting America first, ahead of partisan politics.

Lieberman talked about Americans fighting each other, engaging in the sort of senseless partisanship that George Washington warned about centuries ago.

"I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party."

Lieberman said, "Being a Democrat or a Republican is important, but it is nowhere near as important as being an American."

Lieberman said that both candidates have talked about changing politics, but only one has actually done it -- John McCain.

"Don't be fooled... Trust me. God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man."

Lieberman talked up McCain's maverick status and his practice of reaching across the aisle.

"If John McCain is just another partisan Repubican, then I'm Michael Moore's favorite Democrat."

He called Barack Obama "an eloquent young man," but "eloquence is no substitute for a record."

Lieberman then said he was honored to say a few words about Sarah Palin.

Whenever a speaker mentioned Palin's name, the delegates responded with resounding cheers. Clearly, the Left's brutal attacks on Palin have crashed and burned.

Lieberman said, "Gov. Palin, like John McCain, is a reformer."

"The truth is she is a leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington."

Lieberman said that's why he sincerely believes that the ticket for real change this year is the McCain-Palin ticket.

He said because of McCain, "America's troops are coming home and they're coming home with honor."

He called McCain the kind of president "our allies will trust and our enemies will fear."

He directly addressed the independents and Reagan Democrats and Clinton Democrats in the TV viewing audience.

"It's no ordinary election because these are no ordinary times. And trust me, John McCain is no ordinary candidate."

"Vote for the person you believe is best for our country, not for the party you happen to belong to."

"Vote for the leader... who has always put America first."

I think it was a very effective speech.

David Brooks: McCain Should Pick Lieberman

Is David Brooks a conservative?

Tonight's speeches at the Democratic National Convention convinced Brooks that John McCain must pick Joe Lieberman to be his running mate.

His reasoning: The Republicans have to distance themselves from Bush.

There's a better way, Mr. Brooks.

Lieberman at Republican Convention: Smart Move

From Politico:

Joseph I. Lieberman is slated to speak to the Republican convention on its opening night next month, according to two Republican sources familiar with the planning.

The Democrat-turned-independent will appear on stage at St. Paul on Monday, the “service” night of the convention.

The news comes as evidence strongly suggests Lieberman is under consideration to be McCain’s running mate. Well-placed sources warned, however, not to overinterpret the night of Lieberman’s address. The vice presidential nominee is to address the convention Wednesday, but, as with the Democratic convention, the speaking slots for the contenders may change depending on who is tapped.

...The Connecticut senator will speak on the same night as President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

I think it's smart to have Lieberman speak on a night when there's likely to be a large audience.

It makes sense. Lieberman is likely to appeal to Independents and moderate Democrats, and they're likely to be watching.

I doubt that Lieberman's appearance will resemble the performance of Zell Miller at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Lieberman will probably seem like he's under sedation compared to Miller's red-faced delivery.

Still, it's a good move to have Lieberman speak. Giving him a spot at the convention indicates that McCain wants to reach out to all Americans.

Conservatives who are troubled by pro-abortion Lieberman's support for McCain should get a grip.

The fact is some Americans will give their votes to the candidate they see as most qualified to deal with national security, that being the issue that matters most to them. McCain is clearly the best choice.

I think it's a terrible mistake for conservatives to want to completely reject Lieberman and turn him away. He's not going to be McCain's running mate.

However, he can be a big help in getting McCain elected.

McCain and Lieberman, Obama and Hagel

I will be relieved when Barack Obama and John McCain finally reveal their choices for running mates. I'm tired of the speculation.

A few days ago, we learned that Joe Lieberman was supposedly on John McCain's short list.

Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s ?campaign.

Mr Lieberman, who has campaigned for the Arizona senator, has long been ?considered an unconventional but plausible choice for Mr McCain.

...[McCain] loves Lieberman. And he is on the [short-]list because Lieberman has never embarrassed anyone, never misspoken. The first rule is, don’t take someone who costs you votes,” said one McCain adviser.

If the first rule is not to "take someone who costs you votes," then I don't see how Lieberman can really be on McCain's short list.

Lieberman has been a loyal McCain supporter, but they do have very significant differences when it comes to a myriad of issues.

To pick one: "In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator Lieberman a grade of 100."

Yeah, that just might cost McCain more than a few votes.

Not to be outdone by McCain, Barack Obama's campaign is floating some names of possible VP choices that would show Obama's alleged willingness to consider a running mate from outside Dem ranks.

OMAHA, Neb. -- When [Chuck] Hagel accompanied Obama on his trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last month, speculation swirled anew that he was a possible vice presidential pick.

Plenty of people have suggested that Obama recruit Hagel, one of the Senate's most outspoken opponents of the Iraq war. The Illinois senator would benefit from Hagel's military experience in Vietnam, they say, and Hagel would help temper perceptions that Obama is too liberal. A bipartisan ticket would also support Obama's call for breaking away from polarizing politics.

Others don't see Hagel in that role, and some predict that delegates to the party convention might not either.

"I think, though it is impossible to predict with absolute confidence, that the delegates would not deliver their votes unless at a minimum he switched political parties," said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska. "Even then it would be a difficult vote."

Vic Covalt, who takes over as chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party in December, said he's not fooled by Hagel's Iraq position.

"He's not a good man when it comes to everything else, and he hasn't voted well in any way, shape or form that would gain any support from me or any other thinking Democrat," Covalt said.

...[I]n June, the Nebraska Republican said he would consider serving as Obama's running mate. Still, he added that no one had approached him about the job and that he expected Obama to pick a Democrat.

I don't buy that either McCain or Obama are really considering crossing party lines when it comes to picking a vice presidential running mate.

It's just political posturing and manipulative. It's disingenuous. It's silly. It's not going to happen.

Enough already.

Joe Lieberman's Tribute to WFB

Speaking from the floor of the U.S. Senate, Joe Lieberman delivered a heartfelt tribute to William F. Buckley, Jr.

I will end with a quote from President Reagan on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the National Review in 1985. Reagan said that when he first picked up his first issue of National Review he received it in a plain brown wrapper. Still anxiously awaited his bi-weekly edition but no longer in a plain brown wrapper, but this is what Reagan said of Buckley:

You didn't just part the Red Sea. You rolled it back, dried it up, and left exposed for all the world to see the naked desert that is Statism. And then, as if that were not enough, you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed: the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom.

_______________

Watch Lieberman's Senate speech.

ONE CHOICE IN IRAQ

(Sparks from the Anvil)

The Senate Democrats are voting to secure victory for our enemies.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate is expected to pass a bill today that would order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin this fall. Last night, the House voted 218-208 to pass the $124.2 billion supplemental spending measure containing the provision.

President Bush is expected to receive the bill next week, and swiftly veto it.

The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank checks the president is asking for, for a war without end," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk on Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

...The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain.

So the Dems in the Senate. along with some wobbly Republicans, are poised to pass a bill that hands our enemies in Iraq and the region and around the world a timeline for our surrender.

They've declared that the war is lost.

America has been defeated.

Given that al Qaeda is active in Iraq and killing Americans, the Dems are handing the extremists responsible for slaughtering nearly 3000 people on U.S. soil a victory.

It's disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

Independent Joe Lieberman, the man the Democrats threw under the bus, writes just how misguided the Dems are.

He spells out the consequences of their despicable actions in his column, "One Choice in Iraq."

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

...Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Yes, as Lieberman points out, Harry "the war is lost" Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold and all the defeatist Dems are doing exactly what al Qaeda wants.

However, Lieberman cuts those Dems some slack, in effect excusing them for their actions by claiming that he knows they don't intend to aid al Qaeda.

I won't do that. I won't excuse them. I think their intentions about doing al Qaeda's work is irrelevant.

What matters is that they are doing it and for the worst reasons -- personal political gain.

True, there is only one RIGHT choice in Iraq.

Clearly, the defeatist Dems are making the wrong choice, pursuing a path that is certain to provide a strengthened foundation for al Qaeda and its Islamic extremist allies to destroy Israel and threaten America and the Free World.

The Dems are voting for defeat, humanitarian disaster and death.

Will Romney Make History?

One of the angles that the lib media are using to whip up excitement over Election 2008 is by citing it as destined to be historic.

Will Americans elect Barack Obama as our first black president? (Well, half black anyway. And sorry, Bill Clinton didn't count.)

Will Americans elect Hillary Clinton to be our first woman president? (Female is not to be confused with feminine.)

The big question in both cases: Is America ready?

Newsweek's Jon Meacham actually made the idiotic remark that a vote for Obama is a vote against racism.

Monday morning on Imus, Meacham said:

"I think Obama has a good chance, and what’s good about it is it’s going to force everybody to examine their prejudices and their preexisting ideas not only about race, but about what Democrats are like. He’s, you know, an early and often critic of the war, and you watched Senator Clinton in New Hampshire doing a tap dance over the weekend about her vote, and I think there are a lot of people who just don’t want to hear about the nuances of why they voted for war at this point."

In other words, if you don't vote for Obama, you might be a racist.

Can you handle a black president?

Lame.

Following Meacham's logic, I guess if you don't vote for Hillary, you just might be a misogynist.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are being touted as historic figures. Their campaigns are history in the making.

Thrilling, isn't it?

One small vote for an African-American or a woman, one giant leap for America.

I think it's interesting that the lib media have arrived at a consensus that electing a black or a woman president would constitute a step forward for the country.

The race and gender barrier should have been broken long ago. America is ready!

So why isn't the possibility of the first Mormon president greeted with similar fanfare?

Romney's faith is always mentioned in negative terms. Oooh, scary.

It's a potential roadblock for him. Have you heard? Religious conservatives don't like those Mormons. I know because the lib media said so.

Based on the lib media's assessment:

America is ready for a black president.

America is ready for a woman president.

America isn't ready for a Mormon president.

However, if a Dem were the Mormon in question, you'd see an entirely different take on this.

Then America would be ready to elect the first Mormon president.

There would be a buzz about the progress being made in the country for being on the threshold of breaking down a religious barrier.

That's not happening, and all because Romney is a Republican. America is only ready for diversity if the candidates are libs. It's a Left/Right thing.

Diversity is forbidden if a conservative philosophy accompanies it.

Libs have no qualms about unabashedly degrading qualified minority and female candidates if they're conservative. Michael Steele provides a case in point.

Same goes with a conservative candidate's religion.

Example: Joe Lieberman was praised for coming close to being the first Jewish vice president. A conservative Jewish candidate, on the other hand, would be trashed by the Left and labeled negatively as a neocon.

In the end, Romney's qualifications and his policies are irrelevant.

I'm afraid that America is just not ready for a Mormon president. The bigoted Left would never tolerate it.

The Ugly Truth about the Left

It's no secret.

The self-proclaimed tolerant, compassionate, inclusive Leftists, the Democratic Party of the Big Tent, have some of the most bigoted haters imaginable among their ranks.

From The New York Post:

A string of anti-Semitic rants about Sen. Joe Lieberman have popped up on the liberal MoveOn.org's open forum Web site, drawing criticism from the Anti-Defamation League.

..."We recognize that Action Forum is an open forum intended to foster the free flow of ideas," ADL head Abraham Foxman said in a letter dated Aug. 31 to MoveOn, which supported Lamont in the Democratic primary against Lieberman.

"Nevertheless, since such profoundly offensive content is appearing on a board clearly linked to MoveOn.org, we believe you should assume some responsibility to respond to this hateful content," Foxman wrote in the letter, which was forwarded by Lieberman's campaign.

Foxman cited examples from the site's Action Forum, including "media owning Jewish pigs," "Zionazis," a reference to the senator as "Jew Lieberman" and the question, "Why are the Jews so Jew-y?"

Foxman wrote, "Those who allow hate to rear its ugly head under their auspices bear a special responsibility to distance themselves from that hate, and to speak out against it, as loudly as possible."

The ADL has clout, so a letter from Foxman to MoveOn becomes a story in The Post.

However, it should be noted that this sort of ugly discourse from libs is not an aberration on the Internet.

I completely agree with Foxman's assertion that "those who allow hate to rear its ugly head under their auspices bear a special responsibility to distance themselves from that hate."

These Internet forums are monitored. There are moderators that have the capacity to delete anti-Semitic and other hateful posts if they wish.

I've encountered relentless Catholic-bashing on forums with a lib majority and lib moderation. I've read death threats directed at President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the conservative ranks. It's business as usual on these sites.

I'm not talking about some small fringe Internet forums. I'm talking about major forums. Comments on The Huffington Post site come to mind.

Of course, when a forum is open, sick people can post sick stuff; but what stays up on the board is the responsibility of the site's directors.

Allowing such comments about Joe Lieberman to remain on MoveOn's site is indicative of the mindset of those in charge.

Free speech is a right that must be exercised responsibly.

"Why are Jews so Jew-y?" is not appropriate civil discourse. That's not responsible free speech. That's pure hate. I guess those at MoveOn didn't see it that way, at least not until it received more widespread attention.

...Foxman and Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn Political Action Committee, couldn't be reached.

But in a statement posted on the MoveOn site Saturday, Pariser condemned the anti-Semitic rants.

"Once in a while - as in any public forum - inappropriate material is posted," he wrote. "Recently, a few of the thousands of comments that are posted every week contained anti-Semitic language.

"The comments that were posted were abhorrent. We were dismayed to see them, and removed them as soon as they came to our attention 17 days ago."

He added that most of the comments were not made by MoveOn members and suggested it could be an effort by conservatives to "target" the group, and said any effort to tie the rants to MoveOn was "wrong."

Naturally, Pariser would pull a CYA move like that.

His notion that just a few out of thousands of comments are hateful is ludicrous.

The issue in this case is anti-Semitism and Joe Lieberman, but it goes beyond that.

Far Left sites overflow with ugly, threatening, and bigoted comments.

Pariser's "We were dismayed to see them" really means "We are ticked off that we are being exposed."

The moderators of the forum should not have allowed the comments to remain. They should have been deleted immediately.

If MoveOn permits comments to be posted, then the onus is on MoveOn to police its site. The buck stops with the moderators at MoveOn. Case closed.

Moreover, it's been my experience that moderators of such forums do not promptly respond to requests to have objectionable content removed, especially if the requests come from conservatives on a lib-dominated website.

The reality is some Leftists are not the tolerant and compassionate types that they profess to be. They are frauds.

The anti-Semitic comments directed at Joe Lieberman cited in The Post's piece are clearly objectionable. But the pool of hate is much, much deeper than that.

What's not highlighted is the other stuff -- the thinly-veiled bigotry that routinely runs through the Left's commentary; the failure to condemn anti-Semites like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan; the failure to condemn Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, etc., for their racial and ethnic slurs.

The truth is the farther Left one ventures, the more likely one is to encounter the sort of hate that MoveOn housed on its site.

Such places provide safe harbor for those haters and extremists. Accordingly, MoveOn must be seen as complicit in the anti-Semitic attacks on Lieberman.

On the evening of September 11, 2001, President Bush told the nation:

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

I think that the same standard should apply to MoveOn and other similar sites.

If a forum permits such extreme hateful, irresponsible comments to remain, that forum should be viewed as condoning the comments.

Chris Matthews, Joe Lieberman, and Uncle Tonoose

Uncle Tonoose

On Good Morning America this morning, Joe Lieberman (I) addressed the extremism and the ugliness that he's been subjected to by the oh so tolerant and compassionate, peace-loving Left. He was interviewed by Diane Sawyer.

Transcript from NewsBusters:

Sawyer: "Some of your supporters have gone very far on the bloggers. They said this is the first for the anti-war bloggers and some of them have called them names like extremists, saying that they have engaged in everything from dirty tricks to even bigotry was a word that was suggested. Do you think that the the extremists hijacked your party in your state; will you agree with that statement?"

Lieberman: "The blogs are a form of expression. There's nothing wrong with a blog. It depends on how you use it. I will tell you that the bloggers who came after me - - some of them were so full of hatred that it is the just not good for our politics. Frankly, on some of those blogs, there was the kind of bigotry that has no place in American public life. So I worry that this victory yesterday by Ned Lamont, which was a narrow victory, will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic party has taken -- has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America."

Lieberman: "[The left-wing blogs] are going to make this not Bill Clinton's Democratic party anymore. Remember, Bill Clinton was a mainstream democrat who was elected twice and governed with great success."

It's not just the radical hard Left bloggers that are spewing insults at Lieberman.

Chris Matthews has done his share of mocking in recent days, too.

There have been many occasions when Chris Matthews has shown himself to be a complete idiot. That would be nearly every time he opens his mouth to talk on Hardball.

But something he said last night while covering the Connecticut Democratic primary results was positively stunning.

I think the ethnic stereotyping and personal slurs that he directed at Joe Lieberman approach the TV equivalent of an "impeachable offense."

I can't find this in a transcript on the MSNBC site, but I heard it. I don't know if I'm somehow missing it or if Matthews and his network thought it would be best to have the following remarks removed from the record.

Rush Limbaugh has the quote on his site.

Comparing Lieberman and Ned Lamont, Matthews said:

The body language of the two is so different. You have this very wasp-y fellow, Lamont, very calm, very casual, very St. Paul's almost in the prep school sense, Lieberman of course is the schmaltzy ethnic guy, the Uncle Tonoose, you know, the guy that's very much kind of lachrymose in his almost postnasal drip voice of his, but he doesn't look happy.

That is UNBELIEVABLE!

The "Uncle Tonoose" reference is a nod to actor Hans Conried. He played Danny Thomas' LEBANESE uncle on Make Room for Daddy.

Conried was a character actor of Jewish descent. He's a familiar face if you watch old movies and classic television.

Conried was a talented man, able to play the villain as well as comic roles. However, he was not blessed with matinee idol good looks.

Let's just say that Matthews is not giving Lieberman a compliment when he calls him "Uncle Tonoose."

Last night was not the first time Matthews' characterized Joe Lieberman as "Uncle Tonoose."



Hardball, August 9, 2006, 1 a.m.

MATTHEWS: Let‘s allow our bleeding hearts to speak right now. Everybody was hoping for either a blowout, which had Lamont really making history, or for good old Uncle Tonoose to save the seat, and it was neither. It was somewhere vaguely in the middle, right?

Hardball, August 7, 2006

MATTHEWS: You mean it‘s going to be a sentimental, sort of an Uncle Tonoose, he‘s been with the family for years, he shows up for Thanksgiving even though we don‘t agree with him on the most important issue of our times, we‘re going to use our vote as a sentimental, gee whiz, you‘re OK with us, Joe?

Matthews is in dire need of diversity training.

Feingold Embraces Lamont

Russ Feingold is welcoming hard Left Dem candidate Ned Lamont into the fringe fold.

Feingold doesn't have any Wisconsin listening sessions on his schedule today. Maybe he'll rush to congratulate Lamont in person. Imagine that photo-op. If Feingold kissed him, ala Bush-Lieberman, it would be nirvana for the Lefty blogosphere.

Press Release

Milwaukee, WI – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold released the following statement this morning in support of Democratic Senate Nominee Ned Lamont from Connecticut:

"I congratulate Ned Lamont on his primary victory and enthusiastically endorse his candidacy. In this primary election, Democrats in Connecticut showed the Washington establishment what Democrats and Progressives all over the country are demanding - elected officials that stand up for the core American values we all share. From fighting for universal health care to demanding an Iraq policy that makes sense and puts our focus back on the terrorist networks that wish to do us harm, the Connecticut primary was about the core issues Americans talk about around their kitchen table every evening.

I have a lot of admiration for Joe Lieberman. He’s a fine man and he helped me a great deal on campaign finance reform. But Ned Lamont’s positions on the critical issues facing our country today are much closer to mine. We need more leaders like Ned Lamont in Washington and I look forward to working with him on a wide range of issues in the U.S. Senate."

Feingold is putting his money where his mouth is.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is donating five thousand dollars to Ned Lamont, the anti-war candidate who defeated three-term Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary.

Makes sense since Feingold was the first senator to call for a troop withdrawal timetable from Iraq.

We know were Feingold stands. That's no surprise. I would be shocked if he supported Lieberman.

Of course, Lieberman is a maverick, like Feingold; but I guess not all mavericks are created equal.

I want to know about Herb Kohl.

Where is his press release? Will he be handing over some cash to Lamont?

According to his offices, Kohl has "no statement on that." I suppose he can't be reached for comment.

Will any Wisconsin reporter inquire about Kohl's opinion on the Lamont victory?

Will he be pressured to take a stand?

I want to know. What does he think about the way Lieberman was treated? Most likely, Kohl is thankful that some rich, fringe anti-war Lefty didn't take him on in a primary race.


Kohl just keeps his mouth shut and glides into re-election -- no questions asked.

No questions asked means no answers given.

That really bugs me.