What's wrong with this picture

Click here and find out.

SIRIUS doesn't think Democrats are "patriotic"

You have to read this...

Lieberman wants to bomb Iran "sooner than later"

It seems like our war-mongering junior senator is continuing his crusade to embarrass the people who "stuck with Joe" after the primary.

Sean Hannity had a chance to interview his favorite senator where Mr. Irrelevant repeated his call for the United States to bomb Iran.

Olbermann on Chertoff's "Gut"

The only honest man on MSNBC.

Ass-kissing Lieberman is at it again

Once again Joe presses his lips on President Bush's backside.

Yesterday in an interview with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) praised President Bush’s policies in Iraq and predicted that Bush will be remembered by historians as a great President:

HEWITT: Oh, that’s fascinating. Last question, how do you think history’s going to evaluate George W. Bush?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I personally believe look, mistakes were made, and I know the polls are down, but I think on the largest issue of our time, which is the rise of Islamist extremism, that he will be judged as a president who saw the threat, and in the midst of an unpopular war, he stuck with it. And so I think overall, over time, his ratings among the historians will be greater than his ratings in the polls today.

Lieberman’s comments echo those by Rush Limbaugh, who in May said, “Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.”

It’s interesting that now, with the war more unpopular than ever and violence skyrocketing, Lieberman decides Bush is a great president. In contrast, in May 2003, when Lieberman was competing for the Democratic nomination for president, he said the Bush administration “seems to have been unprepared for the quick victory it predicted.” Similarly, in Sept. 2003, Lieberman stated:

I am shocked at how unprepared the Bush administration was for what to do afterward. They’ve left a vacuum which the terrorists, the Saddam loyalists, our enemies, have jumped into.

Rush and Lieberman may not be aware, but historians are already debating Bush’s legacy. In fact, Rolling Stone recently wrote, “Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.”

Jane Hamsher makes smacking down right-winged bloggers look easy

This wasn't even a contest.

Ned Lamont on "Where We Live"

Ned Lamont made an appearance on WNPR's "Where We Live" and commented on his 2006 campaign as well as talk about his future in politics.

(NOTE: I captured the audio about 15 minutes into the interview).

Part 1:

Part 2:

UPDATE: You can now listen to the complete interview by clicking here.

Chris Dodd does Hardball

Senator Chris Dodd made an appearance on Tweety's show yesterday and offered his view point on the current situation in Iraq.

One teen's view of the war

The final installment of WTNH's "War in Iraq: a young perspective" centers on the writings of Sara Shoalwolf.

This teen took her feelings on the war and the soldiers currently fighting in Iraq and transfered them to paper.

Lieberman's memory problem

It seems like our war-mongering junior senator is banging on the war drum so hard that he can't keep his facts straight when it comes to whether or not he ever suggested that the U.S. should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

BLITZER: You caused a stir in recent days by suggesting -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the U.S. should consider, if necessary, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. A lot of people were alarmed by that. But tell us precisely what you have in mind.

LIEBERMAN: Yes, because I never did say that. I do think that everybody who says that it's unacceptable -- and most everybody here in Congress -- liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat -- says it's unacceptable for Iran to get nuclear weapons. We've to deal with what we're going to do if it looks like everything else we try is not working.

Ahem.

The US is probably incapable of completely destroying the Iranian nuclear program, but as a last resort it could attempt to knock out "some of the components" in order to "delay and deter it," Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate and a serving member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has told The Jerusalem Post.

[...]

Asked what last-resort military option was available, Lieberman said: "I don't think anyone is thinking of this as a massive ground invasion, as in Iraq, to topple the government." Rather, he said, he envisaged "an attempt to hit some of the components of the nuclear program," primarily from the air, with some potential for covert ground assistance.

"I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it," he said. "And I use the word 'deter' because I'm skeptical of our ability - because they've spread their nuclear program and some of it is underground - to knock it out completely."

Joe Lieberman: a bitter, delusional, and irrelevant politician.

...at least my conscience is clear.

Sec of State on WPNR's "Where We Live"

Sec. of State Susan Bysiewicz had an interesting interview on WPNR's "Where We Live," which was broadcasted on CT-N.

The Sec of State commented on her call for disgraced State Senator Louis DeLuca to resign, setting the record straight on the so-called "sore-loser" law, her views on Joe Lieberman, third-party candidates, and a host of other election-related issues.

Here's video footage of the entire interview (run time 49 mins):

Lieberman doublespeak at it's finest

Classic.
So lets see, on one hand Joe wants people to "give the soldiers a break" while at the same time, trashes the Webb amendment that would give the soldiers the break that they desperately need by giving them more time off between deployments.

Joe Lieberman: A bitter, confused, and profoundly irrelevant senator.

Senator Dodd on Iowa

If you haven't notice, I'm a big fan of Senator Dodd as well as a fan of his online team.

I make it a point to check out Dodd's D-TV video page daily and I came across this videoclip of the senior senator reflecting on traveling across Iowa during his River to River bus tour.

UPDATE: As soon as I say I'm a big fan of Dodd, he said this about his junior buddy.

I nominated [Lieberman at the party convention], I campaigned with him [in the primary], I was tireless on the stump. And it was a dreadful campaign. He ran a much better campaign as an independent. Had he run that kind of campaign in the primary, he would have won. Case over.

Our relationship is too deep and too long-lasting for us not to maintain it. It still has some tension a bit, but we're getting over it.

I would be very surprised [if he became a Republican]. Joe's instincts are so much a Democrat's -- on environmental questions, on choice questions, on economic parity. Joe is profoundly a Democrat. This [a party change] would be so uncomfortable for him. Not that this issue [Iraq] is insignificant, but it's not so big that it would cause him to abandon a whole set of principles that he's embraced for four decades.

Ugh.

So let's see, the war in Iraq is not "so big"? Lieberman ran an better campaign AFTER the election? Well, if Dodd thinks running a better campaign of lies, smear tactics, and coordinating with the state and national GOP is a "better campaign" then we have completely different standards for what's considered a "good campaign."

Saying anything glowing about DINOBoy will not win Dodd any points in the primary...in fact, it might piss Democratic primary voters off and that's the last thing Dodd's needs at this point.

We'll see if Dodd sings the same tune when Lieberman endorses a Republican for President.

352,000

That's how much money Jim Himes raised in the second quarter in his quest to unseat Congressman Chris Shays.

352,000!

Greenwich Democrat Jim Himes raised about $352,000 in the last three months in his bid to unseat long-time incumbent Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4.

The early total is a record for a challenger in the 4th Congressional District and will likely clear the way for Himes to capture the Democratic nomination next summer without a primary. State Rep. Jim Shapiro, D-Stamford, announced last week that he would not run for the seat that Shays has held since 1987.

When you take into consideration that Republican Sean Sullivan raised anywhere between 25,000 to 30,000 in his challenge against Congressman Joe Courtney, this number is pretty damn impressive.


UPDATE 07.10.07: The Himes campaign issued this statement:

"The people who have contributed -- in amounts small and great -- and those who have given of their time and energy -- have shown that our District is ready for a different voice in Congress,” said Himes. “We want a Congressman who will put the chaos and confusion of an ill-conceived war behind us and move on to address the issues of the day: education, health care, transportation, energy independence and competent national security. Our working families in Bridgeport , our growing businesses in Stamford and our commuters from every corner deserve nothing less."

"My pride today is mixed. Today a man half my age is shouldering a weapon and climbing aboard a transport that will deliver him to a foreign battlefield. He, more than any of us, has cause to reflect on how we choose those who will send him away or bring him home,” continued Himes. “Would he, or any of the brave men and women in our military, be interested in dollars raised? Or would he instead select a leader based on the caliber of his ideas and judgment? Thank you very much to everyone who has given of their time and resources to demonstrate their trust in me to do the job better. It is time for change."

IMPEACH CHENEY

Robert Greenwald makes the case.

The I-84 nightmare

With the state legislature's Transportation Committee holding hearing this week on the botched I-84 project, WTIC's Beyond the Headlines devoted a majority of their program on the topic.




Part 1:


Part 2:

NYT Editorial: Bring the troops home now

In light of the recent horrific events in Iraq, I was pleased to read today's editorial from the New York Times.

In one of the most detailed editorials I've read in some time, The New York Times, clearly lays out the case for troop withdrawal in Iraq.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

This editorial is required reading so go over the the NYT website and give it a full read.