home

Cheney on Lieberman

By TChris, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:47:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The outcome of a democratic primary should be of no official concern to the Republican administration, but Dick Cheney used Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman to argue that Democrats support al Qaeda.

Dick Cheney ... went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Qaeda types." "It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy,'' Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news service reporters.

Playing the fear card worked for awhile, but the game has changed. The majority of Americans oppose the war. Tell us, Mr. VP, are all those folks giving aid and comfort to "al Qaeda types"?

Everything you need to know about Lieberman is contained in this phrase:

Mr. Cheney offered warm praise for Mr. Lieberman

< 1,815 Dead in Baghdad Morgue in July | DeLay May Get a New Job >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Cheney on Lieberman | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#1)
    by Johnny on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:20:55 AM EST
    Cheney is an idiot, and people that voted for him are idiots.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#2)
    by orionATL on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:24:17 AM EST
    in combating republican campaign tactics like the one now being explored, i.e., "lamont's victory was bad for america and good for terrorists", it is important not just to counter with different facts or a different arrangement of the same facts (different phrases and sentences). it is important to put all white house and rnc comments in the context of political tactics. less abstractly, the answer to the new tony and dick and karl and ken (mehlman) show on lieberman v lamont is not to say that lots of people no longer support the war (though that's the case) or that it is unfair to tag the large number of conn voters who supported lamont as irresponsible left-wingers (though it is unfair). the way to respond is to show with historical detail that this tactic of making inaccurate and irrational claims is a well-established tactic used by rove and company in this, and this and this situation. rove is most vulnerable when a relentless spotlight is shining on his political tactics, rather than his particular words and slogans of the moment. and remember if this does not fly (catch on), rove will rapidly move on to another. the only way i see to combat this perpetual motion accusation machine effectively is not to be always responding to each new slogan or phrase but to steadily and persistently insist and demonstrate that all rovian phrases and slogans are the same tactic a calculated effort to control what the press says and to mislead and manipulate voters.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:27:22 AM EST
    I always get a kick listening to rich, fatass republicans telling the democrats whats good for them.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:30:38 AM EST
    Youre a terroist, no youre a terroists, hell were all terroists. They are so stupid to go to name calling. They live off fear.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:34:34 AM EST
    It is a clear indication that your party is in trouble when you start to tell the other party how they are blowing their chance to win in the next election. How many elections in the past did we have one party telling the other what not to do in order to win? These talking points of how the demos are soft and working with Al Qaeda are not going to be effective. Surely the public can see and hear desperation and right now the GOP is in a state of disarray. The right LOVES Lieberman, not because he votes with them but because he was a significant reason Al Gore lost. Lieberman was a horrible choice and added nothing to the ticket, of course the GOP wants him around...

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:02:24 AM EST
    Dick Cheney used Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman to argue that Democrats support al Qaeda.
    That's an interesting mis-interpretation. The claim that al Qaeda is encouraged by Democrats' actions is not a claim that Democrats support al Qaeda. Similarly, I can claim that al Queda is encouraged by Republicans' insistance that we stay in Iraq, since it helps them foster anger toward the US and recruit, without claiming that Republicans support al Qaeda. It's more clear if you see more than three words out of context:
    ...the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
    C'mon, Cheney is sleazy enough in reality, we don't need to make stuff up.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    That's too funny...I always considered Dick Cheney an "Al Qaida Type". I mean he likes to blow stuff up right?...What's more AQ than that?

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:29:13 AM EST
    It's a coordinated attack:
    The White House on Wednesday used Sen. Joseph Lieberman's loss in Connecticut's Democratic primary to blast opposition to the war in Iraq, saying national Democrats are "walking away" from the conflict.
    Snow said President Bush was not commenting on the primary results and would not aid Lieberman's independent bid. But he said the race indicated Democrats are ready to raise a "white flag" in the war in Iraq. [...] Snow said a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, as Lamont has called for, "would send not only a sign of weakness, but also of American unreliability, and it would enable forces of oppression and totalitarianism to rise again within Iraq and elsewhere."
    They are running scared to make such an accusation.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:32:55 AM EST
    Hmm. Meanwhile the left blogs are all silent on today's major news: the terror arrests and plot our of London. It's almost as if that story might cause cognitive dissonance, or something.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    Hmm. Meanwhile the left blogs are all silent on today's major news: the terror arrests and plot our of London.
    wrong as usual. reload the site JR.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:50:14 AM EST
    James, maybe it will get people to ask the question "why do I have a target on my back?" Here's a few more I hope people ask: Why did we really go into Iraq? Why is Israel destroying a nuetral nation? Are we planning a wider war in the ME? What the hell is AIPAC and who is Ariel Weinmann?

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:21:52 AM EST
    Meanwhile the left blogs are all silent.. Which "left blogs" were those James? A man see's what he wants to see etc.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#13)
    by Darryl Pearce on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    ...James decides to run off-topic ("we're fighting them a little nearer than there, so we don't have to fight them here... anymore"). Regarding Cheney (who's been near the White House since Nixon's day), for me, such advice from the vice-president makes me dig in my heels as I find it harder over the years to take anything he says seriously.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#14)
    by maddendude on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    Why doesn't he just flat out call Lamont, as well as the rest of us anti-war people, terrorists...It would be no more politically incorrect than what he's saying now.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#15)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    The claim that al Qaeda is encouraged by Republicans' actions is not a claim that Democrats support al Qaeda. Of course it isn't.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    Good work Darth Cheney and Rasputin Rove. Keep up the good work. Bush's kiss of death evidentially is contageous. Now Lieberman has it. Each warmongering neocon that loses is a big defeat for the republican's buisiness partner al-Qaida. A Dem vote is a vote for a safer world.
    Minnesota Republican senate candidate Mark Kennedy, a dozen points behind Democrat Amy Klobuchar in latest poll (Rasmussen, 8/1), endorses Lieberman. So does McGavick in Washington state. He's down 11 points (Rasmussen, 7/17). It's an avalanche. All the GOP senate contenders who are sinking in the polls are endorsing Joe.
    Josh Marshall

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    It could also mean "send cash".

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    You know, defense contractors,lawyers, "haliburton" and some Jewish Org.

    Re: Cheney on Lieberman (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:19:27 PM EST
    Newt Gingrich just slurred a line " we need to take-out the gov't of Syria." He slurred it like a 9 month old. These people must be lip readers or they got the transcript. Is Newt running for anything?

    Cheney on Lieberman | 19 comments (19 topical)