Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLieberman Threatens War With Iran
We have the people of Connecticut to blame.
For Joe Lieberman.
Last November, after Ned Lamont bested Lieberman in the Democratic Party, Lieberman turned coat and ran as an independent and defeated Lamont.
While Lieberman vowed to continue to caucus with the Democrats, on foreign policy he carries water for Bush and Cheney.
He voted to continue funding for the Iraq War, and remains one of the biggest cheerleaders of that war.
And on Sunday, he went even further than Cheney has in advocating expanding that war right into Iran.
Speaking on "Face the Nation," Lieberman proposed "a strike over the border into Iran" to get at what he called a base that is training insurgents who are killing Americans in Iraq.
I, for one, would like to see the solid evidence of that.
And for two, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Richard Nixon used to expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos.
That action, like Lieberman's crazed idea for Iran, was predicated on the false notion that the major problem is not indigenous.
But it is.
In the case of Iraq, it's mostly Sunni insurgents who are killing Americans.
And Shiite Iran is an archenemy of these insurgents.
Plus, as Juan Cole notes on his blog at juancole.com, "Bush needs Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in order to avoid immediate and complete defeat in Iraq, and SIIC is very, very close to Iran." Cole goes on: "Lieberman doesn't seem to understand, by the way, that Iraqi Shiites would mind the US bombing their coreligionists and would probably massacre the entire British garrison in Basra as well as interdict US fuel convoys to the north from Kuwait and Basra. His irresponsible warmongering would get a lot of US troops killed for no good reason."
But logic is not Lieberman's forte. Saber rattling is—and so is sucking up to Bush and Cheney.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
© 2007 The Progressive
24 Comments so far
Show AllRE: FOLLOWUP TO ABOVE RE DANGEROUS WHACKJOB SLEAZEBAG LIEBERMAN...
And in case you haven't seen it already...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/13/1840/
'President' Lieberman: A Cautionary Tale
by Robert Scheer
"What if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election but died in office? Would President Joe Lieberman have been worse than George W. Bush? His recent actions suggest that he could have descended even lower in his illogical and immoral responses to the tragedy of 9/11....
"At a time when even President Bush has recognized [editor's correction: when even the Cheney shadow government has recognized] the need for negotiations with Iran in order to stabilize Iraq, where disciples of Tehran's ayatollahs have risen to power, thanks to the U.S. occupation he fervently supports, Lieberman urges war with Iran. "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he told CBS on Sunday, "and to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran."....
"Having fallen for the Iranian plot to gain control over Iraq, Lieberman now seeks to undo the damage by invading Iran.... He is apparently unaware of public warnings that key Shiite leaders in Iraq would take up arms again in support of their co-religionists across the border. Indeed, the Iranian arms being smuggled into Iraq that Lieberman complains about are going to the Shiite militias dominating America's surrogate government in Baghdad.
Bush seems to grasp this reality, which is why the United States is now negotiating with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad, leaving Lieberman to play the role of a hawkish critic of an administration he apparently feels has lost its enthusiasm for yet another disastrous invasion."
Vern June 13th, 2007 11:00 am
"he is just being honest while Hillary parses her words, but there's no light between them...:
Dunno about that, Vern. It's a sht choice - but there are Clinton-type sleazebags and then there are Lieberman-type dangerous whackjob sleazebags...
Clinton is disgusting, and in non-swing state NY I certainly won't vote for her - but I do think her utterances and likely actions are NOMINALLY curbed by a pragmatic desire to get the vote of progressive independents and Democrats. Whereas what Lieberman said isn't just stupid or swaggering, but kind of crazy...
Eichmann, Liebermann --- they advocated DEATH to fellow human beings. How the world turns!
Oh hell, he is just being honest while Hillary parses her words, but there's no light between them. So why is it that Hillary gets a pass- that her remarks on terrorism, or her swagger on Iran and her pandering to Corps and Israel gets a pass, while Lieberman is pilloried? At least Lieberman has a sense of humor and at least he is honest about where he truly stands. It is PC to target Lieberman, while Hillary is portrayed as the universal pick--when they are exactly the same. Think about that the next time you aim at Lieberman.
Thanks a lot Connecticut for trashing Lamont and voting for this sorry Bush loving DINO. Shame on you Connecticut. Shame shame. Are you proud?
Big Joe is real brave now but a REAL COWARD when it was his turn to fight.I remember that antiwar weasel during Viet Nam in New Haven while I was on leave.
There will be no nuclear exchange, at least not yet. Iran is still 5-10 years away from developing the bomb or so the intelligence estimates inform us.
Bush and his cronies aren't insane enough to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike at Iran, even with the support of
a single turncoat Democrat. The fallout (literally and figuratively) from such a move would reverse the globe's perceptions of Iran and US - US becomes the pariah state and Iran, the victim of a rogue state's bellicose paranoia.
Not mad enough. Are they?
He is THE voice of the DNC.
We in CT know Joe is a smart politician who allies himself with liberals and conservatives to acquire power. Since becoming our senator he's sought power to make mid east policy, allied with fascists at home and abroad and by force if necessary. CT has no fascism recall mechanism. Joe will keep pressing a fascist agenda until the GW Bush cabal is impeached; the only anti-fascism mechanism that will stop an Iran war.
Lieberman is not just "sucking up to Bush and Cheney.."--he is the front man for AIPAC and the neocons who are just itching to get at Iran and perhaps the entire Middle East. Talk about imperialist dreams! They have strong ties with the most right-wing reactionaries in Israel, who are also eager to zap Iran. Lieberman thinks he's protecting Israel from the nuclear potential of Iran--but he should instead try to persuade Israel to abide by its UN resolutions, return the land it has stolen, stop the illegal occupation, and stop its war crimes--only then will it attain security; only then will US soldiers no longer have to die for Israel's war crimes; and only then will the American taxpayer no longer have to pay for the brutal and immoral occupation of Arab lands.
"Conn for Leiberman Party" is just a branch of the Likud party....
Here in CT,we are as digusted as anyone by Joe Lie berman.We defeated him in the primary just to have the GOP back him with a pile of illegal money and campaign workers. He campaign on ending the war and bringing the troops home. He was lying. But many of his base believed him.
Unfortunately, we don't have recall in this state or it would be in high gear.
I've got a question. Is there no such thing as war crimes anymore? Is it the Wild West all over again, only this time it's spread beyond U.S. borders?
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of Afghanis have been killed by the U.S. military. I thought killing civilians was a war crime.
A war with Iran would be insane. The present government is unpopular and will collapse on its own, sooner rather than later. And, since Iranians hate their government, and their government hates the US, the Iranian population is not really anti-American at this time. A war would change that, to say the least.
I suggest that we boycott Conneticut in every way possible to send a message to Mr. Lieberman that preaching war is not acceptable.
Ok, and we might had had this guy as vice prez?
What decisions would he have made as VP?
Remember - Connecticut has a very rich and right wing Jewish Population.
It is easy when you are rich, to take the might is right approach.
Lets hear the voices of progressive Jews to take the Israel stand and the support for it in this country, in the proper direction.
Someone in the state of Connecticut needs to stand up to what this man is not saying in public. And stand up to these wonderful public comments as well.
Yes, Lieberman is every bit as nasty as Cheney, which should make many rethink just what the Gore/Lieberman response to 9/11 would have been.
Like many, Rothschild makes the mistake of giving Nixon the charge for expanding the Vietnam War into Cambodia when that distinction belongs to Kennedy and Johnson; in reality, Nixon expanded the "secret" war there just as Johnson expanded the overall scope of the conflict before him.
Do people calling for policies resulting in the deaths of other people deserve to live? For that is exactly what the Death Party does, and the Death Party is synonymous with the corporate party.
We can ignore the likes of Lieberman and Cheney when they are dead; even out of power, they are too dangerous alive.
How many unwinnable, illegal wars does Joe Leiberman want the US bogged down in? Who benefits the most from the continued massacre of Islamic children by the US military? It's certainly not the average US citizen.
Joe Lieberman has divided loyalties. His primary loyalty appears to be a certain Middle East client state, his secondary loyalty seems to be to oil company profits. There is no Joe Lieberman that is loyal to the US constitution and the people of Connecticut.
Can we ignore him yet?
Lieberman is speaking for Israel, his first alligence. I don't know why this game is tolerated.
Many Jewish interest groups such as JINSA and AIPAC should be registered as foreign agents.
The good news is "we" are now arming the American-killing Sunnis! Victory is at hand!
Has Lieberman lost his mind? Seriously. He hasn't made a stitch of sense in several years. I think his family needs to have him committed. For the safety of our nation.
The people of Connecticut need to recall this guy.
No surprise here. But any mention of his greatest allegiance is the taboo subject that sets the tone. It is quite the racket to make the topic unspoken which only serve to perpetrate the lie--kept in check by the complicity of silence. Or is it really not silence at all, but simply complicity?
A hard rain is gonna fall.
aymon yesterday pointed out in several articles on this subject the total strategic disaster attacking iran would be for the US (and world.) that doesn't mean we won't do it. strategic disasters seem to be part and parcel of imperial aggression (why do they seem to involve russia? ie, napoleon and hitler...) the blindness and hubris of aggression leads to fatal mistakes?
it's clear that joe lieberman has no regard for the morality or legality of invading iran. but shouldn't the practicality of such an attack give these arm-chair warriors a pause?
make no mistake about it: the US will lose in an attack on iraq. this makes the possibility of a nuclear exchange much more likely; which is more realistic after we lose in iraq/iran: an armistice/peace treaty signed by w. and dick, a retreat, or nuking them?