Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
Motherhood Manifesto

Motherhood Manifesto

By Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner
$8.97

more items

 
Report

Lieberman Twists the Knife

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 28, 2009
Lieberman
AP / Douglas Healey

By Robert Scheer

Is there a more hypocritical figure in American politics than Joe Lieberman? The Connecticut senator declared Tuesday that he would support a filibuster of any health care reform bill that has a public option—even the version with the “trigger” compromise accepted by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe—because it might cost money.

“I think that a lot of people may think that the public option is free,” said Lieberman, one of the Senate’s big spenders, in a suddenly frugal mood. “It’s not. It’s going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn’t, it’s going to add terribly to our national debt.”

This from a senator who, as much as anyone, helped run up the national debt since 9/11 by pushing to raise the military budget to its highest level since World War II. It is a budget inflated by enormous expenditures on high-tech weaponry irrelevant to combating terror, such as the $2-billion-a-piece submarines—produced in his home state of Connecticut—that he claimed were needed to combat al-Qaida, a landlocked enemy holed up in caves. The same week that he and others in Congress passed a $680-billion defense bill larded with pork of the sort he has always supported, Lieberman is worried about the impact of a very limited public option on the debt.

Lieberman, whose state is also home to insurance companies that are opposed to any consumer-friendly medical coverage alternative, boldly stated that his opposition to even the most limited version of a public option should not be surprising: “I think my colleagues know for a long time that I’ve been opposed to a government-created, government-run insurance company.”  Perhaps during his filibuster to prevent a vote on the public option Lieberman can square that position with his longtime support of the massive government–run insurance programs Medicare and Social Security. 

Maybe he can also take that time to justify his strong support for the government bailout of troubled banking and insurance companies that has tripled the federal deficit this year to $1.4 trillion. Is AIG not now a “government-run insurance company,” and doesn’t the $185 billion of taxpayer money tossed at that sorry enterprise add up to more than twice the yearly cost of the health reform package? And that’s without considering the trillions of tax dollars put into play to shore up Citigroup, Bank of America, GM, Chrysler and those other suddenly socialized sectors of American corporate life.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
If a scant public choice in health care is so threatening to our way of life, because health care alone must be kept a pristine captive of the most destructive impulses of an unbridled free market, then why not privatize Medicare as well as the publicly financed health care programs for government workers—including those in Congress like Lieberman, veterans and the active military? And while we’re at it, why not revive that Republican fantasy, popular in their ranks just a few years ago, of privatizing Social Security by turning the most effective government program over to the vagaries of the stock market?

I do continue to begrudgingly respect the consistency, if not the wisdom, of libertarians like Ron Paul who oppose all of this big-government intrusion into the economy. At least their belief in the efficiency of the free market, affirmed in opposition to the banking bailout, is not compromised by a willingness to throw trillions in taxpayer dollars into backing the riskiest of corporate bets. But it is not possible to feel anything but loathing for those like Lieberman who vote for every big government program, no matter how wasteful, in support of big business, but draw the line at a program designed to cut medical costs for the ordinary citizens they have been sworn to serve.

Lieberman’s threat to thwart a vote on sorely needed health care legislation, complete with a public option that a majority of Americans have consistently supported, should spell the end of his connection with the Democratic caucus. It should also cost him the committee chairmanship he was granted in order to guarantee the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. But a filibuster, which would expose Lieberman and the others as irresponsible wreckers of essential reform, is not the worst outcome. The surrender by the Democratic leadership to this blackmail by the party’s disgraced former vice presidential candidate would be a blow from which the party would not deserve to recover.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Of Laureates and Laundry

Next item: The Party of Choice



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.

By ardee, November 8, 2009 at 6:13 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, November 8 at 1:30 am #

ardee, November 2 at 8:44am,

ardee said: “I think ,in fact, that the USA does not need Israel as an ally.”

What I said I meant. What you posit that I meant I did not say.

You think the United States should break the alliance with Israel.  Why, because Saudi Arabia is our ally and the United States occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, you think we don’t need Israel any more? 

I think, an action I highly recommend to you in fact, that Israeli foreign aid should be used as a club with which we stop Israel from its genocidal tactics. Further I think that our attempts to keep Iran from nuclear weaponry should be coupled with an attempt to get Israel to abandon their own arsenal thereof.

Further I think you should seriously reevaluate your own positions, or at least try harder to get at the meaning of the words of other posters. I also think you should disarm as well…there are certainly posters here worthy of contempt, even ignoring, but none deserving of a bullet to the head as you once suggested.

Let me anticipate your response, if I may…....blah

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, November 7, 2009 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment

ardee, November 2 at 8:44am,

ardee said: “I think ,in fact, that the USA does not need Israel as an ally.”

MarthaA’s answer:  You think the United States should break the alliance with Israel.  Why, because Saudi Arabia is our ally and the United States occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, you think we don’t need Israel any more?  As for me, I am not ready to throw Israel away. I think the United States needs Israel and Israel needs the USA. I hope the Obama administration can negotiate peace, after all, President Carter managed to negotiate peace with Egypt.  The USA had really bad diplomacy during the Bush administration, given a little time, perhaps the Obama administration will do better, at least the Obama administration is seeking diplomacy.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, November 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

“For years there has been an escalating volume of the most virulent anti-semitism on the Left. I would like to explain why that is so, but since i am a fundamentalist christian, and a conservative too, you and your fellow travellers wont believe anything i say, and the usual namecalling will be your only response.

We ‘reactive dorks’ know our place. The last thing i would want is to make you puke. Whether your fellow travellers will be so considerate of your feelings is another matter.”

Well OzarkMichael, I’ve been staying clear of this exchange for the past several days (as has, I notice, my far more eloquent colleague D.R. Zing) because the discussion seems to have descended to a level of race-baiting and name-calling that was undignified to read, let alone participate in. But you’ve chosen to call me out directly, so I suppose I have to respond. Pity you’ve given me nothing specific to respond to, but all I see here is a statement with all the form and structure of a heartfelt, angry point, yet with zero content. You lay down an unproven assumption as thought it’s so obvious it requires no documentation (“For years there has been an escalating volume of the most virulent anti-semitism on the Left”) - something I haven’t noticed, BTW, and I’ve been ‘on the left’ for the past several decades now - then refuse to address or explain your comments because “...since i am a fundamentalist christian, and a conservative too, you and your fellow travellers wont believe anything i say, and the usual namecalling will be your only response.”

Nice. Another unproven assumption, this time about me (about whom you know nothing that comes from outside your own skull) and my ‘fellow travelers’ - a code word for Commies where and when I come from, BTW. Did you know this and was it your intent, or are you ignorant on that point of history too? Incidentally, from your misspelling of the word “travelers” I deduce that you’re either slightly illiterate, thoroughly Canadian, or both - which is odd, as those terms are usually contradictory.

So there you have it. Say absolutely nothing valid, substantiated, meaningful or helpful to the debate and yet say it with enough jerkass attitude and you might still get the usual namecalling. I guess you know what they say about no good deed…

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 5, 2009 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

sciencehighway writes: As a non-practising Jew who believes Israel must accept a two state solution or lose what soul she has left, not to mention one who’s always considered Joe Lieberman to be a horse’s ass, not to additionally mention being the first to puke whenever some reactive dork misinterprets legitimate criticism of either Israel’s actions or America’s support as being anti-semitic, I still have to tell you that the amount of blatant anti-semitism I’m reading in some of these comments is chilling. A few of you might want to take a look into your own souls; there’s some pretty dark stuff bubbling down there.

You mean you just noticed this? 

For years there has been an escalating volume of the most virulent anti-semitism on the Left. I would like to explain why that is so, but since i am a fundamentalist christian, and a conservative too, you and your fellow travellers wont believe anything i say, and the usual namecalling will be your only response.

We ‘reactive dorks’ know our place. The last thing i would want is to make you puke. Whether your fellow travellers will be so considerate of your feelings is another matter.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, November 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

I don’t see how Israel has ever been or ever could be
construed as an ally of the United States. It’s
master, perhaps. An ally? Never. Please do not
mistake this comment for a panegyric against Jews in
general. Far from it. I would no more suggest that
Bush/Cheney embodied the spirit of the American
people than I would that the Zionist elites reflect
the spirit of Judaism. My distaste for Jewish
hegemony and our abject obedience to it is very, very
specifically targeted at a tiny and incredibly
dangerous minority that has co-opted the silent
majority. It’s the same here there and
everywhere…the working people have no say, the
parasitic class rules supreme. Lieberman is just
another tool of the elite. Entirely predictable and
entirely morally bankrupt.

Report this

By ardee, November 2, 2009 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

I suppose you think the United States doesn’t need Israel for an ally, and we should just go over there and obliterate them, and straighten the world up, like Bush tried to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it doesn’t work that way, ardee, not even in Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST world.

I think ,in fact, that the USA does not need Israel as an ally. I think further that we should be much more responsive to, and aware of, our complicity with our “allies” who violate international law and basic human rights, like Israel.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, November 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

ardee, November 1 at 4:32pm,

ardee said: “Its pinhead, pinhead.”

MarthaA’s answer: OK, in honor of your desire, I accept that you are a pinhead, but you are still pigheaded, so I guess that makes you a pigheaded pinhead, who needs to learn more about allies; so, in the interest of you learning about allies, I submit the following link for study about one of the greatest ally makers there has ever been, Cardinal Richelieu of France, who developed many enemy allies. I suggest you read it.  Allies are for more than only the ally’s protection.

I suppose you think the United States doesn’t need Israel for an ally, and we should just go over there and obliterate them, and straighten the world up, like Bush tried to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it doesn’t work that way, ardee, not even in Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST world.

Report this

By Sodium, November 1, 2009 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Walt,October 31 at 10:41 am.

Quote
======

What I am amused by in reading comments on these sites,but this time far less so,is the way that the responses to an article drift so far from the topic of the article itself. Interesting for the aspiring blogger(s) eager to demonstrate their “chops”-but if this really a political website in which we are all trying to find common cause or identify common enemies it gets pretty tiresome.

Unquote
========

Walt,

The last word in your above comments is “TIRESOME”. Thank you for using that word,because that is exactly how I truly feel lately in trying to make sense of what I read on various threads of TD.

It seems to me that some of the bloggers sound like players of a game of some sort. And it is so important to them that they win it. Pity…...

Report this

By Sodium, November 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: DBM,October 31 at 4:54 am.

“I think the bottom line here is that Lieberman is corrupted by the religion of Aetna not Judaism…”

DBM,

I could not agree more with your above comment.

You have done it again and I thank you again for adhering firmly to the topic at hand,which it has to do with reforming America’s health care and the threat of filibustering declared by the personal corruption of Joe Lieberman,if the potential reform carries within it any public option. It is really all about money,profit and power talk. That does not mean that Israel’s interest is not important to Joe Lieberman. It is important to him,but in this case Israel comes second by miles.

Report this

By Sodium, November 1, 2009 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: ThomasG,October 30 at 9:58 pm.

Quote
======

With regard to Joe Lieberman,a Recall Petition and subsequent election would serve the best interests of Connecticut voters and the United States as a whole,so that Joe Lieberman’s reprehensible behavior does not have to be endured for the Full six-years of his 6-Year Term in the Senate.

Unquote
========

ThomasG,

Your above comment is impressive because it is the right thing to do,if it can be done. Thank you.

Your adherence to the topic at hand is highly appreciated,indeed,to avoid changing the debate from healthy and constructive debate to unhealthy and destructive bickering and names calling and reciprocal insults. I am about to withdraw from posting and reading posts,because of what I consider beneath my dignity to read,let alone respond to.

Report this

By Howie Bledsoe, November 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow, great comments this time around!! ROUND 2, ding, ding, ding!!!!
Ardee, ofcourse, being the winning gadfly, thanks buddy, always look forward to your personal style of passive-aggression.
Incredible that an absolute piece of sh!t like Joe Lieberman can get people so riled up.
If he was asked to find Conn. on a map, he would most likely point to Israel.

Report this

By ardee, November 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

Martha never fails to live down to expectations….way, way down.


YOU are the pighead that needs to think prior to posting.

Its pinhead, pinhead.

Israel is an ally of the United States and we should support and protect Israel, but no more than we support and protect England, France or any other ally.”

What any compassionate and thinking human being might understand is that this “ally” is slaughtering Palestinians at an alarming rate. I am unaware of just who England and France are slaughtering but , were they doing so we should stop supporting them too.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, November 1, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

ardee, November 1 at 8:29am,

Martha said:  “Israel is an ally of the United States and we should support and protect Israel, but no more than we support and protect England, France or any other ally.”

ardee’s retort:  “So, Martha, do you excuse Israel for the murder of so many Palestinians because they are an ally thus we must protect them? Do we not have a moral obligation within our foreign policy? Are we simply to turn our backs upon one group because it is to our best interest as a nation to do so? Is it indeed to our best interests in the long term?”

“I do wish you would think prior to posting.”


MarthaA’s answer:  It amazes me that you feel it your duty to say something when what you say is never anything, and you wonder why we think you are a follower of the Right-Wing Conservatives EXTREMISTS in a Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST boiler room; wonder no more, now you know.

An ally is NOT an abdication of the ally’s government power for OCCUPATION and CONTROL by another country.
 
It was not the United States that made Israel a nation, it was the United Nations.  Here is a The Palestine National Charter” dated July 17, 1968”, but it is doubtful an application to the United Nations for a Charter as a Nation has been presented to the United Nations; if not, Palestine will have to make and present an application to the United Nations for a Charter as an Independent Nation before an independent nation can be considered by the United Nations for a charter; hopefully, Palestine has done this, or is in the process of presenting an application.  President Bush destroyed the power of the United Nations, but President Obama is restoring the United Nations which is in the best interest of Israel, Palestine and the United States, so that Palestine will be able to effectively charter Palestine as an independent nation, which should end the hostilities; without which all your garbage is a waste of time.

YOU are the pighead that needs to think prior to posting.

Report this

By ardee, November 1, 2009 at 4:29 am Link to this comment

Israel is an ally of the United States and we should support and protect Israel, but no more than we support and protect England, France or any other ally.

So, Martha, do you excuse Israel for the murder of so many Palestinians because they are an ally thus we must protect them? Do we not have a moral obligation within our foreign policy? Are we simply to turn our backs upon one group because it is to our best interest as a nation to do so? Is it indeed to our best interests in the long term?

I do wish you would think prior to posting.

Report this

By ardee, November 1, 2009 at 4:24 am Link to this comment

Because, you see, Ardee, the response to that predicament is not to ask, “How, oh
how can I get the Israeli government to change its behavior?” Rather, the important
question is, “How, oh how can I get my own government to end this bizarre
entanglement with Israel, so that Israel’s crimes will be only its own, and not ours?”

Ed Harges, confused hater…

First, Mr. Harges, you refuse to confine your rant to the actions of nations and their respective govts. You insist upon infering some vast plot involving world wide Jewry influencing the govt to continue to commit said acts.

Then , and quite suddenly, you insist you’ve been talking about govts. all along, despite a jillion rants about the ending of the State of Israel entirely. Now you wish to make the issue one in which I absolutely concur, how to end the genocide of Israel and the complicity of our own nation in that genocide.

I understand that you are inevitably headed towards the “undue influence of rich American Jews on our foreign policy” of course. I find a nation that has never cared a fig for the rights of any group that stood between policy and profit to be influenced only by said profit and not by any group or individual, regardless of religion or bank account.

This nation supports Israel, not because the fifteen or so million Jewish folks who live here insist upon it, but because it suits the corporations who run this country. Proftability and the need to have a puppet, a well armed one indeed, near that yummy oil decided the amount of foreign and military aid Israel received.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2009 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

Harges is like all the anti-semites here a total hypocrite, as Ardee has pointed out.  He hates Israel—he said so.  He says it’s not just the Israeli government he hates, it’s the whole nation.  Why? Because it is a Jewish state.  There are over 20 TOTALLY Moslem states surrounding Israel—all are religiously biased, classifying non-Moslems as 2nd class citizens.  Many are HEAVILY supported by the USA, like Saudi Arabia, as harsh a religious dictatorship as exists, far, FAR more tyrannical to non-Moslems than Israel is to non-Jews.

But does Harges call for us to cut off and boycott Saudi Arabia? No. Never.

It’s his fundamental hatred of Jews and Israel that is the determining factor.

As for the poster who asks why he is criticized for pointing out that our ENTIRE government is at the thrall of Jews, well the answer is simple: Your premise is blatantly false and either you are too hate-filled ALREADY to realize it, or you KNOW it’s false but are so hate-filled you can justify ANY means to get to your end—and we have seen that end before.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 31, 2009 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

I can’t help making another point. Commanding us all to confine our criticisms to the
Israeli government per se is a restriction which guarantees that criticism will
miss the point, at least where American critics are concerned.

We’re supposed to think, “Gee, I’m upset about such and such a thing which the Israeli
government is doing. How, oh how can I get the Israeli government to change its
behavior?”

But see, what we really need to ask is, “Gee, why do I have to be upset and feel
personally implicated in each and every crime of the Israeli government?”

Or put it otherwise: “Why is the Israeli government our problem at all?”

Because, you see, Ardee, the response to that predicament is not to ask, “How, oh
how can I get the Israeli government to change its behavior?” Rather, the important
question is, “How, oh how can I get my own government to end this bizarre
entanglement with Israel, so that Israel’s crimes will be only its own, and not ours?”

And see, Ardee, if we Americans want to get ourselves out of that deeper
predicament, we have to look at our own politics, and that means examining and
honestly assessing the power of those who enforce the continuation of the “special
relationship” with Israel - a demographic all the more powerful because even
talking about their power is considered a mortal sin in polite company.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 31, 2009 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Ardee writes:

“Any discourse about the actions of the Israeli govt that include the Jewish
peoples of the world are suspect. Real and unbiased folks stick to criticizing
govts, not religions.”

The fact is that on the whole American Jews do reflexively defend Israel, even
though they disagree with many of its policies, thereby facilitating the
continuation of those very policies. They believe that harsh criticism of Israel is
inherently coded anti-Semitism, or at least that it’s impossible to tell, and so it’s
safer to call all but the mildest critics anti-Semites. And the little bit of mild
criticism that’s politely allowed will NEVER change the situation, and thus “liberal”
American Jews like you who in principle disagree with Likudism nevertheless
function as enablers of Israel’s right wing, because they help enforce the ban on
EFFECTIVE American opposition to Israel’s crimes and to the “special relationship”
that makes those crimes American crimes as well.

You see, Ardee, I used to be much more neatly critical only of the Israeli
government, not of American Jews, but after a few years of seeing how this
criticism-suppressing mechanism works, I can no longer pretend that American
Jews (with many exceptions, of course!) are not, on the whole, part of the
problem. They think they want a less monstrous Israel, and they wonder why they
don’t get it. They need to look in the mirror.

Report this

By ardee, October 31, 2009 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

Harges may prattle and prance, pompous as ever, but the points I made ring true and he rings hollow as hell.

Any discourse about the actions of the Israeli govt that include the Jewish peoples of the world are suspect. Real and unbiased folks stick to criticizing govts, not religions.

There is little difference between one like Harges and those who disparage the Islamist faith for the actions of a small percentage of those who follow a perverted version of that faith. Both conceal real religious bigotry behind smarmy bullshit.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 31, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

I am a Christian who believes we pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

Israel is an ally of the United States and we should support and protect Israel, but no more than we support and protect England, France or any other ally.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 31, 2009 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Ardee lies thus:

“Further, I see noone calling for an end to the nation of Great Britain, or our own in
fact, yet Mr. Harges is quite comfortable with calls to erase the nation of Israel.”

Ardee makes a typical error. True, I wish the United States to end its role as guarantor
of Israel’s continued existence. And no, I don’t believe that Israel has some moral “right
to exist” as a Jewish state. I don’t like Israel. I don’t buy its ideology. But these things
are utterly different from calling for the destruction of Israel.

Ardee, like so many American Jews, cannot understand that a well-deserved hostile
indifference to the existence of Israel is not the same as wishing Israel to be obliterated
by some violent means.

I do not advocate, for example, that we bomb Israel. In contrast, many pro-Israel
American and Israeli (or is that redundant?) Jews believe Iran ought to be bombed, or
at least that bombing Iran should remain “on the table” as part of what we laughingly
refer to as out “diplomatic efforts”. The New York Times even respectfully printed an
op-ed by Israeli historian Benny Morris calling for a nuclear bombing of Iran by the
United States
. Nobody believes this would be done to benefit any other nation than
Israel.

So let me get this straight: if you want to bomb Iran, you’re not calling for the
destruction of Iran - and you’re not “anti-Persian”. But if you just want your
government to stop fanatically favoring and lavishing goodies on Israel, and killing
huge numbers of people for Israel, and threatening to kill lots more people for Israel,
you’re an anti-Semite calling for the obliteration of Israel and the murder of “the Jews”.

Report this

By walt, October 31, 2009 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

What I am sometimes amused by in reading comments on these sites, but this
time far less so, is the way that the responses to an article drift so far from the
topic of the article itself. Interesting for the aspiring blogger eager to
demonstrate their “chops” - but if this really is a political website in which we
are all trying to find common cause or identify common enemies it gets pretty
tiresome.

The article is about Lieberman’s cruel indifference to the plight of uninsured or
underinsured Americans and his craven obedience to his employers.

May I point out that in this instance, the “bosses” whose lead he slavishly
follows are not AIPAC, or Israel or American Jews ... it’s a bunch of Connecticut
WASPS who run the insurance companies which have HQ’s in Stanford and live
in Greenwich and pull his puppet strings to commit unconscionable crimes
against humanity like this.

So with all this to fault him on, with all this to perhaps productively attack him
on, we’re going to get sidetracked on his Israel connection?

Are any of you without coverage? Are any of you concerned about those who
are not? Or are you just interested in preening your prose and stroking one
another’s egos on this other stuff?

Sorry to be so harsh but really ... there’s some horrible stuff going on out there
and he’s now the enemy. Can we focus on this?

Report this

By ardee, October 31, 2009 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

{Ed Harges posits:

Allow me to explain. Most American Jews, including most “liberal” American Jews,
strenuously believe that criticism of Israel, if ever permissible, must be uttered in
a tone and in a context which communicates that the critic, in spite of any
criticisms, fervently loves Israel and believes that the United States government
must be firmly and permanently committed to ensuring Israel’s survival and
prosperity. Any critic of Israel who does not observe this decorum is an “anti-
Semite”.

I find this to be a rather typical and false impression of why folks object to the critique of the actions of a nation, a govt, in terms of the religion of said nation. When Great Britain commits questionable acts I find no hateful commentary about the Church Of England, or American foreign policy criticized in terms of Protestants “bloodthirst or questionable loyalties”.

Further, I see noone calling for an end to the nation of Great Britain, or our own in fact, yet Mr. Harges is quite comfortable with calls to erase the nation of Israel.

When critics who blame worldwide Jewry for the genocidal policies of the Israeli Govt are questioned as to intent, we get stuff like this from the usual sources. It seems quite simple to me.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 31, 2009 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

Their is a fine line in what appears to be a bigot and what really is a bigot!

Report this

By omygodnotagain, October 31, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

I have been following this thread, and how it has ended up with people being called Anti-Semitic because they are angry at the hold Jewish politicians and lobbies have on our government, media and financial system. Already they are saying Anti-Semite, well no, they do have a hold. AIPAC is currently trying to get a resolution through Congress condemning the UN Goldstone Report an independent report by a fair minded Zionist who cricizes both sides.  And if anyone writes here that they have Congress by the short and curlies they are slandered. Zing, Inherit The Wind stop the bull, its your self appointed judgemental slander that is despicable.

Report this

By DBM, October 31, 2009 at 1:54 am Link to this comment

Well thank you Sodium for the kind words.  I had to go back and look at my post as I didn’t recall writing anything profound!

I think the bottom line here is that Liebermann is corrupted by the religion of Aetna not Judaism ...

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 30, 2009 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

With regard to Joe Lieberman, a Recall Petition and subsequent election would serve the best interests of Connecticut voters and the United States as a whole, so that Joe Lieberman’s reprehensible behavior does not have to be endured for the FULL SIX-YEARS of his 6-Year Term in the Senate.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 30, 2009 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

re:By Michael Shaw, October 30 at 4:11 pm:

Shaw writes:

“Excuse me but why is it whenever Israel is mentioned honestly in a
conversation it’s Antisemitism?”

Allow me to explain. Most American Jews, including most “liberal” American Jews,
strenuously believe that criticism of Israel, if ever permissible, must be uttered in
a tone and in a context which communicates that the critic, in spite of any
criticisms, fervently loves Israel and believes that the United States government
must be firmly and permanently committed to ensuring Israel’s survival and
prosperity. Any critic of Israel who does not observe this decorum is an “anti-
Semite”.

The problem with this is that any honest understanding of Israel and of the US
relationship with Israel leads to the fervent conviction that Israel is a
fundamentally despicable ethnic supremacist enterprise, and that while it may
eventually prove sustainable as a country, there is no reason on
God’s green earth that the United States government should commit itself to serve
as guarantor of the success of such an enterprise.

In short: to know Israel is very much not to love Israel.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 30, 2009 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Joe Lieberman like Joe the Plumber is a joke on the American public. Recently it has been announced Joe Lieberman got caught with his paints down!  Evidently Joe the Lieberman used to be dearly against fillybusting because it screws up getting things done. 

So if Joe the Lieberman is dearly against fillybusting then how how can he be for it now?  Maybe Joe can explain while he is trying for his holiday bonus!  Maybe in the end the joke will be on Joe Lieberman like Joe the Plumber, so they both can dissipate into oblivion.

Report this

By OldManCA, October 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

I lost my job with benefits in February.  A day later my wife lost hers.  As mid-50s
baby-boomers there is a real chance we will never get a job with benefits again.  I
believe my wife and I could make a sufficient income as consultants. But, we are
unlikely to be insurable due to our age, and fairly minor pre-existing conditions.

I want a public option.  I do not want to pay the outrageous sums the health
insurers demand (for very limited coverage).  I do not want to support health
insurers in their evil immoral acts (see the House hearings on rescission of private
health insurance policies.) I would take Canada’s public health insurance in a
minute.

I have nothing but contempt for Joe Lieberman.  I pray that the voters of
Connecticut elect a Democrat next time instead of this corporate toady.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, October 30, 2009 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excuse me but why is it whenever Israel is mentioned honestly in a conversation it’s Antisemitism? I suppose my Jew grandmother might call me a self hater! Actually she wouldn’t. She would only say that for some, the truth is an obstacle, for others a clear path. The notion that anything on a negative level being mentioned about Israel is being racist is the same neocon nonsense that says, either you’re with us or the terrorists. I would also point out that I did not say anything negative about Israel, only Lieberman, who is indeed better suited to represent the state of Israel,(particularly the right wing Likud branch), rather then the United States of America. His track record proves it. So for all the absolutists out there who in fact have taken my statements and tried to turn them into hatred of Israel, I say pure hogwash!

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, October 30, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

prgill and Inherit The Wind.

Thank you. Your points are well taken.

thebeerdoctor You are a fascinating writer. I’ve noticed you criticize posters and writers of reports and then circle back around to agreeing with them.  That’s a pretty interesting technique.

Have a good one, one and all.

Report this

By siki?, October 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

thanks for all admin
information is the most beautiful treasures

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 30, 2009 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

re:By thebeerdoctor, October 30 at 11:42 am #

Beerdoctor writes:

Ed, Zing states: “I just recognize that Israel is a strong ally of the United States”. I
wonder what in the world does that mean. An ally in what?

Exactly, Beerdoctor! The fact that Zing can seriously repeat this laughable fiction as
a given fact shows that he is nowhere near a realistic view of the situation. He is at
best fatuously and at worst disingenuously regurgitating the “mainstream view” of
the US-Israel relationship, a view which no one who has done the reading can
possibly take seriously any more. This is why I’m so caustic on this subject. How
long can one suffer this crap? Tell Zing to try this stuff on somebody who was born
yesterday!

Report this

By faith, October 30, 2009 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

Great article Mr. Scheer.  Mr. Lieberman has always proclaimed his piety, as
orthordoxy.  Mr. Lieberman is a self serving politician.  His concern about
Americans is painted with a narrow brush - his concern is for his friends in the
defense industry and the insurance industries.  Mr. Lieberman’s concerns do not
seem to include America’s middle class and poor.  Billions in war.  Billions more t
support those who choose war against their neighbors.  Billions to bail out the
insurance and banking industries. We need politicians that cannot be subsidized
by lobbyists.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 30, 2009 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Lieberman does not have to run for office again, he probably already has a job with any corporate company he chooses, of course as a free agent, to the highest bidder.

Some posters keep asking how the people of Connecticut kept voting for this horses ass, seems one can ask that of many states, Minnesota comes to mind voting for Bochman?

In the end, maybe the constituents are self promoting and self serving opportunists, like their elected representives?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, October 30, 2009 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

re: Ed Harges

Ed, Zing states: “I just recognize that Israel is a strong ally of the United States”. I wonder what in the world does that mean. An ally in what?
It has become a tiresome bore for the defenders of the indefensible to always trot out a religious excuse. I guess that explains why Reagan sacrificed American troops to back up the Israeli invasion of Lebanon? Is that why Israel never officially discloses how many hydrogen bombs it has in its arsenal, or how many spies it has in this country?
This is an “ally” that receives $billions from the United States and always assumes there are no strings attached, because they simply refuse to do anything the United States asks them to do.
This was never about religion. It has always been about the abuse of money and power. Religion is either used as an alibi or a convenient rhetorical scapegoat. No matter how pious they claim to be, their actions reveal otherwise. Anyone who uses religion of any kind, to justify violence, is so idiotically wrong it would be laughable, if it were not so deadly and serious.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 30, 2009 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

re:By D.R. Zing, October 30 at 4:11 am:

I simply can’t stomach Zing’s smugness, disguised as regret, in telling us that our
“anti-Semitism” will only serve to prevent “moderate” Jewish Americans from finally
pushing the US away from its Likudnik foreign policy.

You know what it reminds me of? The old “man-hater” smear that was always trotted
out against activists for women’s rights. How often we heard “moderate” male
commentators deplore the “shrill” tone of the “man-haters”. How often women were
told that if only they were nicer about it, if only they weren’t so ugly and angry, all the
“moderate” men would let them have a hearing. But as it was, the whole business had
gotten so sordid and hateful, the “moderate” guys who might be persuaded pretty
please to give up some of their privileges had no choice but to squelch all such
discussion, which only served to give comfort and legitimacy to the man-haters (or
worse, the lesbians!).

This is exactly the tone and import of Zing’s gleeful prediction that our failure to be
nice will “push any real discussions of strategy for changing Israeli policies even further
from the front page or the evening news.”

And notice that this prediction also entails a tacit admission that the people who want US foreign policy to continue to be subordinated to Israel’s interests have the power to “push any real discussions of strategy for changing Israeli policies even
further from the front page or the evening news.”

This very power, to which Zing refers with such evident satisfaction, is the one that’s
not supposed to exist - for we critics of Israel are automatically branded anti-Semites
for noting the existence of this power.

Report this

By Surya Dharma, October 30, 2009 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Feed the War Machine! Starved the sick & the poor!

Report this

By Sodium, October 30, 2009 at 6:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: DBM,October 29 at 5:27 pm.

Quote
======

It seems that raising the spectra of anti-semitism can get any conversation way-off track.

Unquote
=======

DMB,

I starteted reading Robert Scheer’s column and the poster’s comments that followed a little bit late, due to family obligations I had to attend to.

I read all posts,starting from bottom up exactly as they were posted. As usual,I take notes when I read,looking for something worthwhile commenting on, or for just keeping in my notebook.

I have found the most comfort in reading the 14 words which have made-up your statement/comment I have quoted above. It is the most constructive single statement in a sea of conflicting rages and unbridled human passions I have no use for.

That is not the way to defeat and get rid of the Joe Liebermans of the world. The solution can be found within the Democratic Party and its leadership and their standing and relationship with the people of Connecticut. They should have started cleaning their house in that state from the moment Lieberman decided to run as Independent,after being defeated by Ned Lamont in the Democratic Party primary of 2006 election. With the help of some Republicans and some Democrats,he ran as Independent and won,defeating Ned Lamont who defeated him in the Democratic primary. Does that that make sense? I think not if the right vision had existed in the leadership of the Democratic party,for the future.                                                 
The twisted knife of Lieberman has been twisted in the whole body of the Democratic Party since he rudely and shamelessly supported John MaCain against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. The democratic Party negligence deserves their current political agony,resulting from twisting of Lieberman’s knife in its body. Sad. Sad and more Sad(s).

DBM: Thank you.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, October 30, 2009 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

Since the anti-Jewish matter always flares up when it comes to the support for Israel, it should be remembered that anti-Jewish sentiment is always in the background of the American landscape. Part of this is caused by the Christian religious bias, which blames Jews for the death of their avatar or savior, Jesus. Then there is the matter of money, of which the actual handling of it was considered unclean by the upper classes, thus the mercantile opportunity was taken up by the brethren of Moses. And of course this provided ample verbal fodder for the Father Coughlins of this world, and it does not help matters that some of the biggest billionaire bastards are Jewish either.
Hollywood is much the same way. Back when the movie industry was just getting started, many Bible thumping Christians thought it was morally suspect to walk into a darkened room and watch moving images. Again, as in money handling, clever Jews saw an opportunity. And later people cried foul when they discovered that Jews control Hollywood.
If you actually talk to common people in this country, as writer Joe Bageant sometimes does, you can observe a virulent strain of outrage aimed at the ruling elite, which is often expressed as: “it’s those god damn Jews!”. And what they are referring to is all the well heeled suits yapping on the television… whether it is Joe Lieberman or Rahm Emanuel, simply does not matter. They know that the system is screwed and they are being screwed by it, and they have countless trolls of hatred booming across the airways to fortify their fears.
When it comes to Israeli policy, I simply vehemently object to U.S. giving military aide to any country. I do not want to assist Israel, nor Egypt, nor Lebanon, nor Saudi Arabia, nor Indonesia, nor U.A.E., or anywhere else. The defense of the United States should be exactly that: the geographic defense of this country, and not the so-called strategic policies created by governments who simply thrive on creating continuous wars.
Now the defenders of Zionist U.S. policies will always use the horrors of World War II, and the “never again” rationale to justify grabbing land that international law forbids. The fact that the United States, through unprecedented amounts of money forked over to Israel, has given the tiny state the economic and political muscle to ensure they always achieve their objectives, no matter how unjust. This is the real rub, but unfortunately, people who just do not like Jews find this a very convenient excuse to vent their personal hatred.
As someone who does not believe in any of the three desert God religions, I have always thought faith is a personal matter, but as poster Jim Yell pointed out on another thread, has no business in matters of public law. (Thus Sharia law is just as wrong as forcing someone to recite the Ten Commandments).Nor should it be used to justify injustice.
It is so strange that so many people claim to have faith. Whichever God it is they profess to, it seems that it must not be too strong of a faith. It is always the same old praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 30, 2009 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

Dr. Zing:

Your words and posts are MUCH appreciated!  I don’t agree with everything you say, but I don’t have to—that’s what TRUE debate is all about. Your reasoned approach and demand for logical and fact-based argument are most welcome!

However, you’ll get nowhere with EH—this is a dogmatic religion with him and his mind is made up—don’t confuse him with facts!

Sadly, he is only one of many here.

Report this

By prgill, October 30, 2009 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

D.R.Zing, your comments once again hit the spot.

The “hate” discussions on the Truthdig forum are disconcerting to say the least.

As an American living on the Mediterranean rim and deeply involved with economic development and regional governance issues, I can confirm that settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict would be more than “just”, it would jumpstart an era of peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean such as has not been seen since the Roman Empire. (There have been other periods of consensus, but the last one untainted by religious conflict - Muslim, Christian and Judaic - would have been under Roman domination.)

Report this

By walt, October 30, 2009 at 1:19 am Link to this comment

I don’t understand all this animus towards Lieberman.
He’s an honest politician as aptly defined by Simon Cameron, Lincoln’s
Secretary of War:

“An honest politician is one who when he is bought, stays bought.”

He honestly represents his constituency, the insurance industry. I mean they
are the real citizens of Connecticut aren’t they?

Surely you can’t expect him to represent all those average “people” in the state,
the ones who only have one house and are barley keeping hold of that?

No rate him an A for consistency ... why anyone is surprised by this is beyond
me.  But do give an F to those moronic Democrats who accepted him back into
the fold so he can pillage more.

Disgusting!

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, October 30, 2009 at 1:11 am Link to this comment

Why thank you, sciencehighway.

If you could go ahead and e-mail Robert Scheer and tell him he would be remiss in his constitutional obligations if he does not hire me, that would be great. Thanks. 

Mr. Harges,

Thank you for replying. I’m all for a sane US foreign policy. And in that respect you and I have a fundamental agreement. 

And I guarantee you if President Obama appeared on national news tomorrow saying he would deny financial aid to the Israelis unless they begin immediately dismantling all settlements that violate international law, all hell would break loose. 

Fox News would be flipping cartwheels and hurling knives with each rotation.  Bloviating beached whale Limbaugh would be fulminating enough hot air from his blowhole to melt the rest of Antarctica.  Glenn Beck would be crying for real. The Wallstreet Journal would write a 5000-word esoteric editorial that only about five people in the entire world could truly comprehend explaining why such a move would be catastrophic for US-Israeli relations and, in turn, US foreign policy.

It’s a very serious strategy, one that people, who have given the Arab-Israeli conflict a lot of thought, think just might jump start serious peace negotiations.

But, frankly, much of what you write and the way you write it is just a bunch of thinly veiled racist crap. I don’t need you to be anything. I’m not even Jewish, Einstein. 

I just recognize that Israel is a strong ally of the United States, and that the Jewish people have suffered terribly the last few millennia and much of the suffering has been caused by people making hateful generalizations that are very similar to what you and thonggirl are saying.

Read a history book or two. Watch some old newsreels.  If you think you want peace but you are comfortable denigrating an entire group of people with hateful remarks—well, you’re working against peace, not for it. 

The fact is if we solved the Arab-Israeli conflict tomorrow, there would still be major problems in the Middle East. And if the US did not interact with Israel in any way, we would still have a majorly screwed up foreign policy.  Your snide remarks about banking don’t even warrant a reply. The world is complicated, dude, and singling out one group of people for ridicule and hatred has been a tactic of tyrants, fascists and madmen throughout history. It doesn’t help anything. It makes matters worse.

Vayas con Dios. Peace out. Chill.

Report this

By Wayno, October 29, 2009 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

Has anyone researched the procedure for recalling a senator in CT? It’s time.

I remember the precise time Lieberman lost the election for Gore (if indeed he did…but I thought he did). Picked by Al as a morality running mate to neutralize any Clinton stink (how Gore lost the election), little consideration was given to his campaign skills…or ability to think on his feet.

‘Twas during the VP debate when Cheney was pushing his biz bona fides as the running mate to our first MBA pres candidate (and we all know how that worked out). He was CEO of Halliburton (which mysteriously did really well during his adm.)and was bragging how he led the company successfully without any gummint help. Joe-mental let it slide, even though Dick had nearly bankrupted the co. with the acquisition of multi-billion $ asbestos liability-ridden Dresser Industries and only survived with $8 billion in gov’t contracts from his old buddies in DC.
Whatever you call $8bil, you gotta say it’s some kind of help.
So the biz boys brought us to our knees…and now clueless Joe looks the other way as children die from lack of insurance.
Good job Joe…keep those free market sensibilities and depend on the Hartford companies to compassionately address our health care needs.
Throw the bum out!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 29, 2009 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment

Re: sciencehighway

Your comment: “Dear Mr. Zing,
I don’t know who you are, but in two posts you have sensibly and eloquently blown some much-needed oxygen into this discussion. I wish you were employed by these folks above the ‘comments’ line. Thanks for taking the time.”

I’ll second that.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, October 29, 2009 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

They call him the Senator from Connecticut.  But, Connecticut is the home of many of the big insurance companies.  So, the Senators from Connecticut are ALWAYS the Senators from the Insurance Industry.

Corporations get Senators in modern America.  Citizens don’t, and are subject to arrest if they persist too much in actually trying to talk to their Senator.  But even that is rare, as Senators only very rarely ever mix with regular people any more. 

When was the last time you chatted with your Senator?  Wanna bet on whether the insurance companies have chatted with him/her more recently?

What I don’t understand is why people keep voting for people who don’t represent them?  Why would ordinary people keep electing people who only serve corporations?

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, October 29, 2009 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

Dear Mr. Zing,
I don’t know who you are, but in two posts you have sensibly and eloquently blown some much-needed oxygen into this discussion. I wish you were employed by these folks above the ‘comments’ line. Thanks for taking the time.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 29, 2009 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Re:By D.R. Zing, October 29 at 10:31 pm:

Zing writes: “You and your ilk, by spewing your fascist bullshit, push any real
discussions of strategy for changing Israeli policies even further from the front
page or the evening news.”

Zing demonstrates the very thing that drives us mad, so that in the end we
scream with rapture, “Yes, yes, we’re anti-Semites! We’re the very anti-Semites
you want and need us to be!”

You want us forever to be hoping politely for “real discussions of strategy for
changing Israeli policies”, when the root of the problem, what we’re so sick to our
guts of, is the very idea that Americans must allow ourselves to be yolked to
Israel, so that all hope of a peaceful and sane foreign policy rests with wheedling
and cajoling and begging and seducing fickle, prickly, selfish, inherently ethnic
supremacist Israel into adopting polices that just might be less catastrophic for
America, which of course must always, always support and defend and identify
itself as the eternal best friend and servant and fervent admirer of the Holy State.

You see, Zing, what we see is that the problem will never be solved until the
Special Relationship is ended, and all the pretty lies on which it is based taken out
of the back of the fridge where they’ve been stinking for decades, and flung
where all garbage belongs.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, October 29, 2009 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

As Mr. Scheer and several posters noted, Lieberman was Gore’s running mate in 2000.  He was the reason I could not in good conscience vote for Gore, though I’ll admit my reasons were childish and churlish. 

Lieberman is one of those whack jobs who constantly lobbies for the censorship of Hollywood movies and song lyrics.  It’s a cynical ploy to attract the imbecile vote as Lieberman funds a foreign policy that is essentially this:  keep the United States of America at war in perpetuity. Kill. Kill. Kill.  And, by the way, that Eminem guy is a threat to humanity. Better shut him up.

Remember this:  Ralph Nadar was cited as the reason for the 2000 loss. He was not.  The reason Gore lost is he assumed he would get the progressive vote and that he needed to get the conservative vote. He ignored his base. And he lost.

That said, I have to confess I held my nose in 2004 and voted for Kerry. And, in 2008,  I didn’t have to hold my nose to vote for Obama, but he wasn’t my first choice. 

Still, I like him.  He took a serious beating for pulling the so-called public option off the table early on, but damned if it’s not in the bill that just passed. People, myself included, tend to underestimate President Obama.  It will be interesting to see how he does if he has a full eight years.

But if in 2016 we’re still in a war economy, financial hoodlums are still running the place, the drug war is still raging, our schools are still crap, our infrastructure is still crumbling, and nothing has been done to stop the destruction of the ecosystem that so graciously allows us all to live—well at that point it will be time for progressives to abandon the Democratic Party en mass and vote for someone else, like, say—Eminem.  Ha!

(M, if we vote for ya, you got to find something else besides Divided States of Embarrassment that rhymes with United Stated of America, fair enough? And lay off Tipper, alright?)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 29, 2009 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

Hopefully there will be some way Ned Lamont can get his seat, because it is plain that Lieberman doesn’t represent the Left in any way.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, October 29, 2009 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

I have to agree that the anti-Semitic posts in response to Mr. Scheer’s column are chilling. At first I wanted to write them off as bad writing, imbeciles who know what they want to say but who don’t quite know how to say it.  But no, some of the comments clearly echo the tone and propaganda of Nazi Germany.

But before any thong girl starts flossing in agitation, consider this:  by being a racist you are hurting your own cause (assuming, that is, that you actually want positive change and are not simply some violent a-hole looking for an excuse).

The fact is there are Jews in Israel and the United States who disagree with and desperately want to change the Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. 

And there’s this obscure fellow named Jimmy Carter who is taking on the Israeli government and their American lobbyists head on. He wrote a little book called Peace Not Apartheid that you may want to take a look at.  He’s taking a public beating for it as are many American and Israeli Jews who are working for positive, non-violent change. 

None will stand by you as long as you parrot Nazi themes, prejudice and hatred.

There are many strong arguments for how we can influence Israeli policy.  The biggest lever we have, as with any other ally, is our financial aid.

We provide the Israelis with loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial aid. I for one am for pulling that lever by threatening to withhold or cutoff aid until Israel stops building new settlements and removes the existing settlements that violate international law. 

A big problem is the national media are reluctant to broach the subject and so are most American politicians. One possible reason they are reluctant is that they know there is so much anti-Semitism in the world today that to raise the financial aid to Israel issue seems like piling on. 

You and your ilk, by spewing your fascist bullshit, push any real discussions of strategy for changing Israeli policies even further from the front page or the evening news.

It is quite the paradox, isn’t it, how shooting yourself in the foot often feels good? Congratulations.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 29, 2009 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

re:By JimBob, October 29 at 5:58 pm #:

JimBob writes:

“Anyone who can suss out the connection and clearly demonstrate that
health care reform in America is BAD for Israel, will have found the answer to
why Joe Leiberman acts as he does.”

I already at least suggested a connection in a post below. I reprint it here for
your convenience:

He’s afraid that if we fund a national health care system, we might not have
enough money to go to war against Iran, which would be a terrible
inconvenience for dear little Israel.

Another possibility, JimBob: if we get a public option, health costs will be
reduced, which means that insurance industry and other medical/health
industry revenues will be reduced. Are there any major medical industry
entities or persons or groups of persons which send a lot of “charitable
contributions” to Israel?

Report this

By ernlaw, October 29, 2009 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Ha—Senator Lieberman.  Remember the 2000 vice-presidential debate?  He couldn’t even best Dick Cheney in a personality contest.  What a sad and conflicted man.

Report this

By BlueEagle, October 29, 2009 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Is there a more hypocritical figure in American politics than Joe Lieberman?

Yes! All the people in Connecticut that keep voting for him.

Report this

By DBM, October 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

How about a very simple contrast:

The NHS in the UK is an efficient or inefficient organisation which has as its primary objective to provide healthcare.

The U.S. Health Industry is an efficient group of organisations which have as their primary objective providing ever increasing profits to investors.  Whether they are also efficient at providing healthcare is the crux of the debate.

It seems that the better the Health Industry does (at producing profit) the worse the healthcare they provide ... “medical losses” are a bad thing to them.  More enlightened countries call that “healthcare spending”.

Report this

By ardee, October 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

Part deux

Finally, if you look at UK survival rates for early stage prostate cancer, a different picture emerges – men in the UK have a 98.6 per cent five-year survival rate. Clearly, whatever controversies surround the diagnosis of the disease, the NHS is doing a pretty good job of managing it when it’s detected early.

‘UK cancer patients find it harder to see an oncologist’

According to the Mirror, some US anti-reform adverts have been stating that 40 per cent of UK cancer patients “are never able to see an oncologist”. This figure originates from a report titled “Review of the pattern of cancer services in England and Wales” published by the Association of Cancer Physicians in 1994 – years before the NHS Cancer Plan and the Cancer Reform Strategy were put in place.

But things have improved hugely since 1994, thanks to the priority the UK government has placed on cancer care. Nowadays, the vast majority of cancer patients in the UK see a specialist within two weeks.

The dangers of international comparison

Another big difference between UK and US cancer statistics is that in the UK, every single cancer diagnosis and death is registered nationally. In the US there is not nearly such complete data. So even comparing data that’s been properly standardised doesn’t give the whole picture – as we mentioned when discussing the EUROCARE european data a while back.

But it’s only valid to compare international statistics, of any sort, if you compare like with like – and this is extremely difficult to do between different populations, especially when the nature of the data is fundamentally different.

We’re not saying the NHS is perfect. There’s a long way to go with many aspects of cancer care – early diagnosis, access to treatment, and end of life care, to name a few. But the picture that’s currently being painted in some quarters is very different from the reality.

And that reality is a picture where UK death rates from all cancers have fallen by almost 20 per cent in the last 40 years, and where overall five-year survival figures have doubled over the last 30.

Death rates for three of the most common cancers – breast, bowel and male lung cancer – have all dropped to their lowest levels in 40 years. And since the NHS was founded 60 years ago, survival for breast and bowel cancers has more than doubled.

Report this

By at, October 29, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The rat that jumped ship came back to gnaw some more before fading. That’s lieberman for you9Joseph Walker Lieberman)

Report this

By ardee, October 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Oh SteelerSteve, Are insults all you got? Or insisting that you post fact when you post opinion.
From your BS to a doctors perceptive truths:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/


Breast cancer kills more frequently in the UK’

One stat that we were asked to comment on is a statistic comparing breast cancer death rates in the two countries:

  Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain …breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

We don’t know where this figure has come from. However, according to GLOBOCAN – an international comparison carried out in 2002 and probably the most recent comparable figures, the age-standardised figures are 24 deaths per 100,000 Britons, and 19 per 100,000 Americans – not nearly so dramatic a difference.

‘Fewer prostate cancer patients survive five years’

Another fact that has been widely quoted relates to prostate cancer. As the Guardian wrote:

  A Lancet Oncology global study last year found that 91.9 per cent of Americans with the disease were still alive after five years compared to just 51.1 per cent in the UK.

On the face of it, these figures are indeed valid. They come from the CONCORD study, which we helped fund, and compared 5-year survival rates between many different countries.

But just comparing the US and the UK, and saying that the bigger number is ‘better’, misses a deeper truth.

As we’ve written before, the US uses the PSA blood test far more widely than we do in the UK – despite questions over how effective it is at spotting cancers that would actually kill, as opposed to those that cause no symptoms.

As a result, the USA has one of the highest recorded rates of prostate cancer in the world.

So although it’s undoubtedly ‘better’ at spotting prostate cancers, it’s also fair to say that some of these Americans will never die from their disease.

This ‘overdiagnosis’ inflates the survival statistics, at the expense of ‘overtreating’ men – which is expensive and can cause long-term side effects (which can need further treatment).

So you might just as well argue that the ‘91 per cent’ survival figure could be due to a system that overdiagnoses and overtreats prostate cancer, as opposed to saying our 51 per cent stat is due to poor healthcare in the UK. Bigger is not always better.

Look Steeler fan, what is the point of your insisting that your unlinked opinions are any more factual than anyone elses. I now take the trouble to link my facts to actual proofs.

What you got?

Report this

By DBM, October 29, 2009 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

It isn’t clear but you could follow the money.

Health Industry supports conservative politicians -> conservative politicians support bottomless military spending and international interventions -> Israel is protected from its neighbors

More likely both the Israeli lobby and the Health industry support Joe Liebermann ... is there another cause that matters?  To Joe?

Report this
JimBob's avatar

By JimBob, October 29, 2009 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

Anyone who can suss out the connection and clearly demonstrate that health care reform in America is BAD for Israel, will have found the answer to why Joe Leiberman acts as he does.

Report this

By NYCartist, October 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman is hardly worthy of this much attention, but to HULK2008:
Lieberman is 1track person - Lieberman.  What can he get out of it.  Start and finish. Attention and personal gain = Lieberman.  And getting no heat from Dems leadership who can strip his committee-chair…

Report this

By DBM, October 29, 2009 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

It seems that raising the spectre of anti-semitism can get any conversation way off-track.  Ignoring Liebermann the man, there seem to be two key points here:

*  Excessive bureaucracy is already strangling healthcare in the U.S.  The choice should be between bureaucrats with a profit incentive to screw their customers or government bureaucrats who may be inept.

*  This is a decision that should be openly debated and voted on by the representatives elected in this democracy.  Keeping that debate and vote from happening on procedural grounds is openly cheating the system in an anti-democratic way in order to personally gain from the largesse of the Health Industry (Liebermann’s constituents not only want a vote, they want the public option).

It seems fairly straightforward to me ...

Report this

By robertsgt40, October 29, 2009 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Doesn’t Joe have a cousin in the Knesset?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, October 29, 2009 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Baronscarpia, thank you for your thoughtful insights. Unlike others who claim to know all, all I really know is that I don’t know. But like Ed Harges suggests, we don’t really see how these Machiavellian dramas actually play out. The generally assumed narrative is sometimes revealed, with the passing of time, to be completely off the mark. But it does make you wonder, just who is actually pulling the strings of whom?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, October 29, 2009 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ever since Lieberman lost his bid to be a presidential nominee has he so devoutly turned his affections to the neocons. Not that he was ever any good, or a representative of the average citizen, unless of course that citizen was Israeli, Lieberman seems more suited to represent them than he ever was concerning the American people. Two faced as he is, the only decent fringe of respectability he has left is his support of Medicare and Social Security. How long that might last is indeed in question.

And why is it that giving trillions to banks is not considered socialism while giving the people in general anything they so desperately need amount to socialism? Is doing the right thing socialism? Even Social Security and (especially)Medicare have fundamental ties to corporate entities. So why must they be construed as socialism? I don’t see anyone forced onto collective farms though i have seen many sent to the poor house.  Wall Street is still calling the shots. Folks this is no more socialism then is playing the daily lotto. Neither is a public option, particularly the one the Obama administration has in mind.

Report this

By Baronscarpia, October 29, 2009 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Beerdoctor -

Political realities are generally sad, but sometimes amusing.

No charge.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 29, 2009 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

SteelersSteve, October 29 at 12:19pm,

Socialist Medical Care is a necessity in the United States because there are far too many especially college students and younger children whose parents earn just enough to not be able to get medical care through welfare, and who can’t afford medical care from the insurance companies; these children go without medical care altogether and it is ridiculous to think that the emergency room covers all ones medical needs.

Just like all other civilized countries, the solution is socialist medicine.

Trying to make people pay for their own medical care when they do not have jobs, because jobs have been and are continuing to be outsourced is ridiculous.

Single Payer Health Care and Pharmacy Public Option is the only way—— it would save our country money, irregardless of what Right-Wing Conservatives say, because it would take the greed out of health care and the nation would be healthier.

Report this

By Albert Van Thournout, October 29, 2009 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe Liebermann is the worst kind of political scoundrel, the one who sees political life as a means for self-advancement.  He has no scruples, no principles, no convictions beyond himself.  He cannot even honestly call himself a patriot, for he is first and foremost in the pocket of the Israeli lobby, and he does not even try to hide it.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 29, 2009 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

re:By Baronscarpia, October 28 at 9:55 pm:

It’s perhaps true that if Lieberman had tried to play the Dick Cheney role in a Gore
administration, he might have been frustrated in his warmongering attempts,
against Iran for example, by a President Gore.

The only way to get around that might have been for President Gore to die,
leaving Lieberman as President.

Are you quite sure that the usual suspects couldn’t have arranged for that?

Report this

By SteelersSteve, October 29, 2009 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

ardee,

It is an amazing thing, you declare your opinions to be fact and me to be ignorant because I do not believe in socialist medicine.

Just declaring your opinions fact do not make them so. You can’t refute what I say so you roll out standard comebacks.

You should realize and apparently do not that infant mortality rates can be and are due to many ohter conditions in a society besides the type of health care system.

The statistic that would be directly relevant to health care is one I have already provided - when I told you that survival rates among those diagnosed with cancer are much greater here in the U.S. than in the U.K. - which has socialist medicine.

Their health system does not seem to enable the people there to survive their illness as well as our system here, does it?

Do you somehow contend that statistic is not a fact but “propaganda” instead? Then you would need to disprove what I said…..which you can not do.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, October 29, 2009 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

SteelersSteve:

Lieberman can believe whatever he wants but we are mostly angry because this is a stab in the back on a procedural vote ... to stop a filibuster.  He needs to vote to allow a vote on the bill and then he can do whatever he wants when it comes time to actually vote on the bill.

As for Joe voting his conscience, I doubt whether Joe has ever voted anything that didn’t come from one of his financial backers.  Joe is a hack and has been one for his entire career.  I never voted for the slug when I lived there.

Oh ... the latest polls of voter sentiment in CT (not CN as one person wrote) is running over 70% in favor of the public option ... that 3 out of 4 who want a public option.  So Joe should be voting for the bill if he truly represents his constituents (which he doesn’t).

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, October 29, 2009 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

I agree with “sciencehighway” - I am not Jewish;  but an unusually high number of commenters seem to look for Israeli links in every topic from taxes to fluoridation.  Reason tells us there are just not that many real conspiracies in the works.

Our “government” has evolved into an extension of big business:  a. nobody gets elected without first being filthy rich b. nobody gets filthy rich without either being big in big business or inheritance (I’m including the high profile trial attorneys in this) c. once elected they stick with their ultra-wealthy attitudes, chums, and the greed to continue building their wealth d.  the more they get elected, the more tilted “government” gets.

Lieberman was grafted to the Gore ticket because of one thing: his all-out efforts to spend on “defense” - to appeal to conservatives.

I repeat:  Why do “conservatives” love war so much ?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, October 29, 2009 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

re: Baronscarpia

Your suggestion that Senator Lieberman was simply Al Gore’s beard for Florida is amusing. Your suggestion that had they pulled off this triumph of Florida, by manipulating the retired Jewish vote there(?) and that the winning tactic known as Joe would have to go 4 years later? Now who is engaging in speculation? Especially when you examine that Gore (despite his recent ecological credentials) and Lieberman were nearly identical in their hawkish stands on foreign policy. Both were on board for Desert Storm. Both approved of the sanctions against Iraq which killed over a half million children. Both of these men support Israel, no matter what.

Report this

By prgill, October 29, 2009 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

Good exposé. I only wish it would get picked up by the press in his home state. Maybe they’re feeding out of the same trough.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 29, 2009 at 3:41 am Link to this comment

By sciencehighway, October 28 at 11:09 pm #

As a non-practising Jew who believes Israel must accept a two state solution or lose what soul she has left, not to mention one who’s always considered Joe Lieberman to be a horse’s ass, not to additionally mention being the first to puke whenever some reactive dork misinterprets legitimate criticism of either Israel’s actions or America’s support as being anti-semitic, I still have to tell you that the amount of blatant anti-semitism I’m reading in some of these comments is chilling. A few of you might want to take a look into your own souls; there’s some pretty dark stuff bubbling down there.
****************************************************

Yeah, well when you point that out you are automatically labeled a “zionist neofascist”, no matter your POV.

Your position is almost identical to mine, yet I’m constantly called an extremist zionist-fascist—solely because I don’t advocate Israel’s destruction or conversion to another Arab-Moslem dictatorship.  Somehow, that is twisted to mean that I would support that momzer Netanyahu and HIS Torah Orthodox-based fascism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I openly advocate Obama using escalating sanctions against the Netanyahu regime if they keep sabotaging the two-state peace process.

Yet, because I call the racists and anti-semites out, I’m STILL somehow a zionist-fascist, which is about as insane as Rush Limbaugh calling Obama and the Democrats “racist”.

Report this

By DBM, October 29, 2009 at 3:17 am Link to this comment

Steeler and others suggest market reforms to get better health care instead of government provision.

Ok, let’s start by ensuring that there is a market.  There should be no organisations big enough to dominate any region ... someone go and tell Blue Shield to start breaking up. (Tell CitiBank while you’re at it.)  Then ensure that there is no obfuscation of the terms of any financial instrument.  There needs to be a common representation of all similar products to allow consumers to compare products.  Finally, all financial product providers have to publish clearly historical “break-even” rate for their customers.  That way insurance companies that turn down 40% of claims will be exposed to choosy consumers.

Got all that?  Ok, now get Congress to pass it.  What?  Their corporate sponsors won’t have a bar of it?  They don’t like a free market?? 

Ah well, there’s always the 2nd best option of Medicare for All.

Report this

By ardee, October 29, 2009 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

SteelersSteve, October 28 at 7:40 pm

I see only that you much prefer innacuracies to facts, distortions to truths and ideology to intelligent debate.

Do you seriously belief the stuff you post or are you just attempting to swindle this forum I wonder? I should tell you that, even though many here disagree on almost everything, most can smell a liar a mile away.

The USA, far and away the wealthiest nation on the planet, is 37th in providing health care to its citizens, that is fact. We are 11th currently in infant mortality, that is fact. There will be approx. one million bankruptcies caused by health problems, that is also fact. Over 50% of all bankruptcies in this nation are health care related, that is fact as well.

What you post is supposition not fact, innuendo and simple propaganda that you read and believe. Research and you will find ample refutations to your screed. Or remain ignorant and a part of the problem.

Please continue to look under your bed for the dreaded “socialist” as you wish, but do not expect to enlist any to emulate you.

Report this

By christian96, October 29, 2009 at 1:13 am Link to this comment

Well, I just spent an hour reading through the posts
following this article.  I’m back to “wondering” as
in my previous post at 10:52 a.m. on October 28th.
“Berniem” made reference to the Honorable Senator
LIEberman being a “devout guy.”  I’m WONDERING who
is he devout to and for what reason? It can’t be
the TORAH!  In comments by “SteveL” it was mentioned
that the Honorable Senator LIEberman gave “PORK”
to the citizens of Connecticut. PORK?  In the Torah
Pork is an unclean meat.  Surely a “devout man” didn’t give PORK to the residents of his state!
In the Ten Commandments in the Torah Jews were
COMMANDED(not suggested) not to covet any thing
that is thy neighbor’s.  Jesus, the most devout
Jew, who keep all the commandments even went further
by commanding that we love and serve our neighbors.
I’m WONDERING again Senator LIEberman.  Are you
smarter than a 5th grader?  Who is Israel’s neighbor?
If you responded “Palestine” you are smarter than
a 5th grader.  Sadly, I read comments by “Steelers
Steve.”  I’m WONDERING again.  Wonder what insurance
company and/or defense contractor Steelers Steve
works for?  Finally, I’m WONDERING if the devout
Honorable Senator LIEberman KEEPS THE SABBATH?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 28, 2009 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

Often many of the comments here reflect the very same right-wing mantra we heard over a decade ago.  “Don’t trust anyone”, “they’re all no good”, “they’re robbing you blind”....etc.  we’ve heard it all before folks.  THEY’RE LYING.  Something that they will continue to do, it appears….. until they can regain their power and continue the rape of America.  Robert Parry:

“Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton’s presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama’s presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.

In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.

And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents – and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor….

...More significantly, today’s Republican leaders – finding themselves with little new to offer – appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.”
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022509.html

Same shit, similar pile.  Do not be misled.  Most of the comments here Hark back to an earlier time….  and again, they PRESENT themselves as something they are not.  Trust Pres. Obama and the Dems, your life just may depend on it.

Report this

By Chandler, October 28, 2009 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, it appears the insurance companies have gotten to this guy.  Doing something positive for “We the People…” will never from this Congress or, frankly, any other Congress for that matter.  We’ve got money for bombs, bullets, jets, missiles, foreign aid to countries who hate us, pet projects of these congressmen, illegal citizens, wasted federal programs, etc;, etc;, but no money for the needy citizens of this country who have had their job taken from them by corporate greed, financial lust.  When we someone try and help its own people who have been treated like stray dogs.  This guy has always been a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it pertains to “We the People…”  Next election, get him out of office.

Report this

By ocjim, October 28, 2009 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman stands out as so despicable, even compared to Republicans because he has never had a consistent ideology. He is all over the map in his misanthropy.

Report this

By kimo, October 28, 2009 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

I am responding to steelersSteve’s comments about Canadian health care.  I am a dual citizen (USA/Canada) and currently live in Canada.  SteelersSteve is correct in his two statements:  some procedures here (like knee surgery) do have waiting lists; and some people (not at all a majority) would like to see some move toward a complementary system of privatized clinics.  This would not in any way be a replacement of our current government system.  The thing steelersSteve neglects to mention is that everyone in Canada is covered by health care.  Despite what scaremongers in the US say, we do choose our own physicians, and can change them at will. Doctors, who by and large opposed the government system on its introduction, are well-compensated, live comfortable lives, and do not have to worry about unpaid client bills or fighting with HMOs to get procedures approved.  I live in a small town in British Columbia.  If I suffered a major accident, and my local (government)hospital could not treat me, I would be airlifted to Vancouver and receive world-class treatment—all covered by our socialized medical plan.  Our system here is not perfect.  People here discuss health care systems—yours and ours—a lot.  I have never heard a Canadian say he would trade the Canadian system for the one in the USA.

Report this

By Fraser Tothus, October 28, 2009 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“It’s more likley the Democratic “leadership” is using Lieberman to thwart a public plan they themselves really don’t want in the first place, while taking credit with their political base for appearing to try.  He’s only one of the worst of a bad bunch, and is there chiefly to make the others look good in comparison. It’s the system, stupid!” 
Excellent and astute comment, prole!
Neither party, neither faction of the Business Party puts the interest of the American people before their corporate constituancy. They are paid off by the same corporations, and dance to the same tune.  What is lost in the various narrow debates are some simple truths.  First, it is our money, not theirs, and we can spend it any way we want.  If we believe that it is a good thing to make sure that, in the midst of the billions handed over to the private tyrannies called corporations, the trillions funneled through the Pentagon to kill hundreds of thousands and make arms manufacturers (who would not be able to make a living in the so-called “free market”) rich, to have some of our money go to provide us all with the same “socialized medicine” the military and all other federal employees get, even if it costs more, there is already plenty of money for it. No tax increases needed, no increase in debt. Second, the excuse that “we can’t afford it” is no excuse.  Again, it is our money.  We can spend it any way we want. Third, poll after poll shows that the American people, by very wide margins, and for many years now, are strongly in favor of cutting the military budget and using the money for productive purposes, such as single-payer health care (not this current Bill’s requirement that we MUST buy insurance from the very same companies that routinely deny claims to make a buck) and expanding welfare and day care and public housing and other social programs.  This Bill is worse than if they had done nothing, which, as I see it, was precisely the point.  I think both factions of the Business Party work very hard at making sure that government “cannot do anything right”, (except support corporations) which is exactly the message their constituants wish to have sent.  Makes the ammoral corporations look good by comparison.  Any Bill that leaves the jackels in corporate insurance in the mix is a betrayal. Fifth, the current Bill was a fine piece of political blackmail.  Unmentioned here is that it was tied to yet more billions for perpetual war. Such blood-lust for punishing innocents! Look how we treat each other, at how we pay the wealthy, and starve the poor, and blame the poor because they are starving.  What an ugly and heartless nation the US has become.  Wars without end, billions to corporate criminals.  How pathetic that a nation that had no real enemies had to create them, so that social spending would always be trumped by spending for war’s profiteers. The price we have paid!  The cancer of religion, the worship of the Jesus-government and the politician-preists who promise salvation, and lie without end.  A nation of sheep with slave mentalities, unwilling to do the heavy lifting that a just democratic republic requires.  But like the Nazis, we are more interested in order than in justice, more interested in keeping the wealthy happy, hanging on their every word, believing every idle threat, no matter how absurd or damaging to ourselves.  The Wizard of Oz tells us to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, and… surprise: we do not.  We are good little citizen-slaves, channeled into meaningless letters to the corporate representatives in Congress or the White House, toothless parades and ensemble street theatre.  We continue to vote, though it changes nothing, and continue to pay corporations for the damage they wreakDemocrat or Republican, it’s always the same pro-war, pro-exploitation policy giveaways and welfare for the rich, and crumbs and “free market” (another lie) discipline for the rest of us.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, October 28, 2009 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

As a non-practising Jew who believes Israel must accept a two state solution or lose what soul she has left, not to mention one who’s always considered Joe Lieberman to be a horse’s ass, not to additionally mention being the first to puke whenever some reactive dork misinterprets legitimate criticism of either Israel’s actions or America’s support as being anti-semitic, I still have to tell you that the amount of blatant anti-semitism I’m reading in some of these comments is chilling. A few of you might want to take a look into your own souls; there’s some pretty dark stuff bubbling down there.

Report this

By antinazionista, October 28, 2009 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Backpfeifengesicht = Lieberman

Backpfeifengesicht is a German compound word for “A
face badly in need of a fist”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-
lear/ibackpfeifengesichti-lieb_b_336738.html

Report this

By Big B, October 28, 2009 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

the time has come for some tasteless humor.

“What is the difference between Jos Lieberman and a pizza?”

“a pizza won’t scream when you put it in the oven.”

thank you

I’d like to also thank Steeler for dittoheading the Glen Beck show for me, now I don’t have to watch it.

Report this

By Baronscarpia, October 28, 2009 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

to thebeerdoctor -

You don’t seriously think that Al Gore would have allowed Joe Lieberman to play him like the finger puppet the idiot Bush allowed Cheney to play him?  Don’t think so. 

Lieberman was on the ticket only to win Florida.  It almost worked.  If it had, however, he would have been off the ticket in 04.  If nothing else his flapping jowls would have been an unacceptable distraction in cabinet meetings.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, October 28, 2009 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

re: Ed Harges
Ed, Just this evening I posted a comment on the Huffington Post where I speculated that perhaps providential destiny played a hand and allowed George Bush to steal the 200 election. Perhaps Joe Lieberman would have been Al Gore’s Dick Cheney. With such a scenario, perhaps now we would be discussing how to bring to an end, the very long war with Iran.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, October 28, 2009 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment

He’s afraid that if we fund a national health care system, we might not have
enough money to go to war against Iran, which would be a terrible inconvenience
for dear little Israel.

Report this

By steve, October 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lieberman is indeed a great politician one of the greatest of our time: along with Sarah Palin.  Hopefully our friends, the Republicans, will remain strong and brave and defeat this socialist legislation about health care!!!!!  Now I must go and watch Sean Hannity on Fox!!!  Cheers!!

Report this

By CaptRon, October 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

Personally, and speaking with one voice which is the only one I have, I think the perfect 2012 ticket would be Lieberman/Palin or Palin/Lieberman. Actually, the problem with this is only who would be on top, no pun intended (OK maybe just a little). Truthfully, I think Lieberman would be better self-served to move to Israel to run that country. I think this is more where his heart is other than as a Senatorial lobbyist for Israel. This is not off topic since I feel that if you can’t be in line with the people that you serve rather than the people who line your political bank account for your vote, then you should not be there to represent at all. To me, he is only in favor of spending money to bolster troops so Israel can say or do what they want knowing that they will be backed by the U.S.. On topic, he is nothing but a political whore for his personal gain. Just my opinion, especially when I and many like me stand to lose so much when he can’t or won’t feel our pain.

Report this

By coco, October 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman needs be ousted from American government. And he needs to take other flip flopper’s and Zionist infiltrators with him. Specter and the other 20% of our government that they have taken control of. Their interest is not America first. And its no accident that we’re up to our knees in their crap.
A horses A$$...? The stupid, trusting, nice guy days are over. Foreign interest do not care about our government and dignity. They will lie, cheat and steal to control our government. They are the same as a swarm of bugs.

Report this

By coco, October 28, 2009 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman is a perfect example of failed government. His flapping tongue seem to be in the center of every controversy. And always against the population or party he claims to be a part of. He knows that the majority of our national debt is caused by health care and special interest. His interest is usually keyed on the stability of the middle east and every decision that he makes has a reflection of that area. Him and his idea’s need to take a one way ticket to the smallest and most aggressive country in the world. He needs to learn that this country will give aid when aid is needed. We are not at the disposal of any country in the world and wall street and foreign special interest needs to pay up and get some restrictions on monopolies, conflicts of interest and foreign lobbyist. And con interest needs to take a hike.

Report this

By Baronscarpia, October 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment

ardee -

Right on regarding “Steeler’s comments.”  It is indeed true that Democrats (of which Lieberman is officially NOT one) disagree and vote on other than party lines.  The Republicans make a big deal when, as in the recent Senate vote on Medicare benefits, Democrats have mixed votes.  But they fail to mention that Republicans, time and time again, vote STRICTLY on party lines.  Dissent is not an option in that party.  No one votes any other way than the party way on important issues.  So why do Democrats get the criticism when they disagree with one another?  Because it’s convenient party screed spread by Republicans.  That’s why.

Shameless hypocrites.

As for the “independent” Lieberman, the Democrats can choose whether they want that smarmy, limelight-seeking jerk to remain in their caucus.  It would be completely within the bounds of accepted partisan politics to throw that asshole out of their caucus.  let him caucus with Republicans, a party he actively and giddily CAMPAIGNED for in 2008, the party in which he truly belongs…not the Democratic Party, the party against which he happily ran for office in 2006.

In short, f**k Joe.

As for the threat of filibuster, I say again…Democratic leadership should beg and plead the Republicans to do just that in opposition to the public option,  Whether the Republicans succeed in bringing government to a halt while preventing a public option, or fail and see a public option is implemented, the voting public will see exactly who they support, who they bed with, who they ARE themselves…the filthy rich. 

They will be DEMOLISHED in 2010.

Filibuster! 
Filibuster! 
Filibuster! 
Filibuster! 
Filibuster!

Report this

By ERIC HOLMES, October 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

does anyone expect lieberman to develop morals or a conscience this late in the game? seems fruitless
to expect human response from this ‘void’!

Report this

By SteelersSteve, October 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

Republicans absolutely do not speak with one voice. You must not be too familiar with Republicans and Conservatives….there is a considerable difference between those who are “moderate” Republicans and those who would identify themselves as Conservatives first, and then Republican.

You “declare” that single payer will be less expensive. Many do not agree with you. The left is unified in it’s declaration that it will be less expensive. But a lot of people on the political right say most people will wind up paying more, for coverage that has restrictions and will be rationed.

You say other nations like socialist medicine. Why then, in Canada, are some people beginning to push for reform of their system….but reform up there is not the same kind of “reform” the left here advocates….in Canada they are referring to introducing market oriented reforms.

Government run health care certainly is socialist, in Canada it results in long wait times for procedures that those covered here in the U.S. get in a much shorter time. In Sweden, it results in people not being able to pay for a medicine out of their own pockets that would helpful to them - because it is not on the government formulary and the government won’t let them buy it themselves because it would “not be fair”.

In the U.K. socialist medicine leads to some abysmal conditions in the NHS.

You have it backwards….my ideology enables me to see that what you on the left propose is not for the good of the country.

Statistics have shown that cancer survival rates for those diagnosed with the disease are much greater here in the U.S. than in the U.K.

You contend large majorities want “single payer”...then why all the angst in this country about what the Obama administration is trying to impose?

Rather than socialist medicine, introduce market reforms to lower the cost of insurance and provide assistance to those who need help affording insurance.

Do this rather than replace U.S. medical care, which produces the highest quality of health care and the most advanced medical technology in the world, with government run socialist medicine that would make things worse for everybody, but since the misery would be shared “equally” leftists would feel better because everybody is “covered”.

You need to think of some of this rather than just following your ideology. But thanks anyway for participating.

Rather than have socialist

Report this

By SaveTheTenth, October 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Dear Psy333che, October 28 at 2:53 pm:

With all due respect, I think you’ve either got me mixed up with someone else or you’re completely missing my point.

It’s fascinating to be called a “republican” because I object to “health insurance reform” that mandates citizens to purchase anything from private companies. Why do you think the Feds haven’t done anything like this before?

I am not a Republican and haven’t been a Democrat since clinton sold out the heart of the party. Now you may not agree but many say clinton was the best Republican the Democrats could buy. I think that’s about right.

Remember NAFTA? How about continuing the DeReg of our Financial sector? Watch the PBS Frontline that just aired about Geithner, Summers etc. And where was Bubbas energy policy? And that Drug Czar mccaffrey, a real piece of work, no?

A few rebuttals:

You write: “Where were you when the Republicans were giving themselves tax breaks ?? You were not complaining about that were you ???”

Well as a matter of fact, I was. That you would assume otherwise says a bit about you.

You write: “Bush took a surplus and spent the coffers of our surplus to all his friends including Halliburton and where were you then?? Not a word…”

And you know this how? Really, fascinating.

You continue:“When the issue is on Healthcare
Your issue is to try to take away and against the humane issue ...”

The purpose of my post downthread was to point out the absurdity of lieberman complaining about the cost of “health insurance reform” when he and his fellow warmongers have put a TRILLION DOLLARS INTO UNNECESSARY WARS. Sorry you missed the point.

More: “To me you are just a mouth piece spewing their cold message over and over.. without any feeling”

Why did Democrats vote to allow bush et al to start wars that not only serve no purpose, but are actually creating new enemies? Do you think a TRILLION DOLLARS might be better spent on US Citizens and maybe Health CARE instead of mandating people that are just scraping by to have to make more payments to bloated corrupt insurance companies?

You close thusly: “The real issue is about The People and their right to have healthcare…despite all the attempts and bribes from the insurance Companies, Republicans, lobbyists..etc and of course the people like you….”

Do you go through your life making such erroneous assumptions?

The bill that will be presented to the American People is a gift to the insurance companies, who were invited to help write the bill in secret.

Now I’m really not fond of forum wars and the endless back and forth that will cost lots of time and convince neither party. Lets face it, you have already decided what you think I am and I’m not likely to change your mind about anything. I comment when I can and post what I feel has substance.

If you disagree thats fine. But you really should spend less time doing so much assuming. Because you know what that makes you don’t you?

For the record: I am NOT a Republican OR a Democrat. That makes it hard for some people, and I like it.

Have a really good day sir/madame

And just for you: http://costofwar.com/  wars AUTHORIZED and FUNDED by Democrats as well as “Republicans” who are nothing like the “Republicans” of Eisenhowers day

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, October 28, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Lieberman is no hypocrite - his problem is that he has a 1-track mind: national defense.  Any expenditure that takes even a penney from his beloved war machine mindset is against his “principle” (he has but one). 
    And there are so many other members of Congress who are similar to Joe Schmo it’s very sad.  National security at all costs - and not a farthing for anything else. 

I ascribe to Ben Franklin’s statement -
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security”.

Basically, conservatives are so very afraid of everything that security consumes their every thought.  Government should be lean and efficient and provide for the citizens “to promote the general welfare”.  The ability to wipe out all life on earth 40 times over is NOT promoting anybody’s welfare.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook