What In Hell Is Wrong With Joe Lieberman's Brain? ...I Mean, Seriously...

[Hissyspit]

From Connecticut blog:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5966

Lieberman equates impeachment with civil war.
by: Laura N
Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:40:39 AM EST

(Why does Joe Lieberman hate the Constitution? - promoted by Matt Browner Hamlin)

Remember when Lieberman equated support for Lamont with support for terrorists? Now he's equating impeachment with civil war.
From an e-mail his office sent me:(Sorry I don't know how to do the blue text box)

"...The government of the United States is unique because it structurally decentralizes, divides, disperses, and limits power. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution outlines the provisions of impeachment. The framers adopted a narrow view of the English practice of impeachment, and it has only been carried out on a select few occasions in our nation's history.
I believe we are lucky to live here in America, because we are able to work out our differences not with civil wars, but with spirited elections. We resolve our disputes not through acts of violence, but through the rule of law. And we preserve and protect our system of justice best when we accept its judgments that we disagree with most..."

- snip -

blockquote (0.00 / 0)
Hope you don't mind, but I fixed the blockquote for you and promoted the post.
Out of interest, what prompted the email from Lieberman? Was this a form response or an email sent out to his list?

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

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 14:00:30 PM EST
< Reply >

Thank you for the block quote! (0.00 / 0)
I signed an online petition calling for impeachment. In the comments section, I added that my elected leaders had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that the impeachment of this Administration was now part of upholding the Constitution.
I think it was a form response, but of course I'm not sure.

I should have included more of Lieberman's e-mail in my original post, to make clear that the following paragraph was also about impeachment. Therefore the comment about civil war/violence was either about impeachment or was a complete non sequitur.

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

by: Laura N @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 14:31:44 PM EST

[Contrite]

1. The problem with Joe's brain is that it has only one track. n/t

[oberliner]

2. Didn't he vote to impeach Bill? nt

[LeftishBrit]

15. I remember that not a single Dem senator voted to impeach Bill

I think either 5 or 6 Republicans also voted against impeachment.

So Lieberman might not have been Bill's greatest supporter, but he didn't actually vote for impeachment.

[Jack Sprat]

3. Joe is infatuated with himself and the neocon philosophy

It would be ever so appropriate to put old Joe in uniform and have him patrol Baghdad during the surge. Lieberman is another arm chair warrior who loves a good fight as long as he isn't in it.

[Mind_your_head]

4. There's nothing wrong with Joe's brain

You just have to realize/understand where he's coming from....

He supports Israel 1st....before he supports the USA.

If you look at everything he says and does with that thought/possiblity in mind.....it all makes sense what he does.

Know your Joe.

[niallmac]

8. Which makes you wonder why is not sitting in the Knesset...

says me after a forced absence from DU since 11/26/06.

[Hissyspit]

9. Well, welcome back!

:patriot:

[cali]

17. Really, what

makes you think that Lieberman's loyalty is to Israel above the U.X.? God, I'm sick of that meme.

[cali]

11. So is Feingold

(who supported the Israeli attack on Lebanon) also disloyal? How about DiFi? Or Bernie? Just curious?

[LeftishBrit]

16. Would you similarly say that Santorum and Brownback support the Vatican before they support the USA?

Or agree with Daddy Bush that an atheist cannot be a true American citizen?

I don't like Lieberman, but I also don't like people's loyalty to their country being challenged on the grounds of their religion, or worse, their ethnic group. It was wrong when Virgil Goode did it to Ellison; and it's wrong when anyone does it to anyone. At the very least, if you do it to members of one religious or ethnic group, apply it consistently to all!

[rodeodance]

5. unfortunately------so many have bought into this LIE>

.......The framers adopted a narrow view of the English practice of impeachment, and it has only been carried out on a select few occasions in our nation's history.

[JDPriestly]

6. Lieberman on grounds for impeachment (Clinton impeachment)

That is why I conclude that the appropriate question for each of us to ask is not whether the President committed perjury or obstruction of justice, but whether he committed a high crime or misdemeanor--a term I understand from the history to encompass two categories of offenses. The first includes those that are like treason or bribery in that they represent a gross misuse of official power to directly injure the State or its people. Those guilty of such offenses must be removed from office because they have explicitly demonstrated, by their conduct, that they will place their personal interests above the national interest.

The President's counsel and others suggest that we should stop here, arguing that Congress has no authority to remove a President for any offense not committed through the use of official power. (See Trial Memorandum of President Clinton pp. 19-20) I cannot agree. Instead, Madison's argument that we must have an escape valve that allows the legislature to remove a President when the need arises to defend `the Community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief Magistrate,' coupled with Hamilton's definition of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' as an `abuse or violation of some public trust,' convince me that it is more than just misuse of official power that can require the Senate to remove an office holder. Acts that, although in their immediate nature and effect differ from treason or bribery because they do not stem from a misuse of official power, may nevertheless undermine the offender's ability to discharge his duties in the interests of the American people. In other words, the second category of offenses that equal `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' are non-official acts that unequivocally demonstrate the same threat posed by treason or bribery: that the President can no longer be trusted to use his power in the best interests of the nation.

It is for this reason that I reject the contention that a President's giving false or misleading statements under oath or his impeding the discovery of evidence in a lawsuit arising out of his personal conduct may never constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. I have no doubt that under certain circumstances such offenses could demonstrate such a level of depravity, deceit and disregard for the administration of justice that we would have no choice but to conclude that the President could no longer be trusted to use the authority of his office and make the decisions entrusted to him as Chief Executive in the best interest of the nation. It is because I hold this position that I found reaching a decision in this case such a difficult matter.

. . . .

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/lieberman.shtml

So, what's not treasonous about Bush's mishandling of the Iraq war and Katrina, Senator Lieberman?

[AtomicKitten]

7. He sold it to the GOP in the 2006 election.

[salin]

13. That (all the Rove fundraising and advice)... AND... I think he

has what appears to be an almost primal need to "prove I was right and you ALL were wrong" and since there is little hope right now for things to turn around as they are - he has bought into the neocon/bushco view that the only way of proving they were right (per Iraq) is step up the fight and expand it. Makes NO sense - and is terribly dangerous policy - but I really think that a few of the diehards (Lieberman I-Con included) seem to share the delusion that this would "win" things for us. He IS delusional - and seems even more self-righteous than he was a few years ago.

[donheld]

10. His wife must have konked him on the head with a frying pan

That boy ain't right.

[liberal renegade]

12. I didn't know he had a brain

in fact I thought he had shit for brains...

[KharmaTrain]

14. He'd Rather Be "Right" Than Right

Being Jewish, I grew up in the shadows of the Holocoust and the preceding progroms in Eastern Europe that precipitated the fueled the Zionist movement...leading to the creation of Israel. To my mother, Israel's founding was biblical prohecy come true and it was the Jews only hope in a world of hostile "gentiles". The term "Never Again" not only meant never forgetting the Holocoust, but also to support Israel unconditionally.

I think a lot of this explains where Joe come from. I've long called him the Senator From Likud, since his orthodox faith dictates his politics just like fundmentalism drives a Brownback. In this mindset, it's easy to feel that Israel's survival is now intertwined with that of the U.S. and thanks to AIPAC and other pressure/money groups, that meme has been all but ingrained inside the beltway. The orthodox Jews and the fundies have found common cause, but for very different reasons, and led us into picking sides in the Middle East that in the end will do exactly what Liebermann fought all his life to prevent...the isolation of the Jewish people caught in geo-political game of high stakes poker.

Fortunately Joe is a Party of One now. Many Jews I know have lost all respect for him and many, including yours truly, feel embarassed by how his faith trumps both common sense and our true national interest.

[annabanana]

18. Thank you for this post.. There is so often a "knee-jerk"

reaction to any mention of this subject here.