Lieberman still confused about the war in Iraq
By Steve Benen Thursday Jul 31, 2008 7:30amThe president spoke briefly this morning from the White House, heralding the “success of the surge” for creating “sustained progress” in Iraq. Soon after, Joe Lieberman announced that he and Lindsey Graham are “introducing a resolution recognizing the strategic success that the surge has achieved in a central front — the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01, and expressing our thanks to our troops who’ve made that success possible.”
Ben at TP did a nice job knocking this down, emphasizing "the obvious fact that the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001 terror attacks operated out of Afghanistan, not Iraq," and that the policy that Lieberman supports has "prevented the U.S. from sending more troops where they are needed, in Afghanistan."
Quite right. I’d add that Lieberman’s insistence that the surge defeated “the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01″ also suggests he thinks al Qaeda is (or at least, has been) the principal cause of violence in Iraq. That’s completely wrong, too.
Last spring, it became painfully obvious that the president started lying about al Qaeda in Iraq as part of a cynical approach to bolstering support for the war. While that was hardly unexpected, the more noticeable problem was that the media started playing along with the White House’s scheme, and began characterizing everyone who commits an act of violence in Iraq as an al Qaeda terrorist.
The New York Times’ public editor, Clark Hoyt, eventually tackled the subject head on in a terrific column; the paper took steps to make amends; and news outlets have generally been more responsible about not equating all Iraqi violence with AQI.
But Lieberman wants to fudge the details in the hopes that Americans don’t know the difference. If violence is down, the surge worked. If the surge worked, we’ve beaten al Qaeda. It’s completely wrong, but it might fool those who aren’t paying attention.
“The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is just one group, though a very lethal one, in the stew of competing Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, Iranian-backed groups, criminal gangs and others that make up the insurgency in Iraq. That was vividly illustrated last month when the Iraqi Army’s unsuccessful effort to wrest control of Basra from the Shiite militia groups that hold sway there led to an explosion of violence.
The current situation in Iraq should properly be described as “a multifactional civil war” in which “the government is composed of rival Shia factions” and “they are embattled with an outside Shia group, the Mahdi Army,” Ira M. Lapidus, a co-author of “Islam, Politics and Social Movements” and a professor of history at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail message. “The Sunni forces are equally hard to assess,” he added, and “it is an open question as to whether Al Qaeda is a unified operating organization at all.”
There’s also, of course, the political considerations. Lieberman and Graham, McCain’s two most sycophantic allies, want a resolution recognizing “the strategic success that the surge has achieved in a central front — the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01, and expressing our thanks to our troops who’ve made that success possible.” The want that so Barack Obama will be compelled to take a position on it. If he opposes it because it’s based on bogus and ignorant premises, it’s yet another cudgel for the McCain campaign.
I wonder, will there ever be a presidential campaign for grown-ups?
Login or Register to post comments.
That central front on the GWOT moved so many times it is still leaving shuffle marks.
Pro'ly never to be successful prosecution, but there IS a front on the war against blanket immunity. see http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com
Lieberman party of one...
Lieberman's not confused - he's a con artist trying to confuse voters. Evil, not stupid.
I fail to see any success in an illegal war and occupation of a soverign country. According to some sources we have killed nearly a million Iraqi's and drove 4 million from thier homes. Success??...I'd hate to see what their idea of failure is.
Lieberman is such a toad.
When Lieberman uses this resolution, the Democrats should pounce on it and show the nation what fools, Lieberman, Graham, McCain and the rest of the neocons are. A simple short statement praising them for wanting to make a symbolic gesture and then saying that, unfortunately they are wrong on many issues here. The people who attacked us are still hid out in the mountains of Afghanistan. Intelligence has proven that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11/01 and while we have had limited success with the surge, it would have been better suited to have those troops sent to the REAL battleground on terror, the one in Afghanistan, where we are still tracking Osama bin Laden but have been handicapped because of the severe shortage of manpower caused by the distraction of Iraq.... etc... They should then go on to say that if they really wanted to honor the troops, they could stop sitting on key legislation that would help the troops, body armor, health care, etc... They could then point out that the people who are pushing this symbolic resolution should start voting FOR support of the troops instead of introducing meaningless political resolutions.... THEN, they could point out the two sponsors, and Mccains voting record regarding REAL veteran and military support issues.
Success! We get nothing and the Iraqis get bombed.
Don't let the right wing define success as violence has been slowed and more troops trained.
There is not a real definition for success in this Iraqi mess.
Can anyone attach a rider to the bill? Add one urging the president to pull all is troops out of Afghanistan to send them to the central front in the GWOT; Iraq. If someone votes for it, they voted to call of the hunt for bin laden. If they don't vote for it, then ask why every time they say anything about the central front again. Make them admit they're completely clueless.
This is going to be an attempt to paint Democrats and Obama in particular into a corner. Conventional Wisdom of the Villagers will say Dems will have to vote for the resolution in order to "support the troops." Obama's dilemma : vote against it and face the inevitable barrage of "why does he hate the troops;" or vote with it, and face the barrage of "Obama concedes the surge has worked, which means McSame was right and should be president." Simplistic and not based in reality, but typical cynical Republican posturing. And if there was any lingering doubt that Lieberman should be kicked out of the caucus, this should erase it. Johnny @ 7 is correct in that there has to be a strong, concerted pushback against this framing or it's going to give the Villagers an excuse to revisit all the old slurs against Obama.
These people will never give up pushing their propaganda lies and conflating terrorism with Iraq.
When Lieberman or anyone else says this kind of stuff in public someone should say, "have you no sense of decency?".
Yes, this lying is like the red scare of the 50s. Complete and utter crap.
If Lieberman had been in charge of the US at the opening of WWII, he would have declared war on France because it was in Europe where Germany was which was allied to Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor. It doesn't quite dawn on him that Saudis operating out of Afganistan killing a few thousand Americans in 2001 does not justify killing many tens of thousands of Iraqies now and forever.
I'm a fan of Israel, too, but that doesn't justify killing brown people just because they don't like jews. Being the victom of a genocide doesn't give you a free pass on promulgating another.
I agree with #4 RepubAnon. Lieberman's not one bit confused. This is just another one of his deliberate and despicable efforts to deceive the American people. And the reason he keeps trying it? He knows that it usually works.
Lindsgay is Republican liar. Lieberman is a party of one liar. Birds of a feather.
Maybe Lieberman has inside information that the 9/11 terrorists first crossed the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and then continued across the Pakistan/Iraq border (aka Iran).
I bet that's it.
The people in the Obama campaign have to knock this out of the air right away. Show how out of touch these sons of bitches are. How off base they are. How their wrong headed thinking got us into this war and how their bullshit is very dangerous for the country. Obama must have hundreds of people who are capable of this. Get a few of them in front of the cameras saying that Lieberman and Graham are full of shit and are rewriting history. NOW. NOW damn it!!!
Bullwinkle @ 10:
You nailed it.
No carrier landing? Did we catch bin Laden? Did we invade Saudi Arabia?
Is it just me, or does anybody else see this as another "Mission Accomplished", let's pat ourselves on the back because we're almighty, indignation.
As far as I can tell they fool everyone. I don't think I know a single person IRL who actually understands what's going on. Forget the fact that they can't find Iraq on a map. They think that the military is 'fighting for their freedom' against t'rrists.
When I ask how our freedom is threatened by a bunch of average Iraq folk who had nothing to do with sept. 11 or any other attacks prior to dumbya taking over their country they tell me I "don't understand".
I get the distinct impression that some of these people honestly think that if the troops come home a tidal wave of Iraqi terrorists will follow them, tsunami-like across the ocean and straight into down town. It's completely fucking ridiculous how in the dark and utterly unconcerned most people are about the illegal occupation of a foreign nation that their government has imposed supposedly on their behalf.
I've tried the "What if someone did that here" argument and they don't get it. They cannot seem to grasp how terrible the american occupation is for most over there and I cannot help but wonder what it will take to make them understand the harm we are doing.
So lie-berwhore will make his little announcement and the vast majority of the population who don't understand how deceitful and back handed the whole thing really is will applaud like trained seals.
It's easy to fool people when they really don't want to know the truth anyway.
It is inevitable that a lifetime of lying and dishonesty will make you insane.
Oh goody! Another "Mission Accomplished" banner. Does Joe get to wear the flight suit this time?
Captain Bitter Whiner Husein Kangaroo @ 16:
Right with you on this. Knock this crap out of the air ASAP! Lieberman and Graham are tools and fools, but very cagey. Kick their asses big time. Go Obama team!! Now not later! Do it big time too!!
Bullwinkle @ 10:
You are %100 right. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't "pushback". They act more like those air filled punching bags that just fall over in the direction that they are hit. The Democrat leadership is a spineless group, whose only interests are self-interests.
Doesn't congress recess today and won't they be gone until September? So when would this bs thing be brought up?
Lieberman must be taking his talking points from Ben Wassnberg.
I'm so sick of the way McCain's campaign is doing things. This flame out over the "race card" and now this kind of stuff. It's frustrating as hell!
What a cheap political scam undoubtedly dreamed up by McCain’s handlers, Rove & Co., as a political gimmick to paint Obama and the Dems into a corner. And Joe is not confused, he knows exactly what he’s doing, and why. I hope voters and the MSM have enough sense to recognize this ploy for the totally deceitful maneuver it is. Joementum sure has adopted well to the Republican brand of politics. Isn’t it time yet for the Dem’s to set this useless collaborator adrift?
pissed off patricia @ 27:
And, of course, the librull mejia just regurgitate the RNC talking points as if it were gospel.
Joe's just playing to his "international' constituency, I reckon...
Just keep lying Joe!
lmab @ 24:
I saw Nancy Pelosi on The Daily Show last night.
She said that her plan was to hope, that bush would come to his senses in 2006. He didn't and she's very disappointed. Sorry, but their was nothing she could do. The Senate was too powerful and she couldn't pass any bills criminalizing bush's crimes. But they did write a number of stern letters.
Is it time to hand out a new set of Medals of Freedom? Is Lieberman trying to get one?
By the way, when is Harry Reid, the nominal leader of the Dims & Dinos, gonna plant his dainty size 9n in Holy Joe's scrote, kick him the fuck out of the party, pull his staff, cut off his budgert, and put his fucking desk in the parking garage?
neverbeenfooled @ 28:
Joe Blow still holds the deciding vote in the Senate. The Dems can't afford to cut the wee traitor loose yet.
If the Dems win a larger majority this fall, it will be a pleasure to see this turdwad stripped of his power.
Why not attack McSame on his promise to run a clean ,issue oriented campaign. There is a tape on the web of Mrs. McSame about two months ago saying that hubby would never do anything negative. Also is it not sick that the same people that torpedoed McSame in 2000 are in his camp now. If they thought McSame was deranged by his long captivity then, how did he redeam himself. Or, is McSame now like the Rovians, willing to say anything and invent anything to stir up the base of the party.
Yay !! Mission Accomplished AGAIN !!! The last 8 years have been one huge success after another !! Truly the greatest years of the USA. Shall we call it the Golden Age ? Let's be truthful :The Bush years are the Golden Era for the USA. Never has the United States had a president whose only mistakes were that, regretfully, his words were occassionally misunderstood. Cheney has made 1.5 billion dollars over the last 7 years. The crime of the first decade of the 21st century is that Cheney has received so much more money than the savior Bush. The wonderful news is that Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Bush and John McCain and Dick Cheney will do whatever WHATEVER it takes to install McCain as the next dictator. That has been promised. Behind closed doors -we know what they are saying : "No matter what - Hussein Obama is not going to be the next president !! No matter what it takes."
Lieberman only holds a deciding vote if the Dim/DINO Bush- and BlueDawgs vote with the party...Since that happens so seldom, and usually only when the measure is doomed to fail anyway, he's irrelevant. Kick him in the balls, drag him to the kerb, and trash his jowly, flapping wattles...
Ruth @ 1:
And makin those squeaky sounds like basketball shoes on hardwood floors.
I saw a story yesterday on tv news that some group has this 30 foot tall inflatable black rat and if Lieberman speaks at the Repub convention, they are going to inflate the rat and put it in front of the convention hall. I think the group is from Connecticut.
woody, tokin librul @ 33:
Absolutely. After this year's election, we won't need him to make a slim majority. Kick him to the curb. Assign him to smaller roles in lesser committees. Why should he be given leadership roles in ANY committee? He's not a Democrat. He's an independent. The Democrats in his state voted him out of office. It was the Republicans who voted him back in as an independent by hanging their own candidate out to dry and supporting Lieberman.
"Ben at TP did a nice job knocking this down, emphasizing “the obvious fact that the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001 terror attacks operated out of Afghanistan, not Iraq,”
How did Ben do a good job by pointing to Afghanistan as the culprit.
It was still the neo-cons who knocked down the towers.
No matter how much we want to wish and hope otherwise.
There is no Islamo fascist movement other than to protect themselves against the crusaders.
Once you stop attributing 911 to Arabs, they become your friends and brothers again.
IT WAS THE NEO-CONS!
Thanks .
One of the things needed is a photo-shop of Cindy McStain tarted up like an LA streetwalker.
With the words: Is Cindy McCain a trollop?
RepubAnon @ 4:
Nail on head!
pissed off patricia @ 39:
WTF!?! You're jokin'...right? They couldn't stoop that fuckin low...wait...forgot who we're dealing with for a sec...
Geeeeezus!
Sen. Obama should get two of his friends in the Sen. to bring up a different more factual resolution that thanks all soldiers etc. for their service throughout the years.
Hmmm....that anyone could believe the Saddam Al-Majid regime was responsible in 2003 for 9/11 was flat out stupid. Nowadays it's a sign of gullibility, as even the Bush Administration has backed off of that particular fiasco. Saddam had enough fires to put out as a secular leader dealing with the extreme wings of Hanafism and Hanbalism in addition to a large secessionist minority (Kurds) and the majority Shia with the added "bonuses" of Khomeini promising to overthrow him even after he failed to do it in an eight-year-war that he would never have had the capacity to do such a thing. Not to mention that he was opposed to the House of Saud, whose brand of Islam in addition to nationalistic issues helped bring about 9/11. How people can still believe something in 2008 that made no fucking sense in 2003 is saying a lot about the effectiveness of drumming a particular point over and over again with certain people as targets.
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 44:
They who? This group is calling Lieberman a rat for speaking at the repub convention, if he does. I think their idea is funny as hell.
nanderson @ 41:
The Arabs had plenty of reason to do 9/11. First, they were still smarting from European colonialism and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, which created the nasty situation in the Middle East today, often out of the mindset of early-20th Century "Progressivism." Second, the US and USSR had played havoc with the Middle Easterners, and in that situation, I'dve joined those groups already proliferating by the 70s. Third, the US was occupying Saudi Arabia, which has two of the holiest cities of Islam in it. If I were Muslim, I'dve been even more pissed than I would have been in the 70s. Fourth, the US and USSR had created large armed militias to attack each other, full of unemployed, poor young men who were seeking revenge for their poverty. Fifth, the Hanbalis had already bombed the Towers in 1993. Sixth, the US is, or was at the time more like it, the top dog in the world, and that sort of strength and wealth can and does provoke resentment, particularly when you're from a region as distinguished in history as the Middle East. Seventh, there was already a bad guy in the works, no need to switch to Islam, as the Cold War would have been a US-Chinese one.
Scott @ 11:
I've made that analogy before. The threat of Islam is as overblown to us now as Tsarist Russia was to Britain in the 19th Century. Or the Indian tribes of the West in the 1880s. Well overblown, and the entire armed wing of Islam, counting Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi together couldn't take and hold New York City, much less the entire United States. Why there's this hysteria about them....
Scott @ 11:
I agree with you. Thanks for saying it so succinctly.
Mick Piobr @ 34:
Yes, the hens need a wolf on their side to eat them before the fox does.
What good is the deciding vote when it's dissenting?
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 38:
That's the sound of the rats leaving the sinking ship of state.
Andhakari @ 12:
No, if Lieberman had been in charge in WWII, he would have been either on the side of the Axis Powers or an isolationist. His brand of politics favors dictatorships, look at our alliance with Saudi Arabia. A Lieberman analogue would have been in favor of Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Anyone seen this? "Why I am Voting Republican?" (hint:not really)
http://www.heavy.com/video/54635#/channel/236043
I really like "...I need the Govt. to tell me who to love."
The Democrats control Congress, right? Here's another thing we can do. Attach riders to that give greater financial support, more safety equipment such as body armor, better health care benefits, retirement benefits, longer rest periods between deployments, etc. and THEN put it up for a vote. Anyone who votes for it is clearly supporting our troops. Anyone who votes against it is shown to be willingly to praise our troops in a symbolic way but not willing to support ehm in the way that they need support.
It's a win-win for the Democrats. It focuses the nation's attention on what the Republicans have been doing. Supporting our troops by wearing flag pins but NOT supporting our troops with legislation. If they DO vote for the resolution to avoid political embarrassment, the president will either have to pass all of the benefit packages that the Democrats have been unable to get past the Republicans or give the Democrats one more campaign bullet to use this Fall.
According to Ben Wattenberg, Saddam can be labeled as a "terrorist" because he was an enemy. Apparently, according to the unhinged/reich-wingers, anyone and anything can be labeled a terrorist or terrorism if you don't like them/it.
Eight:
Saudi Arabia was close to bankruptcy early 2001, and the royal family was desperate for an increase in oil prices, or might face rebellion if they had to start taxing their population.
Norse @ 57:
Heh, the House of Saud deserves a swift kick in the pants from a revolution, IMHO. They're one of the few regimes on Earth I'd not give a damn about the disruptions that would ensue from their removal. Unfortunately, we're neck-and-neck with them. Why is beyond me.
LIEberman can't stop pretending he matters. just like he pretends to be a democrat.
Norse @ 57:
please source that!
I contributed a few 'memes' to the discussion yesterday, on my Walled-In Pond blog--scroll past the McC*nt Vid...
Let's not forget the obvious - decades of meddling in the sovereign affairs of middle east nations including CIA coups in Iran and Iraq, instigation of the Iran-Iraq war in retaliation for the Iran Hostage Crisis (another great opportunity to sell arms); instigation of the first Gulf War (green lighting Hussein to attack Kuwait, which was cross-drilling into Iraqi oil deposits [Major Oil Companies Operating in the Gulf Region]); arming, funding, and training Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, then leaving them to starve in the rubble after the Soviets withdrew (giving rise to the Taliban and Bin Laden); etc., etc.
Of course 9/11 played right into the hands of the Bush Cheney Oil Administration, which deliberately ignored warnings of an impending NY "airplane" attack (delivered by Israeli security forces to both the Bush administration and to Rudy Giuliani months prior to the attack). One also has to consider the cozy relationship between BushCo. and the Saudis (the Bin Laden family in particular, partners with Bush I in the Carlyle Group).
But to get back to Lieberman, he is the most dangerous of all, a foreign agent in the US government representing foreign interests at the expense of his own country. Lieberman is also up to his eyeballs in defense, mortgage and investment money.
Noah @ 62:
Lieberman's just an opportunist. He's the Classical-age will-o-the-wisp in modern times. I have no respect for the man. Particularly when he's supporting a regime that's done nothing to stabilize the Mideast and a helluva lot of destabilizing it.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 60:
State payments to citizens were getting so low that many had to start getting part time jobs.
Most people in Saudi Arabia are not citizens, and the state pays citizens oil revenues.
The citizens then use that money to operate businesses and hire servants from foriegn lands.
SA did have severe problems with their oil infrastructure in 2001. World oil production declined as result through 2003-2003. To turn this around SA had to engage in a massive and expensive infrastructure overhaul. The gains from this overhaul are already fading.
Weaseldog @ 64:
A medieval monarchy in a 21st Century environment will have that sort of problem. Eventually the restrictions on thought start causing technological issues, because nobody can make the technology work anymore.
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 56:
Terrorists: What the HUGE military calls the tiny military.
General_Rennenkampf @ 65:
They are running at a more than 90% water cut now. 90% of what they pump is salt water, and they have to separate the oil out and pump the water back in. They have highly technical and skilled people working there, from all over the world.
There's only so much that technology can do when the oil is being depleted.
As an example, if you did a quick search of your home, you might find a few dollars in lost change. Put more energy into the search and you might find less than a dollars worth. Start moving heavy furniture, you might find a few dollars again. Use a metal detector and hire friends to help, and you might find a few pennies. Do this again and you may find nothing...
It's a myth that the oil in the Earth is infinite. That it exceeds the mass and volume of the universe. But no generation has the capacity to accept that it may run out on their watch. they'll cling to myths and conspiracy theories and eventually turn the days of prosperity into a genesis story.
Lie-berman isn't confused. He's just a lying, pro-war, Zionist, POS.
Weaseldog @ 67:
It's a myth, all right, and it would take some 200-300 million years to replenish, by which time the mammals themselves will likely be extinct, much less our particular sort of ape. I think whatever higher powers exist must hate this species, that the biggest oil field is in a place ruled by an anachronistic regime like Saudi Arabia. Oil's gonna shrink as time goes on. Whether we'll have the wit to do something about the rug being pulled out from under our feet is unknown, especially if we'll do it in time enough to make a difference.
SUccess!!
I see success everywhere!
We're so damn successful I think we should all be celebrating the success of dying Americans everywhere!
All those veterans committing suicide?..... success!
All those MILLIONS of innocent Iraqis dead or chased from their ancestral homes and are now refugees in bordering countries?? ... at least the living ones... SUCCESS!
All those billions of our tax dollars NOT helping Americans here at home, and going to Halliburton and Blackwater?? ...why that's more success!!
And our military reputation shot to hell and their readiness teetering on the bring of collapse.... it's all success!!
All those bombings in Baghdad where the surge was centered... the very spittin' image of SUCCESS!!
Why this surge as been so damn successful I could just shit!
Weaseldog @ 67:
great info! it explains a lot.
General_Rennenkampf @ 69:
nothing will ever happen politically until an energy giant owns the rights to the alternate forms of energy.
Unless of course our military can provide a solution....
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 72:
The military requires oil, as well. I dunno, I think eventually the world leaders will seek alternative energy, but I think a certain Biblical phrase applies to us at the present time: Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin. We've not only been found wanting, but at the rate we're going, we're on pace to outdo the collapse of Rome and Han China as a world clusterfuck.
Maybe if they hauled out that "Mission Accomplished" banner again and had all the surge apologists
sky dive onto the deck of a carrier, people would believe them. Do it up big with super hero style
costumes, extra large codpieces and Mexican wrestling masks.
Back to the thread....
If Harry Reid had any juevos he would call the Senate into session tomorrow and bring this resolution up for immediate debate. Not a vote, just a debate. On a slow news day an extraordinary session of the Senate would draw a lot of attention and Lieberman and Graham could be exposed for the flapping fools they are and in this surge crap.
Then again, if pigs had wings they.....
For Liarmann this is more about McCain than our troops. Shameful Schmoe Liarman
2008 - Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Lindsay Graham
2010 - Joe who? Lindsay? wasn't he the mayor from NYC?
Little Joey Lieb should be relegated to picking the gum from beneath the committee's table and sweeping up the horse crap deposited by his rethuglican chums.
Lieberman is wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Could they possibly be any more self-congratulatory?
rain @ 79:
Wrong wrong wrong wrooooooooooooong!
LOL! I couldn't resist.
Andhakari @ 12:
If you're implying that the "brown" people are the Palestinians and that they attack Israelis because they are "Jews" then you're so clueless you have no idea.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a political one. It's a conflict over land. It's a conflict over self determination and the right of a people to live free without (Israeli) military occupation. The religious undertones you hear about from the Palestinian side, especially Hamas stem from the use of religion to rally people, albeit misguided.
Jews, Muslims and Christians lived side by side for centuries in Palestine before 1948.
By the way, Israel's considerations don't have much to do with security. Israel looks the other way when fanatical settlers go and prop up a tent on some Palestinian's land and declare it Jewish land. Then a few weeks later you start seeing trailers and later housing units and paved roads etc. and before you know it, the IDF, who's been standing guard protecting these settlers is setting up a high tech security fence around the settlement.
Because, god forbid, that Palestinian who's just had his land taken from him might come aknocking demanding to take it back.
Witness @ 82:
Sounds eerily like our old SOP for taking Indian land.
I'm still confused about why we give this cretin any publicity?
> I’m still confused about why we give this cretin any publicity?
Well, he was the Democratic nominee for vice president and, if it hadn't been for Ralph Nader, we'd all be saying right now, at this very moment, that all good, right-thinking progressives must endorse the Lieberman campaign lest the evil, evil Republicans gain the White House.
I think we should build a statue of Lieberman. Made of bullshit. And mount it on Pelosi's lawn.
JasonS @ 85:
Have you considered that maybe Joe Lieberman is one of the reasons so many people voted for Nader? I can assure you that if Joe Lieberman were the Democratic nominee, I wouldn't be voting for him. BTW, how do you explain how Joe did so poorly in his presidential run of 2004? After all, he was the party's VP candidate just four short years earlier. Joe Lieberman was about as popular among Democrats in 2004 as Dan Quayle was among Republicans in 1996; perhaps even less.
> Have you considered that maybe Joe Lieberman is one of the reasons so many people voted for Nader?
Yeah, that's kind of my point. I voted for Nader in part because I could see what kind of weasel Lieberman was. Also because California was nowhere near in play and I wanted to boost the Green Party.
I just find it fascinating that the same people who were FURIOUS that anyone would consider NOT voting for Joe Lieberman are now FURIOUS that anyone would consider voting for Joe Lieberman.
This is the problem with the partisanship we've come to. The Republicans are SO repugnant that it allows weasels like Lieberman to do well in the Democratic party...since many people will vote "any Democrat."
I'd really like to see both parties get away from the "vote for us because the other side is evil and incompetent" thing.
JasonS @ 87:
Both parties? You mean the one that takes money from lobbyists and industries and the one that takes money from industries and lobbyists?
rcm @ 76:
Yup, Lieberman does love McCain. But even more, Lieberman loves Lieberman. He's been trying to stick it to the Democrats in every way he can imagine ever since those Democrats had the unmitigated gall to have a primary in 2006 and try to take "his" Senate seat away. He's nominally still a Democrat since the Democrats can give him the best deal (and Lieberman loves Lieberman).
Lieberman confused? That's OK, Joe still thinks he's an Independent Democrat too! His inability to discern reality from fantasy land will serve him well when he "officially" becomes a rethug.
Elmer Fudd Lieberman isn't confused , he's a liar , a rat , he represents Israel ( and Bush ) not the people of the United states . It pisses me off that the worthless and disgusting traitors which are the media still plays along with the Iraq " war " bullshit , it's not a war and it never was a war but was and is an illegal and unjustified Soviet / Nazi style invasion / occupation of a country that just happens to be sitting on a whole lot of OIL . If it is a war , it's a war against the Iraqi people who are defending their country against the invader / occupiers and want us to get the hell out of their country . And what the hell were the Dems and Gore thinking about selecting Lieberman as Gore's running mate and VP anyway ? Have a nice day.
Incredibly, the Democrats continue to roll over and play dead.
Pelosi is a disaster. There's no leadership.
There's only attempts to wait it out.
No one in the Bush administration including the two at the top, will ever be held responsible for starting a war on lies, stripping the Constitution of it's teeth and lying over and over to the American people.
But worse yet, it's beginning to appear that the People are willing to continue the madness by electing John McCain.
You would assume eight years of destruction and madness of Bush and company would be enough pain.
But no, they want more. They want a whitehaired grandfather to protect them, to get them cheap gasoline, to lie to them yet again.
Meanwhile the Democratic controlled Congress gives their power away to the Executive Branch.
We're in serious trouble and there's not sign it's not going to only get worse.
Login or Register to post comments.