Lieberman is a de facto Israeli agent. There are many of them in our disgraceful Congress... Pelosi, Clinton, Obama et alia... the mind reels. That's why the criminal war grinds on, and the criminal gang remains in the White House. As the song goes... It's a simple little system... groveling politicians and AIPAC money... and the end of America.

Jim Ryan

More rotten food for thought on Lieberman:

In 2001, upon his return to the senate, Lieberman immediately worked with Jesse Helms to craft the Helms Lieberman Act of 2001, which was a further tightening of the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba, and which placed further restrictions on cultural exchanges between Cuba and the U.S. BTW - the Helms-Lieberman Act, like the Helms-Burton Act was not authored by Helms or Lieberman or their staff: it was provided to them by the CANF and Bacardi's corporate attorneys. (Bacardi profits from the embargo, btw.)

Three thoughts arise:

1) Following the vote-counting disaster and other election irregularities in Florida, wouldn't one think that Lieberman would have made correcting the very problems that cost him an election his first priority?

2) Why would any reasonable, moral person want his or her name attached to Jesse Helms in posterity?

3) What does it say about Lieberman's character that he ran for both senator and VP, knowing that if the Gore/Lieberman ticket had won, the then republican governor of Connecticut would have appointed a Republican to replace Lieberman, affecting the balance in the Senate.

A final thought: the two senators from Connecticut, Dodd and Lieberman, are both active on the issue of Cuba. Dodd has sponsored legislation like Bridges to Cuba, which seeks to ease travel restrictions to the island by US residents, and to encourage people-to-people, NGO-to-NGO exchanges, leading the way to normalized relations. In the wake of the international custody battle over Elian Gonzalez, poll after poll showed that US citizens by and large wanted some sort of normalization of relations with Cuba, regardless of whether they lionized or demonized Fidel Castro or approved or disapproved of socialism. Lieberman's position reflects the hard-line stance of his benefactors in Miami.

And a final question: So, who really represents the will of the people of Connecticut in the Senate? And how can it be that someone's campaign coffers can be filled with as much, if not more, money from out of state, than within his own service state?

Poor democracy!

It isn't a cautionary tale, just a really shallow premise for an article.

i seem to recall reading somewhere (probably here at C-D) that incitement to war and threats of war are a crime against the peace, per the UN charter. i know, i know, then there are tons of guilty people in the political-media establishment, and nobody gives a rat's ass about the UN charter anymore, but, you know, would iran be justified in assassinating lieberman? (btw, i'm not advocating that; political terror like that is counterproductive b/c it ultimately increases the police power of the state, and of course would lead to war, but can somebody shut this friggin' idiot up?)

I agree that Leiberman shoud be arrested for incitement to violence and hate speech. I also agree with the premise that not only is "any democrat is better" a dangerous fallacy, in truth, most democrats are not better.

Thank God he switched parties and is now an independent - he was always such an embarrassment! He should just give up the pretense and become a card-carrying Republican...

He should change the name of his one-man party to "Likud USA"

Leiberman is simply a covert operative for Israel and as such should be charged with incitement to violence against a sovereign state in violation of Geneva conventions and treason....

If the scenario is if Lieberman was president would he be worse than Bush?

The question I keep asking is, would Hillary? Why not the plethora of articles condemning her as well when she says:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17743

C'mon, to focus on Lieberman, as the acceptible popular target and ignore Hillary who we are told is closing in on the presidential nomination, is pointless.

Hillary also complains of the "execution" of the war, not the basic intent:

"But I voted to give the president authority and I've said many times that I regret the way he used the authority. I haven't said I made a mistake or I wouldn't have given it to him again. I made the best decision I could at the time, based on my assessment.

I think my position differs with the administration largely with respect to the execution and implementation of the policy, which I think has been a terrible series of blunders."

The perfect coup would be to realign the D party (DLC-"New Democrat")and claim anyone labeled D is always better than R--even if they are exactly the same and the "big tent" includes all stripes of Republican, from Neo-con to moderate-(and everyone else-the majority of the population, is some Leftwing fringe wacko special interest group-according to the corporate media pundits). And yet everywhere, everyone points at Lieberman and ignores Clinton--who will be in the drivers seat if people don't get their damn priorities in line. This site is lousy with screeds attacking Lieberman, and not a word about Hillary who is going for that golden ring. Lieberman laughs last.

There is one chief reason I will never support another presidential bid by Al Gore -- his choice of Lieberman as running mate 7 years ago. What a colossally stupid misjudgment!

And why is Lieberman so anxious to involve us in a war with Iran? Could it be because a certain Middle Eastern state would like us to do their fighting for them?

Lieberman IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT and it's vital we stop referring to him as such. He is clearly a LOYAL BUSHIE, the outcast who thinks the "cool" killers will let into their gang if he kisses enough ass. He does NOT have INDEPENDENT convictions, INDEPENDENT positions, or even an INDEPENDENT thought in that warped mind of his. He DOES WHAT HE IS TOLD - calling him INDEPENDENT is an insult to INDEPENDENTS, which is exactly the only use the Cheney/Bush gang has for this dimwit: to forever taint the word INDEPENDENT.

Lieberman is a loyal bushie. From now on, only refer to him as such.

Just another U.S. Senator doing Israel's bidding...

Conneticans voted for Lieberman (when there was a perfectly good Democrat running). I suggest we dump 'em all in the ocean.

Background information on Lieberman:

Committee on the Present Danger
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3301

"Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut serve as CPD's honorary cochairmen, giving the CPD the appearance of a bipartisan initiative."

"Nominally nonpartisan, the third CPD includes several liberal hawks, including Stephen Solarz, Dave McCurdy, and Lieberman, but the committee is overwhelmingly comprised of neoconservatives, former Republican officials, wealthy business executives, and people involved in the military-industrial complex. In keeping with the tradition of its forerunners, the CPD is neither a policy institute nor a think tank. Rather, it functions as a pressure group that, through occasional statements, conferences, and reports, attempts to bolster support for increased military spending and a more aggressive global war against Islamic militants, particularly in the Middle East."

For more background, see the British documentary, "The Power of Nightmares", banned from US television:

http://scanlyze.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/the-power-of-nightmares-film-maker-adam-curtis-uncovers-the-truth-and-lies-about-terrorism/

Vern June 13th, 2007 1:59 pm
"Hillary also complains of the "execution" of the war, not the basic intent:
'But I voted to give the president authority and I've said many times that I regret the way he used the authority. I haven't said I made a mistake or I wouldn't have given it to him again. I made the best decision I could at the time, based on my assessment.'

When did she say that? Back in February she also said, "knowing what I know now I would never have voted for it."
http://www.democrats.com/taxonomy/term/299
Lame, prevaricating apologetics. And not a reason to vote for her. But still not the same as Lieberman.

The article states: Having fallen for the Iranian plot to gain control over Iraq, Lieberman now seeks to undo the damage by invading Iran."

He fell for the plot? Please, he was one of the ones promoting it! What nonsense!

Check this out and a thank you to the Lamont voters at least you folks were Patriotic Americans.

http://nedlamont.com/truthaboutjoe/1553/fact-check-liebermans-rhetoric-vs-reality-on-iraq/

Why don't you just get to the point, Mr.Scheer? Gore would not have "died" in office, he would have been killed by the PNAC/AIPAC folks, those who are Lieberman's masters.

Holy Joe in the Oval Office was PNAC's back-up plan: in case the coup of 2000 somehow failed to install bushcheney, then (only a few months into his term) President Gore would be hit, in favor of AIPAC Joe. Eliminating Gore was imperative, since 911 was already prepared and ready to roll...as a pretext for neocon wars and invasions and "the new american century." Joe was/is PNAC's man.

HOW COULD ANYONE BE SURPRISED BY LIEBERMAN?
DIDN'T THE WHOLE WORLD WITNESS "BUSHIE"...
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HIS LAST INAUGURAL
ADDRESS...ON FLOOR OF HOUSE LEAVING...
STOPPING...AND "EXUBERANTLY EMBRACE, HUG AND
KISS" LITTLE OLD JOE!!! HOW COULD ANYONE NOT
KNOW...THAT JOEY IS A BUSHIE NEOCON.

It is recognized that losing at war in the Middle East is winning and that endless war is our endless burden.

"The operation was a success, but the patient died."

Yes Baska, the SAME as Lieberman. Hillary is running for president so she has to sugarcoat and finesse, or dissemble or talk around, or posture, but her positions, should you bother to look under the surface and actually research, are exactly the same.

Lieberman has nothing to lose so they can float him to soften up the public to the idea without getting caught up in backlash but their positions are basically the same,though, at times, Hillary is actually worse:

"On the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration," reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta write. "The Democratic senator who came closest to echoing Clinton's remarks about Hussein's supposed assistance to Al Qaeda was Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut." In fact, on this point the reporters document that Clinton was to the right of Lieberman when she argued that Saddam gave "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070530/cm_thenation/15200528

There is little moral justification for a progressive (of any shade, really) to back anybody in the Democrat party. What surprises me is how many Democrat-sycophants there are still out there ...even after betrayal upon betrayal. "But Democrats can win!" they say. This article shows nicely that this matters little. The force of third parties and coalitions is the only realistic hope for change.

Someone ought to write a book about Lieberman. How did he become a Democrat and what is his back round?

He was anti the Viet Nam war but pro the war in Iraq and wants war with Iran. He was once married to a reform jew and says part of the reason for the divorce was her lack of religious observance and he is now married to someone who is also orthodox.

"I'm a loyal Democrat, but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party, and that's my loyalty to my state and my country." Lieberman quote

"In February 2007, Lieberman spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of the confirmation of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. Fox, a prominent Republican businessman and political donor, was a contributor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004.[49] Fox is also reported to have donated to Lieberman's 2006 Senate campaign."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

I think we have a mole in the Democratic party who is a religious fanatic, but that is just an opinion. I'd like to read a book about this person, but personally I think his primary allegiance is to Israel.

Harry S Truman (who was a Real Democrat, as well as the man who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan) said that when a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican will win. The Dems need to be very careful about nominating someone who actually represents something other than Neo-Con Lite.

Even worse than Gore dying in office, what would happen if, all things equal (9/11, Iraq War, etc.) President Gore served two full terms and now Lieberman, as VP (making the same statements), was the presumptive Democratic nominee next year?

A plea to all writers and journalists:

Would you kindly stop talking and publishing anything about this creature and totally ignore him. I was working up an appetite but lost it as soon as I saw this creature's name and picture. Thank you.

Vern June 13th, 2007 2:50 pm
"Hillary is running for president so she has to sugarcoat and finesse, or dissemble or talk around, or posture, but her positions, should you bother to look under the surface and actually research, are exactly the same."

As I posted to you elsewhere, I will not vote for Clinton. I am not posting as a supporter or apologist, but suggesting that there are, nonetheless, differences between them. Yup, Clinton is an opportunistic, lying sleazebag, marginally shifting to adapt herself to the left flank of her base - as the article you cite indicates. But Lieberman wouldn't shift - that's why he's not up for the nomination.

"Lieberman has nothing to lose so they can float him to soften up the public to the idea without getting caught up in backlash but their positions are basically the same"

In other words, he's being put forward as the right wing Democratic foil to Clinton's supposedly moderate stance? Good point - but, as stated above, I think it is not true that Lieberman would ever modify his position, regardless of whether or not he had anything to lose; and that's why he's not debating w/others - his stated positions and unapologetic hawk reputation strike him from the table.

"at times, Hillary is actually worse:"

Yea, I read the link - but, for practical purposes, they were the same...though I guess this is your point re their positions now.

In character? Clinton is slippery but fungible, Lieberman is an active menace. In policy - Clinton is slightly less right wing than Lieberman, whether or not we think there are substantive differences. I'm busy, but will do some research to tally the present diff's later...

A little while ago I was in my car driving and saw another car with an old Gore/Lieberman 2000 bumbersticker. It struck me: had Gore actually taken office, I believe that he would have been assassinated almost immediately, or at least sometime before 9/11. I have come to realize that the planet is ruled by a dark cabal of plutocrats whether under the name of the Illuminati or secret government, or what have you. But, it is an invisible ruling elite body whose influence is everywhere. The reason we haven't seen so much difference with the Democrats in control of congress is because this cabal has its ties to both parties. While this cabal may not be able to micro-control everything and every variable, it does and can account for many variables and scenarios that allow it keep its control over everything. The 2000 election is such an example. It was a rigged affair to begin with. It was a coup made to happen. However, the cabal did have a plan if the BushCheney ticket did not take office: make sure they put a neocon crony in Lieberman to implement its policies that we now see in place. A "President Lieberman" would do everything that Bush has done now.

All this speculation based on how close Lieberman came to the presidency is preposterous compared to Hillary actually grabbing it.

NO DIFFERENCE:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm

Tired of the same old fascists? War got you down? The country not what it used to be? Try Gravel's direct democracy! It's the Swiss remedy! Thousands of Greens know that its regular use removes governing headaches as easy as de-mo-cra-cy! Say goodbye to health, education and welfare problems. To Halliburtonitis, Blackwater, MSM diarrhea, Bush vomitus, Cheney heartburn, Rice gas, environmental and gastrointestinal malaise. Use direct democracy every day and see the difference. You'll find it in your friendly websites. (Not sold on the MSM):

http://www.gravel2008.us/

I am proud to say that I did NOT vote for Gore-Lieberman in 2000.

This is what you get when you vote for 'lesser evils'. This is what you get when the only thing that's important to a voter is the (D) after the name.

STOP VOTING DEMOCRAT!!!! Or at the very least, stop acting surprised when people like Lieberman keep acting in exactly the same way they've always acted. If you continue to support this party, this is what you get. If you continue to support the Democrats, either admit you like war and you like a party that continues to always fully fund the Pentagon, fully fund wars, fully support wars, and always call for new wars, or quit whining about what you get when you elect these people.

Lieberman's position is not all that different from Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Maybe its phrased differently from different candidates. But all three of those went to AIPAC and repeated all the pro-war talking points about Iran and all three pointedly have said that 'all options are on the table."

If you don't like this, DON'T VOTE DEMOCRAT!

I wouldn't vote for Gore\Lieberman in 2000 because I felt the Clinton\Gore foriegn policy was immoral. We'd seen attacks on Iraq for flimsy pretenses, mainly to distract from impeachment. We'd seen attacks on a medicine plant in Sudan. We'd seen an escalation and support for right-wing terrorists in Colombia (aka paramilitaries). We'd seen an illegal war with illegal and immoral attacks on civilian targets in Yugoslavia. From all of this, it was clear to me that a vote for Gore\Lieberman in 2000 was a vote for a continuation of an immoral and illegal foreign policy. I could not go into a voting booth and give my assent to such a policy.

Vern, re Hillary C., i'm w/you. but the same is true w/ "all options are on the table" obama and edwards. what's the real difference b/n saying "we should attack iran" (joe l.) and "we might attack iran" (hillary, obama, edwards, bush, cheney, et al)?

a couple of you posters say you think gore would have been assassinated if he'd been elected, to make way for bush's clone, joe l. you have too much faith in gore, who's as clintonian as clinton. and why, btw, did he pick joe l if he's so different from joe l? gore is a master at remaking himself (the environment, assault on reason), and looks out for one person, and it ain't Logos or Mother Earth. besides, the problems are systemic, not personal. in a post 9-11 world, gore would have responded much as dumbya did. maybe not as stupidly or whatever, but when the entire d.c. elite, and your entire cabinet, and all the congress, is calling for a military response and police state to deal w/terrorism, you think gore is gonna stop that? probably not.

lastly, there's not ONE cabal of people running the show. in the US or the world. there's multiple cabals. and they fight w/each other. all the time. for example, in the iraq war the oil & military "cabals" obviously benefit, but the financial and political "cabals", not so much. the war has put the us in a much more financially precarious position, which is not to the benefit of some big players in this game. and the war has created great dissatisfaction w/the political system, which is not to the benefit of any of the elites. what "cabal" could possibly be directing all this messy reality?

Possibly the Bilderbergs?

If you don't find the answer in the open, then approach it like a zen/sumi-e Japanese painting. Sometimes part of the portrait is in the empty space.

As someone else posted under another message, you have a meeting that brings together 120+ of the most influential people in the world annually, and nobody reports on it. Google "Bilderberg" and you get 3 million+ hits. Google news for the same term, and you get only 58 hits.

But clearly its a nexus of media, the m.i.c, central banking, private equity groups, big energy, aipac, etc. They're trying to sell us on a war that nobody on either side wants.

I've run out of patience with the so-called Democrats and won't vote for them as Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are gung-ho to nuke Iran and otherwise do Israel's bidding.

I'll vote for Kucinich for president and Gravel for VP in 2008.

Interesting article:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23587/print

A Call to Investigate Lieberman's ties is in order.

Simonhhh: You say Lieberman should be charger with violation of the Geneva Convention and Treason--Remember the MORON Attorney General said the Geneva Convention is QUAINT that's why traitor Leiberman supports the piece of s---.Lieberman should be run out of the Senate and deported or put behind bars.

Lieberman is the water boy for the zio-fascists.

The voters of Connecticut should be ashamed for re-electing the senator from Tel Aviv. Are there any Huskies here who can explain what they were THINKING?

The most and least that can be said about Senator Lieberman is that he did not have the backdrop given to Norman Podhoretz who prayed for his Jewish God on the Wall Street Journal to direct GWB to nuke 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,"

...so we can get them started on killing them in Iran.

If anyone from Connecticut is reading this, I suggest you read your state constitution to learn the provisions for recall of an elected official.

It might be worth a try.

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy make mad first"

"Let us throw the money changers out of the temple once again" (Bill Moyers)

Yup. I was right!!! Just look at the photo of Liberman. You see it? Those lips of his are cramped up something fierce from kissing George Bu$h's butt so much.

This guy is not fit to be a dogcatcher, much less the preznit of the U.S. of A. Sheesh!!! What's this country coming to?

Some of y'all who keep presenting this issue as though it were the Zionist lobby that's driving U.S. foreign policy need to do your homework. Granted, Zionism is a powerful force in the world, and is strong enough that it has relative autonomy within the western imperialist construct. That is to say, the Zionists inside the Israeli ruling class are definitely threats to world piece.

Having conceded that, some of you all need to get up on the history of the Balfour Declaration, and take a much closer look at who's been driving this mess over in Palestine, and it sure as hell isn't the Jews. Zionism has been a powerful catspaw for western imperialism, and its supporters, both Jew and Gentile, are definitely bigtime gangsters. but the reality is that Zionism is a deathtrap for all too many Jews, and those Jews who speak out against the state of Israel's policies get a quick education in that little matter, both in Israel and in the west.

But when many Jews in Israel throw in their lot with the Palestinians and help build a real liberation movement for Palestine and a real homeland for those Jews who are seeking peace,as will happen sooner or later the west will turn on them like they turn on every other population that opposes them, and at that point, the real patriots of a Jewish homeland rooted in the needs of all the peoples of the Middle East are going to need some support. and some of you, judging by your asssessment of the present situation, are not going to see that as it begins to happen. Some of ya'll need to do your homework. sooner or later, we over here have to be ready to work with some real contradictions and be real allies.

Imperialist mayhem is what we're coming to, under both parties. It is soon going to be clobbering time.

Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Tel Aviv, strikes again. I have watched his slime since he blackened the good name of his opponent in his first Senate race: Lowell Weicker. He`is dirty and fights unfairly, he is bought and paid for by Israel, he is worse on war than Bush, and he mixes his occasional liberality with positions that would look commonplace in a fascist society. The sooner we get him out of American politics the better for America, for Israel, and for the entire Middle East.

The best thing we can do is out people like Leiberman and educate our fellow Americans what is really going on in the Middle East. We need to explain to joe six pack how our congressmen and women are bought and paid for by a foreign nation. I really encourage people to subscribe to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Magazine. Its an excellent publication and they need more readership to keep going: http://www.wrmea.com/ Buy a subscription for a friend as its an excellent resource.

Lieberman's first loyalty is--and always has been--to Israel. The treasonous bastard should move to Israel and run for the Knesset.

Shouldn't fundamentalism and high government office be a conflict of interest?

Gore and the DNC made a tactical error for sure when they picked Joe.

Simonhhh - he should be impeached for "incitement to violence against a sovereign state in violation of Geneva conventions"

Incitement to violence is not a violation of the Geneva conventions which only govern the treatment of soldiers, sailors and civilians during wartime. There is an additional document that bans use of poison gasses. There are three ammendments (1977, 1977, and 2005) to the 1949 version of the convention to which the US is a signatory, but which we have not ratified.

There is some feeling in the public that the Geneva Conventions are some sort of magical document that outlaws any war related bad behavior and that is not correct, it is very specific.