Actually, while you are correct that Libermann ran as an Independent, he is offically an Independent/Democrat. So we are either both right or both wrong. My spelling sucks - always has. There's a lot of lobbyist groups that I'm not aware of. However, that crap you called a link is certainly not the place to learn about them. I can guarantee that much.

Well at least try checking out the Wikipedia link on AIPAC. You should at least be aware of a lobbying group that wields that much influence.

What the fuck is "Liberman/Neocon code?" Where do you folks make this stuff up from? Maybe Libermann was reffering that until the Gulf War of 1991, every war that was started by America involved Democratic President's. JFK's annual budget was 49% for the military. In the days of "Scoop" Jackson, they were socially liberal was very conservative in International affairs. They were not afraid of taking military action when it was prudent to do so. Maybe Liebrmann was talking about the latest Rasmussen poll indicating that 40% of polled Democrats had a negative view of the military. Not the President, but the miltary. Maybe it was due to the fact that since 9/11, most Democrats and Democratic lobbyist gorups (the ACLU as an example) have been against every program Bush has put forward in tracking terrorists down. They opposed the NSA wire-tapping which for years seemed to be good enough for mobsters, they oppsed Guantanamo, they opposed water-boarding (which ahs been used a staggering 3 times in five years). They've been against everything that has worked at least marginally. And yet, I'm supposed to listen to someone like you or the party you represent and take lessons on how to defeat terrorists? Maybe you don't think they exist or don't want to know. Maybe you thought 9/11 was a phase like disco balls or ant farms were in the '70's. Maybe instead of inventing these cute labeling games as you so astutely have done, perhaps you ought to read the words as written and realize that Liebermann a man who had given his life to his political party and felt he didn't get enough in return. Jeffords in Vermont felt that way, Reagan felt that way. They all switched parties. At least Libermann has the honor and strength to be upfront about his issues with his party. Sounds like you would prefer that everyone just remain in their coma of soundbites, and 3 inch type-o headlines. Democrats on the left and republicans on the right with nothing in between. Life isn't that black and white and neither are politics. At least for anyone honest with themselves.

Lieberman has, "given his life to his party"? The only thing Lieberman has given his life to, is Judaism and Israel. He's an orthodox Jew, keeps a kosher home, supports Israel unfailingly. He was a Democrat in name only for awhile, remember the infamous kiss with George Bush, the peck on the cheek between Israel loving neocons? He's a traitorous Jew, willing to watch young Americans die for his idea of the greater good. You're right about one thing, politics isn't always black and white. In Lieberman's case it's about Jew and non Jew.

See, this is where people like yourself just get stupid and this is the reason that the discourse (or lack thereof) in this country is in the state it's. You're nothing more than just a repeat button for whatever talking points you listen too. I hear you earlier aboiut the "traitorous Jew" line which which means nothing. You claim the man is a traitor to Jews yet in the next sentence complain that he's I guess too Jewish. You've critisized the fact that he's religious and that he keeps in tune with the rules of the religion he chooses to follow. Interesting, I wasn't aware that was illegal, wrong or frowned upon. I had always thought that Agnostics like myself were the ones frowned upon. being that Al Gore chose him to be his V.P. running mate and being you probably supported Libermann in 2000 means very little. You've done nothing but take potshots at Liebermann for being a Jew. His alleged affiliation AIPIAC notwithstanding, you resent the fact he orthadox, you resent the fact he keeps khoser and you really resent the fact that he beat Ned LaMont to keep his seat without Democratic support. Instead of giving Bush a kiss, I suppose you would have prefered that he shot him, stabbed or at the very least punched him. You're a friggin' idiot with nothing of any substance to add to the discussion of what Liebermann was actually talking about and why the link was initally posted.

Get back to me when you've gotten over the anti-semitism that is obvious by your words and your tone. It's clouding what little judgement you seem to have.

A traitor to his country, steve, I could care less about his religion. Except, of course, when he puts it above his country. It's wrong when he supports a war, that is killing young Americans. His support of that war is based in his Jewish faith, check out his voting pattern sometime when it comes to anything having to do with Israel. Joe Lieberman is a neoconservative Zionist, simple as that.Punching would have been okay, but seriously, how about just a nice old fashion handshake between Israel loving neocons instead? Or do you prefer the kissable approach yourself? Wake up, steve, there's more going on in the world than what Rupert and Billo are telling you.

I think you're full of shit. To you it's ALL about his religion because that's all you've written about since this topic was posted. To further debunk your insane logic, you seem to feel that because he supported the invasion of Iraq that that made him a traitor to his country. I'm an agnostic who doesn't believe in organized religion and I supported the war. Does that make me a traitor to my country as well? What are you, stupid?

Finally, you're un-natural fascination with Murdoch and O'Reilly is nearly getting to the spooky stage. Kind of like that priest who followed Conan O'Brien all the way to Italy. You need to get over it. Either that or seek some sort of professional help. Obssession is not always a good thing as you have been proving.

Steve, for a change, you're confused. First, I never said he was a traitor to his country for supporting the war. I said he was a traitor for putting the interests of Israel before America, in this case that just happens to include the war. It is undoubtedly in Israel's best interest that we remain in Iraq. I suppose you think it's just coincidence that an orthodox Jew such as Lieberman is a hawk on the war? Comparing your views on the war to Lieberman's, has no relevance whatsoever.

I don't think there's any confusion whatsoever on my part. You've attempted to do a good job of ducking and weaving. You've still not answered his charges of what today's Democratic party has evolved into because you were too busy accusing him of being what he is - which is an Orthadox Jew. There's something called "burden of proof" when you are trying to make a case and you've only acted on the assumotion that he has put the interests of Israel ahead of his own country. You've made no proveable fact that he has. Being you seem to be to knowledgeable about Israeli's and jews in general, you would note that most Jews are against the war, are not Republicans and are more "dovish" thank "hawkish" as it relates to this or any other war.

Finally, just as a historical reminder, it was Israel who in 1981 destroyed the nuclear rector that Iraq was in the process of making and it was Israel who just recently destroyed the nuclear reactor that Syria was building. Like you, the UN condemmed both of these acts. Fear not however. In your world your in good company.

Lieberman's foreign policy views seem to be influenced by his religion Let me repeat this one quote, "Lieberman, currently an independent, has long been regarded as a "conservative Democrat" but his voting record reveals that his conservatism is largely limited to foreign policy and more specifically to the Middle East, where he is a strong and uncritical defender of Israel". Coincidence? Food for thought, if nothing else, eh steve?