Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lieberman Peddles the Old Iraq-9/11 Connection
I had CNN's Situation Room on in the background, when I saw the sight of Senator John McCain and Senator Joseph Lieberman on my TV screen. As you probably know, Lieberman has endorsed Republican McCain for President.
(You also know but for any who have forgotten: Lieberman was a Democrat, then lost his party's 2006 primary to the anti-Iraq-war candidate Ned Lamont, then ran for the Senate anyway as an Independent, and won almost all of the Republican vote and 20% of the Democratic vote. And he's an Independent in the Senate, but is counted as a Democrat.)
On the Situation Room, McCain talked about the surge is working, the surge is working. (Violence is down, and now we can stay there babysitting and shooting and getting shot for the next 10 to 20 years. Yippeee!)
And then Lieberman, asked about his 2006 campaign, said it was important he had defeated the pro-Lamont, antiwar part of the Democratic party because once the 2008 Presidential campaign came around the Lamont part of the party would have trouble with "the American people, who know we're at war with a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11."
"We are at war with a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11."
Really, Senator Lieberman, and who would that be?
Are we back to looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Have we decided to hell with Musharraf and we've invaded Pakistan to track down Al-Qaeda? Have we deposed the royal family in Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, and we've decided to impose democracy on that country?
I'm not in favor of invading Pakistan or deposing the Saudi Arabian royal family, but as ideas they at least CONNECT with 9/11.
But Senator Lieberman didn't mean any of that, did he?
He meant to imply (to mislead, distort, to lie)... that our invading Iraq, a country that did NOT attack us, is connected to the 19 terrorist hijackers who attacked us on 9/11.
And it is not connected, is it, Senator Lieberman, or Senator McCain?
We were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by members of an organization. By 19 individuals who belonged to the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, which had safe haven in Afghanistan (not in Iraq!).
Class, what countries were the individual terrorists from?
Answer: "Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon."
Class, and how many on that list were from Iraq?
Answer: "16."
No, Vice President Cheney, that is the wrong answer, please sit down again. What? You're going to gather your own intelligence to analyze this list? Very well. Only spend just a few billion dollars on it, alright?
In the lead up to the war, Cheney and Bush and others spent LOTS of time misleading the American people about the non-existent connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.
But the administration a couple of years ago let go of trying to push that connection (except for Cheney).
And on TV Bush even once admitted there was no connection, which he said in a mumbled, annoyed voice when asked the question explicitly by some reporter during a press conference. (Asked long after we'd been there, of course).
But here is Senator Lieberman SELLING THAT LIE again. And McCain smiled benignly in the background.
I mean most of the liars in the Republicans party who continue to hawk this war and claim it's for our safety no longer try to tie Iraq with 9/11.
They usually do the song and dance about "the war on terror" and we have to fight it everywhere, and now there IS Al-Qaeda in Iraq, though it wasn't there before we invaded. And if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here. (That last bellicose bromide is said often by McCain.)
I just found Lieberman intoning "the American people... know we're at war with a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11" to be enraging. Enraging. We've gone past that lie.
Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Then we attacked back. We didn't react to Japan's attack by bombing Korea, did we? Or by invading China? Or by attacking Connecticut, who elected the dense and smiling Mr. Lieberman. Elected him over and over again.
Bush and Cheney sold this war first for our self-defense (we were in DANGER from Saddam, and we had to act IN THE NEXT TEN MINUTES OR ELSE). Then when there were no WMD's, the justification changed to we were creating democracy there. Then we were babysitting a civil war (well other people said that, Bush kept saying it wasn't true). Now it's calmer there, but it's hardly safe, and so what is the result of that? Now we're to be there for ever and ever? At billions a week, or is it a billion a minute by now?
I find it appalling and shocking that we are in a war, with men and women dying and being horribly maimed, when it was undertaken under false pretenses. And when as many of us believe, our being there as an occupier makes us less and less safe, and creates more terrorists. It's not a good bargain. You break it, you own it, said ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell, referring to the Pottery Barn Rule. How I wish we had invaded Pottery Barn. Then at least we'd have some nice merchandise, and could use some of it to give as Christmas presents.
And Lieberman just re-brought out that old, biggest lie about the war again, the supposed connection between our Iraq and 9/11. Enough with that lie.
Senator Lieberman is despicable.
Christopher Durang is a playwright and sometime actor.
Copyright © 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
151 Comments so far
Show AllLieberman Peddles the Old Iraq-9/11 Connection
Well I personally believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Steel frame buildings don't fall at free fall speed. Some day it will be accepted as an obvious truth.
If the reason that we are at war in Iraq is to fight "a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11.", then we should declare victory and get out.
Al-Qaida in Iraq was always a very small part of the opposition there. Maybe in the range of 3% to 5% tops. And that was at its peak. Now it is far passed its peak because the US has made alliances with the other Sunni insurgents who were fighting us such that they are now driving Al-Qaida out of the Sunni areas.
So, if the only reason we are fighting in Iraq is to fight the same enemy who attacked us on 9-11, then we should have the troops home in just a few months.
Of course, that would mean we'd have to give up our permanent bases and the base we want to use to attack Iran and any control over Iraqi oil and any dreams of creating the perfect corporate-friendly globalized economy in Iraq and all those other things the Joe won't admit as to being reasons why our children are dying and being wounded every day in Iraq.
jakenewton
Your description of Holy Joe as a "strawman" is hilarious. This unregistered agent of a foreign government - you know anyone else in Congress who holds dual passports? - is tantamount to treason. The only joke is that he endorsed the war criminal McCain because "no one else would talk to him."
"We are at war with a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11."
Is he describing the Bush administration ?
And just think, this sleaze-bag was the democratic vice president nominee. That alone tells you everything you need to know about Gore and the democratic party.
I wouldn't be suprised if Hillary Clinton chooses him for a running mate -- you could call them the sled team, two running dogs.
Leiberman should be held for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity and investigated for espionage as a an agent or Israel.
Chris Durang quotes Lieberman as saying:
"We are at war with a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11."
Then Chris Durang says this:
"He meant to imply (to mislead, distort, to lie)… that our invading Iraq, a country that did NOT attack us, is connected to the 19 terrorist hijackers who attacked us on 9/11."
And Durang states the above without providing a reasonable argument that it was implied as so by Lieberman from the quoted line, instead he just beats up on a straw man.
and since you mentioned cheney...
rep. wexler wants hearings.
please sign the petition at:
wexlerwantshearings.com
I hope the Senate goes overwhelmingly Democratic in 2008, not because I expect lots of great legislation but to marginalize this fool. He matters now because he is THE swing vote in an evenly divided house.
People seem to disagree, but I always have argued that Lieberman is a Republican in Democrat clothing.
Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats.
Gee and they attack Nader as a traitor. What if Lieberman had been Vice President instead of Cheney? I am sure that on 9 11 they would have been drawing up plans to attack iraq.
claudius___ I believe it is more like a skunk in wolves clothing.
Lieberman wined that no Democrat had asked for his endorsement
because the voters know now that Lieberman is synonymous with warmongerer - why does Hillary have such a tough time since endorsing the Lieberman Kyl amendment to declare Iran an enemy state? Liebermans endorsement of John Mcain is an endorsement of a warmongerer to another warmongerer. John McCain is a decent person who has spoken against torture but he is a warrior who said that he will "Bomb bomb bom Iran" Shame on him- Iran or any country is a beautiful place on earth and does not deserve bombing.
Screw Liebermann. Folks, we have a real problem. We have a two party system with only one party. Somehow, time and again the Democrats fail to stand. How is that humanely possible, that so many so consistently come off spineless? Unless they don't intend to win the important fights.
It doesn't matter that the junta has admitted once or twice in public that Iraq is not connected to 9-11. Their running dogs in the media keep the ignorant 30% of Americans propagandized, and they have never even heard the admission by bush that there is no connection.
30% of Americans are so - I need to coin a word that means hopelessly stupid, hateful and belligerent- that they are happy to kill whoever the president points at, for whatever excuse he gives. And they don't learn - witness the junta giving the same excuse for invading Iran that they used for Iraq! The junta are not easily embarrassed, but they don't have to be. They can steal elections, loot the treasury, murder millions, and 30% will wave their flags and cheer.
I would also like to point out that it isn't just men and women being killed and maimed. It is also children.
Or was the author only speaking of American casualities?
re greenerthanthou:
suggested new word for hopelessly stupid, hateful and belligerent: "bushwacko."
thank you, hazmat. I like it
jakenewton,
The reasonable argument that it was implied consists of inserting one word:
"We are at war with [Iraq] a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11."
Thank you Connecticut: for nothing!
This is a good piece but you lose me when you repeat the fabricated tale of the 19 Arabs who somehow managed to board the plane without being on the passenger list AND managing to turn invisible when they boarded in front of security cameras.
PLEASE. Can't we all just wake up and look at the truth?! How gullible are so many people?? This attack was orchestrated mostly from WITHIN and it's the biggest act of treason this country has ever known. It was a CRIME from the highest officials in this administration in order to create a prejudice against Muslims to they would have the cooperation of the stupid American people to endlessly attack the oil-rich countries in the Middle East to seize control of their assets. DUH.
"The reasonable argument that it was implied consists of inserting one word:"
Thanks for your response, and I agree with you, but he didn't use that word. The difference is huge. And the author knows this but jumped to a theory about what was implied I ran the whole article on it after that.
McCain is an old whore who will take it from anyone, even Lyin Lieberman
Senator Lieberman, your pants are on fire.
I think when Lieberman and other hawks say something like "We are at war with a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11" they mean all Muslims/Arabs. They don't split hairs. It doesn't matter which Muslims did 9-11 or which we are attacking. Just plain old racism. Very applealing to the Zionist racists, White Man's burden imperialists, and Red (Southern) state racists.
"Have we deposed the royal family in Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, and we've decided to impose democracy on that country?"
This is the one phrase I find most ridiculous. Saudi-Arabia seems to be the country everyone (left, right, Independent, Socialist, Communist, Libertarian and Un-Commited) get to hate.
Yes, 15 of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia, no they were not sent there by the Royal Family. In the statement made right after 911 by bin Laden, he stated they were also going to target the Royal Family. Al Queda is an enemy of Saudi Arabia, not a partner.
Can we stop repeating "..after all most of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia", implying they had something to do with 911.
News Flash: Saudi Arabia had as much to do with 911 as Iraq.
I've worked in the middle east for years, and I can also find a lot wrong with
Saudi Arabia, but that's no reason to blame them for things they did not do.
Since 9-11 was a self-orchestrated event (inside job) the attempts to link the crime to outside entities will never cease. The evidence of foul play from the government is so overwhelming that it will eventually play out and heads will roll. Liebermann is continuing to pull the wool. Funny how the videos of the 9/11 confessions were destroyed. Funny how it takes years to gather evidence on major criminal activities but this HUGE event was all figured out in a matter of days and we launched our attack on Afghanistan on October 7.
"Foul deeds will rise though all the world o'erwhelm them too men's eyes" - Hamlet
jakenewton:
I suppose it dosen't matter that MSM still (daily) calls the United States' actions in the middle east the "Iraq War", and that the "Straw Man" along with his endorsee have done much of the fearmongering for the military industrial complex (?).
satr9prodxns: thanks for keeping us on topic -
"and since you mentioned cheney…
rep. wexler wants hearings.
please sign the petition at:
wexlerwantshearings.com "
"I suppose it dosen't matter that MSM still (daily) calls the United States' actions in the middle east the "Iraq War", "
Calling it the "Iraq War" is a lot different from saying "our invading Iraq, a country that did NOT attack us, is connected to the 19 terrorist hijackers"
So yes, it doesn't matter.
i am so sick of that whiny little jewish princess,joe lieberman P.S. sorry about the stereotyping...
" sorry about the stereotyping…"
yeah right
So, I suppose it also doesn't matter that the spokespeople for the military industrial complex are in the middle of another credibility (NIE) crisis (?).
Also, when MSM doesn't say "our invading Iraq, a country that did NOT attack us, is connected to the 19 terrorist hijackers", but uses Iraq War, then Lieberman's statement is out of context (?).
And that these continuing alleged implications help perpetuate a "depleted" uranium disbursing military industrial complex that threatens the genetic constitution if not the survivability of humanity...well, that it doesn't matter (?).
Lying Lieberman is a tool of AIPAC, an organization that never tires of spending American $$$, lives, and political capital for Israel. AIPAC is a Likud-centric American organization that consistently subordinates and betrays US interests in the Middle East to those of Zionism. Too bad. When the dollar collapses and our economy collapses with it (can we really afford to spend $80 billion / year on unnecessary wars?), people will look for scapegoats. I only hope the Liebermans of the world (and AIPAC) wake up in time to stop their betrayal of our country so that Jews in America are not held accountable for AIPAC's betrayal.
"So, I suppose it also doesn't matter that the spokespeople for the military industrial complex are in the middle of another credibility (NIE) crisis (?)."
Yes, it's irrelevent to my original point.
"then Lieberman's statement is out of context (?)."
Durang did not provided context, such as what may have been said before or after the statement.
""depleted" uranium "
I am glad you bring this up, but it has nothing to do with Durang's straw man.
jake newton:
"but he didn't use that word. The difference is huge." That's the difference between implication and literalism. If he used the word it would be a lie, but he needs a technicality to excuse himself if challenged. What he doing is conflating two unconnected events to make them appear connected. He's part of the reason that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
If you don't believe me, look further back in his record. On 1/5/2007, Lieberman said:
"There are people who have spoken of this moment in history as if it were the 30's, and there are some parallels, I fear, there. People say the war in Iraq is comparable to the Spanish Civil War, and the war in Iraq, to the larger war against Islamist terrorism, comparable to the Spanish Civil War, to the Second World War, the late 30's and the failure to grasp the growing threat of fascism in Europe until it was almost too late. The painful irony of this moment in our history, is that while in some senses it is comparable to the 1930's, it's also already 1942. Because Pearl Harbor [9/11], in this war, has already happened."
And as recent as 9/10/2007, with John McCain in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote:
"We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11."
Convinced?
I believe it is time to just say it: Joe Lieberman is a Republican neocon. Let him completely go to the otherside (none of this "independent" bullshit)- the democrats (and yes, his "respected friends") must PUBLICALLY DENOUNCE HIM, then run Ned again, against him in 5 years. Right now the democrats should remove/strip him from caucusing with the democrats.
Many good dems were fooled in Connecticut and the rest of the country. It's time to say so-long to Joementum and move on. Perhaps the moderates of Conn. will finally learn how that liar neocon will destroy us if we let him.
Jake, if you want courtroom-quality discourse, stick to reading John Dean's essays.
Durang is a playwright. He's outraged and he's writing for effect. Cut him some slack or else hold Rush Limbaugh and his kind to the same standard of rhetoric...
"Your description of Holy Joe as a "strawman" is hilarious."
You weren't paying attention. Read my first post again.
bidelo, thanks for your effort, but none of those quotes indicate any belief thet "Iraq" was behind 9/11.
"Durang is a playwright."
Thanks I didn't know that. Plays are "fiction".
"He's outraged and he's writing for effect."
I have no doubt on both points. In fact, he calls Lieberman a liar on a false argument, and just look at all the others here just chiming in with the same sentiment. I have no doubt Lieberman has lied about something but he should go find what that is and call him a liar on that.
"Cut him some slack"
If I see a disclaimer that the piece is fiction maybe.
jakenewton,
"none of those quotes indicate any belief thet "Iraq" was behind 9/11." I never said that Lieberman believed that Iraq was behind 9/11, I'm saying that he deliberately conflates it, which is what the article is saying.
"We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11" is conflation, no two ways about it.
Let's imagine the above quote in the context of WWII. "We must understand that today with Japan we are fighting and defeating the same government that attacked on 12/7".
What would a rational person, with no knowledge of WWII, think about that quote? That Japan attacked us so we attacked them, right? Same for the Iraq quote. Iraq attacked us on 9/11, so we attacked them, right?
Where's the logical flaw?
"Where's the logical flaw?"
"Iraq" is not "terrorist network". You would need to make that substitution in the quote for the WWII analogy to hold up, and you can't.
Sorry, "government" does not equal "terrorist network" either.
"If it wasn't for Bush and cheney there would not have been a 9-11."
Or the first attack on WTC, right?
jakenewton:
Sorry, "government" does not equal "terrorist network" either.
That's an analogy. In an analogy, things are not equal, they are analogous, which means they are corresponding in some particular way. They are corresponding because on 9/11 we were attacked by a terrorist network, and on 12/7 we were attacked by a government. So after 12/7 we retaliated against that government. So to extend the analogy, after 9/11 we should have retaliated against the terrorist network, but we didn't do that in Iraq, which is what Lieberman implies. In fact, we pulled resources from retaliating against the terrorist network and diverted them to attack the government (of Iraq). After 9/11 we retaliated against a government which had nothing to do with the terrorist network. But Lieberman conflates the two to imply that the government was responsible for 9/11.
If it wasn't for politics of Empire, the US would not fund strongmen, dictators, druglords, and people like Bin Laden. Good vs. evil become quite difficult to sort out indeed.
Leiberman belongs in a NURSING HOME right next to McCain---a couple of DINOSAURS completely out of touch with reality, ready to lead us further down into the same hole of death they helped to create....Can you believe a country that keeps Kucinich out of a party debate, that couldn't care less, and then sits there listening to a raving Christian-fascist lunatic like Alan Keyes? "I am the godly, moral candidate!" he screams....
"In an analogy, things are not equal, they are analogous, which means they are corresponding in some particular way."
I know that. :-)
"They are corresponding because on 9/11 we were attacked by a terrorist network, and on 12/7 we were attacked by a government. "
The analogy breaks down here, because governments are confined within borders while terrorist networks are not.
"after 9/11 we should have retaliated against the terrorist network, but we didn't do that in Iraq, "
Iraq was not about retaliation for 9/11, but ostensibly about preventing another 9/11, that was the theory, and that part of it was stated as such. It was pre-emptive.
Oh. I came back to give a clever acronym my husband thought of and you all have moved on. OK, JakeNewton, surely you can see that Lieberman is doing what the Bushies do- conflating 2 ideas as if they are connected, but leaving that escape clause- "oh, I never said that Iraq was connected to 9-11". Well, no, not in so many words. But totally implying it.
And, yes, it is totally obvious that 9-11 was not Iraq, or Saudis, or BinLaden. 110 story buildings do not fall down in 9 seconds because some Arab-speaking 20-somethings got lucky. The US military, the most massive on the planet, is not incompetent enough to stand down for 2 hours while hijacked planes go wild. A plane hits the Pentagon? And there are no military aircraft scrambled? Please!!!
Anyone who believes the official story is hopelessly confused. Maybe stupid.
So here's my husband's acronym. BUSH- belligerent, uninformed, stupid and hostile.
Although I hate to feed into the idea that Bush is responsible for the creeping fascism, anymore than Saudis are responsible for 9-11. It's all part of the plan.
Then when Hillary gets elected, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and expects improvement. You know, like in 2006, when the Democrats gained control of Congress. We still have wars, we still have the Patriot Act, we still have the Military Commissions Act, and they're working on the rest.