Jeff: on McCain there are a large number of people who will not vote for McCain because of his claim to fame. There are a lot of people in this country who can not read (majority of the USSC, congress, etc), but many people believe that “Congress shall make no law” is pretty freaking clear wording and that Congress should make no law restricting speech. 1st amendment absolutists on the right get called nuts while on the left they’re heroes, but be honest, there are lots of reasons for opposing McCain.

I say this as some one who has Rudy as his second preference, coming after Condi. Security is all, and I like the fire of Rudy. He might even take on the traitors in our midst.

2) How we got there is relevant. Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress lied us into the war. The fact that they lied about their real reasons for wanting this war means that they can’t be trusted on anything. Period.

3) Neither Lieberman nor McCain are centrists. If they were, they would demonstrate at least some liberal beliefs to balance their conservative ones. They don’t.

4) After saying that people who voted for his opponent helped Al Qaeda, Lieberman can stop weeping crocodile tears over the loss of civility in politics.

5) The U.S. is one of the causes of the civil war. It is also an army of occupation sent by a country that refuses to say that it does not plan to have permanent bases there. Moreover, as is inevitable in a guerrilla war, our troops have committed atrocities. When your policy results in a group of Marines holding down and raping a 15-year-old girl and then murdering her and her family, you need to rethink your policy.

That is all.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to “wage war on Osama”.

In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that “Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: “We’re in a war against terrorism… We can’t stop with bin Laden and the Taliban.” Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to “KLA-Osama” links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism. . . .
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

DO NOT RELY ON MEDIA CRITICS FOR FOREIGN POLICY IDEAS!!

Are you listening Rod Dreher? Mark Steyn? Jeff?

Or is this more an instance of you seeing facts on the ground and adjusting your strategy to meet the new reality?

Either way I could really care less. But I do have to wonder. Have you no shame at all? Are you really so out of touch with reality that you could post this tripe with a straight face?

And why on earth would you expect anyone to care about your thoughts on the matter? You’re glowing track record on the subject?

Why not drop the “liberal hawk” moniker and be a bit more honest in describing yourself? The word dupe seems more accurate.

JOE LIEBERMAN - APOLOGIST FOR THE FASCIST KLA
by Jared Israel and Eric Garris

# [The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles … Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” (Sen. Lieberman quoted in the ‘Washington Post,’ April 28, 1999)

In April, 1999, during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, Senators Joe Lieberman (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican) proposed legislation to arm the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA. This was the “Kosova Self-Defense Act.”

Here are a few observations that may assist in putting Joe Lieberman’s actions in perspective.

a Bosnian Islamist daily published the following:

*

“TRAINING OF KLA MEMBERS IN US?
“According to Tirana daily newspapers, the Albanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Paskal Milo said that KLA members will be trained in the US. During his meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Milo was informed that Albanian guerrilla members from Kosovo would be sent to the US for training. Milo added that this was a promise, which Albright gave him personally.” (’NEVNI AVAZ’ or ‘Daily Voice,’ pro-Islamist Sarajevo daily, 26 Feb 1999)

Albright was promising to take military training, which was already going on, and bring it out of the shadows, to flaunt Washington’s right to train the KLA, that is its right to violate International Law in the form of the Helsinki Final Act which requires governments:

# “To refrain from any use of armed forces inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States, against another participating State, in particular from invasion of or attack on its territory.

# “To refrain from any manifestation of force for the purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the full exercise of its sovereign rights.”

Why did training the KLA violate the Helsinki Act?

*

1) In February, 1999, the US was not at war with Yugoslavia.

*

2) In February, 1999, Albright described Kosovo as “a region of Yugoslavia about the size of Connecticut.” Thus she acknowledged that it was Yugoslav sovereign territory.

*

3) In February, 1999, Albright called the KLA a “sometimes brutal and indiscriminate” secessionist group devoted to a “simple answer to the tragedy of Kosovo: independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” Again: Kosovo was Yugoslav territory. (Quotes are from “Madeleine Albright delivers remarks on Kosovo at the Institute of Peace,” Feb. 4, 1999)

For the US to train the KLA secretly meant therefore that it was secretly violating national sovereignty, the cornerstone of international law. But for the US to move to openly train the KLA was to uphold the US government’s right to openly and flagrantly violate national sovereignty, the cornerstone of international law.

Lieberman referred to the KLA as “Kosovan military forces” at a time (April 9, 1999) when the KLA was largely isolated, even among secessionist-minded Albanians. And note, the phrase “Kosovan military forces” suggests there is some legitimate nation called “Kosova,” though no such place has ever existed except perhaps as a Nazi puppet state during World War II. (3) Indeed, the word “Kosova” has no meaning in either the Serbo-Croatian or Albanian languages. (5)

And so this Lieberman, who makes a public spectacle of his religious beliefs, who pontificates from a place higher than Morality, this Lieberman fronts for the KLA who are the self-proclaimed heirs to the Balli Kombëtar, the World War II Albanian fascists (3). This Lieberman, who flaunts his Jewishness as if it were a theme park, to the disgust of many Jews, including the writers of this article, this Lieberman fronts for the descendents of the very people who murdered nearly every Jew in Kosovo.

But please note: since being put in power by NATO and the UN, Senator Lieberman’s beloved KLA has driven from Kosovo those Jews who managed not to be killed by the Balli Kombëtar during W.W. II, driven them out along with their descendents. That is, his KLA has completed the job of producing a judenfrei ‘KosovA.’

Following is the statement Sen. Lieberman gave to The Guardian (UK) on April 9, 1999

*

“If, after extended air strikes, it becomes clear that Mr. Milosevic intends to continue his war of aggression, we must have an answer to the question of what next? The bill we are proposing provides us with such an answer, and an opportunity to send an uncompromising message to Mr Milosevic: we will not stand idly by and allow him to brutalise the people of Kosovo any longer.

This bill is premised on our belief that Nato ground forces will not be put into Kosovo unless the Serbs and Kosovans reach a peace agreement. If we adopt that stance, though, and Serbian aggression continues, we have an obligation to allow the Kosovans to defend themselves. Our legislation, by providing aid to the Kosovan military forces, would give them a fair chance to fight for their families and their future.

“I am aware that this proposal will raise some concerns. I recall that when I first raised the idea of training and equipping the Bosnian army, many critics told us that we would destabilise an entire region or accelerate an arms race. In the end, I think those concerns were shown to be misguided.

“Training and equipping the Bosnians enhanced the stability of the area and helped end the Bosnian war. The situation in Kosovo is different. But that does not diminish the suffering of the Kosovan people subjected to Serb aggression, nor negate their right to defend their families from the threat of genocide.”

One final note. The ‘Bosnians” whom Sen. Lieberman is so proud of having championed were already being secretly armed and trained by the U.S. at the time he proposed legislation to openly arm them and train them. This seems to be a pattern with Lieberman.

And who were these “Bosnians?” Not the Serbs who lived in Bosnia. Nor the moderate Muslims who lived in Bosnia; they were militarily allied with the Serbs. Rather, he wanted to openly arm the extreme Islamist faction led by one Alijah Izetbegovich whose views are clearly stated in a book:

“… The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the “Islamic faith” and non-Islamic societies and political institutions. … Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. …” (”Islamska Deklaracija” or “Islamic Declaration” by Alijah Izetbegovic, p. 22)

And by the way, as a young man this Izetbegovic was a passionate supporter of the Mufti of Jerusalem, an ally and friend of Adolph Hitler, who recruited tens of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Albania into the Waffen SS which then slaughtered many tens of thousands of Serbs, ‘Gypsies’ and Jews in Yugoslavia.

(See: George Lepre, Himmler’s Bosnian Division. The Waffen-SS Handschar Division 1943-1945, Schiffer Military History, Atglen, PA, 1997).

Leaving them alone is not a strategy???

While complete disengagement is probably impossible, in a nutshell I think that’s precisely the strategy to use vis-a-vis Iraq in particular and the threat of radical islamic terrorism generally. The US military presence in the region is a cause of instability. We’re not preventing violence, we’re causing it and preventing any real stability from emerging. This is not going to change. We need to remove our combat brigades, stop building imperialistic permanent bases, and Let the people who live in the region decide for themselves how to govern their affairs.

I think we can offer a lot in terms of support, and from a security angle we should build and maintain much stronger human intelligence networks throughout the middle east. But really, man, it’s time to put down the white man’s burden. We’re not helping anyone out.

Also, on Lamont did you actually spend any time in CT or talking to the voters there? This would seem to be a critical TODO before rendering an opinion that people were voting against something. Clearly there’s a dynamic of change at work, but that’s something people vote for as well, isn’t it? New direction? An end to a pointless bloody and costly war? A fresh and energetic proponent for universal health care, better labor standards and clean energy?

I recommend a nap and a juice box.

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/08/stupidity-got-us-into-this-mess-and_13.html

Man, you deserved that.

I have a better idea, Jeff: what is yours? When the car was hurtling towards the cliff and the people sitting in the backseat mentioned that maybe we should slow down if not stop, you reached your foot over and gave it some more gas. Now that it lies on the rocks below in flames and ruin, you want everyone to run over with fire extinguishers because your skinny ass is getting scorched.

“But arm-the-KLA rhetoric isn’t coming just from KLA supporters in the Balkans. “People in Congress are starting to talk about arming the KLA,” said one U.S. official in Washington who is familiar with U.S.-Kosovo policy. “But as a long-term policy — not next week.” He mentioned Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., as one lawmaker increasingly vocal in his support for the idea of at least a train-and-equip program for the KLA.

There are questions, of course, about supporting the KLA. Would it help alleviate the humanitarian crisis and slow down the killing of ethnic Albanian civilians? Or would it create a Taliban-like force in Kosovo that the international community would be unable to control in the future?”
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/04/cov_01newsa.html

“When Belgrade was full of demonstrations in the winter of 1996-97, Milosevic could have been pressured to hold elections while Serbian and Albanian dissidents could have been united in opposing the regime. Instead, the Clinton administration chose to wait for Kosovo to explode and support the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

Reports have surfaced that the KLA is involved in drug dealing and with Iranian fundamentalists. Many more reports have been published detailing the KLA’s extremist agenda.

In Albania, Osama Bin Laden has established a base. Saudi newspapers have called for an Islamic Kosovo. . . . Never has the foreign policy establishment in America and its President been so dangerous or destructive.”
http://www.greece.org/themis/action_press/serbia.htm

Jarvis seems to believe that the GOP wins purely because of its ideological superiority, not because of its tactical superiority. But maybe Dems should stop trying to borrow GOP ideology, and instead borrow some of their tactics.

Oh, I know, that would be “poisoning the discourse.” Get over it. The discourse was poisoned to death a long time ago, by the right. Are liberals obligated to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? Are liberals obligated to play nice when their enemies — which is what they declare themselves to be — always fight dirty?

Republicans attacking Democrats is evidently OK by Jeff.

The bile and hate spewed against liberals on well-financed TV and radio programs daily has somehow escaped Jeff’s notice, while hotheaded remarks on a few left-wing blogs cause him great indignation.

The right has been promoting hate speech against liberals as an official policy, directed and sanctioned at the highest levels of the GOP, since Newt Gingrich’s infamous Language: A Key Mechanism of Control memo ten years ago. A few plucky liberals are trying to fight back against the massive tide of extremist, mean-spirited, sometimes even eliminationist anti-liberalism that is spewed daily by Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Gibson, Hume, and dozens of other well-paid right-wing propagandists and think tanks.

Jarvis and other Lieberman lovers will steadfastly maintain that a few f-words used by bloggers are “uncivil”, while missing the elephant in the room: the conservative-created deluge of anti-liberal hatred.

You know what I think is uncivil? When Lieberman says that the voters who chose Ned Lamont have thereby chosen to side with an evil force that is supposedly worse than Nazism and Soviet communism.

Your spin of the Connecticut vote is just about as far off the mark as was your support for the War. Lieberman’s loss is a statement from the voters of Connecticut that they’re fed up with the Iraq War. That’s the majority position in America right now. And any politician that wants to swim against that tide risks his job.

Iraq will go down as one of the greatest blunders in our history. It’s laughable that those who let us into that debacle now accuse those who opppose the war as not offering a “solution”. You supported it, where’s your solution?

John Gibson: “Hang on, Dems. Here come the Pol Pots of your party. And if you were for national security, you are now emphatically not. Or else. Remember the mountain of skulls in Cambodia? It’s the Democrats’ new reality now that the anti-war rabble has tasted blood by taking Lieberman down.”

Yeah, Jeff, it’s those out of control Democrats with their harsh rhetoric that are the problem, right? You know, those far-leftists from Greenwhich, Connecticut, some of whom really were victims of terrorism.

Let there be no more mistaking who the extremists and radicals really are. It’s those in charge in this country: Neo-con warmongers, bible-thumping Rapture right-wingers and the Wall Street Journal crowd who care about nothing except not having to pay estate taxes.

All good Republicans, and that includes you Joe Lieberman and Jeff Jarvis, need to start using the new talking point, “adapt and win”. Got it? Adapt and win.

That is the new solution to the “Iraq problem”. OK?

You ask for solutions from the left, but then put so many restrictions on any solution offered that it won’t deviate far from how you think it should be handled.

First, you have to get over yourself. There is no “winning,” period. Define for me what the conditions are for winning the so-called “war on terror?” Elimination of all terrorists? Won’t happen, ever (that’s aside from the Bush’s foreign policy creating more terrorists in droves). Terrorism is a tactic, not a nation-state, not a group. There will always be some terrorists of some size, shape, color, or ideology. That’s whats so genius about this silly-ness. It is a never ending war designed as a front for a massive power grab. The designers don’t want peace in the Middle East, they want containable conflict. Once you accept that, you can make some progress.

Tell you what, start holding the people responsible for this mess accountable. Then we’ll talk. Not some blame game, but NOTHING is going to be accomplished until the architects and enablers are own up to the mess and removed from the decision making progress and public commentary. Sorry, but they’ve blown it time and time and time again. How may times do you allow an employee to completely screw up before you stop them?

Instead we’ll ship all those geniuses like you who got this war started in the first place to Iraq to rebuilt the country. Y’all are so smart, it shouldn’t take you long.

You have always been in the Zell Miller/Lieberman camp and hve looked to gain attention by trashing dems at every opportunity.

B O R I N G !

I have a better idea, Jeff: what is yours? When the car was hurtling towards the cliff and the people sitting in the backseat mentioned that maybe we should slow down if not stop, you reached your foot over and gave it some more gas. Now that it lies on the rocks below in flames and ruin, you want everyone to run over with fire extinguishers because your skinny ass is getting scorched. You don’t have to apologize, but if you don’t have any answers yourself, then just admit that you were wrong and shut the fuck up. Nobody needs a preachy enabler lamenting how others enabled him and how deeply unfair and hurtful it is to mention the bad thing that happened. You want to wash your hands of it, feel free. Just don’t expect us to hand you a towel.

Really, Jeff. STFU.

I want Osama’s head on a stick and regard the Iraq war as a costly distraction from that. A nation building effort that needs to be settled as quickly and as effectively as possible.

That’s not “anti-war” as it’s been painted by the Right and the media.

It’s focus.

I’m happy Lamont won. People should have realized that politics as usual were over with after 9/11. Some didn’t get the hint. And if the web has empowered folks to refocus their parties - isn’t that a good thing?

I can’t believe I’m quoting Peggy Noonan, but so be it:

The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they’re closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people–between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

The parties have lost touch with the average Joe. They don’t give a shit about the middle class’s concerns or point of view.

Lamont’s victory represents progress. It represents people being empowered to make change again. Hopefully we will see similar “corrections” within the Republican party, which is a pale ghost of what it supposedly stands for. We need real debate from our leaders. Not endless, meaningless, us versus them, spin.