<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2618633873490899171', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Lieberman (D/I-CT) accuses supporters of anti-escalation resolution of not supporting the troops

This is the so-called Democrat House Speaker James Amann supports.
Yesterday on the Senate floor, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) had a testy exchange over their Iraq resolutions, during which Lieberman claimed that the difference between his pro-escalation resolution and Warner's anti-escalation resolution is that "ours is a statement of support to our troops."

Warner responded, "I forcefully argue that ours is in support of the troops, and there is no suggestion that one is less patriotic than the other." But Lieberman insisted, "One is not less patriotic than the other, but actions have consequences, as I said during my remarks. For the Senate to take this unprecedented action on a nonbinding resolution to disavow, disapprove a mission that our troops are being asked to carry out right now cannot help their morale."

Class act.

Is this the type of politician that Democrats such as Speaker Amann, Pat "I'll have another" Dillion, and Bill Finch should rally around? While we're at it, I'm still wondering if the head of State Central Nancy DiNardo will ever get around to answering Maura's quesiton regarding her attendance at Joe Lieberman's victory celebration in D.C.
Of course, it would also be inappropriate for the head of the State Democratic Party to attend the party celebrating the inauguration of a candidate who defeated the Democratic Party candidate for Senate. But I’ve also heard that Nancy DiNardo was celebrating Ned Lamont’s defeat along with other Lieberman supporters at Lieberman’s inaugural party in DC. If this is true, we just got suckered into another term of being “led” by someone who thinks it’s okay to celebrate the defeat of her own party’s candidate. Nice!
I guess she already gave her answer to the Courant.
As for his future place in the state party, Nancy DiNardo sounds like she’s keeping every door and window open [From the Courant]:
Reached by phone at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington, DiNardo said she and Lieberman have yet to discuss his place in the party.
"It has been awkward," DiNardo said of the three months since the election. "I think there have been bruised feelings on both sides."

Umm... how about slamming the door in his face? That's what I usually do with people who spit in my face and refuse to leave my house.

DiNardo apparently feels differently, and feels sorry for Joe's "brusied feelings."
Shame on any Democratic official that supported Lieberman after the primary (both publically and privately) and shame on any Democrat who's too afraid to take a stance against Lieberman's rhetoric.