One of Hagel's sparring partners is Lieberman, who has infuriated Democrats with his outspoken war advocacy. Two weeks ago, the Nebraska senator was introduced to the Internet video site YouTube when his son, an eighth-grader, showed him a clip from "Meet the Press" that was drawing heavy traffic. It was a showdown between Hagel and Lieberman over Iraq.
If critics of Bush's troop increase have their way, Lieberman asserted, the consequences "for my children and grandchildren, I fear, will be disastrous."
"That's ridiculous," Hagel shot back, "and I am offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would even suggest such a thing. Senator Lieberman talks about his children and grandchildren. We all have children and grandchildren; he doesn't have a market on that."
As of today, my videoclip of Senator Hagel tearing Lieberman to shreds, has been viewed over 47,000 times. Here's a few more stats.
#42 - Top Rated (This Month) - News & Blogs - All #370 - Most Discussed (This Month) - All #50 - Most Discussed (This Month) - News & Blogs - All.
This war is a joke and thank goodness for people like veteran Chuck Hagel who (unlike many Democrats) has the guts to put idiotic, no military experience, delusional, neo-cons like George Bush's favorite Democrat in his place.
...and it's nice to know that 47,000+ share my opinion.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
