Lieberman Could Defect To GOP Over War

(The Politico)  By The Politico's Carrie Budoff.

---

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months" — specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."

Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch — a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a "remote" chance Lieberman would join the GOP.


By Carrie Budoff
TM & © 2007 The Politico & Politico.com, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

[newsjeff-2009]

I would like it if people would please, no make that I beg!!. Do not compare Ronald Reagan with George W. Bush or any of the GOP leaders of today, Reagan is not "burning in hell". Yes I am newsjeff, yes I am a Democrat and liberal in many ways but Ronald Reagan was a great president. I once read some of Reagan's immediate family and friends did not even vote or endorse Bush for re-election in 2004, that should say something right there. Ronald Reagan had a approval rating that Bush and Cheney never will have, even if you add Cheney and Bush's approval ratings together. Look at the record Reagan did not cut medicare spending,medicaid spending,did not want to privatize and phase out traditional Social Security,did not want to cut federal funding to hospitals,nursing homes, veteran health care centers,etc, but Cheney and Bush have spoke about cutting funding for all these things I have mentioned on several occassions, whether Bush and Cheney supporters will admitt it or not, and many GOP senators support these funding cuts. On the subject of traditional or homosexual marriage: "it is not the government's or the president's or vice president's business, whether two men or two women are in bed together, if it is two consenting adults."

[wizest]

Until the Democrats follow the Republicans.
Right Joe

[newsjeff-2009]

I say the if Liberman is too stupid to read the polls and not pay attention to what the majority of the voters want(The over 50 or 60 percent of Americans surveyed want Iraq War over and our troops brought home, I won't comment about Bush and Cheney's approval ratings, since both of them have said that public opinion and polls don't matter!!)I say let Liberman jump to his GOP buddies. If the economy in American does not improve and the Iraq War continues in the direction its going right now, more GOP senators and congressional members and maybe even some governors, will be tossed out by voters in the 2008 election. I would even bet that a few GOP politicans that are up for election in this year in 2007 could end up being tossed out by voters. If Liberman wants to support Bush and the GOP party he will put his political career at risk, and his days will be numbered like James Talent,Conrad Burns,George Allen, and maybe a couple of GOP governors in this year's election.

[vancouverboo]

Don't The Rich People control both parties anyway? What's the difference? Are there two competing groups of Rich People? Why should I care?

[tuckerndfw]

And the concept of "the rule of the jungle or might makes right" does apply. Israel hasn't given all of the land back.

Posted by prcdr at 11:41 AM : Feb 23, 2007

You fail to grasp the fact that the Hague Conventions prohibited the "allies" from apportioning land to immigrants from E. Europe & the former Soviet Union after WWII.

There was no legal basis for UN Resolution 181, therefore, there is no legal basis for a "Jewish state" in Palestine.

UNSCR 242 is specifically referrig to land Israel attempted to appropriate during the 1967 war she instigated against Egypt. Israel has yet to return the land. Many nations oppose Israel in large part due to Israel's own actions, including refusing to comply with UNSCR's.


The bottom line is that Israel has no legitimate legal or moral right to exist as a nation state in her present location. If the US & UK want to give "Jews" free land, it should be land the US or UK actually owns.

[scott4261]

Democrat.....Socialist....Communist.....
.all the same
Posted by richzurb at 11:42 AM

------

Republican, Nazi, fascist...all the same.

See how ridiculous that is?

[edjohn66]

Connecticut:

Thanks SO MUCH for keeping Lieberman! You had your chance to do this country a great service and get rid of this wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, but instead, you kept him around to hold the Democratic majority in the Senate hostage to his right-wing radical, militant ideals! Why not just turn red and vote with your war-mongering comrads in Texas and Mississippi and all the other red states???

[prcdr]

Posted by tuckerndfw

It is no longer the rule of the jungle or "might makes right" and has not been since over 100 years ago when the Hague Conventions were adopted. One of which prohibited acquiring land by warfare. This principle was reaffirmed in 1967:

Excerpted from UN Security Council Resolution 242, Novermber 22, 1967:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. . ."

Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un2
42.htm
_________________________________

Since the modern State of Israel didn't exist 100 years ago, I'm guessing they didn't sign the Hague Conventions and a UN Resolution adopted after the formation of the State of Israel isn't going to apply either.

And the concept of "the rule of the jungle or might makes right" does apply. Israel hasn't given all of the land back.

[scott4261]

Scott, before Bernie went into federal politics he started out as mayor of Burlington, VT. He campaigned as an independent but always identified himself as a Socialist. He didn't pick up the "Democratic" identifier until going federal...sounds better to the masses. I've lived in and around Burlington my whole life...I know who bernie is, and what he is about. I agree with you about the widening gap between the rich and poor but...no one will take him serious because of how he goes about doing the job. He rants and raves...it may make good sound bites for someone but he really hasn't accomplished anything. Not all his ideas are bad...but I tell you what, capitalism works better than socialism in my opinion.
Posted by theUSA1st at 10:50 AM

----------------------

Granted, but Sanders may actually have more of an impact as part of a majority in the Senate. I understand your side of the conversation. I am not a socialist, but I am an unrepentant, unapologetic liberal. Sanders comes down on my side on so many critical issues of the day.

[tuckerndfw]

(irrelevant remarks about tribes fighting over land)

Posted by prcdr at 10:34 AM : Feb 23, 2007

We no longer live in the 1st Century despite religious extremists' best efforts to get us there.

It is no longer the rule of the jungle or "might makes right" and has not been since over 100 years ago when the Hague Conventions were adopted. One of which prohibited acquiring land by warfare. This principle was reaffirmed in 1967:

Excerpted from UN Security Council Resolution 242, Novermber 22, 1967:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. . ."

Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

There is no legal or moral basis by which "Jews" can claim they have any right to ("free") land in the Middle East. Assuming there are a tiny few actually related to the original Judeans, they lost any right to the land in the 1st Century BC when Rome acquired the land and it became a Roman province.