Lieberman on Striking Iran

For a democratic senator to remain in favor of the war in Iraq, while now advocating military strikes on Iran, I hope good Americans can see through this rhetoric of “protecting” the US and get to the real point ; he advocates on behalf of Israel, and I have opined many times that people who serve this government should not be loyal to another government or nation because there is a serious conflict of interests, which is not too hard to see in this case.

18 comments on “Lieberman on Striking Iran

  1. JohnnyB says:

    Scottie,

    Good article. Bush has failed to assert a leadership role since the last election, and as a result Democrats are sending mixed signals to the rest of the world. Pelosi went out of her way to disregard the state dept. and go to Syria. Joe Lieberman’s statements are very irresponsible, I find, and they come at a bad time since Bush and company are trying to cool things down with Iran. Now that we have a Shia majority ruling Iraq we have to be careful about rattling the sabre. Nevertheless, Iran is arming militias to fight us. It’s a tough situation, for sure.

  2. wdporter says:

    OK. So beside the fact that Lieberman is no longer a Democrat (I know, I know…he “caucuses” with them on virtually every other issue, but nevertheless), because he lost the primary based on this ONE issue, his opinion is moot, why? Because he’s Jewish?

    Wouldn’t it be a safe bet to say that he’s at least an intellectually honest warmonger on this one? What’s different about standing strong against the war in Iraq and supporting war in Iran–neither of which you support?

    Joe Lieberman is not the first to talk about possible strikes against Iran…and he probably won’t be the last. Why is he singled out? Because he’s a Democrat (sort of), and Democrats are just not supposed to propose war?

    Or because he’s Jewish? Should he recuse himself because he’s Jewish and thus automatically a citizen of Israel, thus automatically irrelevant. So no Jews in Congress, is that part of the solution, here?

    I find that line of reasoning disturbing and beneath your intelligence.

    Otherwise, interesting article, even though I disagree with this part:

    “We said that the Iraqi government, protected by US forces, was pro-Iran so why would Iran want to kill American soldiers? Our group insisted that even if these concerns about Iran were real, if the US attacked Iran, the Iranian government would certainly retaliate against US soldiers in Iraq—and U.S. deaths would soar.”

    That’s the most twisted form of circular weird logic I’ve ever heard. So they’re saying: “The Iranian Government is not killing American soldiers, and we should not attack military training facilities in Iran because they’ll kill MORE American soldiers.”

    Think about that a second.

    I feel like Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men:

    “If you ordered them not to perform a Code Red…and your orders are always followed, why did he have to be transferred off the base?”

  3. scottie says:

    Well to begin with, I find it intellectually dishonest for him to say we need to support cause A for reason B when he really means reason C. It’s that simple.

    Carl Levin and Russ Feingold, who are both Jewish, voted against the Iraq War, even when the neocons and pro-Israel groups like AIPAC were pushing strongly for military action because it was “good for Israel”.

    These 2 voted no because they did not feel that an Iraq war was in the US’s national interest.

    Lieberman does not get a pass on this one, because time and time again he openly advocates pro-Israel positions even while spouting rhetoric claiming allegiance to the US national interest.

    Feingold and Levin have credibility, Lieberman does not.

    You can read as much into my comments as you want, and you can be “disturbed” all you want, but I’m not afraid to call a spade black, and I have no interest in political correctness, and I do feel that dual loyalties ought to be questioned by the citizen.

    The neocons embedded within our government and think tanks fooled the general public in the leadup to the Iraq war, and if the citizen gets fooled again with similar recycled arguments, insert Iran in place of Iraq, from the likes of Joe Lieberman, then who is to blame?

  4. JohnnyB says:

    Are Levin and Feingold dual citizens as well? Being Jewish does not equate to being Israeli, you still have to go to Israel and fill out some paperwork. That being said, is Lieberman a dual citizen? Answering these questions would go a long way to supporting your argument, Scottie.

  5. MOM says:

    wd porter,

    I can assure you that Scottie is not anti-semitic. That he questions, for the good of the U.S., those who would subvert the interests of the U.S. for Israel, is absolutely a good thing. Chomsky, Finkelstein, and other Jewsish people question the same thing in the interest of being fair. Please read up on world affairs before you attack the reasoning of my son. Why can’t you accept that Lieberman, Wolfowitz, and others have an agenda that not necessarily is for the good of the U.S.? Are you a Baptist? Or a Pentaconstal?

    Mom

  6. wdporter says:

    Hey Mom, how ya been? Long time…

    Well. I just don’t know how to answer you, because you missed my point. I will continue to read up on world affairs, and I will continue to question your son’s logic if I disagree with him.

    He was not accused of being anti-semitic, if you feel it was implied, then you are mistaken. He was accused of using faulty logic:

    Lieberman is Jewish + Lieberman supporting war in Middle East= Lieberman being blind supporter of Israel at the expense of U.S. interests.

    If you read my comment, that was what you will see. I’ve known Scottie for 15 years and I’m quite aware that he’s not a racist hatemonger anti-semite. However, I do know that he has a tendency to demagogue on Israeli issues. He’s right about a lot of things, but he’s wrong about this one, in my opinion.

    More to the point, your…:

    a) lumping of Wolfowitz and Lieberman into the same pile.
    b) again citing other Jewish people who agree with you as rationale to support your argument.
    c) asking me about which Protestant denomination I belong to.

    …goes a really long way towards making my point for me.

  7. MOM says:

    wd,

    So you are not Baptist or Pentecostal? Amazing, but I was once Pentecostal until I questioned them about their stance on Israel. I committed blasphemy, I think, because they rejected my questions. This was more than 40 years ago. If the truth is the truth, it should be able to answer the questions its congregation asks, right?

  8. wdporter says:

    LOL, it’s good to have you back, Scottie’s Mom (it’s kind of weird to continue to call you just “Mom”)

    I still don’t see the relevance, but I’ll humor you.

    Let me help alleviate your concern. My opinions about Israel, and they are well documented on this site, do not stem from a religious view of Israel as “God’s Chosen people.” My views are much more “Machiavellian” if you will, and political, and have no place in a theological discussion.

    I am a Christian, yes, but I do not believe that “God-given” rights work well into the modern political debate…on either side. That is why I did not bring them up…ever.

    And yet you did.

    Did you have a point more to the issue at hand? Or are you satisfied with saying that the “Christian Right” has it wrong on Israel?

    Obviously, though, my point has been proven AGAIN, as you have AGAIN insisted that someone’s religion is the CENTRAL and salient issue in your discussion of their political viewpoints.

    If that is an issue you’d like to discuss I’d encourage an email to the editor so that you can get an invite to the “reader’s blog.”

    That way, you can post as often as you’d like about how wrong the Pentacostal Church is on Israel, (and when we have that discussion, there’s a good chance I’ll agree with you on a few points) and other issues that interest you. “Top billing” as it were.

  9. MOM says:

    wd,

    Thanks for welcoming me back!

    I did lots and lots of research after my religion rejected me. ..from Indiana University. I finally found that Martin Luther thought that the “coming out from Babylon” was the departure from the Catholic Church. He thought that “Babylon the Great” was the Roman Church. He made a tract, in fact, called “Coming out from Babylon”. The important thing here is that if his thesis was not correct, the entire history of Protestentism is wrong. If supporting Israel is a cornerstone of Protestant Religion, then I reject it. Israel, as it exists now, is something very strange in the history of the world. Jesus came, rejected the finite world, and now we are supposed to pay hommage to the finite world he rejected? Not sensible.

  10. scottie says:

    johnny b, they are not dual citizens, unlike feith and wolfowitz and perle. when i argued dual citizenship before it was specifically in reference to these yahoos.

    i am openly questioning lieberman’s breaking ranks with the democratic stance simply because it serves israeli interests on this specific issue.

    one does not need to be a dual citizen to have dual loyalties …

    my point with feingold and levin is that they went not with the mainstream pro-israel groups on the leadup to war with iraq, but dead against them, and that speaks volumes that they are in office for the right reason.

    the big difference is that joe lieberman went against the mainstream in his own party, and even after the intelligence was exposed as shoddy/fraudulent/manufactured/cherry-picked, he has yet to admit that iraq was a mistake, that americans were misled, and how can he possibly espouse those beliefs? what possible interest can his stance serve?

    i think there is only one honest answer to this question, and i am not alone. the guy who wrote the common dreams article and many others have also made similar conclusions.

    as far as butch’s straw man :

    i made argument A (lieberman not to be trusted)
    butch disorted my argument (no jewish member of congress can be trusted when israel is the issue)
    butch attacked the distortion of my original argument, and rejected the distortion, which he himself created.

    classic straw man, and your tactics won’t work on me lil buddy !

  11. wdporter says:

    Scottie’s Mom. Different issue, different post. Haven’t been to a Pentacostal Church lately.

    Sorry Scottie. Can’t let this go:

    “{a}I made argument A (lieberman not to be trusted) {b}Butch disorted my argument (no jewish member of congress can be trusted when israel is the issue) {c}Butch attacked the distortion of my original argument, and rejected the distortion, which he himself created.”

    a) False. You never made any real argument that Lieberman shouldn’t be trusted other than that he was OBVIOUSLY putting Israeli interests before the U.S. “he advocates on behalf of Israal,” without anything to back that up other than “he really means reason C”…”it’s not hard to see.”

    b) Guess I did say that, and then you (graciously) made it clear that it was OK to be Jewish as long as you didn’t support Israel. And I still maintain THAT is a straw man argument.

    c) see a and b

    I’m done with this argument because it’s just lost its productivity, but I will leave it at this:

    SUMMARILY dismissing as a traitor and “advocate of Israel” a member of Congress based on:

    a) other persons of his party, including other Jews do not support Israel
    b) he’s Jewish, therefore his support of Israel has to be because he is more concerned with Israeli interests than the U.S.

    …fits into about 4 or 5 different categories of logical fallacies, which you have far more extensive training in than I. Pick one.

    You haven’t shown any real evidence that Joe Lieberman is an “advocate for Israel” other than that he supports a pro-Israel position, and it’s “not hard to see.”

    Sorry, but that doesn’t work on me, Professor.

    Moving on.

  12. scottie says:

    butch, how you twist is truly amazing

    did i ever say that no jewish member of congress should not support israel?

    NO

    stop putting words in my mouth

    you DID attack your distortion, that i somehow was inferring that jews should not be a member of congress

    your words, bubba, not mine

    the point of my original post, which has been obviously lost on you and you alone, is that specifically lieberman is not to be trusted when he goes against his own party to support a failed policy ; i suspect, do you get these words, that his stance is because he does support israel and invading iraq was definitely good for israel

    i like how you start a dialogue on a tangent that you introduced, then not so graciously back out of the dialogue because you are done with it after you determine its productivity is waning !

    i appreciate my mom defending me, although it is a little unnecessary.

    your comments do not bother me so much, just how you somehow make a spectacular grand leap from my comments to your suppositions of what i must have meant …

    these leaps you make do make me a bit frustrated

  13. Em says:

    “The neocons embedded within our government and think tanks fooled the general public in the leadup to the Iraq war, and if the citizen gets fooled again with similar recycled arguments, insert Iran in place of Iraq, from the likes of Joe Lieberman, then who is to blame?”

    It seems like the “fooling” started with the Dems (the link details their consistent beliefs through the Clinton administration)
    Link

  14. wdporter says:

    If the following is the POINT of your original post:

    “specifically lieberman is not to be trusted when he goes against his own party to support a failed policy”

    Then you probably should have said that instead of this:

    “I hope good Americans can see through this rhetoric of “protecting” the US and get to the real point ; he advocates on behalf of Israel, and I have opined many times that people who serve this government should not be loyal to another government or nation because there is a serious conflict of interests, which is not too hard to see in this case.”

    I am not leaping…you leapt.

    You leapt from an article about policy (which Johnny addressed and so did I) to a conclusion about intention, which I took issue with. The fact that your comments have nothing to do with the article you link to is not my fault.

  15. Rip says:

    Don’t forget that Hillary has also spoken tough on Iran, so Leiberman is not, strictly speaking, alone.

    I think it’s somewhat of a leap to say that Lieberman

    1) breaking with party on an issue about which he has consistently broken with party and
    2) not admitting Iraq was a mistake (politicians choose not to admit mistakes all the time; it’s part of their trade)

    is enough to judge him as advocating on behalf of another country (which is quite a serious accusation). It would be more accurate and less far-fetched to accuse him of advocating on behalf of the Republican Party on defense issues.

  16. scottie says:

    one big difference between hillary and lieberman, rip, in their harsh words on iran. hillary has since concluded that iraq was a mistake, that we were misled, and that the troops ought to be brought home.

    lieberman will not even admit this.

    couple this with his harsh words on iran, and it is especially damning.

  17. wdporter says:

    OK so now we’re getting somewhere:

    It’s:

    Lieberman does not admit mistake of going into Iraq.

    +

    Lieberman has harsh words on Iran

    =

    Lieberman is advocating for Israel.

  18. Lieberman is right. You aren't. says:

    Save the Israel bashing. We can ALL find it in 10,000 places around the net. Get over it. Joe Lieberman is a grown-up surrounded by clowns, both in his party and in the Congress. Read the NY Times Sunday, June 24, Page 1, for the the state of Iran. Just awful. Terrible. Joe has guts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>