Morons
Sen. Lieberman seeks 'more troops' for 'winnable' Iraq war
If you like something, feel it is important, and vote for a candidate for office who also believes in it, you are not a moron.
On the other hand, let's assume you are strongly opposed to something -- say, for example, the Endless War -- as the good people of Connecticut were. And let's say that, like the good people of Connecticut, you had a Senator who was gung-ho until the day he was defeated in a primary by a candidate who shared your strongly held belief, at which point the defeated warmonger suddenly began to make vague anti-war noises.
And let's also assume you took the former warmonger's new anti-war noises at face value, and re-elected him.
When that Senator reverts to war-mongering even before the next Senate session begins, what should we call you, the anti-war voters who sent him back to Washington?
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) has written an op-ed for The Washington Post in which he explains his reasons for why more troops are needed in Iraq. Lieberman argues that the war is "winnable," yet acknowledges that "more U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success" in the fight.
If you like something, feel it is important, and vote for a candidate for office who also believes in it, you are not a moron.
On the other hand, let's assume you are strongly opposed to something -- say, for example, the Endless War -- as the good people of Connecticut were. And let's say that, like the good people of Connecticut, you had a Senator who was gung-ho until the day he was defeated in a primary by a candidate who shared your strongly held belief, at which point the defeated warmonger suddenly began to make vague anti-war noises.
And let's also assume you took the former warmonger's new anti-war noises at face value, and re-elected him.
When that Senator reverts to war-mongering even before the next Senate session begins, what should we call you, the anti-war voters who sent him back to Washington?
posted by bluememe at 12/29/2006
4 Comments:
Were you looking for a clinical term or just an 'I told you so'?
What WOULD be surprising is if a Quaker or an Amish elected official performed hypocritically like this. But all of the major religions seem to thrive on it. Who can say they honestly didn't know what a piece of dog shit Lieberman is?
And what does that say about the electorate? Were they just looking for the extra pork he can steer to Connecticut as a senior member of one of the most corrupt bodies on the face of the planet? They deserve everything they will lose (family members in Irag/Afghanistan, reduced options due to increased Federal debt, reputation in the world, etc.) as a result of his antics.
We have long since passed the point where anyone, anywhere can say "but I didn't know" with respect to any political, moral or economic issue, ANYWHERE in the world. That just doesn't wash.
Bah! Humbug! Suck my Christmas tree if anyone thinks they were fooled by anyone except themselves. It won't be a New Year -- this is groundhog day and Americans get to see it over and over until they stop bullshitting themselves and the rest of the world.
TA
Just for the record Richard Nixon was a Quaker AND he won by the largest majority up to the '72 election AND he turned Viet Nam form a few thousand dead to 44.000 dead.
History is first time tragedy second time farce but sometimes it takes a few tries to get to farce.
Lieberman is a pathological liar. The bigger question looming is what Senator Dodd, the senior senator from CT, is going to do about albatross Joe.
If Richard Nixon was counted as a Quaker by anyone except his mother, that would make me the Dahlai Lama.
My point stands. If it happens it is not because people wern't warned repeatedly and in detail. That dog won't hunt anymore.
TA
Post a Comment
<< Home