tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

PagCal wrote:

tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

PagCal wrote:

tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

PagCal wrote:

tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

PagCal wrote:

tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

I knew I like Lieberman.

It's too bad his genuine centrism is out of touch with the anti-war
left, and even more too bad the Republi-Kooks have decided to make him
their favorite candidate in Connecticut (thus guaranteeing his pending
poll number plummit as moderate Democrats register their disgust with
the overt Republi-Kook backing), but this has got to be making the
cowardly shills of neo-con Radio go absolutely insane.

Ok Joe, what's the way out of Iraq?

Stay the course?

My way out, or Joe's?

While I believe Joe Lieberman is against a full pullout from the Iraq
conflict zone, I believe he is sane enough to consider options such as
my own suggestion:

.....

Old Joe says 'stay the course', and endorses Cheneys policies 100%

Yeah, but wasn't it just a few weeks ago when people were saying he
endored Rumsfeld's policies 100%? The guy he's now asking to resign?

I think you guys should tread carefully on how you treat Lieberman.
Vote him out if you will, in November, but I think he is owed some
respect, as he has helped to keep a lot of moderates in the Democratic
party.

Be careful not to turn what looks to be a rising Democratic tide into
another McGovern '72 fiasco in which moderates were made to feel
unwelcome in the party.

....

In the end, McGovern was right and voters should have paid more attention.

As a Democrat, I have no quams about voting for what's right for
America, nor should anyone else.

Kerry gave us the same argument when it came to Dean. We should have
stuck with Dean.

You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the party can't be
overwhelmingly opposed to a war (though I recommend framing opposition
to Iraq in terms of its preventing us from focussing on the war on
terror, as that effort is still overwhelmingly popular with America),
I'm saying Democrats need to be conscous of the fact that their party
involves containing a lot of different groups of people into a single
tent. The moment the perception of the extremists being in charge is
allowed, Republicans exploit this fear to pull away large portions of
the voting population, such as the traditionally Democratic elderly.

You get beat up from the right because you let them. You need to start
matching the right's 'think tank' support team, just as you started to
add balance to the discussion with Air America radio.

Yes, there are some 'deep thought' lefty groups, but they don't operate
in the tactical or theater level, only the strategic and therefore,
you've left your flanks open to attack.

Do you, for example, get left talking points out every day to everyone
on the team? No.

Do you, for example, effectively hammer away at the righties on defense,
every day and in every newspaper? No.

Do you, for example, have daily tactical meetings on current issues, and
respond forcefully? No.

---

If you call anyone who questions the war an 'extremist' you are part of
the problem, not the solution. You can't reframe the Republican argument
and have bought into it. Shame, shame... shame on you.

Being against the Iraq war is not an extremist position. However, it
just happens that there are extremists amongst those who oppose it,
which is why it is important to distinguish your/my position from
simply being "Anti-War".

Opponents of the Iraq slush fund, like myself, actually oppose it
because it is the largest single factor working AGAINST our efforts to
win the war on Islamic terrorism. I believe firmly in America's need
to defend itself and to proactively engage those who seek to destroy
us, such as Al Qaeda, of which almost all of the originally listed
"Most Wanted" terrorists from October 2001 are still at large. I say
we get out of the business of policing the Iraq civil war, and get back
to hunting those guys down.

Have you come around to the counter-insurgency axium yet that the more
'hard power' you apply, the worse off you are? What's needed is more
'soft power'.

That's why the Iraqi war was so wrong from the get-go - Bush applied
'hard power' - and now look at what we've done with the mess in Iraq.

And, this is just where the 'right' goes 'wrong'. They want to take
proactive action, but then can only apply 'hard power' and not what's
really needed - 'soft power'.

Want another case? Lebanon. Who won the last round? Hezbollah did,
because they are masters of 'soft power'. They establish schools and
medical clinics, and will pay individuals for Israeli war damage. What's
Bush Jr's response? Hard power, ie, lets bomb more terrorists there back
into caves.

The fact my position against the Iraq war happens to coincide with
those who are against ANY war (i.e. the same people who would have been
against entering WWI or WWII, or Korea, or fighting the Cold War, etc.)
gives me reason to insure that my stated position is distinguished from
that radical viewpoint, lest War-proponents be given an easy means of
confusing the public regarding who opposes the war and why.

That is what the Republicans were able to do to McGovern in 1972,
because he failed to distinguish the sanity of his position from that
of the drug-addled Timothy Leary, "Tune-In, Turn on, Drop Out" crowd of
radicals.

Want some help? Ok, here's one:

Bush is failing in the War on Terror in many ways. By pushing up oil
prices for his oil patch buddies, he's actually funding terrorist
groups. Iran, for example, now gets over 70/bbl and some of this money
has been used to fund Hezbollah. Look closely at their relief effort,
and Hezbollah is passing out dollar bills! What more proof do you need?
(show pic of their bearded leader grinning - alongside Bush grinning -
and then a clip of him threatening America).

In Iraq, terrorist groups now hijack up to 30% of Iraq's oil. They sell
this on the black market then use this money to fund their insurgent
efforts against our troops. (They pull alongside an oil truck, and just
steal it - really true!)

Would't we be better off if we didn't do this? You bet!

And, the Democrats have a plan.... bla, bla, bla

McGovern was right on Vietnam, but he got trounced, and that exactly
serves my point. Don't you find it just a little ironic that because
of the perception McGovern put out, Nixon was able to trounce him with
appeals to "The Silent Majority" while, of course, we all know he
simply adopted McGoverns withdrawal plans the moment he won
re-election.

... or that Jimmy Carter had orchistrated the Iranian prisoner release
before he left office, but Regan got the credit...

Carter's a perfect example of Democrats providing their opponents with
the club with which to beat them. America cannot stand leaders who
will not stand up for themselves. Carter proved to be such a leader.


Look at the difference in public reaction to Carter's failed rescue
mission in Iran and Reagan's failed mission in Lebanon. Think of the
criticism of Republicans for those who question the military tactics of
our President today, yet no one said a peep about the scathing
criticism and constant attacks against Carter while he tried to resolve
the Iran crisis both diplomatically and militarily. Reagan even
undermined the sitting President's efforts and Carter never called him
on it. Democrats need to position themselves to be able to hit back
when confronted by hypocritical Republicans.

My point is no one seems to be as good at defeating Democrats as
Democrats. Stop giving the Republicans free amunition.

What they are looking to do is two-fold:

1) Yes, they are hoping to "turn" Lieberman into an independent who can
be swayed to their side on issues in the Senate.

2) But they are also hoping to cause a battle between far left and
moderate Democrats within the Democratic party, to provide such a
"Silent Majority" they can appeal to in November.

I say don't give the Republicans either oportunity.

Establish large Quick Reaction Force base with in Northern Iraq, where
Kurds love us
Establish a second large QRF base in Kuwait
Announce to U.N. they are free to assist in Iraq if they want
remove all forces from non-northern Iraq.
Redeploy large portion of force to Afghanistan
Pressure Mussaraff to allow cross-border operations into Pakistan.
Deploy two divisions on our southern border here at home.

I think his request for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation yesterday, speaks
to accusations of him being a lackey for their policies.