Lieberman: Ya know, going into Syria may not be such a bad idea

Well … I kinda figured this “US, world police” thing might pick up steam on the lefty blogs … but say it ain’t so Joe, Once again proof positive that when you’re looking for a lefty point of view search no further than Connecticut. Today on Fox News Sunday, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman said now that we have made “social justice” our mission in Libya, Syria could be next.

Oh please, pick your jaw up off the floor. It’s a new age, a new day. Finally a purpose for the US Armed Forces lefties can get their arms around. Saving the people from tyrants. But I ask you … is China after Syria, or is Korea before China which comes just before Iran? I’m confused.


This is really astonishing. Clearly if you think this country’s military is stretched thin now, wait till we put them on the other end of the world’s 911 line. And who decides when intervention is needed to protect citizens? It was getting pretty raucous in London yesterday. And what if China thinks we’re getting a bit rough on … Tea Partiers? Hmmmm.

“Hello, US Military hot line.”

“Yes, this is Thailand calling … the folks here are getting a little rowdy.”

“Hang on sir … the Fleet is on the way. To infinity and beyond!”

22 replies
  1. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    Let's send Hadassah out to Myanmar. If she proves herself let her mop up Libya. then on to Syria.  I can just hear her screaming "America %$#@ Yeah!!!!" 

    • GdavidH
      GdavidH says:

      You would have preferred Lamont? Really? Ned "fill the ct. higher education system with illegals for free" Lamont? Ultra rich liberal Lamont?

       And who was the unknown republican with basically no campaign?

      I still like Joe as much as I did when I held my nose and voted for him.

  2. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I don't know who the "unknown republican". I knew what Joe did and he is still doing. Lamont did not get the opportunity to do anything. One can only guess and that counts for squat!

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Of course, they can promise and promise, and just like we get for Øbama, it counts for squat.

  3. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    My goodness what SOS?, pls finish the sentence. Yes guesses count for nothing. They may make for "good" press (and propaganda). "Just the facts, Ma'm, just the facts".

  4. Eric
    Eric says:

    I find it fascinating that the libs couldn't handle George Bush and his war on terror, but any dumb-ass Obama safari into God only knows where seems to get a pass. Are we now living in some sort of parallel universe?

  5. Plainvillian
    Plainvillian says:

    Parts of Thomas Barnett’s 2004 book “The Pentagon’s New Map” are germane here.? Ever since WWII the USA has been the De Facto world policeman, repeatedly called upon to quell the upsets of the status quo so that commerce and normal relations between nations can proceed in relative peace.? Our military has never completely adapted to the role, but has made strides with the retooling of special ops corps and training while politicians seem mired in cold war strategies and military doctrine.
    Nothing in Islam can accept a non-Muslim nation attacking any Muslim person or country.? It is not in America’s interest to intervene in any intra-Muslim dispute because it will generate enmity from all sides.? Sometimes a good cop lets the bullies fight among themselves and wear themselves out before he acts.
    While Mr. Lieberman may be excused for promoting another “humanitarian war” and a defense of citizens from the predation of tyrants, to do so is to contribute the global jihadists’ strategy of hate.? Islam will forgive a Muslim dictator killing Muslims while violently opposing any infidel doing the same, even in defense of a Muslim majority. (as in Kosovo)? Any American intervention will be met with hatred and violent opposition.? This is why “nation building” has failed in Afghanistan and has not yet succeeded in Iraq.
    Mr. Lieberman must know this.? He is not a cultural illiterate.? He is wrong to suggest intervention.

  6. winnie888
    winnie888 says:

    The republican unknown in '06 was Alan Schlesinger.  And anyone who walks away from "The Pahty" for reasons of principle is a-okay in my book (Joe).  Unless of course it's Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.  But that's only because he jumped to an unprincipled party. heheheheheeee

    I don't like to go conspiracy theorist here, but…the more thinly spread our military is all over the world, the easier it is for someone to hit us and be guaranteed a delayed response time.  For God's sake, look how long it took Obama to decide what to do about Libya!  Does anyone really believe he'd decide any more quickly if it involved home court?

    As an aside, go UCONN WOMEN!

    • GdavidH
      GdavidH says:

      Winnie, thanks for putting that out. 

      I knew it was Schlesinger, and I knew there were some issues with him, (although I'm not driven enough to research the campaign). The point I was trying to make to Sammy was that the republican in that race was the 3 party candidate. The party did not try too hard to beat Lieberman (oops… can I say that?). Every debate or discussion I had with anyone that year was about whether or not Joe was independant enough. Even my Dem friends were leary of Lamont the Uber liberal.

      • winnie888
        winnie888 says:

        np…as far as that race went, there was no way for an unknown republican to win it.  Joe muddied up the waters by telling the dems to pound sand and I think, when presented with Lamont as an option, the decision was an easy one to make for libs & conservatives alike.  Unknowns are scaaaawy in CT…lol

  7. djt
    djt says:

    Lieberman is wrong again, but at least he's consistent. He wanted to go into iraq, now libya and perhaps syria for the same humanitarian reasons. Its a lot harder to take the pols who were for or against the iraq war, now are on the other side, though the causes for both are alarmingly similar, the difference being mostly the party in the white house.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Which also explains Egypt.  I wonder how the "Bush did it for his oil buddies" group reconciles this with their young and grossly inexperienced president?

  8. ricbee
    ricbee says:

    Going into Syria,hmm. Another country which has not threatened us or our allies. Twenty-one(21) of those Tomahawks(our Indian choice) could have been sent to Iran to actually stop a real threat.

  9. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    Not oil at any time – it's payback to the Europeans for their help in Afghanistan. The O could care less about oil.  As for the regligion of Hate 'n Death, the only thing that is repected is projection of power.  The only 2 ways to deal with them is to either insulate them away from the rest of the world or squash them like bugs.  Nothing else has worked since ancient times.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Lieberman thinks we should follow the “right” precedent and attack Syria, too, saying it will further cement us on the side of the “Arab […]

Comments are closed.