Terrorist factions operating inside Iraq have had many demonstrations—and every reason to believe—that the tactic of kidnapping Americans, and what might be called the “Spanish Strategy” will not succeed in causing President Bush to alter, or swerve from, the US’ commitment there.

My question is, what specifics can a Kerry administration offer to achieve that same credibility?

Posted by: Stephen at July 28, 2004 06:19 PM

Seantor Lieberman, given your ability to appeal to both moderate democrats and republicans, if asked by Mr. Kerry, would you accept a cabint post? If yes, which position do you belive you would be most successful at? Could you envision yourself as being the bridge spokesperson between the two parties?

Mike Lawson
Maryville, Tn

Posted by: mr lawson at July 28, 2004 11:59 PM

Pls ask Sen Lieberman this question:

In (i believe) North Carolina during a Democratic Presidential Nominee debate you stated that any man up on stage would do a better job as President then the current President (GWB). On stage with you was Al Sharpton. Rev Sharpton libelled Stephen Pagonis during the Tawana Brawley hoax, never apologized and had his friends pony up the $$ to pay off the suit that he lost; Rev Sharpton referred to white jewish businessmen in Harlem as “white interlopers” and “diamond merchants” revving up a crowd that included an individual that eventually burned down Freddy’s Fashion Mart, murdering, i believe, two minority employees; Rev Sharpton encouraged the crowd during the Crown Heights riots, saying if any Jew wanted to “get it on” they best “pin back their yalmakle(sp)”. Subsequently a jewish rabbinical student was stabbed to death.

Sen Lieberman, this man who you referred to as your “brother” and who is embraced by the DNC, even given a slot to speech at the convention, do you truly think he wd make a better President then George Bush?

I’m begging you to ask this.

Thank you.

Posted by: hen at July 29, 2004 08:33 AM

Mr. Lieberman gave a powerful speech at the Brookings Institution in April of this year.

In that speech, Mr. Lieberman made a case for the creation of a “Bipartisan Congressional Consultation and Cooperation Council on Iraq.”

Why can’t bipartisan moves like this gain traction? Is it due to insurmountable philosphical differences between the parties, or is mundane political positioning the culprit?

Hubris

Posted by: Hubris at July 29, 2004 09:09 AM

This question is for J. Lieberman. I was just wondering why a limit of $80,000 dollars is used for SS taxes? It would seem if those earning $80,000 or less must pay on 100% of their earned income, so should those even more able earning well over that income. And would not removing the present limit end the SS shortfall, or threat of underfunding? Kerry and Edwards are a great ticket, but, you and Gore should be running for re-election at this time. Thankyou for your time. Bud

Posted by: Bud at July 29, 2004 11:37 AM

To Max Cleland:

You and the Honorable Zell Miller were once colleagues in the Georgia State government, before you became US Senators. Since 9/11, Sen. Miller has been a consistent supporter of vigorous military action, while you have advocated a more restrained approach.

Given that Sen. Miller would be easily re-elected this year were he running, whereas you were defeated two years ago, it is clear which stance is more acceptable to the people of Georgia. Given that you have not changed your stance, do you feel that John Kerry is right to say that the Democratic Party should write off the South, and not make the changes to their platform necessary to compete there?

Do you think such a plan—which would spot nearly a third of the Senators in the United States to the Republican party without a fight—is compatible with recovering or retaining control of the Senate? If not, how do think the Democratic Party will govern if it cannot pass legislation related to its platform, or appoint judges, ambassadors, or high officials, all of which require the consent of the Senate?

Posted by: Grim at July 29, 2004 02:32 PM

This is for either or both Senators. Living in Madrid, Spain, I saw up close how a very emotioned and emotional Spanish electorate oust Mr. Aznar’s a staunch ally of the US- government, to replace it with the -trailing in the polls socialist government. Some here say that the socialists used a terrible situation for elecoral gains, by continuously implying Aznar’s government had lied to the Spanish people, and drawing a direct link with that country’s presence in Iraq.

It was later found that Al Qaeda had exactly this outcome in mind when planning the attacks.

Now to my question, Tom Ridge is fearing an attack similar to that took place in Madrid, close to November 2nd. Assuming an attack were to take place (and may God forbid it), and in similar fashion Mr. Kerry would be elected.

If you were in a position to advise Mr. Kerry on his platform, specifically the part dealing with the War on Terror, what would your advice be?

Would you advise Mr. Kerry to drop his proposed ‘multilateralist approach’, in favor of continuing Mr. Bush’s efforts as to not give the impression to the enemy that by attacking us, a course was changed?

Or would you advise Mr. Kerry in case elected to fulfill his campaign promises on terrorism and thusly showing to the world no terrorist can interfere in our democratic system?

Posted by: V-Man at July 29, 2004 04:29 PM

For Sen. Lieberman.

I would like to know, as a moderate Democrat, how he feels about the more liberal parts of his parting seemingly gaining control in this election, while the center seems to be mostly ignored.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at July 29, 2004 04:43 PM

For Max Cleland:

Are you made uncomfortable by references to your military service injuries as having been incurred in “combat”?

Posted by: chucky18 at July 29, 2004 06:30 PM

For Max Cleland,
Your injuries were caused by picking up a grenade ostensibly dropped by another soldier behind you in your company.

Is it possible that you were the target of a “Fragging” incident?

Posted by: ET at July 29, 2004 06:54 PM