Lieberman Replacing Rummy?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I’d like to know what everybody else thinks about this. If it happens, I say at is a smart move on the part of GW, although I’m sure the leftists will turn on Lieberman like a rabid dog on crack. It’s not even certain if he would take the job.

Interesting.

Rummy exit expected; Lieberman eyed for job

BY THOMAS M. DEFRANK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit early next year, once a new government is formed in Iraq, sources said yesterday.
Rumsfeld’s deputy, Gordon England, is the inside contender to replace him, but there’s also speculation that Sen. Joe Lieberman - a Democrat who ran against Bush-Cheney in the 2000 election - might become top guy at the Pentagon.

That’s not as farfetched as it might first appear.

The Daily News has learned that the White House considered Lieberman for the UN ambassador’s job last year before giving the post to John Bolton, a Bush adviser said.

“He thought about it for a week or so and finally said no,” the adviser recalled.

A source close to the White House said Rumsfeld wanted out a year ago, after Bush’s reelection, but neither he nor President Bush wanted his departure to appear to have been forced.

“They didn’t want to give the critics the satisfaction that their piling on was what got rid of him,” a Bush adviser said.

Bush has told friends that Rumsfeld is a political liability, but the President has a history of sticking with his personnel baggage until an opportune moment.

“Only Rumsfeld will make Rumsfeld leave,” a White House source said.

Rumors that Lieberman could replace Rumsfeld started flying early this week, and Bush and Vice President Cheney fanned the flames by quoting the former Democratic veep candidate’s pro-war statements.

The mention of Lieberman’s name prompted some Democrats to whisper that he is lobbying for the job.

“Lieberman seems to be coordinating his statements on the war with the White House,” a Senate Democratic source said.

The source pointed to a news conference this week where Lieberman urged his party not to undermine Bush. The timing of Lieberman’s pitch, also this week, to form a bipartisan “war cabinet” to aid Bush was cited as well.

But Lieberman and Team Bush dismissed the rumors.

“The U.S. Senate is where Sen. Lieberman wants to be, which is why he is actively campaigning for reelection to his fourth term,” the senator’s spokeswoman, Casey Aden-Wansbury, said.

Originally published on December 8, 2005

2

Flamer, the Democrats know that Lieberman does not stand with them on any major issues. In fact, he shouldn’t be called a Democrat at all.

The Democrats know this- I have been hearing about it for quite a while. So it’s not going to take George II appointing him to make me (or any other leftist) disgusted with him; we already have been. He was the only reason that I wouldn’t have voted Democrat in 2000- I can’t stand that bastard.

3

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Flamer, the Democrats know that Lieberman does not stand with them on any major issues. In fact, he shouldn’t be called a Democrat at all.

The Democrats know this- I have been hearing about it for quite a while. So it’s not going to take George II appointing him to make me (or any other leftist) disgusted with him; we already have been. He was the only reason that I wouldn’t have voted Democrat in 2000- I can’t stand that bastard.

[/quote]

I find this type of response interesting.

What stands do lefties have that he is opposed? I’ve seen no MAJOR issues that, in fact, you/they have a particular stand that is greatly different than the present status quo.

Are you opposed to him because he broke ranks or because you truly differ from some particular issue/stance?

I always find it interested how people who associate themselves with a party react so harshly when one of their own has a differing opinion.
Just like how the same 2 people can hear the same spech and have drastically different reactions given the speaker and not the topic.

Just interested to know. No ball breaking going on----------------yet

4

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Flamer, the Democrats know that Lieberman does not stand with them on any major issues. In fact, he shouldn’t be called a Democrat at all.

The Democrats know this- I have been hearing about it for quite a while. So it’s not going to take George II appointing him to make me (or any other leftist) disgusted with him; we already have been. He was the only reason that I wouldn’t have voted Democrat in 2000- I can’t stand that bastard.

I find this type of response interesting.

What stands do lefties have that he is opposed? I’ve seen no MAJOR issues that, in fact, you/they have a particular stand that is greatly different than the present status quo.

Are you opposed to him because he broke ranks or because you truly differ from some particular issue/stance?

I always find it interested how people who associate themselves with a party react so harshly when one of their own has a differing opinion.
Just like how the same 2 people can hear the same spech and have drastically different reactions given the speaker and not the topic.

Just interested to know. No ball breaking going on----------------yet
[/quote]

Well, I remember his efforts to suppport censorship that surfaced around the election, especially with regard to Marilyn Manson. Now, the fella is freaky, but I admire his intelligence and his attitudes. Even if I didn’t, however, I still believe he has a right to say it…just like I can’t stand the “Christian Rock” phenom (“Christian Rock” in itself being an oxymoron), as I think that if Manson brainwashes one way, they certainly brainwash the other. But anyway, I hate those that are for censorship. Now Joe went about trying to censor videogames and music, so I immediately disliked him.

Secondly, I am much farther left than most Democrats, so it grates on me that any of these assholes actually voted for the war in the first place. Being as Liebermen was leading the charge, that made me dislike him even more.

Being a leftist to me has far more to do with economic reasoning than social issues. I personally don’t care about abortion- they can ban it, it will still go on. They can ban gay marriage- gays will still live together. But doing as the Democrats did with NAFTA, and being as they are as much a part of the imperialist war machine as the Neocons, I have little respect for any of them. And Liebermen is at the top of that list.