Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Senate GOP Releases Obamacare Overhaul to Immediate Criticism From Both Sides of the Aisle

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

‘President’ Lieberman: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on Jun 12, 2007
AP Photo / Karim Kadim, file

Joe, we hardly knew ye:  The evolution of Sen. Lieberman (Ind.-Conn.) may have surprised some of his earlier supporters.

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. Although now an independent, Lieberman provides a cautionary tale for folks who talk of backing “any Democrat” who can win.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
At a time when even President Bush 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.”

He never learns. This is the joker who bought the Ahmad Chalabi line that invading Iraq would result in a pro-West and pro-Israel democracy with Chalabi (who later failed to get 1 percent of the vote) playing Iraq’s George Washington. For five years before 9/11, Lieberman pushed funding for Chalabi’s exile organization to lead the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Lieberman was also a principal author of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which threw $100 million in Chalabi’s direction.

Even as late as June 2004, when Chalabi was exposed by the United States as a spy for Iran, Lieberman continued to profess admiration for the architect of a policy that replaced the secular despot of Iraq with Shiite fundamentalists trained in Iran. “I met Dr. Chalabi and others of the Iraqi National Congress,” he said in a speech defending Chalabi after U.S. intelligence uncovered his contacts with Iranian spies. “It’s fair to say I found them to be patriotic Iraqis. Their counsel to us was important.”

In fact, Chalabi’s “counsel” concerning Iraq’s WMD program and ties to al-Qaida turned out to be totally fraudulent and as embarrassing to the United States as it was convenient to Iran’s plans to overthrow Hussein. Lieberman’s statement in support of Chalabi came two months after the National Security Agency reported that Chalabi informed Iranian agents that the United States had broken Tehran’s encryption code. At the time of the revelation, Chalabi traveled freely within Iran, where he maintained a residence. Despite Lieberman’s warm endorsement of Chalabi, “a person of strength, principle and real commitment,” the Bush administration ended his monthly $340,000 stipend.

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. This is a man whom leading Democrats, including Bill Clinton, supported in his primary campaign against an intelligent Democrat who sought to end the Iraq nightmare.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
But, as those “any Democrat is better” apologists will likely argue, Lieberman, as president, would have conducted the occupation in a more measured manner, sensitive to civil liberties and other enlightened concerns. That conceit was also smashed on Monday, when Lieberman voted against holding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales accountable for sabotaging the federal judiciary. At a time when Arlen Specter and six other Republicans voted to advance a no-confidence vote, Lieberman supported the attorney general, who may well be remembered most for his consistent support of torture.

No surprise there, given Lieberman’s previous apologies for this administration’s assault on the rule of law. Indeed, even after the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib, Lieberman was able to find a bright spot, noting that “those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized.”

Great. So we are now to be comforted by exceeding the standard set by Osama bin Laden. Lieberman also failed to acknowledge in his statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq before the invasion. The same can be said for Iran—but that does not quiet Lieberman’s cry for wider war.

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
They Know Everything About You -- A new book by Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer. Order an autographed copy now!

Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By atheo, June 14, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

@ John Bonser

” Wikpedia defines it as “ is discrimination”

Who cares what they have to say? Don’t bother us with wikipedia.

Report this

By atheo, June 14, 2007 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

@ Lefty [sic]Re: #77819

You seem to be so manaically homicidal that you can’t fathom that any potential Iranian WMD would be solely a deterent. You represent the ugliest aspect of Bush’s pre-emptive war doctrine. If you can’t learn to live with your neighbors, perhaps the entire world should shun you. You are the very face of fascist aggression.

Report this

By John C. Bonser, June 14, 2007 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

Peter RV - Whatever gave you the idea that I approve of Lieberman? I do not approve of him nor do I approve of the antisemitism that seems to pop up far too often on this blog.

Expat - While you are looking up definitions, I would suggest that you check on antisemitism. Wikpedia defines it as ” is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews.”

Report this

By Tom Doff, June 14, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a mass of dupes is the american public.

Lieberman was never intended to be a viable vice-presidential candidate. The zionist MSM, think tanks, powers-that-be in D.C. (AIPAC, AEI,, got together and plotted to insure that The Dummy, Bush, who would head an administration that would be ‘Israel’s biggest friend’, was elected.

How to do that?

Simple. Use their power, and the enormous amounts of money they siphon off from ‘foreign aid to Israel’, to ‘influence’ (bribe) everyone necessary to put the wimp neocon zionist Lieberman (disguised as a Dem) on the Democratic party presidential ticket.

Knowing the instinctive revulsion the american public would have for a wimp neocon zionist in disguise as a Dem, they (the powerful neocon zionist cabal) threw all their influence (bribe money) behind The Dummy’s campaign, and squeaked out a ‘winner’, with the help of a crooked election and vote-counting (and non-vote-counting) process.

The thing to look out for is, will these neocon-zionists one day accumulate enough ‘influence’ to select one of their own as a true presidential candidate, rather than a stalking horse, and follow through with a campaign to actually elect him?

Report this

By Nago, June 14, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This argument ignores the party as “corporate body” and over-emphasizes the power of one.  A democrat in office would have brought many other dems into key jobs who could have tempered Joe’s hawkish stance.

Report this

By Matt, June 14, 2007 at 7:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Lieberman is wrong because he is wrong and not because he is Jewish.”

Of course. No one here has even said that.

However, Lieberman’s ideology concerning what it MEANS to be Jewish IS the problem. This set of beliefs is what gives rise to his spectacular wrongness.

And let’s not kid ourselves: many Jews do share this ideology. This is especially true of the wealthy right-wing elite who run the major Jewish organizations and the Israel lobby.

Moreover, even many liberal Jews who do not share Lieberman’s enthusiasm for war nevertheless virulently attack his critics. They fear that pointing out his Israel-first motivation - though it is patently obvious - will give aid and comfort to anti-Semites.

So we’re not allowed to interfere with Joe’s campaign to help Israel hijack our military for a suicide bombing of Iran - even though it must be obvious to everyone, even antiwar Jews, that this is exactly what he’s up to - because effective opposition to Lieberman’s campaign would necessarily draw attention to the fact that he has, um, “loyalty issues”, shall we say.

This is how we all, even antiwar American Jews, will be dragged into more and more wars for Israel, with barely a whimper of resistance.

Report this

By Expat, June 14, 2007 at 5:44 am Link to this comment

Oh, and by the way…will someone look up Semite please.  If your anti-Jewish you are not anti-semite.

It’s tiring to see this attack crap everytime somebody states how much they dislike the jews.  Call it what it is…Bigotry, not anti-Semitism!

Report this

By Expat, June 14, 2007 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

Well folks, the view from over here of y’all is large, but ugly!

Imagine being the citizen of a third world country.  You see the “greatest” country in the world acting like the Nazis of WWII.

Imagine seeing this great country unilaterally attack another third world country for no discernable reason.  Now imagine a congressman publicly stating that this great country should attack yet another country for the same lies it used to attack the first country.

There was no credibility for the first attack, much less the second attack, which is “coming soon”.

Now imagine this third world country struggling with its own brand of democracy and struggling with a military junta and having a Moslem population and being roundly criticized by America.

Now imagine this country, a close ally of America, no longer caring what America thinks. 

Imagine most of the people I know in this country not liking what they see.  Imagine these people are high school students, the future of this country.

Imagine the picture of a broken democracy in the “greatest” democracy in the world.

Report this

By Peter RV, June 14, 2007 at 4:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ref.77714 by John Bonser
As long as Semites(Jews)are pushing us into a nuclear attack on Iran, I am going to be the most staunch Anti-Semite -and proud of it.
I say to the Jews -If you want to treat this jerks of yours, Lieberman,Podhoretz or Pipes etc, with any respect, don’t expect any of it from us.

Report this

By Lee Woods, June 14, 2007 at 1:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What do Lieberman’s beliefs say about Al Gore’s judgement?

Report this

By bigjimbo, June 14, 2007 at 12:41 am Link to this comment

Lieberman is the true Judas.  If we are going to take out Iran’s nuclear capability, why not take out Israel’s at the same time?

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

@ Tony

I most definately refer to US corporate interests, and my anaysis diverges from yours:

Controlling global oil production is a pipe dream, heavy oil reserves are simply too abundant and widely distributed. Russia, Canada, or Venezuela could quickly ramp up production to replace what the Usraelis take out from the M.E. We already have seen this occur as the lost Iraqi exports have been replaced from other sources. By the way the cost of producing and refining heavy oil is a fraction of the current market price of oil, as is the present cost of coal based synfuel which the Chinese are now producing. To summarize, one would have to dominate Russia, China, Canada, Africa, and South America to achieve control of global oil production. It would be far easier to simply interfere with shipping and conduct piracy.

Secondly, Israel has nothing to offer the U.S. in the project that you suggest.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, June 13, 2007 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

#77818 by atheo on 6/13 at 7:15 pm
(48 comments total)

@ Tony

“That was sarcasm. I don’t think that there is ANY American interest that can be shown to gain from an attack on Iran.”


Well, I believe Cheney and friends think that with the help of Israel they can dominate the Middle East and control the world oil supply. I think this is imperial hubris, and the empire will fall. I just hope our country can survive the fall and become a democracy again. Of course if by “American interest” you mean the interest of the American people, not the interest of energy companies, defense contractors etc., then, for sure no American interest is served.

Report this

By DennisD, June 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Connecticut voters should be ashamed of themselves for putting this schmuck back in office. As for almost being President, I have enough trouble trying to sleep at night without thinking about that idea too.

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment

Daniel Pipes Details Israeli Attack Against Iran
by Kurt Nimmo

Earlier this week, warmonger and Israel Firster Joe Lieberman said “I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” predicating, as neocons are wont, his argument on allegation. Now we have yet another Israel Firster and former United States Institute of Peace—as in war is peace—board member nominee, Daniel Pipes, calling for an attack against Iran.

Pipes cites “talented outsiders,” that is to say psychopaths, who focused “exclusively on feasibility, not political desirability or strategic ramifications: Were the Israeli national command to decide to damage the Iranian infrastructure, could its forces accomplish this mission?” Of course, in the process of destroying Iran’s “heavy water plant and plutonium production reactors under construction at Arak, a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, and a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz,” the Israelis would be spreading radioactive fallout across Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Japan, and other downwind countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim, not that this or “political desirability” are of concern to the Israelis or their cheerleading neocon cohorts.

Of course, simply bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, resulting in the potential death of thousands, if not millions in the above mentioned countries, Pipes tells us “the IDF could reach Kharg Island, through which over 90 percent of Iranian oil is exported, heavily damaging the Iranian economy,” thus inflicting economic suffering and misery on millions of additional people, mostly average working people, albeit “dark-skinned” Muslims “with strange eating habits and less-developed notions of hygiene,” as Pipe famously characterized them.

One way or another, Pipes and his crazed compatriots will get their attack against Iran, not because the country is developing nuclear technology but rather because it serves as an example of a relatively strong and proud Muslim nation, something the neocons and Israelis detest, as they detested Saddam Hussein’s version of Arab nationalism and his support of the Palestinians. As we know, and as Zionists such as Oded Yinon tell us, the idea is to balkanize the Muslim world and spread as much chaos and misery—and, apparently, radiation—as possible.

Expect more of this as Bush prepares to exit office. As Pipes and crew realize, the Israelis will be unable to attack Iran, but the United States, already present in large numbers in the neighborhood, will be able to pull off an attack. For as the swami of the neocons, Norman Podhoretz, has promised, after consultation with Bush, the United States will attack Iran before Bush the Junior departs Washington.

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

@ Tony

That was sarcasm. I don’t think that there is ANY American interest that can be shown to gain from an attack on Iran. Even the MIC would be jeopardized as a demonstration of the efficacy of their weopons would be more favorably conducted against a weaker adversary.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, June 13, 2007 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

#77714 by John C. Bonser on 6/13 at 2:09 pm
(17 comments total)

“Lauren C,
You are not alone in feeling uncomfortable with some of the antisemitism that is reflected in too many posts here.

Lieberman is wrong because he is wrong and not because he is Jewish”

I would say that Lieberman is not wrong because he is Jewish, but because he is a Jewish nationalist, i.e. a Zionist. Therefore he does tend to think that “what’s good for Israel is good for the U.S.A.” At least the Democratic base understands this, which is why he did not get the Democratic nomination. The first thing this country must do if it wants peace in the Middle East is to stop supporting Israel’s colonialist and apartheid policies.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, June 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

Re #77781 by atheo on 6/13 at 5:45 pm
(47 comments total)

“You dag gam bigots just don’t get it. It’s the insurance industry that wants Joe to nuke Iran. Geez!”

I’m no fan of the insurance industry, but why them in particular?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 13, 2007 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

don’t forget it took a lot of republican money to get Lieberman re-elected. Also Connecticut is a very wealthy and conservative state.

Report this

By Ga, June 13, 2007 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

“Lieberman is wrong because he is wrong and not because he is Jewish.”


But he is, as someone pointed out, devoutly religious, which does affect his point of view and his policy decisions. (As Bush’s religion does his.)

He is also “that religion” which was made evident by the many newspaper headlines the day after he was chosen by Gore: “A Jew for Vice President.” Quite disgusting I thought; the MSM could only mention his religion, completely ignoring his qualifications (or lack thereof).

Like the attention “Mormon” is generating now for Romney, and “Catholic” for others past, somehow, “Christians” always get a pass. (Like they are normal or something?)

All fanatical religious pols—for that is what Joe, Mitt and George really are—should be examined, not for their religion, but for how their religion affects their views on policies and issues.

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

You dag gam bigots just don’t get it. It’s the insurance industry that wants Joe to nuke Iran. Geez!

Report this

By Dan Uu Noel, June 13, 2007 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

“Those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized.”

The 9/11 attacks were made possible by hundreds, if not thousands, of federal officials mysteriously asleep at the wheel. They never apologized. They were not fired. According to an old column by Robert Scheer, the federal governmnent compiled a list of them, but somehow ignored it.

Sen. Lieberman certainly could stir enthusiasm in Congress to pressure the administration to wake up on this very important matter. What must be preventing him launching a simple action that would alleviate his legitimate concern?

Report this

By CHARLIE kASNICK, June 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 13, 2007 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Aside from the vote fraud, Lieberman lost Gore the election.

Sort of an AIPAC torpedo.

Report this

By loveinatub, June 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman serves Israel, not the United States. But what does it tell you about the voters in Connecticut who relected this schmuck? All of them are Israeli voters as well. It’s the “single issue” voter that’s killing this “democracy” of ours.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 13, 2007 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

I’d like to add I do not agree with leftie’s post about ovens and Lieberman being the first test subject. I missed that one although I do agree the Bush Administration is the closest thing to fascism our nation has ever seen!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

John Bonser, I argue in what you are calling anti-Semite. To me you sound like the parrot of Israeli Government who scream racism every time someone has a few opposing their own.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, June 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

Max (#77682), you hit the nail on the head again with your assertion about Lieberman getting off on attention!  This is probably the best explanation for the guy’s behavior, and think of the precedent the explanation has.  Remember the film called (coincidentally enough) MAX?  The thesis in that film was that Hitler was a mediocre artist so desperate for attention that, after seeing what the Dadaists were getting away with, he successfully changed his “medium” from oils on canvas to the rhetoric of demagoguery.

Report this

By John C. Bonser, June 13, 2007 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Lauren C,
You are not alone in feeling uncomfortable with some of the antisemitism that is reflected in too many posts here.

Lieberman is wrong because he is wrong and not because he is Jewish.

Report this

By don knutsen, June 13, 2007 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman, a pitiful professional politician. When his own party turned away from him in Connecticut,he, faced with the prospect of possibly losing his ride on the gravey-train that is being a professional politician, switched his political affiliation and , with the help of the republican party, managed to hang on to his seat in the senate. Why he didn’t do the honest thing and declare himself a full-blown republican is a mystery. The republicans must think that he can do more to help them continuing to be a cheerleader for this administration from outside of it, I guess to hopefully sway the idiots who ae still fence sitters , even though they could’ve benifitted from his seat in the senate had he switched. Maybe Rove & Co. figured that big of switch wouldv’e been more then the republican base could swallow, while still swallowing the mountain of lies spewed daily that the Rove machine churns out. At any rate, he has shown where his alliegence lies, and its obviously not with the american people. He appears to base his decisions on whats best for his own career on the dole. Sadly he is certainly not alone. If we had even 1/4 of the congress interested in the american peoples needs, this administration wouldv’e been removed long ago. I’m afraid our Congress is in sorry need of a housecleaning, on both sides of the isle as former Senator M. Gravel has said, the power of a longterm political office is a corrupting force that eventually corrupts everyone, especially “Holy-Joe” Lieberman.

Report this

By rodney, June 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Liberman needs to move to Israel. Then as Prime Minister he can start all of the wars he wants against Arabs. Leave the U S out of Israels wars amd conflicts. That’s why we are in Iraq today to apease the jews and steal Iraqi oil.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 13, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

By being opposed to Israeli policy does not an anti Semite make. In fact it could be argued that one of the greatest anti-Semites is in fact the Israeli government. What’s been mentioned here about Israeli lobbies and their vast influence over our government is not anti-Jewish. It is fact!

Report this

By Crimson Ghost, June 13, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

I am beginning to wonder if we Americans need to take a lesson from Russian President Vladimir Putin

After the fall of communism the Russian nation was subjected to perhaps the biggest orgy of looting in human history. An immensely wealthy oligarchy arose from this period and 6 out of 7 of these super billionaires were Zionist Jews.

But Putin with the support of the Russian people was able to bring this oligarchy to heel by CONFISCATING THEIR ASSETS (or at least a substantial part of these assets) thus destroying their political power. That is why he is so hated by the neo-cons and their hangers on.

it is becoming ever clearer that the only way to bring the warmongering Zionist lobby to heel in America is to crimp their economic power.  Putin has shown it is possible to do this without bloodshed or anti-Semitic hysteria.

Report this

By QuyTran, June 13, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

This damn guy could be named Bush’s servants leader !
If he was elected as president this nation would be a
new Israel’s province.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, June 13, 2007 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Posted by Lauren C(#77655):

“Surrounded by countries that wish to destroy it, Israel has thrived and affords its citizens an amazing level of security and prosperity.”

Yes, while at the same time doing such an effective job of oppressing the Palestinians in the occupied territory and treating them like the “worst class” citizens.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 13, 2007 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

#77672 by THOMAS BILLIS on 6/13 at 11:24 am

First an indictment against Israel policies is not an indictment against all Jews.

I do think the Holocaust has been used to incite fear (and in some cases guilt) for Israel military actions. In that sense we are all exploited, Jew and non-Jew alike.

Second, Lieberman went to Israel and met with Olmert (who has been pushing for an Iranian invasion by the US) before going to Iraq and giving his war speech (I must say, I think he wants attention as much as more war - he really gets off on attention, any kind. And he’s getting it.) So, he has brought on the association himself. Besides, who is really pushing for an invasion of Iran besides Cheney?

Report this

By Jean, June 13, 2007 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#77640 Lefty,
  Thank you. As I get older I realize that I am racist in many ways I really abhor. I always thought it was because of so much exposure to my dear old dad, a racist to the core (I thought then, now I think it was just fear). I fight those thoughts almost everyday. For years I lived in inner cities trying to deny those thoughts. I DON’T WANT TO BE THAT WAY. I try very hard not to let those thoughts influence my actions.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, June 13, 2007 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let us not extrapolate from Liebermans pro Israeli stance on these ridiculous wars we are getting involved in into an “all jews are"scenario.By that logic how would one explain Russ Feingold.Until there is proof of Leiberman being manipulated by Tel Aviv I think what I and many have is a disagreement on policy with a man of the Jewish faith.The voters of Conn were well aware of Leibermans positions before the election and voted for him anyway.If you have a gripe it is with the voters of Conn.I personally will not use nutmeg again.As is always the case to generalize on ones heritage is always a bad idea.

Report this

By Matt, June 13, 2007 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From #77665 by TruthSeeker:

“We should know that neocons like Lieberman will always push to attack the enemies of Israel.”

Yes, TruthSeeker, but this is a whole new level of brazenness, isn’t it?

The neocons have changed American nuclear strike policy to allow us to make a “preventive” nuclear first strike against a nation that has not attacked us, is no credible threat to us, does not have nuclear weapons, has not even demonstrated any intention of attacking us, and is withal vastly inferior in conventional military capability.

And as we have learned from the other neocon military escapades, the vaunted US/Israeli ability to strike “surgically” (with “precision” weapons, at only exactly the right targets, because “we know where they are”) is a load of crap.

You can be sure we are going to cause a horrible holocaust of innocent Iranians with our itsy-bitsy, teeny-tiny, “tactical” atomic bombs. And then our troops in Iraq will be overwhelmed and slaughtered by millions of Muslims gone mad with grief and anger, for which no one could blame them.

And it’s all for Israel - not to protect them for an “existential threat”, but to protect their regional nuclear monopoly, which they use as a shield as they go about their ethnic cleansing and expansionist aggressions.

We are going to destroy ourselves morally, militarily, and financially, so that the Israelis can lord it over the Middle East!

If we do this, our total ruin is the absolutely predictable outcome. History will record the American nation as the stupidest people who ever lived.

Report this

By TruthSeeker, June 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman is an Israeli-Firster. But we’ve known this for years. Yet we get excited about his utterances that are always pro-Israel’s interests? We should know that neocons like Lieberman will always push to attack the enemies of Israel. Washington DC is occupied territory, folks.  Both parties have been hijacked.

I highly recommend this new article about the neocons: Of Crazies, Neocons and the Enemy Within

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, June 13, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Max (#77657), at least Amy Goodman felt that Finkelstein had something worth saying:

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, June 13, 2007 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Anyone (such as Esther (#77626)) interested in how a former card-carrying member of the Society for Music Theory can comment on political matters is welcome to visit my own blog at:

where, on the current count, the number of posts tagged “music” outnumbers the number tagged “AIPAC!”

Report this

By Max Shields, June 13, 2007 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

#77616 by Stephen Smoliar on 6/13 at 8:39 am

I think you’ve raised an important point with the Holocaust and “Never Again”. The fear generated by the Holocaust is what creates a human reaction to dominate.

AIPAC and Zionism could not be sustained without fear and the underlying “get them before they get us” premise that holds the state of Israel together while creating despair all around it.

Was it wise to have a people, fresh from a Holocaust move into an area where there was sure to be resentment and conflict? Hitler, like Osama Bin Laden (in this respect), set in motion a series of pathological conditions which plague the world to this day. Having just seen the replay of the 6 day war, I noticed the utter destruction of the Egyptian army and the way that the Israelis destroyed that army as if to annihilate. This fear turned to domination creates apartheid and racist conditions so deep that solutions for a peaceful resolve seems almost (I harbor hopes) out of reach.

The Holocaust has been exploited. You mentioned the Armanian Holocaust, and yet, we have none of the deep reliving, and acting on the fear of repeating genocide. Serious questions, like those posed by Norman Finkelstein, need to be considered. The fact that he was just denied professorship reflects, in part, a desire to sustain this fear.

Whether Lieberman politics is the result of Holocaust fears; the world cannot afford to have this pathology to continue; putting every action into a Holocaust frame. By the way, the use of fear is common among those in power who wish to ignite and sustain wars - ala Cheney-Bush.

Report this

By Lauren C, June 13, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As troubling as Mr. Lieberman’s positions, past and present, may be…what is more troubling is the blatant antisemitism inherent in some of these postings. I dispute the sentiment that US policy in the Mideast is driven by Israel. Israel has been an important friend to the US…and the only true Democracy in the region. Surrounded by countries that wish to destroy it, Israel has thrived and affords its citizens an amazing level of security and prosperity.

Report this

By political forums, June 13, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So basically what a lot of people are saying here is that it’s ok for Iran to supply weapons to insurgents and the Taliban?  Weapons produced in Iran in 2006 have been found in the hands of insurgents in Iraq.  The response to that will probably be “where are the WMD?”  So basically, because there was no WMD we should just ignore our military and intelligence personnel when they show us Iranian weapons in Iraq?  That’s a great way to conduct a military campaign.

Report this

By Hammo, June 13, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Lieberman, like many neocons, thinks that the American people are stupid and should be manipulated by deception.

This is not the case. Americans are getting wise to what has been going on.

Food for thought in the article . . .

“‘Dumbing down’ of Americans may not be working: More intelligence emerges”

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, June 13, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Lefty (#77640), without getting too involved in the question of what is hereditary and what is environmental, I would say that a lot of what you describe derives from the concept of “community.”  If, at the individual level, we develop a sense of “self” in terms of its opposition to “other,” then the community escalates this opposition to “other” to the social level.  The question then arises as to whether or not that opposition to “other” is NECESSARILY hostile or aggressive.  Currently, that link of necessity appears to be the case.  My guess is that it will not go away;  but the criteria for what constitutes “other” can still be subject to change.  I am sure there are any number of utopians who would like to believe that such change can be “engineered;”  but such people have a poor track record when it come to anticipating the consequences of their actions!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 13, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

slight correction. Iran is not an Arab state. I meant to say Muslim.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 13, 2007 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

I think Lieberman should move to Israel. He better serves them than he does us. Everyone knows Iran is a bitter enemy of the Taliban, yet Lieberman sides with Dick Cheney in trying to create a scenario where Iran is supplying them and Al Queada with weapons. Even Defense Secretary Gates isn’t buying this notion and many see it as a reproduction of the same nonsense that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States. Really all they’ve got is 4 jeeps with a small cache of weapons which was going to Opium dealers in Afghanistan. Now suddenly dope peddlers are evidence Iran is supplying Al Queada with weapons. That would be like saying the Mexican government is aiding Colombian rebels to undermine the US because drug trafficking routes come through their country. The same idea of this fell in line with one Iraqi official meeting with the Taliban and suddenly the entire Iraqi government was involved in the 9/11 plot.

Iran was the first Arab nation to help the US go into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban. Then Bush goes and calls them the Axis of Evil. Everyone knows where the Taliban are actually getting their weapons from! Pakistan!

Leiberman is a liar, plain and simple. He should either publicly announce his alliance to the neocons or join the Jewish lobbies and resign from office.

Report this

By Calibpatriot, June 13, 2007 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

Lieberman had been known as a Republican in Democratic clothing but he has escalated up more than a few notches. He is now a card-carrying neocon in his birthday suit.

Anyone who would advocate starting a war with Iran, considering the disaster that BushCo gave us in Iraq has to be completely out of touch with reality. I would suggest that Lieberman consider getting some professional psychiatric assistance.

Report this

By Esther, June 13, 2007 at 10:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Concerning #77616 by Stephen Smoliar:

Hey - are you Stephen Smoliar the Schenkerian theorist? If so, no wonder your comments on Lieberman were music to my ears!

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, June 13, 2007 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

atheo (#77617), you may recall that one of Hitler’s response to the question of world opinion over the matter of eliminating the Jews was, “No one remembers the Armenians.”  I think it is important to remember what the Nazis did;  but I do not think it has diminished subsequent acts of genocide or “ethnic cleansing.”  Whether they have increased or it is only our awareness of them that has increased is another matter.  This may not be a question of media domination or racism.  It may just be a human condition that is unlikely to change without being preceded by changes of the context in which humanity identifies itself.

Report this

By dick, June 13, 2007 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lieberman is devoutly loyal to Israel and places its interests in the middle east above all others.Israel has wanted war on Iran for many years. It’s detailed on the web . The neocons of the Admin are also in favor of our waging that war. I think it is inevitable.

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Steven Smoliar writes:

“any candidate in either the United States or Israel who tries to get beyond that motto [“Never again!”] basically eliminates any chance of getting elected.”

This would be a good topic to examine. Are these electorates so enthralled with this motto that they will support genocide on Arabs or Persians? Indeed, genocide is being perpetrated in Iraq and nuking Iran also quallifies. Are Westerners that racist? Or is the media simply dominating them?

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, June 13, 2007 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

atheo’s citation of “It’s All About Israel” (#77599) may provide the best context for reading Scheer’s column.  It is not so much that Joe “never learns.”  It is more that he has learned “one true thing” that will probably never be dislodged from his memory;  and it is important to reflect on this learning on the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War.

I worked in Israel between 1971 and 1973, which is to say between the Six Day Way and the Yom Kippur War.  The 1967 victory brought a wave of optimism to the country;  but it also reinforced what was almost a “national motto” that has a lot to do with the subsequent undoing of that optimism.  The motto was “Never again!,” the referent, of course, being the Holocaust;  and it makes for an interesting commitment to priorities.  The implication is that, if the elimination of the Jews is ever at stake again, then it should be prevented “by any means necessary” (although I doubt you would find many who would invoke the language of Malcolm X to make this point).  This is the “one true thing” that Joe has learned;  and it will always dominate every political decision he makes.

I first grasped the significance of this motto in 1972.  I had to vote by proxy that year, but I still went around wearing a George McGovern button.  However, because McGovern had made a speech recommending that Jerusalem be placed under independent international jurisdiction, I had a lot of angry fingers pointed at me (fortunately nothing worse) by Israelis who took this speech to mean that McGovern was “against the Jews.”  I quickly realized that there was no arguing with these people.  As far as they were concerned, letting anyone other than the Israelis control Jerusalem was the first step down the road to another Holocaust.

Have we progressed at all since 1972?  At least now there are occasional conversations between Israel and the Arab world;  but, for the most part, ceremony continues to trump (if not undermine) substance.  Meanwhile, as w mast (#77555) reminded us, AIPAC continues to charge ahead full steam, deriving much of its energy from that Holocaust mentality which keeps the never-again motto as alive as ever.  It may be extreme to hypothesize that this little motto is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, but it is folly to ignore the impact the motto has had over the history of Israel and continues to have in both Israel and the United States.  The consequence, of course, is that any candidate in either the United States or Israel who tries to get beyond that motto basically eliminates any chance of getting elected.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, June 13, 2007 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

‘ol Lieberman, Zionist Zealot that he is, is the “Christine Jorgensen” of the Democratic Party as Spiro Agnew would say.

Report this

By Joe R., June 13, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush is going to attack Iran.  He will declare the Congress null and void when he does it.  It’s coming.  The military is behind him.  At least the ones who have not been fired yet.

Report this

By Matt, June 13, 2007 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In #77555, w mast asks:

“Where are the reports and analyses of the AIPAC trial that is now in progress?”

What could be less surprising then the media silence about it? Who wants to be next in line for the Alan Dershowitz treatment?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2007 at 9:00 am Link to this comment


What is a real Democrat?  I suggest Republican lite, or not so lite after all.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, June 13, 2007 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

I’ve always thought that Joe Lieberman bears a remarkable resemblance to Senator Palpatine.

Yesterday’s remarkes that we ought to consider striking Iran, is a demonstration of just how evil he is. Anyone seen with him should be suspect as well.

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

June 13, 2007
It’s All About Israel
What’s behind the calls for the U.S.
to bomb Iran? 
by Justin Raimondo
I see that Zbigniew Brzezinski is stealing my ideas and not giving me credit, but, what the heck, I’m in a generous mood – and he puts his own gloss on it – so I don’t mind (via Matthew Yglesias):

“Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the U.S. and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we’re supposed to believe that Israel’s nuclear arsenal isn’t a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran’s nuclear program, then it obviously isn’t a very valuable asset.”

What good is the Israeli “deterrent” if it doesn’t deter? A good question, perhaps answered by challenging the assumption that the nukes in the IDF’s arsenal are at all defensive in nature or intent. The Israelis clearly intend to crouch behind their nuclear shield as they expand their sphere of influence, and this has been especially true since the implementation of the “Clean Break” scenario espoused by the Likudniks and their American co-thinkers. Growing Israeli influence in Kurdistan, recent incursions into Lebanon, and the purported ability of Israeli agents to penetrate Iran’s borders attest to the success of their strategy. While American soldiers in Iraq take bullets from Sunni insurgents – and, increasingly, radical Shi’ite militias – the Israelis have been quietly (and not so quietly) taking the spoils of our Pyrrhic “victory.”

full article:

Report this
Gloria Picchetti's avatar

By Gloria Picchetti, June 13, 2007 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

When I heard Lieberman ranting about bombing Iran the other AM I almost called in not sick, just going to the bomb shelter. (I think there is one at the local tavern?!) He is just itching for a nice nuke. And nukes really do itch.

Report this

By atheo, June 13, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

“Lieberman provides a cautionary tale for folks who talk of backing “any Democrat” who can win.”

I firmly disagree. In fact, he is representative of all the Democrats. If you vote Democrat, you legitimize aggression on Iran, they have refused to prevent it. It’s an irrefutable fact. Even Kucinich refuses to call for an end to military aid to Israel. This is why we should all register Republican and vote for the lesser evil, Ron Paul.
Sure, he may be a market fundamentalist, but isn’t it time to cut off the military/prisons industrial complex? How much are we willing to go along with to keep bogus social programs like the new pharma/ medicare corporate wellfare? Is keeping that worth nuking Iran? Democrats offer nothing of value.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, June 13, 2007 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

As I said in another post…

I feel another attack of “Tourettes Syndrome” comming on.  Lieberman’s name has been mentioned again and yet again!!!  That twerp, that vile rodent, that slithering snake, that dead shit beneath the scum, that ooze from under the toe-nails, that, that…ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

When is this nightmare going to end????

Just when I think it can’t possibly get worse it does.

Maybe it’s time to just kick back and let this whole bag of shit take it’s course.  God I wish I could do that!

Maybe this is the time to fight like hell and go down fighting…maybe it’s time to…

Report this

By Peter RV, June 13, 2007 at 7:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ref.77575 by Crimson Ghost
Thanks for expressing exactly my thoughts. I wouldn’t vote for Lieberman even if Bin Laden, himself, was running against him. So sick of these Jewish jerks, thirsty for blood but parading as humanitarians.
I voted Nader, too, for that very reason.

Report this

By Matt, June 13, 2007 at 7:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From 77575 by Crimson Ghost:

“But the issue is not so much Joe Lieberman the Senator as the fact that he speaks for the most extreme wing of the Zionist lobby which has done so much to get America involved in wars on Israel’s behalf.  And this dangerous group of wealthy warmongers has considerable clout in the Democratic party.”

Yes, Crimson. But over the last few years, I have come to see how even liberal, antiwar Jews in the Democratic party - people who wouldn’t vote for Lieberman, certainly - nevertheless serve as enablers of these Zionist extremist warmongers.

This is because American Jews are willfully blind about Israel. Serious accusations against Israel as a central and harmful influence in US policy simply CANNOT be true, because Israel is inherently good. Any such evidence must be false. And anyone who shows a serious interest in looking into that evidence must be an anti-Semite. Even allowing such reports to be discussed in polite company will cause a second Holocaust to happen, which is what the accusers really desire and nothing else.

With this kind of protection, the pro-Israel fanatics who run the major Jewish organizatons in the US are able to do their work of lying us into more wars for Israel right under our noses. These wars are not for the “defense” of Israel from any “existential threat.” These are wars to advance an expansionist Israeli agenda that is well on the way to causing catastrophic damage to the United States of America.  We are to be dramatically diminished as we sacrifice ourselves so that Israel may be dramatically aggrandized.

The neocons who control our Middle East policy hide in plain sight, because nobody wants to become a pariah by showing proper outrage at what they are doing. Speaking up can jeopardize friendships, reputations, even jobs.

Report this

By Norm, June 13, 2007 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Senators haved the luxury of being able to say irresponsible things and frequently do.

As President, Joe Lieberman would have been a very diferent person.  He also would have had very different advisers from the ones who have been running things now.

Report this

By Crimson Ghost, June 13, 2007 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

General Wesley Clark denounces Lieberman

Report this

By John C. Bonser, June 13, 2007 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

How right you are is warnng us against any Democrat who “can win.” That it what the GOP did when Bush was nominated; and look where that got us!

Report this

By jatihoon, June 13, 2007 at 6:50 am Link to this comment

He is a hawk in Donkey clothing.

Report this

By Crimson Ghost, June 13, 2007 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

Running with Joe Lieberman probably was the stupidest move Al Gore ever made.

I doubt if adding Lieberman to the ticket got Gore a single vote he would not have gotten anyway. But it undoubtedly cost him the votes of both classic anti-Semites and progressives concerned about Lieberman’s extremist views.

Knowing Lieberman’s record even back then as a fanatical war mongering Zionist extremist I could not vote for the Democratic ticket and went for Nader instead.

But the issue is not so much Joe Lieberman the Senator as the fact that he speaks for the most extreme wing of the Zionist lobby which has done so much to get America involved in wars on Israel’s behalf.  And this dangerous group of wealthy warmongers has considerable clout in the Democratic party.

Report this

By John Tomkinson, June 13, 2007 at 4:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is no surprise. The “Iran problem” is all about the interests of Israel, and like many other Congressmen, Joe Lieberman represents the interests of Israel - not the USA.

Report this

By Jim Michie, June 13, 2007 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am increasingly puzzled over there not having been started a recall movement to end Mr. Lieberman’s six year-term as a U.S. Senator.

Report this

By Henry Harris, June 13, 2007 at 2:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is no surprise here.  Lieberman is devoutly religious, which means he ignores science and reality itself to embrace a book that was created 1700 years ago as a way to unite a brutal empire.  As long as our leaders embrace fiction over reality we are only one step away from annihilation of the human species. I see very hope we will survive.  Lieberman is sad proof that Ignorance, superstition and hate will be victorious.

Report this

By Freedomfinder, June 13, 2007 at 1:51 am Link to this comment

I have been pondering this for the past 5yrs and I have dicussed this numerous times with people and concluded that maybe it was best President Gore was not selected!

At first I have been told that I must be bonkers and then I remind them that Mr.LIEberman would have been a heart beat away from sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office and they go huh OMG!

I sure wish that President Gore would run in 08
but that he choose a real democrat(notice the small D)thanks for writing what I have talking about!I will be sure to e-mail this to entire address book!

It’s too bad the people of Connecticut were not able to read this before the 06 election I believe they would have voted for Lamont plus Planned Parenthood did not help either by supporting Joe.

Report this

By w mast, June 13, 2007 at 1:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Where are the reports and analyses of the AIPAC trial that is now in progress?

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook