Monday, June 11, 2007

Joe Lieberman, Warmonger

'Joementum' sees Bush's war occupation as losing its grip and seeks to turn it back into a war.

On the same weekend that Thomas Ricks (WP) writes that Pentagon officers are planning a small 'Post-Occupation' Force for Iraq, Leiberman (on Face the Nation) appeals for war against Iran:
I think we've got to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me, that would include a strike into - over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.
There's a simpler, less bloody, cheaper solution to this disastrous occupation towards which Lieberman has turned his blind eye.

17 comments:

  1. Bush has lost his momentum, but not his mojo(e).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously Lieberman is 'working' for Israel, not the American people.
    Special interest Politics at its very worse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The sheer insanity seems to be spreading in Washington like a wild fire on the hills of Los Angeles. At this point, after the overwhelming exhibits of how not to use the big stick, Lieberman, the "loving man" that he is, comes with the air strike nonsense.

    The irony is, that besides Israel, there is no other nation in the region where America and the Americans are less hated, even loved and respected, than in Iran.

    I wish to make it perfectly clear, I don't like Iranian theocracy and I reserve this dislike of mine for many others as well. However, if you drag your old Atlas out, you soon realize that Iran is surrounded by the countries of the nuclear weapons capabilities and the Nato or American military bases. Add to this that Bush has sent the fleet of battleships armed with nuclear warheads all aimed at Iran with the saber rattling that includes statements like - "war option will remain on the table", and you might start to understand the nervousness of the Ayatholas and their wish to posses something that many of their neighbors have, the nukes.

    As far as I can see, the best course of action is America to stop meddling with Iran's internal matters, such as actively supporting and financing the regime change and those whom would do it for them. The past and present handling the matter is hopelessly myopic and counterproductive, serves nobody's interests, has failed totally and, if anything, has rallied the people behind the Ayatholas. This is outrageously stupid even from the likes of Bush, Cheney and Lieberman.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Attytood seems to think that the Bush administration has shaken out most of the brass who were against attacking Iran:

    http://www.attytood.com/2007/06/the_pentagon_shakeup_tough_tal.html

    I think he's right and I think that means war is now a go. I think this administration's idea of a solution to the problems in Iraq is a wider war.

    The thing I never see anyone talking about is China and Russia. I just don't see China and Russia sitting this out. I think both countries have sent strong signals to the US that they won't respond favorably to any further US military adventurism. I don't see how they could. Their strategic interests are increasingly at stake. And they both have established some degree of alliance with Iran.

    I think there's a reason why El Baradei could no longer contain himself and blurted out his concern about "crazies" who want to attack Iran. The US upper echelon has been carefully crafted by weeding out the non-crazies.

    Consider who we are looking to for voices of reason in the administration today. Condi Rice? Remember, she pushed hard for the doctrine of "preemptive strikes" in the first place. Gates? This is the guy who kicked Pace out, the guy who helped build up the wildly exaggerated assessment of the Soviet threat in the '80's.

    I love amusement park rides, but I just don't have a good feeling about Armageddon World...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Filip said,
    "I think there's a reason why El Baradei could no longer contain himself and blurted out his concern about "crazies" who want to attack Iran. The US upper echelon has been carefully crafted by weeding out the non-crazies."

    Good points... Where is this leading to ?
    Perhaps an internal struggle, possibly a coup by elements of the military to protect the American people and the world from the special groups of religion, and economics, that have 'captured' the United States.
    Much like Hitler did in his time, Bush no doubt has tightened up security around himself in regard to our own military.
    The military could provide a 'serve and protect' role for the American people by removing Bush ?
    Of the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex we were warned about, the Military is the only group that may come to the rescue.
    If we play out the current scenario of Bush and others from both sides of the Political spectrum, we may destroy that whole area, and who knows what else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Consider if you will the effect of just one supet tanker sunk in the Straights of Hormuz. Fools!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Leiberman's gone from being a cheerleader to being a deep-ender missiles-solve-everything nut case. Maybe he was always there, but it was never so quite so clearly crazy as to attack a country run by another bully. I feel empathy for the Iranian people because they are also being held hostage by radical, violence-bent leaders. If we attack that country, and those Western-tolerant citizens, we will be in the final act of WWW III. My husband and I can't get over how ridiculous our foreign/war policy has become. I liken it to what it would have been like for us to have randomly attacked France while Germany was getting strong in the 1930s--just making it easier for Germany to take over their own enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm behind Skip's conjuring up of the military industrial complex. The MIC was the mother of the invented mission in Iraq because Afghanistan wasn't big enough militarily. Now, Cheney and his majordomo Lieberman want us to go to Tehran because Iraq wasn't 'military' enough. And, as we see in today's headlines, the MIC wants us to erect the so-called missile-shield against Russia because Iran isn't 'military' enough. We are clearly running out of military challenges for the MIC that runs our country's economy and politics. What's a poor cowboy from Texas to do, but restoring the Cold War and the global arms race?

    ReplyDelete
  9. [Oh, good I finally got here through your cached page.]

    A coup will do the trick.

    With any luck, they would install Gore as dictator. He would destroy the television networks and revive democracy by giving everyone an iPhone and making the Internet (which he invented) blossom with free thought.

    No more dumb debates. No more pointless elections.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If the military were to take over, they would not use the political system, or people from it to make decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I say no to military coup!!! But I do think the military should simply refuse to attack Iran. Problem is, I think Bush has been busy shaking out all non-believers.

    What really needs to happen is that the Military Industrial Complex needs to shoot itself out into space, like at the end of Rocky Horror Picture Show, so it can colonize Mars!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vig, feel free to delete this as it is just an FYI. On your home page this is all I see:

    Monday, June 11, 2007
    Joe Leiberman, Warmonger
    Momentum Joe sees Bush's war occupation as losing its grip and seeks to turn it back into a war.

    Nothing below that. The individual post page is fine, and I got here through RSS. It may be just me, but I'm not having this problem elsewhere. Hope it's not major.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Tommy, I do have a problem of the cache truncating my front page during day time hours. I'm going to try a hunch tonight and see if it solves the problem tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What still ticks me off about Lieberman is that I can't help but think that he is a problem the Dems made for themselves. As usual, they cared more about their own hides, apparently, than about what would be good for the country. It was more important to them to send a message to the grassroots that incumbents are to be protected, no matter what, than it was to put all their support behind a guy, Lamont, who would strengthen the caucus, rather than weaken it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tommy just made my birthday! You gotta see Bush's new poodle!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rather than Leiberman being the poodle, I would posit that Bush is more likely a poodle, or soldier, for Leibermans Special Interest belief system group.

    ReplyDelete
  17. LIEberman wants war with Iran? What a shocker. He just earned his future seat in the Israeli Knesset.

    ReplyDelete