Do you believe Joe Lieberman is determined to do whatever he can...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...to promote the U.S. launching military strikes against Iran?

And secondly, with respect to the Lieberman amendment, do you believe he was pursuing what he honestly believed to be in the true best interests of the U.S.?


------------------------------------------------------------------

Lieberman Lays the Groundwork For Another War

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/14/2531/

---SNIP---

Meanwhile, a poll of Iranians released by a bipartisan anti-terror group, Terror Free Tomorrow, shows results that will startle casual observers (but not those who follow the Middle East closely). As Director Ken Ballen writes, “80% of Iranians favor Iran offering full international nuclear inspections and a guarantee not to develop or possess nuclear weapons in return for outside aid. Moreover, close to 70% of Iranians also favor normal relations and trade with the U.S.”

“More telling,” Ballen adds, “over 79% of Iranians support a democratic system instead, in which the supreme leader, along with all leaders, can be chosen and replaced by a free and direct vote of the people.”

Terror Free Tomorrow’s only agenda is reducing worldwide terrorism, and the message is clear: An attack on Iran would turn its essentially pro-Western population against us, creating yet another breeding ground for anti-American terrorists. Diplomacy, not war, is the right move now - to avoid war, to promote regime change, and to prevent the further spread of terrorism. Yet war has become more likely, and diplomacy even more improbable, because the Senate was outmaneuvered yet again by Lieberman and his Administration allies...

----------------------------------------------

These are, by all indications, the people we're going to be slaughtering next.

[Richard Steele]

1. Ack! I meant to vote "Yes, and No", not "Yes & Yes". Stupid electronic voting! nm

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to write you up, Dick...

...I've warned you about VWI.

[Kingshakabobo]

4. How do you think I feel? "Thank you for voting for Pat Buchanan." n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. If you don't mind my asking, would I be right in guessing...

...that you are one of the "No, and Yes" votes?

Of course, you don't have to answer, but if you are, and wouldn't mind explaining your views on Joe Lieberman, I'd be interested to hear them. Thanks.

[Kingshakabobo]

34. Um, you would be wrong....and it was a joke.

[Swamp Rat]

6. Stupid electronic voter

:D

:hi:

[LeftishBrit]

2. Depends what you mean by 'do what he can'

Speeches and propaganda, yes; but if you mean staging some sort of 'event', no.

And yes, I think he's doing what he BELIEVES in the best interest of the USA. *I* don't believe that it's in *anyone'*s best interest; in fact I think it's in the entire world's worst interest. But then I've never been hawkishly-inclined.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. For the purposes of this poll...

..."do what he can" would be legal things within the scope of what he can do as a U.S. Senator -- speeches, propaganda, legislation, etc.

[WillyT]

7. I Believe That Joe Lieberman Is The Modern Day Equivalent Of Benedict Arnold !!!

<snip>

Benedict Arnold V (January 14, 1741 – June 14, 1801) was a successful Connecticut merchant who fought for American independence from the British Empire as a general in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War.

In the United States, Arnold is best known for his betrayal of the rebel cause by plotting to surrender the American fort at West Point, New York to the British during the American Revolution. The measure of Arnold's treachery was made worse by the fact that he was considered by many to be the best general and most accomplished leader in the Continental Army. In fact, without Arnold's earlier contributions to the American cause, the American Revolution might well have been lost.

Arnold distinguished himself early in the war through acts of cunning and bravery. His many successful campaigns included the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga (1775), the Invasion of Canada (1775), victory at the Battle of Valcour Island on Lake Champlain in 1776, the battles of Danbury and Ridgefield in Connecticut (after which he was promoted to Major General), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777.

In spite of his success, Arnold was passed over for promotion by the Continental Congress while other general officers took credit for his many accomplishments<1>. As his personal debts mounted, political adversaries conspired to have Arnold investigated for corruption. Frustrated, bitter, and disaffected by the assaults on his honor, Benedict Arnold betrayed the American cause. In July 1780, he sought and obtained command of West Point in order to surrender it to the British. Arnold's scheme was detected when American forces captured British Major John André carrying papers that ultimately revealed Arnold's plan.

Upon learning of André's capture, Benedict Arnold gathered his wife and escaped down the Hudson River to the British Sloop-of-War, "Vulture", narrowly avoiding capture by the forces of General Washington who had departed for West Point immediately upon learning of Arnold's plan. For his efforts, Arnold received a commission as a Brigadier General in the British army and £6,000. However, the British never entirely trusted Arnold and this time their Army did not last. In 1781 he conducted a plundering expedition into Virginia. Later that year, Arnold was sent to attack New London, CT in an attempt to divert Washington from his southward march against Cornwallis.

In the winter of 1782, Arnold had left the army and moved to London with his second wife, Margaret "Peggy" Shippen Arnold. He was well received by the King and the Tories but frowned upon by the Whigs. In 1787 he entered into mercantile business with his sons Richard and Henry in Saint John, New Brunswick, but returned to London to settle permanently in 1791. Benedict Arnold died in London in 1801.

<snip>

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

FUCK 'EM BOTH!!!

:mad:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Seems an appropriate comparison. nt.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Agreed. nt.

[LeftishBrit]

15. And I suppose the 49 Republican senators ...

are also deliberately working in 'the interests of Israel'? (If they and Lieberman *are* trying to help Israel, then they certainly are going the wrong way about it; but that might be a topic for another thread.)

Actually, 97 senators voted for this amendment; and since Senator Johnson is not yet back at work - and has the senator who died been replaced yet? - that means essentially *every* possible senator voted for the amendment.

It's said that being in love means never having to say you're sorry. Sometimes it seems that xenophobia means never having to hold your OWN government fully responsible for its CHOICES.

[oberliner]

12. The Lieberman Amendment passed 97-0

Why would 97 senators vote for the amendment if they did not think it was in the best interests of the US to do so?

[VP505]

13. Check out the

link from above, I think you may find an answer to that question. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/14/2531

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. The piece referenced in the OP...

...written by RJ Eskow speaks to your question better than I could:

---SNIP---

The Lieberman amendment sets the nation up for a Gulf of Tonkin moment - one that can be used to justify military strikes against Iran, with the President reassuring the nation that he has bipartisan support. It was worded in such a way that voting against it would have been political suicide for Senators.

Does that scenario sound familiar?

The amendment sounds reasonable enough on its face. (Text is here.) It asks for bimonthly reports from the military regarding “external support or direction provided to anti-coalition forces by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran or its agents … the strategy and ambitions in Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran; and …. any counter-strategy or efforts by the United States Government to counter the activities of agents of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq.”

It was a shrewdly worded document. Any Democrat who voted against it would have opened him- or herself up to accusations that of being afraid to face the facts about Iranian involvement in Iraq. And we know that Iran is involved in Iraq in certain ways. After all, it’s been invited there - by the very government our troops are sacrificing themselves to defend. In fact, the Iraqi government is so close to its Shi’ite neighbor that it quickly invited it to open an embassy in Baghdad...

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/14/2531/

[Greyhound]

21. "In this pocket I have a contract that will make you very, very rich,

and in the other I have a gun and a bullet with your name on it." - John Perkins

[Toasterlad]

16. Where's "Other"? I Believe Lieberman is Bat-shit Crazy.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. What makes you say that?

[Toasterlad]

18. He Doesn't Make Any Sense.

He's FOR everything that everyone else is against, almost as if that's the ONLY REASON HE'S FOR IT. Even most republicans aren't as gung-ho, support-the-president as he is. I really believe he's mentally ill.

[TheBaldyMan]

19. There is a drive to war before peace can break out

a peace so devastating that Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater would have to issue quarterly profit warnings.

[Greyhound]

20. Have you heard the recording of Aaron Russo relating conversation with

one of the Rockefellers in 1999, where he laid out in specific detail everything that has happened in the last six years? From the 9/11 attacks to the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and according to that tape, Iran is next.

It can be heard toward the end of http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331">the film "Zeitgeist" available as a google video, and taken from http://www.freedomtofascism.com/">Russo's film, America: Freedom To Fascism.

It's really quite eerie.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. I'll check it out, thanks. nt.

[BenDavid]

22. We can hope Vitter

resigns, and then Gov. Blanco can appoint a Dem to replace the repub, and then Harry Reid should grow a set and then relieve Crazy Joe from his chairmanship and tell him now he can go vote with the losers.....Or we can campaign with the gusto of a jawjuh bulldog and work towards replacing about 6 repugs in the Senate in 08 and then Crazy Joe will see the light and remove himself from the Dem caucus...

I do thank you
Ben David

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. Thoughtful commentary, thank you. I couldn't agree more...

...Do you believe that this kind of domino destabilization of the Middle East to which you refer, and all it's likely unintended ramifications/consequences for the U.S., could, by any stretch of the imagination, actually turn out to be a good thing for Israel's long term security?

[warren pease]

28. No, I can't imagine how that would benefit Israel long-term...

But honestly, I don't see a lot of long-range thinking coming out of DC these days. It's begun to mirror the Wall Street obsession with 90 day P&L statements, and the kind of short-term, profits-uber-alles thinking that instant-gratification investors require, lest they pull their funds and invest elsewhere. But I digress...

I think Israel's best shot at long-term security lies in carving out a true, bi-lateral agreement with the Palestinians, and one with which the entire region agrees is fair and equitable. And that only happens if the current crop of extremists is evicted from positions of power in the Israeli government and pragmatists and non-ideologues take their places. Otherwise, it's just a state of constant hostility, flaring up occasionally into open conflict over the occupied territories, which pisses the Palestinians off so bad that they'll never back off as long as Israel maintains the occupation is their moral and political right.

As the US' #1 client state, and absent the Israeli fanatics now running the show, I imagine a sane US administration could "convince" Israel to abandon the occupied territories in the interests of regional stability and, ultimately, US national security. Such convincing could take many forms, not the least of which would be withholding the annual bribe the US gives Israel to be its only pal in the region. Unfortunately, with madmen at the helm in both countries, that's not going to happen.

So it all comes back to impeachment and removal before BushCo can do any more damage. Either that or the US will be bombing Iran within months -- or they'll get Israel to do it for them. No matter; chaos will ensue regardless of the perpetrators. And everybody knows it's a US operation anyway, so even if Israeli jets drop the bombs, the US can't expect immunity from the repercussions.

Just my opinion, but I think it makes sense.



wp

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. I hate to sound like a broken record here, but...

...once again, I couldn't agree more, and thank you for your thoughtful posts.

[oberliner]

31. two questions

Who are the pragmatists and non-ideologues in Israel that you'd like to see take the places of the current leadership there?

Which of the current Democrats running for president would put together a sane US administration that would take the actions you describe?

[dbeach]

26. MO JO

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3778

Giordano 448,077 2000


Lamont 448,077 2006

each lost to JL but tallied same vote numbers

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. Interesting. Seems an unlikely coincidence...

...I wonder what the odds of that are.

Recall the WH did seem to take quite an interest in this particular '06 race -- didn't Karl Rove express some kind of public statement of support to the effect "We're here for you (Lieberman), tell us what you need," or something like that?

[oberliner]

32. Except those weren't the final totals

2006: Ned Lamont 450,844
2000: Phil Giordano 448,077

[LeftishBrit]

33. It occurred to me to look up Lieberman's predecessors...

as I have done with one or two other strange politicians. It sometimes tells one something; i.e. a right-winger often has right-wing predecessors, suggesting a right-wing constituency rather than something peculiar to the individual.

I found out that, while some of Lieberman's predecessors were liberal, Connecticut did have one senator, Thomas Dodd, who seems to have had a surprising amount in common with Lieberman. He was apparently fairly liberal on domestic issues, but hawkish on foreign affairs, and a supporter of the Vietnam war. Moreover, he ended up running as an independent against the Democratic candidate, and thereby caused the Republican candidate to be elected (this was Weicker, who turned out relatively liberal).

I don't know exactly what this tells us (is there a hawkish voting bloc in Connecticut?), but it does suggest that blaming Lieberman's actions on 'support for Israel' is likely to be incorrect: Dodd was a Catholic of Irish origin.

And to get back to modern times, there are 49 Republican senators who mostly share the hawkishness.