Comments on: Lieberman Going Rogue (Again)

By: persianadvocate

persianadvocate — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:55:43 +0000

US born, Muslim Palestinian with 7 years in the Army. Key words: Muslim and Palestinian. It's not hard to peace together why Israel-first Joe Lieberman is on the case! Can his boys at AIPAC herd the remainder of their bought senate and house members to support his crusade to demonize Israel's competitors, the Arabs and Persians, at any given cost?

I know, let's go to war with Iran and dissolve that country as well. Israel will launch into the number one spot again and they will give us... they will do for us.... they will....

Oh yeahhh, they won't do SH*T for us THAT'S RIGHT! KILL PALESTINIAN BABIES! WOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!

By: bland229

bland229 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:37:03 +0000

I was raised on Dr. Dobson, and have just sent him a letter requesting his assistance to help me stop loosing faith in the Christian Church. My Mom respects Dr. Dobson as much or more than any other Christian leader, and she is interested to see his response. I only started learning the truth about the 9/11 attacks last fall. It took me an entire year to convince my own parents to listen to me, and begin reviewing the evidence for themselves. Now that they have thoroughly and objectively taken a fresh look into all the available evidence, they too are now aware of how badly we have been deceived. They now fully support my mission to find out what really happened to 2,993 of our fellow countrymen that fateful September morning. My mom is very interested to see if/how Dr. Dobson will respond. Please read my open letter to Dr. Dobson and share your thoughts at.........

http://blandyland.com/?p=459

Does Christ's Church really stand for TRUTH & JUSTICE? That is the question!

Daniel Edd Bland III
http://www.BlandyLand.com

By: fhmadvocat

fhmadvocat — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:06:31 +0000

I think there should be an investigation, but Lieberman is asking the wrong questions. Is the man a terrorist? What does that matter? Yes, the man is a "terrorist" the same way Timothy McVeigh was a "terrorist".

The real question is FBI had been following the guy around for some time and I have no idea if they ever informed the military of their concerns. Clearly this guy should have been discharged or at least received some counseling. I mean he clearly gave signals of his religion fervor and misgivings regarding going to war.

It has been reported he did terrible at Walter Reed, but he was given a pass because his instructors attributed his academic problems to being a Muslim in the military. That may be true, and I believe in free speech, but you have to wonder a person who gives a speech about American Muslims being uncomfortable about killing other Muslims (Funny, Al-Qiada and the Taliban have no problems whatsoever killing other Muslims) needs to be counseled and not send to Afghanistan.

I am all for an investigation into the lack of coordination between the FBI and the Army, but it this is some type of witch hunt of American Muslims, I would oppose it.

By: iggydwonderllama

iggydwonderllama — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:32:58 +0000

Investigation, especially a transparent investigation, would be good. Clearly people would be served to know as much of what happened as possible.
.
I don't understand how this could possibly be terrorism though.
.
1) It's possible that it was for personal reasons, such as stress. The same things that motivate an office killing, or soldiers shooting their comrades. Muslims have vulnerable human psychologies too, you know.
.
2) Was this not an attack on a military base? Even if this was an attack on the US inspired by radical Islam, it is perhaps treason, or espionage if a non-national entity can be considered to engage in such. With collateral damage. Not terrorism.
.
3) Where is the terror? There is a reason terrorist attacks are targeted at civilians. The military generally doesn't panic easily. Are soldiers on other bases panicking over this? The main reaction I seem to be seeing is outrage. If the shooter intended to sow terror with this mass-murder, was that a reasonable expectation?

By: 3xfire3

3xfire3 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:29:52 +0000

Rusty
It appears the lefts only concern is that the truth that would come out in Lieberman's investigation might cause some embarrassment to the Obama Administration. They are not interested in the facts only in protection their hero and team in the white house.
Facts can be so inconvenient.

By: 3xfire3

3xfire3 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:18:12 +0000

freeinpa. You make very valid points. It's a shame that all these liberal commentators refuse to be rational in their discussion points. 90% of their comments appear to be made by the extreme left fringe elements of our political system. They refuse to admit facts and choose to use personal attaches against anyone who disagrees with them.
Terrorism is terrorism and to say other wise is to be irrational.

By: 3xfire3

3xfire3 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:59:21 +0000

By refusing to admit that this was an act of terrorism only shows how out of touch most Liberals are with the majority of Americans. This was an obvious act of terrorism and to say differently is pure ignorant.

By: rustyreturns

rustyreturns — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:43:10 +0000

"Joe Lieberman -- chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Relations Committee -- will begin his investigation into whether the Fort Hood shooter was a terrorist and if law enforcement agencies missed red flags that could've prevented the tragedy. This caps quite a month for Lieberman who a few weeks ago used his chairmanship to investigate the President's czars, announced he'd be campaigning for both Republican and Democratic candidates next year and swore he'd filibuster the health care bill if there's any version of a public option in it. Here's a look at why there's little his Democratic colleagues can do to rein their former vice presidential nominee."

. Perhaps the confusion JNS, is that Lieberman has an (I) after his name now. Reading what you have written, confirms this identification. . We could only wish we had more people in Congress with (I)'s after their name. Perhaps all the corruption in politics would soon become less, not more.

By: Paul-no not that one

Paul-no not that one — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:09:41 +0000

Yes the "honest discussion" that concludes "The biggest mistake that led to this tragedy was the bowing to the pressures of political correctness."
.
You slay me.

By: square1

square1 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:53:00 +0000

Lieberman is a clown. I wouldn't trust him to investigate a missing paper clip.

As for why Lieberman chose not to investigate Katrina, it was simple CYA: He knew that the incompetence of Michael Brown would be impossible to ignore and that he, Joe Lieberman, had praised Brownie's skills and experience when he was appointed.