Lieberman Rumbles Against Iran, Endorses McCain for Prez

The war in Iraq is an unbelievable catastrophe.  We have dragged American moral authority through the mud, with torture and occupation shredding our honest broker status.  The blood and treasure used in the Middle East is hurting us at home, as we haven't used the capital to invest and prevent electricity blackouts and to rebuild New Orleans.

And Lieberman is smack dab in the middle of it. He not only thinks that the war in Iraq is going well, he was part of the caucus promoting military action in Iran.  This is from a few months ago, but it's a nice story showing his horrific judgment and disloyalty to the party is nice and intact.

So when McCain later told the gathering of the world's top defense officials that "every option must remain on the table," when dealing with Iran on its nuclear program because "there's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear-armed Iran," Lieberman did not elaborate much.

"It is not unusual for Senator McCain and I to agree on matters of policy, but as people in the United States know, when we do agree it doesn't mean we are speaking for either the Democratic or Republican parties," he said to laughter. "But in this case I do believe we are speaking for the overwhelming majority."

Though the two seem like they might make a bipartisan dream team in the White House _ should one change parties or both go independent _ the suggestion was greeted only with a laugh.

"Every now and again we're asked that, and McCain always says we couldn't do it because each of us would want to be vice president," Lieberman told The Associated Press. "And my presidential campaign days are over _ I hope his aren't."

And for good measure, Lieberman endorsed McCain for President.  What a great Democrat.

Tags: Connecticut, CT-Sen, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Re: Lieberman Rumbles Against Iran, Endorses McCai

The war in Iraq is a better idea than McCain for president.  Of course, both are nutty ideas.

by Anthony de Jesus 2006-07-25 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Rumbles Against Iran, Endorses McCai
Well...I kinda hope McCain runs for president too.  I would never vote for him, but I like him better than people like George Allen and Sam Brownback.
On a lot of social issues, McCain's voting record isn't much different than theirs and his recent appeals to the Bob Jones-types have been duplicitous, but he's more respectable than most of their potential nominees, so why shouldn't he run?
I think he deserves it.  But that's not an endorsement.
by ChgoSteve 2006-07-25 06:31PM | 0 recs
Never Underestimate the Opposition

When I was young and irresponsible I underestimated Ronald Reagan.  The netroots should not make the same mistake with Republican frontrunner John McCain (anyone think he might pick Lieberman for Veep?).  Anyway, this post shows, once again, just how important it is that Ned Lamont beats McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman.  It's also important to beat George Allen in Virginia.  These are the two most important races in the country on the road to the White House in 2008.  

by howardpark 2006-07-25 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Never Underestimate the Opposition

Even if Lieberman isn't a McCain surrogate, if Lamont beats Lieberman then Joe becomes irrelevant - an ex-politician. He becomes Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich. As in "Who cares?"

That just can't be bad.

by KB 2006-07-26 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Rumbles Against Iran, Endorses McCai

It's not just Iraq, Lieberman has been giving the GOP cover against his own party for years. Here's a press release from the Republican Policy Committee on missile defense from 1999:

"S. 257 National Missile Defense Act of 1999

Reported without amendment from the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 12, 1999, by a
vote of 12-7 (Senator Lieberman joined all Committee Republicans in voting aye, making this the first
ever bipartisan Committee vote on a national missile defense bill)"
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/31099L3.pdf

Lieberman was the first and only Dem on the Armed Services Committee to vote for this dog of a bill. Dissenting were the Clinton Administration, SecDef Cohen, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, and Ted Kennedy. How much money spent on this non-functioning boondoggle doesn't get spend on Democratic core programs like Head Start and health care? Lieberman's idea of bipartisanship is basking in the glow of praise from all sides. That's not leadership unless you are a beltway pundit.

by joejoejoe 2006-07-25 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Endorses McCain, etc.

My imitation of Lieberman's campaign staff:

"ARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

I'm curious here.  When, exactly, did Joe Lieberman become the dumbest politician in America?  Seriously, here's a guy who's being killed for supporting the war in Iraq, and then comes out in support for ANOTHER WAR in a country that differs from Iraq by one letter.  Then, in a DEMOCRATIC primary, he endorses a Republican for President, two YEARS before the Presidential election.  WHAT. THE. HELL?

Did Lieberman get his brain sucked out by some alien?  Did Hannity smash Lieberman over the head when Joe wasn't looking?  Because really, someone this dumb could not have gotten into Yale, or have been elected dogcatcher (much less Senator).

The only thing more idiotic is for Lamont to not squeeze this gaffe for all the juice he can get.

by Jim Treglio 2006-07-25 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Rumbles Against Iran, Endorses McCai

There's a huge part of Lieberman that wants to be John McCain.

He's dying to be maverick. But he can't pull it off and it's killing him.

Stupid ass, it takes more courage to be loyal opposition and speak truth to power than it does to be "maverick" and side with those in power.

Lieberman's version of maverick is actually cowardice.

by dereau 2006-07-25 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Rumbles

Well, it's funny this came up because I have been telling friends and associates my prediction for 2008.  Look for something very similar to happen in 2008 that happened in 1992 (both with the name Clinton being involved, coincidentally).

McCain will run as a Republican in 2008 (oh, yeah, THAT'S news, you say, but bear with me).  McCain will be rebuffed because the wingers are just too in control of the Republican Party to for him to win it.  

Hillary's inherent advantages in the Democratic primaries prove to be insurmountable for another Democrat to beat her.  She gets the Dem nod.

However, McCain, using the pretext of a particularly ugly campaign against him (even with Republican standards) and the fact that his ego just won't let the scintillating prospect of him being president go, decides to run for president as an independent.  He then asks...drumroll please...Joe Lieberman to be his independent running mate.

So you have a three-way race with a Clinton involved just like in 1992:  Hillary and her pick for the Democrats, a winger and his pick for the Republicans, and John McCain and Joe Lieberman as the independent geriatric hawk ticket.  Hillary wins just like Bill did in 1992, because McCain and Lieberman are simply to hawkish and the Republican will be way too socially conservative for the country as a whole.  

You heard it here first (although some people in Arizona have told me that the idea has been "discussed" between John and Joe, who happen to be VERY fond of each other and are both slavishly devoted to the security of Israel).  

So bookmark this or something because you heard it here first and it's a definite possibility (barring John McCain's health issues) considering the egos involved.

by jgarcia 2006-07-25 07:39PM | 0 recs
I think this is very astute.

except for I don't think Hil will be the nominee.

-C.

by neutron 2006-07-25 10:02PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads