Holy Joe better find another issue, I don’t think this one is improving his chances for re-election or national office.

I still think Obama saved Holy Joe from getting his due just for situtations like this. Joe does Obama’s bidding, Obama’s hands are clean and Joe was dead in 2012 anyway.

Boxturtle (Holy Joe taking a hit for Obama is going to be an ongoing theme)

Way to go Barney!

Yeah, imagine a 2012 with Joe Lieberman in retirement, vanished from the public eye. No more whining and bitching and arrogance from the troll. Very exciting!

Hi Jane. Is that link right?

He will promptly move to Israel, join the gov’t and take shots at us from over there. They would
welcome him.

Morning Jane,

“demanding hearings” link is from The Hill and says nothing about Congr Frank or hearings

Greenwald today:

If Democratic members of Congress aren’t willing to defend the decades-old transparency law which they long championed — all because a Democratic President now wants the power to override it and two neoconservative Senators are spewing the rankest fear-mongering in order to compel its abandonment – then what will they defend?
Wasn’t one of the main criticisms of the GOP Congress that they abdicated their duties to impose checks on the GOP President and instead capitulated to all of his demands, all because they were members of the same party? Why would the Democratic Congress want to replicate that behavior and allow a Democratic President to constrict their own long-standing transparency law?
This, of course, has long been the primary criticism of the Democratic Party establishment: there are no “core values” that they are willing to defend. For years under Bush, most Democrats in Congress were petrified about voting against war funding bills — even when they contained unrelated amendments they found offensive — because they were so scared that they would be accused of “failing to support the troops.” Yet Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are perfectly willing to threaten to vote against the current war spending bill and hold up the whole Senate — and the entire GOP House leadership (the same people who long equated opposition to war spending bills with a “failure to support the troops”) also said they would vote against it due to their opposition to the IMF funding it contains — because they’re willing to incur those political risks in defense of what is important to them, however warped and hypocritical it might be.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

Holy Joe is a great whipping boy and scapegoat for this, but President Obama is also a force supporting the passage of the amendment, as Boxturtle points out.

Simple joe, just repeal the 1st amendment with that freedom of the press B/S.

Lieberman just makes my skin crawl. I can’t believe that Gore selected him as his VP. He’s just insufferable.

Methinks joe-boy already belongs to the Israel government..double agent 00-rotten bastard traitor.

#10 is a reply to #5 but it blanked out.

Got it.

If blocking the photos is such a great idea, why didn’t they write a stand alone dealy on it? Why did they tack it onto the other bill? kind of a rhetoric question, kinda not. They were trying to be all cute and sneaky about it and then BAM they were outed and now they yelling bloody murder like someone took their binky away. they ARE babies.

Holy Joe lays the smarmalade on a bit thick on his toast, as usual.

Has anyone mentioned the depth of their contempt for Lieberman this morning? 2012, indeed.

Ha! Smarmalade. So fitting…

gotten a bit rusty, but I’ll dust mine off:

my contempt for Joe Lieberman will never subside.

Do I have your permission to use smarmalade? It’s just too perfect !

it’s all yours!

genuinely sorry to burst your bubble – but that fucker is never going away – he’ll make DeLay look camera shy in his serial strutting for whatever pimp he’s working for long after 2012

Jane has another post upstairs.

Since that Muslim extremist Hussein Obama has a controling interest in the Joe Lieberman Party, maybe Joe will actually convert to the Republicans after all.

My contempt for Joe Lieberman runs hotter than the white-hot cores of a thousand suns.

Last night on local CT news they played a clip of Lieberman saying that the release of the photos was motivated by pure “voyeurism.” (with the trademark Lieberman whine). Not evidence of govt criminal activity, but “voyeurism”. So all those lawyers and human rights activists are just a bunch of “voyeurs” according to Lieberman.

I’m late to these threads on the prisoners photos but has anyone talked about the possibility that the pictures maybe be prima facie evidence of torture. What if they show prisoners being subjected to “harsh or enhanced interrogation techniques” i.e., torture?

The CIA destroyed all their digital records but if I remember correctly these are pictures taken by the troops at Abu Ghraib.

We were allowed to see photos of a hooded man hooked up to electrodes so it would seem that these remaining images could be the final nail in the coffin for the torture apologist.

It seems that Lieb and Graham could be leading the Senate into vote which could implicate them for torture if the photos are prima facie evidence of torture.

Mr. Barney might want to watch himself there as well.

We as citizens deserve answers as to whether the photos are prima facie evidence. A simple, “It will be bad for the troops,” is using the troops to hide efforts to extract the truth regarding torture. Such manipulation tarnishes the whole reason our troops serve.

Well said Jane. And great work on the supplemental.

Democrats have a new theme.

“Who else are the voters going to elect? Republicans?” HAHA

“We got it made no matter what we do.”