Lieberman Going Rogue (Again)

The word is “rein”, not “reign”.
.
And why would this bring discomfort to the Obama Administration? Don’t we want to try to prevent a future iteration of this type of terror?

Well, he refused to investigate Katrina, is investigating the Glenn Beck Czar issue, and now will try to find an excuse to torture more arabs. Beloved village favorite indeed.

I fixed the typo, tnx.

As to why it’d make them uncomfortable: I believe the implication is that the Obama Administration somehow dropped the ball. That they allowed the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil to happen since 9/11. You can be sure that’s the case Republicans are preparing as Leahy next week introduces his Patriot Act reforms to argue against changing Bush-era provisions.
JNS

Joe Lieberman is all about… Joe Lieberman. Always has been, always will be.

Call me when Lieberman does something, anything, not designed to call attention to himself.

Clearly, JNS, the ball was dropped. This clown had a biz card that indicated that he was a “Soldier of Allah”. Whether this means that the Obama Administration should take serious blame is another issue. But certainly, if Lieberman were not the Chairman, wouldn’t any Senate Dem want to hold hearings on this issue? An Army Major, with clear and known jihadist sympathies, simply was left alone. That, it seems to me, is worthy of an investigation. Do you disagree?

So is it your position, palininatowel, that no Senate investigation should happen?

I didn’t say one way or the other, did I, spob?

and I’m just askin’, but usually we don’t impugn the motives of someone who is doing the right thing. Do you agree that holding hearings is the right thing to do?

“That they allowed the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil to happen since 9/11.”

Anthrax? What’s that? Good thing the damage caused by that particular “not-terrorist” (apparently) attack was nothing but a collective hallucination, eh, JNS?

I was making a general observation on Lieberman. Sure, hearing are warranted here. But in typical Lieberman fashion, they will likely be a show all about Joe Lieberman and little to do with the event, itself.

You make a fair point. I think JNS was talking about the implications, rather than the actuality.

So the guy who refused to investigate the government’s handling of Katrina, and who refused to hold hearings about abuse of power from America’s security and intelligence agencies now wants to investigate this? He’s not “going rogue” he’s lost his mind.

Would have been interesting to see Mayor Nagin explaining the flooded buses that could have evacuated people before the storm hit and the levees collapsed . . . .

@spob: I can see a lot of reasons why a senate committee chairperson with a sense of proportion might not think it’s necessary to hold hearings about what was essentially a workplace shooting.

“@spob: I can see a lot of reasons why a senate committee chairperson with a sense of proportion might not think it’s necessary to hold hearings about what was essentially a workplace shooting.”
.
JNS, would you agree with this take? Palininatowel? Anyone?

@spob: would have been, you’re right. We’ll never know.

My point, of course, is that the narrative of people like Claire McCaskill probably would have been destroyed had serious hearings on Katrina been held. There really was no political upside for Dems to hold such a hearing.

All I’m saying, spob, is that it’s highly unusual for oversight to be done when both parties control both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. You didn’t see a lot of investigations, for example, in the House after 9/11 in to whether Bush dropped the ball — did you?

Joe Isuzu needs a big dose of STFU. Why won’t Dems call his bluff? It’s not like they even need his vote if they go reconciliation anyway.

The so-called Eleventh Commandment only applies to Republicans.

Maybe Reid and Obama will give him another promotion as a result of this?

Then please say so explicitly. It doesn’t seem to an ordinary observer that the Senate holding hearings about an Army major shooting up 40-odd soldiers and civilian support personnel is an example of someone “going rogue”, especially when said major wasn’t exactly secretive about his sympathies. And once again, why wouldn’t the Obama Administration welcome an investigation into this by someone who is a member of the Democratic caucus? That’s a bit of a rhetorical question–but Obama himself has promised answers.
.
I also don’t think that 9/11 is really a good example, since there was, you know, a whole commission on it. And also, JNS, a House GOP investigation probably would have also picked up things like “Gorelick’s Wall”, so the issue would not have only been whether Bush dropped the ball. Balls were definitely dropped pre-9/11–but the apportionment of blame to Bush was hardly the only issue with a 9/11 investigation.

Of course, he’s doing his patriotic duty here, isn’t he? Army people aren’t exactly free to criticize the government and demand answers, so the Senate, through Lieberman, is giving them a voice. Seems like we all should support that, n’est-ce pas?

It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals since the e-mails that were intercepted were written in 2008.

Lieberman is more trouble than what he’s worth. There should be an investigation into the shooting. However, Lieberman should be on the outside looking in. His loss would be a gain for the democrats. Let him serve out his term in relative obscurity. There are more loyal democrats that deserve the posts he holds.

Like Arlen Specter?

I wonder if Obama was briefed on this:
.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MOSQUE_FORFEITURE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Yes. Like Specter. Specter isn’t heading any committees. Joe shouldn’t either. Let them both prove their worth before they are allowed any positions of authority. We agree on this?

Your caucus, your problem.
.
You know what is funny though. I get what JNS is saying–that this is unusual. But she really is carrying water for the Obama Administration. What she really is saying is that Obama has a right to expect party courtesy here. And I’m not sure that’s a position that journalists really should be taking. If a lack of oversight is a problem, then shouldn’t journalists as a whole be asking hard questions about it? I doubt the public really accepts a “we don’t investigate our own”. Why should journalists?

“Your caucus, your problem.”
.
I agree completely with that. This shooting was a tragedy. I’m not against the idea of an independent investigation for this. I want to see the story without any spin from either side. I don’t believe that Jay is carrying water for the Obama administration, but I do think that just reporting the facts is becoming a lost art in investigative journalism. I quit watching any cable news programs quite awhile back.

She’s not carrying water for the Obama Administration per se, but carrying water for the idea that the Obama Administration can expect party loyalty here. And that idea is just plain wrong.
.
As for an “independent” investigation–isn’t oversight what we elect these guys to do?

OT, but this is interesting:
,
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQ1NjEzMmExYmEyMjA0OGUzMjU4ZjlmMWQ4NDUxYTg=

I think the timing of Lieberman’s announcement is rather bizarre. The FBI and military are both actively investigating what happened. Why not wait until the results of those investigations come out?

It’s my view that if the Administration’s investigations lead to more questions than answers, then Lieberman’s oversight obligations kick in.

As it stands, Lieberman’s rather aggressive characterization that this is a “terrorist” incident (even as conservatives like Jonah Goldberg and others were arguing that it was not) coupled with his intent to conduct an investigation seem to undermine and pidgeon hole the Administration.

Jay Newton Small is quite right to call Lieberman’s actions “going rogue”. I think its high time that the democratic caucus discuss Lieberman’s future. Back at the beginning of the year, fresh off of campaigning against Obama, Lieberman fought to remain in the democratic caucus. He coveted his role as chairman of Homeland Security. Many democrats wanted Lieberman’s head. Obama, and other more moderate democrats, stepped in and saved Lieberman making the pitch that Lieberman was with democrats on everything except National Security. Except that he has investigated Obama over the Czar’s issue. He has threatened to filibuster the democrats’ number one domestic policy initiative, and now he’s indirectly questioning the Administration’s ability to ferret out what happened at Fort Hood. I think it’s time to reconsider Lieberman’s place in the democratic caucus.

I have serious doubts that either party can be trusted to police itself. I trust the democrats more than I do the republicans, but neither of them has my complete confidence. Politicians are politicans and as a group they can’t be trusted.

Lessee, chris, guy who calls himself a “Soldier of Allah” shoots up an army base.
.
Nope, not terrorist. You’re right.

@spob. We don’t have all the facts. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that he’s an Islamic militant. It is my view that conducting the attack he did doesn’t qualify as terrorism.
.
It has more in common with a workplace shooting than terrorism. I understand terrorism to be a form of asymmetrical warfare where civilians are terrorized to further a political or ideological goal. This attack, as horrible and tragic as it was, simply doesn’t qualify.
.
A great example of domestic terrorism is the attack in Oklahoma City. That fulfills what most reasonable people understand as “terrorism”.
.
Likewise, I wouldn’t call what Klebold and Harris did in Columbine as terrorism. Or a disgruntled employee who shoots and kills co-workers on a murderous rampage.
.
If words are to have any meaning, it’s useful to keep them to well understood and definied concepts. Otherwise, we can argue that most violence, senseless and premeditated, is a form of terrorism.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000-present
-
Some examples:
-
# May 2002 Mailbox Pipe Bomber: Lucas John Helder rigged pipe bombs in private mailboxes to explode when the boxes were opened. He injured 6 people in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa. His motivation was to garner media attention so that he could spread a message denouncing government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana as well as promoting astral projection.
# 2007 October 26: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. [36]
# 2008 July 27 Jim D. Adkisson opened fire in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville,Tennessee killing two and injuring seven before being tackled to the ground by congregation members. A note found in his SUV indicated this was intended as a suicide attack and said the church was apparently targeted because of its support of liberal social policies.[42]
# 2008 August 2, August 3 University of California-Santa Cruz molecular biologist David Feldheim’s home was firebombed.[43][44]
# 2008 Summer and Fall: White House computer email archives attacked several times. Chinese intelligence suspected.[45]
# 2009 May 31: Assassination of George Tiller. Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who provided late term abortions was shot to death in a Wichita, Kansas church.[47][48]
# 2009 June 1: Arkansas recruiting office shooting One military recruiter was killed and another critically injured by gunshot at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army/Navy Career Center. The suspect Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad said he was upset over U.S. killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.[50]
# 2009 June 10: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting.[52]

Spob, would you consider someone a terrorist if they called themselves a Soldier for Jesus, a Soldier for Christ, or a Soldier of God? Or is it only Muslims that become radicalized when mixing military and religious ideas? Out of curiosity, are you objecting to the fact that he was in the army (and hence a ‘soldier’), or the fact that he’s Muslim (hence ‘of Allah’)?
Just for clarification, I think an investigation into what happened at Ft. Hood is a good thing, however charging in with ‘Is this the first terrorist attack since 9/11′ is not only the wrong way to go about it, but it will make for a politically charged investigation with the administration on the defensive- good for Republicans, not so good for learning the truth. Perhaps this is a good indicator of why you’re all for it?

Congressional interference at this stage is a terrible idea. They will go in there and give immunity to the wrong people, they may make information public that shouldn’t be and hinder real investigators from doing their job. Moreover, I don’t know why JNS assumes this will be a problem for the Obama administration. I can only assume that she heard that little talking point from one of her right wing sources, because the emails, the evaluations that have come out so far happened before Obama took office, and if it is true that the military wasn’t notified of these things and the tasks force under the Bush administration ignored the signs then whose fault is it really? I’m all for investigating, but Congressional hearings before official investigations are concluded is a bad idea and could taint the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial. I know since the Bush administration took over we’ve gotten in the habit of forgetting that we are a nation of laws, but the truth of the matter is that the defendant is entitled to due process and clearly something like Congressional hearings would taint the jury pool and make public information like hearsay evidence that a judge would never allow in court.

For f*cks sake- ‘Soldier for Jesus’, ‘Soldier for Christ’, and ‘Soldier of God’ are all links to web sites. What’s the point of having html markup here if the site randomly decides when to highlight links?

Good points Dee. remember how badly congress screwed up the case against Ollie North?

I am on record in here as saying that the killing of Dr. Tiller is terrorism.
.
I didn’t choose how JNS wrote this.
.
As for the political implications, well, guess what. It’s crystal clear that balls were dropped here. And 13 people (14 if you count an unborn child) are dead as a result. I’d say that some political heat may make us better able to deal with a possible repeat. Moreover, soldiers deserve answers.

To follow up on chrisnbama’s point, one that I and many others have made before- Spob, do you think that Hasan would have undertaken his attack if he had been discharged from the military? Do you think that this was him rebelling against the US, or him rebelling against his employers?
The things I’ve seen quoted as proof of his terrorism are that he attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque, he called himself a ‘Soldier of Allah’, and he yelled ‘God is Great’ when he began his attack.
The points that I don’t see mentioned as often:
Dar al Hijrah sees 3000+ worshippers every week. Presumably their not all terrorists? Also, there is no evidence (yet) that Hasan had close associations with any of the radical elements there- not the 9/11 hijackers, not al-Awlaki.
‘Soldier of God’ is probably the exact appellation that the several thousand muslims serving in the US Army would use.
‘God is Great’ is the Muslim call to prayer- it has a significantly wider usage than just al Queda- about 1.2 billion wider.
What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I don’t see anything productive that comes out of trying to shoehorn what happened under the umbrella of ‘terrorism’.

Jesus spob. I can actually see your point and agree with some of what you say. Maybe there is something to this stuff about the world ending in 2012. It figures, that’s my new retirement target date. I retire and the world ends. That just sucks.

Jay:

Did you hear of the 9/11 commission? And what exactly is wrong with a Congressman exercising his duty of oversight? And I am curious as to why you would deem it wrong to to investigate an action because one party is in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Ave? I think the technical term is separation of powers.

It is different than Henry Waxman investigating a grocery store opening if it involves a Republican. I know that a possible security breach pales against maybe a company paying non-unions wages at a grocery store.

So rather than addressing the issue of a hearing you chose to deride a Congressman you don’t like.

And I suppose you would argue that the Waxman and Dingel exhibitions are only about finding the truth?

spob:

You are correct. There would have been no upside to the Katrina investigations. It was easier to take pot shots at Bush without fear of rebuttal than to put the Democratic leaders of the state of LA. under review.

As the saying goes about LA: Half the state is under water the other half under indictment.

Say it is determined to be a “terrorist attack” (whatever that means) then what?

So Joe can say this? (from the link)

Lieberman said if the shootings were fueled by such viewpoints it was the worst act of terrorism in America since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“Therefore, if that is true, the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11.”

And then what?

How about maybe we can have an honest discussion about terrorism and how we can prevent additional killings?

The biggest mistake that led to this tragedy was the bowing to the pressures of political correctness. Notice how quick Obama was to caution everyone about jumping to conclusions in this, a courtesy he did not extend to Officer Crowley in Cambridge.

The left is taking the same approach to terrorism that it does with race. They continually excuse the wrongs while holding the differences like a hammer above all and are quick to deride opponents as racist or anti-Muslim leading to no real discussion which in this case led to tragic deaths.

That’s the “then what”

A friend of mine who is a mental health professional in the reserves was there when Hasan started shooting. Before he deployed, my friend was worried about a situation like the one in Baghdad in May of this year, where Sgt. John M. Russell walked into the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty and randomly shot five people. Is Sgt. John Russell a terrorist?
The medical workers in this unit were fully f-ing aware of the potential for fratricide in the military because it happened to one of their own. Some of them were going to deploy to that same stress clinic. Some might have dwelled on it
What does this linkage mean? I don’t know, but at the least, someone somewhere should discuss the similarities between this situation and Sgt. Russell situation? It seems too related, given where these mental health workers were going to just ignore it.
Link to Sgt. Russell story below:
http://is.gd/4TvtT

Poor Jay Newton-Small is a parody of the members of the Washington press corps.

Just a few days ago, Newton-Small was predictably hailing the lone Republican who supported the Democrats’ bill to socialize medicine in America.

Today, Newton Small huffs that Lieberman, who was purged from the Democrat party, is “Going Rogue (Again)”! I especially like the “(Again)”!

Lieberman failed to execute his responsibilities to the American people by denying an investigation to establish the lessons to be learned from Katrina. Senators should be asking who has done more damage to the US, Major Hassan or Joe Lieberman.

Spob, would you not feel more comfortable posting comments in “Vogue”?

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.

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.

“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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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!