The senate just failed to pass their non-binding Iraq resolution.

The vote was 56 to 34.

7 Republicans voted with the Democrats- including Ohio’s George Voinovich.

But not Joe Lieberman.

I am so sick of Joe fucking Lieberman.

Anyway- here’s what he said yesterday…

THE WAR: Lieberman warns of potential constitutional crisis over Iraq
In a statement on the Senate floor Friday concerning the non-binding Iraq resolution, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman warned of a potential constitutional crisis over Iraq and urged united in the war against Islamist extremism.

?The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue,? the senatgor said. ?That is why the fight over it ? procedural and substantive ? over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorists that attacked us.

ONLY ONLINE
This story appears only on our Web site, not in The Press.

?We still have a choice not to go down this path ? it?s a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate ? a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance.?

Senator Lieberman called for nonpartisan cooperation.

?Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one?s interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers,? he said. ?The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation?s interests over the long term, this is it.

?We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war.?

Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, ?proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat… It is a strategy of ?no,? while our soldiers are saying, ?yes, sir? to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle.?

Senator Lieberman closed with a call for unity, ?Whatever our differences here in this chamber, about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today?s disagreements and secure the nation?s future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans.?

Compete speech

Below is the entire text of the speech as prepared for delivery ?

Mr. President, when the roll is called tomorrow on the motion for cloture with regard to the resolution that the House is expected to pass tonight on Iraq, I will vote no. I will vote against cloture. I will do so not because I wish to stifle debate ? the fact is that debate has occurred, is occurring now, and will continue to occur, on our policy in Iraq. I will vote against cloture because I feel so strongly against the resolution. It condemns the new plan for success in Iraq, I support that plan.

From all of the research my staff and I have done, including asking the Library of Congress to do, we have found no case in American history where Congress has done what this resolution does. That is, in a non-binding resolution, oppose a plan that our military is implementing right now. Congress has expressed non-binding resolutions of disapproval before a plan of military action has been carried out. Congress has taken much more direct steps, authorized to do so by the Constitution, to cut off funds for military action or a war in progress.

But never before has the Congress of the United States passed a non-binding resolution of disapproval of a military plan that is already being carried out by American military personnel. I believe it?s a bad precedent and that?s why I will do everything I can to oppose it. And in the immediate context, that means that I will vote against cloture.

Mr. President, more broadly, we are approaching an important moment in the history of this institution and of our republic?a moment, I fear, that future historians will look back to and see the beginning of a cycle that not only damaged the remaining possibilities for success in Iraq, but established political precedents that weakened the power of the presidency to protect the American people over the long term.

The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it ? procedural and substantive ? over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorist that attacked us.

We still have a choice not to go down this path? it?s a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate ? a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance.

As we meet in this chamber today, the battle for Baghdad has already begun. One of our most decorated generals, David Petreaus ?whom this Senate confirmed eighty-one to nothing?has taken command in Baghdad. And thousands of American soldiers have moved out across the Iraqi capital, putting their lives on the line as they put a new strategy into action.

We can now see for ourselves, on the ground in Iraq and Baghdad, where it matters, what this new strategy looks like?and we can see why it is different from all that preceded it.

For the first time in Baghdad, our primary focus is no longer on training Iraqi forces or chasing down insurgents or providing for our own force protection, though those remain objectives. Our primary focus is on ensuring basic security for the Iraqi people, working side by side with Iraqi security forces?exactly what classic counterinsurgency doctrine tells us must be our first goal now.

Where previously there were not enough troops to hold the neighborhoods cleared of insurgents, now more troops are either in place or on the way.

Where previously American soldiers were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases that are being set up right now throughout the Iraqi capital.

At least six of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad?the same neighborhoods where just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in, with their Iraqi counterparts?and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are moving out.

We do not know if this new strategy for success in Iraq will work over the long term?and we probably will not know for some time. The Mahdi Army may be in retreat for the moment, but they are not defeated. They have gone to ground, and they are watching. Our hope is that our determination and that of the Iraqi government will lead them now to devote themselves to politics instead of death squads. But that, only time will tell.

The fact is, any realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq tells us that we must expect that we must expect that there will be more attacks, and there will be more casualties in the months ahead, as the enemies of a free and independent Iraq see the progress we are making and adapt to try to destroy it with more violence.

The question they will try to pose to us ? which is the question that is posed every time a fanatic suicide bomb goes off and that person expresses their hatred of everyone else more than their love of their own life by ending their own life ? the question is: Will we yield Baghdad, Iraq, the Middle East, our own future, to those fanatical suicide bombers?
But we must also recognize that we are in a different place in Iraq from where we were just a month ago, because of the implementation of this new strategy.

We are in a stronger position today to provide basic security in Baghdad?and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and the militias of their public support; a stronger position to press the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that everyone acknowledges are necessary.

John Maynard Keynes famously said, ?When the facts change, I change my mind.?

Mr. President, in the real world, in just the past month, the facts in Iraq have changed?and they are changing still. And I would ask my colleagues to allow themselves to wait and consider changing their minds as further facts unfold in Iraq.

The non-binding resolution before us is not about stopping a hypothetical plan. It is about disapproving a plan that is being carried out now by our fellow Americans in uniform, in the field. In that sense, as I have said, it is unprecedented in Congressional history, in American history. This resolution is about shouting into the wind. It is about ignoring realities of what?s happening on the ground in Baghdad.

It proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat. It proposes nothing. It is a strategy of ?no,? while our soldiers are saying, ?yes, sir? to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle.

And that is why I will vote against the resolution by voting against cloture.

I understand the frustration, anger, and exhaustion that so many Americans, so many members of Congress, feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up one?s hands and simply say, ?Enough.? And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life?and of the mistakes that have been made in the war?s conduct.

But let us now not make another mistake. In the midst of a fluid and uncertain situation in Iraq, we should not be so bound up in our own arguments and disagreements, so committed to the positions we have staked out, that the political battle over here takes precedence over the real battle over there. Whatever the passions of the moment, the point of reference for our decision-making should be military movements on the battlefields of Iraq, not political maneuverings in the halls of Congress.

Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step-by-step, there are many in this Congress who have nevertheless already reached a conclusion about the futility of America?s cause there, and declared their intention to put an end to this mission not with one direct attempt to cutoff funds, but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of the moment. This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid.

Let me explain what I mean by a constitutional crisis.

Let us be clear about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this non-binding resolution. Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is.

I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President?s strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one?the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war.

Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one?s interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation?s interests over the long term, this is it.

We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war.

We must recognize that, while the decisions we are making today and we are about to make seem irretrievably bound up in the immediacy of the moment and the particular people now holding positions of power in our government, these decisions will set constitutional precedents that will go far beyond this moment and these people. President Bush has less than two years left in office, and a Democrat may well succeed him. If we do not act thoughtfully in the weeks and months ahead, we will create precedents that future Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations of Americans will regret.

Right now, as the battle for Baghdad begins, this institution is deeply divided. However, we should not allow our divisions to lead us to a constitutional crisis in which no one wins and our national security is greatly damaged. We are engaged, as all my colleagues know, in a larger war against a totalitarian enemy ? Islamist extremism and terrorism ? that seeks to vanquish all of the democratic values that it is our national purpose to protect and defend.

Whatever our differences here in this chamber about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today?s disagreements and secure the nation?s future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans.

I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

 
  • Lieberman is definitely a “frenemy”. The jackass is so frustrating.

  • dave

    The seven Republican senators who broke ranks with their colleagues and voted in favor of the cloture motion were John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Olympia Snowe (Me.), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Susan M. Collins (Me.). NOT George Voinovich!

  • Thanks Dave.

    I was watching CNN- and they kept bouncing around between stories.

    I assumed he was one of the Republicans because:

    1. He recently proposed/supported something similiar

    2. He is from Ohio so I kind of assumed he wasn’t completely retarded (like mr. Joementum)

  • joe is the most rotten c’~ksucker on the planet (elmer fudd impersonator rat bastard…)

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!