Good job with that video.
Dodd needs to take notes when Hagel speaks; he might learn a few things.
I've said in in 2003, I repeated it several times in 2004, 2005, 2006 and I repeat it again.
With Lieberman it is all about the safety and survival if Israel, and he is willing to throw Americans out there for its defense.
Or he is a totally idiotic sycophant
Try to convince me otherwise
Any word on the undocumented $400K from Holy Joe's campaign?
Video's gone
Thank you for posting this video. I was actually screaming at Lieberputz and cheering Hagel on. First time I've watched MTP in years. Thank you again.
LIE-berman will continue to push Bush's war until his paymasters at AIPAC pull the plug on him.
I jumped off the couch and did a "woot-woot" cheer when Hagel smacked Holy Joe. It's better than football!
Thank you CT Bob! Your video clip with Sen. Hagel dressing down of Jo-Low tasted better than this first cuppa coffee! When you next see Ned Lamont please let him know his splendid campaign continues to inspire countless of we Ned-Heads here in California, as do you!
Patio,
Trust me, as soon as I learn something, it will be posted on this site.
387,000 in COLD HARD PETTY CASH...get to the bottom of that and you'll have one disgraced senator.
can we trade lieberman for hagel? we get a good batting coach and they get a good hot dog salesmen.
can we trade hagel for joe? we get an experienced linebacker, the republicans pick up a talented cheerleader.
are there any mechanisims for a recall in Connecticut??
but he let the "same enemy that attacked us on 9/11" go by unchallenged
"Are you advocating defeat and retreat?"
What kind of stupid question is that? F you, Tim Russert.
And mostly, F you Joe Lieberman.
Watch his blinking eyes.
Does Connecticut election law provide for recall elections?
Thanks for this ! I missed the show this morning, and any opportunity to see Lieberman get slapped (bitch or otherwise) is highly amusing. And from a Republican, no less.
Yes, let's definetly see if we can adopt Hagel, and send Lieber-creep out to them!
Lieberman is an embarrassment to the people of Connecticut - conservative and liberal.
He just doesn't understand international affairs - not one bit. And I feel sorry for the people of the place I called home for 10 years before moving to DC.
Would some one please rid us of this useless pest?....
"So long, JOE---
---YOU gotta GO-----
ome---omyoooo----
so get ye gone down on da bayou....
---an' ketch da nex boat ta HAIFA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Lieberman is one, dumb fucker.
I heard the exchange on Sirius and started to laugh. I can't wait to watch MTP's rerun on MSNBC tonight. Just wondering: are Lieberwhore and Kyl's kids going to enlist and sacrifice for their master's war.
Congrats - you're frontpaged at C&L and Atrios I think. Nice!
Lieberman used the same old tired argument: "they'll follow us over here, I want to make it safe for my kids and grandkids, blip, blip, blip".It's hard to see how 30 percent of Connecticut Dems believed this man. The Dems should throw this man to the curb in two years when they gain more Senate seats.
DG--you missed the point of Russert's "are you for retreat and defeat?" question. It's a softball, served up for Hagel to knock it back. I'm no fan of Russert but that was not a hostile question.
You all complain that Lieberman casts a deaf ear towards his constituency. Well, make him listen. Pick a day, or two days and tie call him. Tie up his lines and demand a public forum.
Somebody needs to find out where Lieberman has his suits cleaned and infiltrate it. Clinton had Monica, Bush has Lieberman, all we need is a suit with semen stains and we can impeach Bush.
Hagel differed with Lieberschmuck in a dignified but opposing manner. He didn't bitch-slap him! Lately I've come to question why, in fact, the Lieberschmuck's peers don't put him in his place.
There is no recall provision in CT and even if one were installed there would be nothing we could do about the Lieberschmuck. See Wikipedia. The Senate is the only body that could expel or censure another senator, once he's there.
Sadly, the state of CT sent him there and now we must put up with him and the national, daily blog scoldings we receive. We look like the fools that we are.
Hagel says that ultimately, the people of the Iraq will determine the fate of Iraq. Right now, if left to the Iraqis, they would choose a system very much against our interests, namely, a radical Islamist system. Why?- because those groups have the militias. One could say, "well, if that's who wins, that's who wins. It's their country." But that discounts the fact that these groups are rabidly anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-human rights, anti-semitic- you name it. Look at the hatred that spews from Iran, from Al Qaeda, from Hezbollah. These people need to be fought and defeated. How will our withdrawl from Iraq NOT further empower these people? We have to fight and kill extremists where they are and they are in Iraq.
Hagel says that the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq. It's just that if we left now that fate would be in the hands of radical Islamists. Why?- because they have the militias. One could say, "well, so be it. It's their country." But this discounts the fact that these people are rabidly anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-human rights, anti-semitic, you name it. They espouse a dangerous ideology and yes, it is the same ideology as that of the 9/11 terrorists. Look at the hatred that spews from Iran, from Al Qaeda, from Hisbollah. Look at the number of civilians slaughtered in Iraq by these people. We need to fight these people where they are and they are in Iraq. And to those who say, "well, we 'created' them with our invasion." I say, so what? Does that make it less evil when the chop peoples heads off and dump the bodies in the street? Will leaving 'un create' them? We need to be fighting this ideology where it lives and that place is Iraq (among others.) How would withdrawl NOT empower these people?
ok, let me get this straight. We are the shining example of 'righteousness' in that our president complete disregards the will of the American people, the very rich and the rich don't pay taxes, while the debate over raising the minimum wage goes on and on, and, our mail, email, telephones etc. are being 'monitored' and our financial situation is being scrutinized, without our permission is something to try to sell as a true democracy to another country? Now that makes everything really clear as to why they would be so anxious to have this kind of living conditions. Of course, we still have the internet and who knows how long that will be. Iraq is what Iraq is, and we have helped to cultivate the terrorism as it exists there today.
kclaf-
"Boo hoo hoo. We're so oppressed here in America."
Gimme a break. What a spoiled brat.
BTW sorry for the double post above.
Cristobal,
Seinfeld rules apply here...no double dippin 
One more time and NO SOUP FOR YOU!
If the best the Dems can do is the Republican Chuck Hagel, good luck! His response was completely unresponsive, evading the key points made by Lieberman and bloviating non-sense about pulling to the borders. The fact is that Iraqi government needs to handle both the political settlement between the sects and security in parallel. One doesn't exist without the other. With greater security in Baghdad region, militias loose their appeal and political settlement becomes possible leading to greatly reduced sectarian violence.
The alternative is failed Iraq used by the terrorists to destabilize all of Middle East and then Europe and US. If we pull the troops now, they'll only have to go back when Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. are under attack. It'd be stupid to not finish the job like we did in '91.
Hey Cristobal, I agree with you. Why don't you go enlist? You could help bravely defeat the Islamofascists in their native lands.
Or maybe you're just a puss.
I was looking forward to an interesting put him in his "place" routine. Didn't see it.
FYI: In case your wondering about the recent delusional pro-Lieberman comments , this post was crosslinked by the conservative site Pajamas Media.
Now, back to the rants...
That was a very special moment on Meet the Press. I cherish the memory and I'm glad you recorded that bitchslap for posterity.
The idea that only those who are willing to enlist or have kids in the war should be allowed to opine is a bunch of crap.
If you saw a dangerous person in your neighborhood with a gun threatening people, would you think to yourself, "Gosh I can't ask the police to put their lives on the line. Only a cop or someone related to cops really have the right to do that."? If you do call the cops does it mean that you don't care if they die? Of course not. How is this different? Should only the military have a say in American foreign policy? Is that the way our nation works? Just because I don't join the military, I don't have the right to examine the facts and determine that Islamic extremism is a threat to civilized society and should be fought?
evading the key points made by Lieberman
What point was that, Mark? When Holy Joe said that we're fighting "the same people [in Iraq] who attacked us on 9/11"?
Jesus you people are stupid.
Cristobel, you really should find out
what this conflict is all about, before you comment. It's not about fighting terrorism. This war is one big lie that snowballed out of control. Get your head out of the sand, go and join the Marines.
Lieberman refuses to understand that Ahmad Chalabi conned the ultra-conservative Ariel Sharon and his Likud Party before moving on to Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of PNAC. Chalabi knew he needed both Israel AND the US to back his cockamamie invasion plan, and he also knew of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's tight ties to Likud (chief among them being Douglas "stupidest bleeping man on the planet" Feith, whose Likud links go back to his father's own pro-Likud ties). Chalabi spun a fairy tale of an Israel-friendly Iraq (as opposed to the sullenly neutral Iraq as existed under Saddam), and Likud -- and Likud's friends in the US -- fell for it.
So to those who say I should educate myself to the "real" reasons for the war...
So the extremists trying to impose a brutal Islamic law from Somalia to Lebanon to Iraq and then on to Iran and Afghanistan...They aren't real? We shouldn't be fighting them? They pose no threat? You people completely deny the fact that radical Islam is a problem and you say that I have my head in the sand. They scream "Death to America!" in their "holy" mosques and we're the big bad guys
You guys should check out www.memri.org -it's a site that follows middle eastern media and posts selected broadcasts from the region. The hatred that flows from the region is sickening and disturbing.
One last comment and then I'll shut up. OK OK so the whole Iraq war was a big lie, an Israeli conspiracy, a ploy by Halliburton fine...
But given that Islamic radicalism IS on the rise from Somalia to Afghanistan, given that for every one of our soldiers killed, the insurgents kill 30 Iraqi civilians, what should we do NOW? A poster above said that I should educate myself because this war is not "about" terrorism. What should we do to make it "about" terrorism?
A bomb just went off outside a University in Iraq killing 86 Iraqis. Fighting people who do things like this is at least an attempt at a solution. Repeating "Bush Lied, People Died" is NOT a solution.
They scream "Death to America!" in their "holy" mosques and we're the big bad guys
Do you know what happened on the streets of Tehran on Sept. 12, 2001? a spontaneous candlelight vigil in sympathy for the victims. Do you know why Achmanajeenihad (sp, I know) got elected? Because that swaggering empty-headed nitwit in the White House started rattling his sabre at Iran right before the elections.
Fighting people who do things like this is at least an attempt at a solution
Pity you people didn't listen to Colin Powell, he tried to explain the whole "You break it, you own it" thing, but a four star general with combat experience wasn't butch enough for those of you gazing longingly at the Princeling's codpiece when he played dress-up on that aircraft carrier.
They've been screaming "Death to America" in their mosques for 26 years. But since some people in Iran lit candles on 9/12, we can ignore their government's history of spreading Islamic extremism throughout the region. Iran was nice and tolerant and peaceful until that big meany Bush called them evil. But for the sake of argument, I'll accept that Bush "caused" Amedinijad. So now he has the right to threaten the region with nukes, undermine democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, and hold Holocaust denial conferences? Not to mention what that regime does to it's own people? But hey, some people lit candles on 9/12. Did the light candles when their buddies Hezbollah killed all those peacekeepers in Lebanon in the eighties or when the blew up that temple in Argentina?
Yeah and I suppose we should let the whole Middle East plunge into genocidal chaos just to show the "princling" how stupid he was. Yeah...It's all just about Bush.
As a sidenote, the Iranians always say that the source of their hatred for the US is some coup in 1953 that we supported. How long do they get to use that as an excuse anyway? 75 years? 100 years? 80% of Iran wasn't even born in 1953. And when was the last time you went into a church in the US and heard a priest or minister screaming "Death to Iran!" or "Death to Muslims!" or anything of that sort. Over there, that is normal. Let's not forget how twisted that is.
Iran was nice and tolerant and peaceful until that big meany Bush called them evil.
Um....no, but a new generation of secular, western-friendly Iranians, exhausted with mullahs and fanatics was coming of age when that halfwit David Schrum wrote speech for that nitwit Bush that reduced geopolitics to some kind of 1950s B-western morality play. The mullahs and fanatics are now more secure in power than they've been since Khomeini died. Do you want to have a grown-up discussion based on facts and reality, or do you want to deal in histrionics and hyperbole that make you feel heroic as you wet the bed over fiendish Arabs cackling and twirling the greasy mustaches.
As a sidenote, the Iranians always say that the source of their hatred for the US is some coup in 1953 that we supported. How long do they get to use that as an excuse anyway?
Wow. You don't even see the irony of this question one paragraph after you've referred to a generation old attack in Beirut to justify Bush's turning Iran into the most powerful country in the middle east.
There is no solution to Iraq. We can't unshit the bed Bush has shit in. There can be a civil war with US troops in the middle of it, or without US troops in the middle of it. Maybe if we redeploy to Kurdistan and Kuwait we can lessen the carnage, maybe we can't. The one thing we can do about the hole Bush has dug for us is stop digging
It's kind of hard to know the true feelings of the Iranians while the Supreme Leader and his council have the power to ban any true reformists from the election slate. Because of this, many reform minded people have boycotted recent elections. So to say Bush drove the Iranians to extremism is hard to swallow. If you guys had your way, you'd start kissing the mullah's backsides and then the reform movement really would be dead. Without a doubt, the first condition in negotiations would be that we stop whatever support were giving to the opposition.
It's funny too, how they call us the Great Satan on a daily basis for 26 years, and then freak out because Bush calls their government evil. You hold Middle Easterners to such a low standard of behavior while calling people like me hysterical for pointing out that they are dangerous. They can't be held accountable for anything they say or do because Bush made them the way they are. Right.
My mentioning of the Beirut bombing is hardly the same as using a coup from 1953 to justify a nationwide,obsessive, religously sanctioned HATRED of the American people.
If you guys had your way, you'd start kissing the mullah's backsides
D'oh! My bad. I didn't realize you were a parody troll. Usually, parodies are funny... but nice try. I can totally hear the fat junkie or LoofahMan spewing this nonsense.
OK so maybe that was crudely put. But would you not prefer negotions with Iran to a more aggressive approach? And in negotions, one needs to offer concessions. So what concessions would you be willing to offer the Iranians? Do you not agree that they would immediately ask that we stop supporting any and all anti-regime elements within Iran?
What kind of message would it send to the Iranian dissidents if we "took the pressure" off the regime they hate so much?
Commenting by HaloScan
