Third Party & Independents Archives

June 13, 2007

Lieberman - Idiot? Or Worse?

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) has demonstrated this week that he is either an idiot or, a Jewish man desiring to use American military and taxpayer’s dollars to fight his beloved Israel’s primary foe. In either case, he is not thinking in the best interests of American soldiers or taxpayers; that is for sure.

On CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Joe said: The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq. He went on to say he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, just surgical strikes on limited training camps in Iran.

OK. So, Sen. Joe is saying the U.S. should declare war on Iran in action, if not by Congressional declaration. But, after we declare war on Iran, we should not invade. This is pure idiocy. There is absolutely nothing in the cards that would indicate attacks on Iran would not escalate hostilities to the point that invading Iran became a necessity. This has the shades of JFK's military advisers in Viet Nam written all over it.

When are these civilian war hawks going to learn the most basic lesson of American military history, which is: You do NOT strike at foreign nations UNLESS you are willing to commit every available weapon and national resource to see its speedy and least costly, but totally victorious outcome. Every time America has contemplated and engaged in a limited military campaign, it has either lost or found the decision to be too costly to achieve the desired outcome.

Now, for those of you who just cannot accept that Sen. Joe is an idiot, there must be another explanation for why he wants America to engage Iran in what can easily and very probably become a third front for America in the Middle East. A logical question to ask is: Does Sen. Joe Lieberman want America to fight Israel's greatest threat in the region. Israel has made no secret that it regards Iran as its greatest potential threat. Is Sen. Joe trying to spare Israel the cost and losses of taking out Iran by spending American blood and treasure instead on a nation that poses no threat to the United States?

Surely, using the pretext of yet unproven intelligence that the Iranian government is sponsoring and paying for training camps to send Iranians into Iraq for the express purpose of taking out American soldiers, will be met by supporters and believers in America anxious to kill more Middle Easterners. But, it will also be met by those wanting more solid evidence and a far more rational approach.

First, critics such as myself, will want to know if those training camps are not being paid and sponsored by private entities in Iran. Let's not repeat the WMD mistake of not verifying the pretext for war before engaging in it.

Second, critics will ask about the simple math of the exercise. If we are losing a couple Americans per week at the hands of Iranians in Iraq, and it is likely we will be pulling our troops out of striking distance as early as the end of this year, is it worth opening another war on Iran which, could easily cost thousands more American lives, in retaliation for the loss of less than a hundred between now and the end of this year? Can America afford to stretch its military even thinner than it already is? Can America afford to add another trillion dollars to our already nearing 9 Trillion? Can America afford an alliance between Iran and Syria, creating a 4th front in this Middle Eastern war?

Do Sen. Joe's loyalties lie with Americans, or Israelis? It is an important question if one assumes Sen. Joe, is not an idiot of history or experiencing a sudden onset of Alzheimer's Disease. Because the math of invading Iran with military strikes at this time, adds up in the negative column by nearly every measure for America and Americans. However, the math adds up to a humongous windfall for Israel and Israelis. So, I have to ask, has Sen. Joe lost his mind, or is he planning on emigrating to Israel after retiring from the U.S. Senate?

Inquiring minds want to know. Sounds to me like Sen. Joe Lieberman should be a primary target for a voting out incumbents campaign at his next reelection bid. If he loves Israel so much, voters should help him out with an early retirement, so he can move there.

Posted by David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 04:22 AM
Comment #223063


I don’t agree with Joe Lieberman any more than you do, but I don’t see how his religion is really relevant. Plenty of Christians see the conflict in the Middle East exactly the same way.

Frankly, this post comes across as anti-Semitic, especially “If he loves Israel so much…” You should be careful what you post at 4am…

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2007 07:28 AM
Comment #223066

Yeah, I agree with Woody. Although I think Joe’s war-mongering is nutty, I don’t think we should question his loyality.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 08:43 AM
Comment #223069

Yeah you’re right Gerrold, don’t question his loyalty. S’funny how there is more debate about Israeli policy in Israel than there is in the US, both in the legislative assembly and in the media. It can’t have anything to do with infiltration of the government or the media by agencies of the Israelis state, such as AIPAC. No, such a suggestion would clearly be anti semitic. Cos let’s face it, anything that challenges Israeli policy in the US, is clearly anti semitic. And we better not go there. Amazing how there are even so many anti semitic Jews, but then they don’t get much airing in the MSM either. And we all know that they are just self hating Jews. Thank God Finkelstein didn’t get tenure. Of course that had nothing to do with infiltration into academia of agencies of a foreign polity. No, everything is just hunky dory, keep smokin the weed and drinking the kool aid. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at June 13, 2007 09:36 AM
Comment #223070


As a left-leaning Jew, I get angry when conservatives try to argue that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

In this case, however, David explicitly suggests that Leiberman is not loyal to the US because he is Jewish. That is an unacceptable argument.

If he loves Israel so much, voters should help him out with an early retirement, so he can move there.

Leaving aside the Israel part, the Democrats did try to retire him.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2007 09:43 AM
Comment #223072

It is well past time to question Lieberman’s motivations. It is reasonable to see a connection between his being jewish and being the only democrat in congress to side with the neocons to the point that he had to leave the party.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 13, 2007 09:46 AM
Comment #223076

Gerrold and Woody - OFFER another rational alternative explanation for taking Americans to war in yet another country on yet another front !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wrote this article because I can’t think or find any, other than mental deficiency - and I don’t see any evidence of that in his other actions or discussions.

Our Senators have an obligation to think of America and America’s soldiers first and foremost in their deliberations of war, but, the only beneficiary of his non-war, war with Iran is Israel.

If you have a rational alternative - LET’S HEAR IT!!!!!

And let’s not forget that it was just 50 years ago when an all white male Congress decimated disproportionately young black men in a draft war in Viet Nam. Don’t try to tell me American Senators are incapable of decisions with racial or ethnocentric biases. Evolution in the human species doesn’t happen in 50 years. Check your science books.

Ya’ll’s comments remind of the Gestapo who disappeared anyone in Germany who accused the Government of racial bias. Clever, to take my questioning whether Lieberman is thinking in an ethnocentric manner, and turn around and question whether whether I am biased against Jews. You all learned quick from Republicans didn’t you?

My grandmother’s name was Perneckerstein if that helps any, and she was a very fine woman who made my birth in America possible as she migrated from Russia to Germany and on to the U.S., picking up her German husband on the way. I am proud of both my German and Russian Jew heritage. I happen to think American Senators should consider the cost and benefits of their decisions in terms of America and Americans.

And Lieberman’s thinking on those terms comes up very short, bloody short, for our American military soldiers, and American tax payers !

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #223077

Why do I have to come up with a rational explanation for Leiberman? I can’t come up with a rational explanation for much of what this country does! Presumably Joe thinks air strikes against Iran are in the best interests of this country. I think that’s insane but I don’t think he’s treasonous, which is what you are suggesting. You say that he ain’t a true American, so he should get the hell out of the country! That shit has been said about me many times because I’m a @#$@ liberal; I’m not going to think that’s right because it’s targeted at someone else. If you can’t see that, that’s your problem.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #223080

To me it is clear that Lieberman is a staunch Zionist, and that this is where his loyalty lies. He is also an Idiot for attempting to mask his Zionism by continually siding with the most rash, moronic and incompetent presidential administration in the nation’s history.
There isn’t any anti-Semitism behind my saying this about Lieberman’s obvious Zionism. I have great respect for Jewish people. Indeed, I am deeply in love with a Jewish man, and have lived with him happily for the past twenty one years. I also have a great many Jewish friends.

I believe that one must draw the distinction between Zionism and the Jewish people in general. Just as one must draw the distinction between the Far-Right Radical “Religious” Agenda in America, and people who are Christians.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #223081


I was careful not to imply you are anti-Semitic, both because it would be “attacking the messenger” and because I don’t think you are. But your argument is anti-Semitic on its face. Implying dual loyalty on someone’s part because they are Jewish is not acceptable in my book, no matter the ancestry of the person making the argument.

I don’t feel obligated to explain why Joe Lieberman thinks the way he does because I am not a mind reader. For all I know, he thinks God is talking to him through his dental fillings. Wherever his ideas come from, you should explain why he is wrong instead of bringing up his religion.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #223082

Gerrold, whether Lieberman intends to retire in Israel or America is unknown to me, and I suggested the possibility only as an inquiry into his possible motives behind public statements as a U.S. Senator which make no sense to me, if they are coming from a person whose concern is for America first and foremost.

If he is going to legislate the killing of our military and indebting our taxpayers up to another 1 trillion dollars, for the benefit of another country even as the Iraq quagmire worsens, I resoundly say he should be targeted for being voted out of office.

Perhaps your past personal experience is guiding you into reading into what has been said more than was said. The gist of what I implied was, if he is planning on retiring in Israel, and that is his motive for engaging America in an elective war for Israel’s benefit, then voters should give him an early retirement. Where he retires makes no difference to me, I have no problem with the fact that he is an American, just as I have no problem with the fact that America has communist, socialist, and gay citizens. Diversity is a strength of America and I respect and defend their right to remain Americans. And I served to protect those rights.

Now, I vote to protect the rights of our soldiers to live and serve without unwarranted and unnecessary military engagements overseas, having been one myself during the Viet Nam war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #223084

Woody, by your reasoning our government has no right whatsoever to inquire into Middle Eastern persons in America who advocate against American interests by advocating for al-Queda.

Sorry, your argument does not hold water. If a person has an affinity by ethnicity with a foreign power, and publicly advocates for a policy that appears to be detrimental to the U.S. and beneficial for that foreign power, our government and the American people have EVERY RIGHT to question their motive. Which is precisely what I have done with this article.

You may want to consider the gaping hole in your argument. Because if you adhere to it, you have to support all those in America who advocate disadvantaging America in favor of foreign nations. Like the Hezbollah infiltrators our intelligence community says have been crossing our Southern border into our country. Or, the 20 some percent of Americans of Middle Eastern heritage who say they understand why Middle Eastern peoples want to kill and bomb America and Americans (recent poll of about 2 months ago).

Are you sure you don’t want to question the motives of Hezbollah’s entry to our country because of their ethnicity? That is the exactly the same principle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #223085

Woody, also along the same principle, are you aware that China may already have spies in America who have become American citizens. The Russians did this during the cold war, they were called Moles, and if I recall correctly, we found one in our government. Should we not question the motives of Chinese who publicly advocate for China against America’s interests? I think it is perfectly legitimate to inquire into their motives precisely because of their ethnicity and their advocacy for another nation of their heritage to America’s apparent disadvantage.

Witch Hunts of the McCarthy kind are going after folks on the basis of ethnicity without any evidence of motives against the U.S. or its military or its citizens. But, when they publicly advocate potentially harmful policies for Americans or America, their motives are justifiably worthy of inquiry.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #223086


You may be right that I react strongly against the “love it or leave it” argument because it’s been used against me. I don’t think you are anti-semetic, either; I’ve read enough of your posts to get the sense you aren’t, and I did take some care in just addressing the idea that Joe is disloyal. The fact is, he’s just one of the neo-cons in this country who want to attack Iran; I’ve believed for a long time that Iran was next on the list especially if things went well in Iraq. Now I think it’s 50-50.

I don’t know Joe’s motives but without evidence to the contrary my presumption is that he is an American first. I just don’t see what good can come from not having that presumption.

And I was glad he didn’t get the Dem nomination and sorry he won as an independent.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #223091

War talk or not. I only know one thing. If I was the President of the U.S. I would never send my troops into battle. And it isn’t because I am a pacifist. It is because I wouldn’t trust Congress to back me until the war was won or lost in spite of what they say in passing a war resolution.

War is too serious of a consideration to allow factors other than victory to be the determinant of whether we should or should not send our troops into battle. I would require some assurance in that resolution to back me up until victory or defeat was determined.

Posted by: Don at June 13, 2007 02:04 PM
Comment #223097

“Do Sen. Joe’s loyalties lie with Americans, or Israelis?”

This is a nasty question. There are many people who want to bomb Iran. V.P. Cheney is at the head of the list. Why do you not question his loyalty? And don’t tell me that he’s not Jewish. Being Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 13, 2007 03:05 PM
Comment #223100

David - I also feel that the question of whether his faith causes him to feel an affiliation with a foreign country greater than with the people he represents is probably doing him a great disservice.

That being said, I cannot stand the man. He’s a liar. He was elected on a platform of ‘siding with Democrats’ and yet on almost every issue, you find him pontificating as a right-wing Republican.

Foreign policy, in particular. But he also voted against the Senate resolution condemning Gonzales.

What does Joe Lieberman stand for? I’ll tell you: Joe Lieberman stands for Joe Liberman.

(Incidentally, I just realized that you can’t spell ‘libertarian’ without using every word in his surname. That gave me a chuckle.)

Posted by: Jon Rice at June 13, 2007 03:43 PM
Comment #223101

Oops, I meant every letter in his surname, of course.

Posted by: Jon at June 13, 2007 03:45 PM
Comment #223105

To all,

What David is saying is that Joe (Independent my ass)Lieberman is motivated by religious and cultural ties to Israel because there has to be a reason that he constantly supports the Bush administration and the neocons no matter how inane their policies and decisions are. Lieberman has never come across as an idiot to me. So I have to agree with David and ask the question, what else would motivate Sen. Lieberman to side with the war hawks? Love of country?
Why, when even the most die hard Bush sheep know that Iraq is a complete cluster-fuck, do we have Lieberman saying things are going well? These morons have already hurt our military preparedness, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and allowed thousands to die or become wounded, so it can’t be love of country.
He is connected to his homeland like alot of us. Sen. Jim Walsh from N.Y. has been very instrumental in bringing stability to Ireland. Am I Irish hating if I disagree with some of the methods he used?(which I don’t) If he would have suggested bombing the U.K. I would have asked the same questions David is asking. I would come up with similar conclusions. Wondering if Sen. Lieberman is looking out for Israel at the cost of U.S. soldiers and dollars is not anti-semetic, it common sense.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 13, 2007 03:52 PM
Comment #223111

Oops, I meant every letter in his surname, of course.

There’s an “M” in “libertarian” now?

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 13, 2007 04:29 PM
Comment #223118

david, I would suggest that you follow your own rather wise advice and “follow the money”. My bet is its oil or the zionist. Find out where he is getting his money to run for office from and you could have your answer.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2007 05:29 PM
Comment #223119


Very courageous of you to post an article on this issue. It has been in the back of my mind for some time now. I would love to ask him some of those questions myself. I bet his Conn. constituency, such that it is, would like to as well.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 13, 2007 05:30 PM
Comment #223123

Paul Siegal, we have an answer to Cheney’s policy position. Haliburton is still putting money aside for him as he enriches this company and others with his policies. That’s a no brainer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 05:50 PM
Comment #223124

Thank you Jon and Andre for your comments. These are reasonable questions to be asking.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 05:52 PM
Comment #223126

j2t2, that is an excellent suggestion. And I know just where to go to find out. Thanks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 06:01 PM
Comment #223130

He’s a patriot.

Posted by: David at June 13, 2007 07:34 PM
Comment #223133

I don’t see how David’s post is anti-semitic. Joe Lieberman is definitely pro-Israel. It is his desire to see that Israel is secure. This is a political stance, not a religious one.

It is true that people do hide their anti-semitic tendencies behind anti-Zionist rhetoric, but that is not what David is doing here.

Lieberman’s desires for a safe and secure Israel is influencing his politics to such a degree that he is advocating that the U.S. engage in a third war. I think it is reasonable to ask where his loyalties lie in the wake of his statements this past week.

Posted by: Michael at June 13, 2007 08:04 PM
Comment #223135


Lieberman is just an old fool.
Any one that thinks that we can achieve a limited engagement with Iran is just plain foolish.

Oh, and BTW, any military engagement with Iran will make Iraq look like Grenada.

Posted by: Rocky at June 13, 2007 08:29 PM
Comment #223140

I don’t care to get into whether or not there’s anything antisemitic about the original post.
But I do want to say that it’s unfair and illogical.

If Lieberman thinks we should consider strikes against Iran because they are contributing weapons, training, and in some cases fighters to enemy forces fighting the United States, then, as he sees it, it’s clearly a measure that benefits the United States.

It’s fine to debate whether that’s a wise course or not, but looking for a consiracy theory simply because of the man’s connection to some ethnicity or religion is completely unfair. It would be like saying that Barack Obama is against the war in Iraq because of hidden loyalties to Islam.

There’s also the fact that when it comes down to it, Israel is more than capable of dealing with Iran if the need arises. And their solution would likely not be limited surgical airstrikes like Lieberman suggests.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 13, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #223143

So, Loyal Opposition, you are one of those conservatives who would spend another 29,000 American casualties getting retaliation for the loss of 100 Americans to be lost between now and the end of this year. No wonder Republicans are losing credibility as supporters of our troops.

It took Democrats getting control to authorize the largest spending increase for Veteran’s health and recovery medical services, which Republicans penny pinched to the harm and detriment of our returning wounded.

Conservatives such as yourself and many other Republicans call it a good deal to spend 29,000 more American soldier casualties and another trillion dollars to retaliate or try to stop the loss of 100 American troops at the hands of Iranians between now and the end of the year. Sure doesn’t take much to understand why Republicans lost in 2006 and why real conservatives have lost control of the Republican Party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #223153

David, I didn’t propose anything, or even agree with Lieberman (the subject under discussion), so your wild conclusions about me being “one of those conservates” etc, is way off the mark.

I merely said it was unfair to leap to conclusions about Lieberman’s loyalty to the United States based on his ethnicity. I also said that I take Lieberman at his word for why he proposes this course—because of Iranian meddling, which I do agree is occuring. Without endorsing his views on the solution, I also explicitly said “It’s fine to debate whether that’s a wise course or not,” suggesting that it may very well not be.

I don’t buy, however, your suggestion that airstrikes on Iran would result in 29,000 American casualities. In fact, if we’d fought the kind of war in Iraq I believe we should have, we wouldn’t have experienced such casualites or anything like it there.

In any case, the risk of casualties involved in taking a any military course must also be weighed against the risk of doing nothing. I don’t think we should bomb Iranian targets at this time. There are much better ways of handling Iran without letting them play the victim card before the “international community.” For one, they should be pinched very hard where it’s likely to hurt them the most—economically. But in order to do that effectively, we need international cooperation, which means no direct military action now but also keeping that option on the table to let Iran, as well as its trading partners, know that we’re serious. Additionally, we should ramp up support for Iranian dissidents within Iran and increase the severity of our covert actions against Iranian agents inside Iraq. Basically what I’m talking about is one shallow grave in the desert for every Iranian agent captured within Iraq’s borders.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 13, 2007 11:08 PM
Comment #223160

“Wondering if Sen. Lieberman is looking out for Israel at the cost of U.S. soldiers and dollars is not anti-semetic, it common sense.”

Exactly, Andre. Remember how after losing his Democratic bid for the Senate because the Democratic Party had rejected him, Lieberman said: “I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party,”???
Ask yourself what kind of loyalty could possibly make a man who had actually run on the Democratic ticket for Vice President want to leave the party WHO HAD GIVEN HIM ALL OF HIS POSITION AND POWER?

Please let us not be naive here, Watchblogger’s. Lieberman has been goose stepping along with Neocons paying obedient, warmongering lip-service because these people are, every last one of them, Zionists themselves. But look, it’s not like Lieberman’s Zionism is some big secret, because he’s is an avowed Zionist.
He also has a very unsavory and well established relationship with the Far Right Christian Apocalyptic Zionist movement.
How much clearer does it have to be, hmmm?
This has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it has everything to do with whether you are personally on board with the Zionist vision for this country, and the world, or not.
I for one, am not.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2007 11:56 PM
Comment #223162

Adrienne, I didn’t find David’s post to be antisemitic (and said so) but your comments, with their insinuations of Zionist conspiracies under every rock, have taken us sailing right into the realm of Joseph Goebbels. Sad.

Lieberman said: “I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party,”??? Ask yourself what kind of loyalty could possibly make a man who had actually run on the Democratic ticket for Vice President want to leave the party WHO HAD GIVEN HIM ALL OF HIS POSITION AND POWER?

Um, yeah. Ask yourself that. I guess that when Joseph Lieberman says that he has loyalties greater than those to his party he isn’t talking about HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He must have meant his loyalty to the secret objectives outlined in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 14, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #223165

“but your comments, with their insinuations of Zionist conspiracies under every rock,”

Conspiracies under every rock? Don’t make me laugh. It isn’t under tight wraps at all that the Neocon agenda in foreign policy has long been guided by a group of staunch Zionists. Do a little research on who these people are, and you’ll soon grasp that what I’m saying is true. What’s more, every country in the world (except our own it seems) understands this fully and completely.

“I guess that when Joseph Lieberman says that he has loyalties greater than those to his party he isn’t talking about HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

I think not. Since nothing about this unitary executive administration, or their preemptive, mistaken, disastrous Iraq War, or their complete lack of diplomacy in foreign policy, or their ruination of our reputation in the world, (etc., etc.) has been in any way good for the United States of America, I feel that Lieberman must have been referring to his loyalty to the Neocon/Zionist movement.
This movement gained control, and now rules over the Republican Party, which btw, is no longer conservative. Instead of limited government and states rights, the vast majority of GOP politicians now follow and adhere only to Neocon executive authority.
This is why true Conservatives have got to jettison the Neocons from their party if they want it to return to their true principles. Just as Liberals need to jettison the Democratic Leadership Committee Dems from our party in order to return to our true principles.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2007 02:47 AM
Comment #223166

“There are many people who want to bomb Iran. V.P. Cheney is at the head of the list. Why do you not question his loyalty?”

Paul, I question all the Neocon/Zionists loyalty to our country. I don’t think these people even have a country — due to the way they’ve torn our Constitution to shreds. The way I view these people is as an organized crime syndicate seeking to operate all over the world. This is why we’ve seen so much crime and cronyism galore. Loyalty to their agenda really is the most important attribute to this gang of thugs.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2007 03:07 AM
Post a comment