Anybody besides me angry that Lieberman talked about bombing Iran?

[Octafish]

America’s other independent actually talked about starting a war
– a pre-emptive war –
against yet another country that is no threat to the United States.



Sen. Joe Lieberman and a crazy monkey embrace.

Lieberman: Iran Should Be Bombed If It Meddles In Iraq

By Joe Gandelman

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman says the U.S. should consider bombing Iran if it meddles in Iraq, a statement that’s bound to create some controversy.

But is it merely a statement or is it reflecting a likelihood being talked about in administration circles?

Here’s what Lieberman said:

The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. “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.”

The Independent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.

“I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can’t believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans,” Lieberman said.

CONTINUED…

http://themoderatevoice.com/places/asia/middle-east/iran/13394/lieberman-iran-should-be-bombed-if-it-meddles-in-iraq/

And we are worried one guy may not vote with the Democrats?
Gee. We shouldn’t be worried about one nut. Forget Joe and his crazy warmonkey.
We should be getting the sane repukes to recognize attacking Iran is nuts.
They don't have to be called "independent" to know that.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. i am seriously wondering if he is with the neocons now. Hooked up with them.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

30. Not this crap again!

Can't one hate someone's evil guts without ALSO instantly suspecting their citizenship/ loyalty on the grounds of their ethnicity? Just like the Right do with Moslems.

[Octafish]

6. He should be pissed at Bush.

Bush stole Selection 2000.
Does old Joe think he's close-to-power by brownnosing Bush?
He's got an agenda.

[mod mom]

71. Furious. These chickenhawks still don't get the consequences of their actions.

[KG]

2. anybody surprised?

just like with iraq, he's all too happy to get the US involved in a proxy war for israel.

[Octafish]

8. The best thing to do is end the war.

The little turd from Crawford's illegal and immoral war has hurt the United States in so many ways.



So many infinite ways...

[AntiFascist]

53. You would think he would care more about the Israeli people...

and less about the politics. Hostilities against Israel can only increase if we start carrying through with these threats.

[BlueStater]

3. No

He's a completely despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being.

[Octafish]

12. Never understood working to start war.

Working to stop one is another thing.

THAT he should be for.

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. Infuriated. I thought Joe was a decent moral human being

once upon a time. Too bad he is just a mouthpiece for Israel and does not represent the best interests of the United States. I wish he would retire and go to Israel, Crawford Texas, Iraq or Iran.

[Octafish]

13. The guy's been given information saying Iran's attacking our armed forces in Iraq...

...Yet, General Pace gets fired for saying they're not.

[Erika]

7. To Joe, all Muslims are a threat to his beloved Israel

Why doesn't he move there and run for office. We don't need him here.

[Octafish]

10. Joe's also a threat to the United States of America.

As you know, killing someone in cold blood is called murder.

That is evil.



That’s bat-shit Pat Robertson crazy.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Anytime LIEberman opens his mouth it pisses me off, since he should not even be in the Senate!!!!!

[Octafish]

11. What Attorney General or Connecticut law gave a defeated primary candidate ...

a chance to run in the general?

I believe the guy's a veteran of the Nixon administration.

[Mend]

14. who voted for him? It wasn't just republics.

Ned Lamont was a good option. I can't believe CT did this to us.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

41. An unfortunate change to the election laws a few years ago

They changed the primary date, but neglected to change the deadline for filing as a third party candidate.

Pisses me off everytime I see an "I'm sticking with Joe" bumper sticker. They stuck us with Joe when we could have had Lamont.

[Ready4Change]

15. Furious.

I wonder if he'll get paid now, or in installments?

[Octafish]

40. ENRON Democrats

Something tells me legislators ALWAYS get paid.

Enron Democrats

Enron Democrats
by WILLIAM GREIDER
from the April 8, 2002 issue

If left-labor-liberal progressives had the cohesion and muscle of their right-wing opposites, they would be articulating a simple-to-understand litmus test for the Democratic Party--no "Enron Democrats" on the presidential ticket in 2004. That precondition would eliminate a number of presidential wannabes now mentioned by the Washington media's Great Mentioner. Scratch Senator Joe Lieberman. Forget the happy talk about Senate majority leader Tom Daschle's running for the White House. And Senator Joe Biden can stop daydreaming. These men--and perhaps some other would-be candidates--do not pass the Enron smell test.

It is not that Enron Democrats got a lot of money themselves from the now-ruined energy company, but they are implicated in more significant ways. On various matters, they helped set the stage for the scandalous behavior of Enron and other highfliers now in disgrace. They defended the degraded accounting standards that hoodwinked investors. Or they promoted financial gimmicks and deregulatory measures that opened the way for grand malpractice. Or they formed thick alliances with the very banks, auditing firms and corporations that are now running for cover--sued, investigated or defrocked as New Economy marvels.

Enron Democrats are compromised by their own past behavior, which explains why the Democratic Party's reaction to this spectacle is so muted. Much as in the S&L scandals of the late 1980s, an unspoken truce may emerge between the two parties--don't throw mud at me or I'll throw some back--since so many leading Democrats are implicated along with the Republicans. The hallmark of "Enron issues" is the ease with which Democrats desert the interests of their party's core constituencies to serve the political needs of business and banking. Some doubtless do so as a matter of conviction; some doubtless are convinced by the money.

Apostasy is a safe vote for Democrats, at least on financial issues that are obscure and complicated. Rank-and-file voters cannot connect the dots in order to recognize the betrayal; Republicans cannot attack them for their pro-banker votes. And labor-liberal groups--the valiant people who actively oppose these business-banking "reforms" in the legislative arena--will not attack either. This is because the Democrats always offer a billboard agenda at election time--a few important "people issues" like healthcare, Social Security, the environment--to draw a sharp contrast with the wicked Republicans. Other complaints are silenced, especially less familiar ones. Disappointed activists, from organized labor to consumer, civil rights and women's groups, swallow their anger and fall into line. Unlike the right, progressives feel too weak or scattered to propose their own litmus test, much less enforce it.

Enron Democrats understand this. They are masters at stroking their discontented constituencies while voting against them on bedrock economic issues. The Enron storm, among other revelations, illustrates the inconstancy of the Democratic Party or, as some say more simply, its loss of soul.

Citibank Democrats

Labor and consumer lobbyists felt a chill in early March when Senate majority leader Tom Daschle announced his intention to get "a strong bankruptcy bill out of conference and on the President's desk within four weeks, so the bill can be signed before we go home for the Easter recess." Bankruptcy "reform" is of a different order from Enron fraud or loophole bookkeeping by Arthur Andersen, but it emanates from the same political sources and is, likewise, hideously one-sided in its impact on ordinary citizens. The legislation was written by major banks and the credit-card industry, wishing to tighten the screws on debt-soaked families. No one doubts this measure will make life even more miserable for the people maxed out on their credit cards and on the brink of Chapter 7. Daschle's statement meant the Democratic leader thinks it is now safe to enact the bankers' bill. Last year, a record 1,492,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy protection, but now the recession is over, isn't it?

CONTINUED...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020408/greider

Big Bucks.

[pansypoo53219]

16. call joemental

pussywhipped by hadassah(sp) and georgie.

[Octafish]

43. Maybe if they got together more often...

...He'd be more peaceful.



They might not have time for so many chores, too.

[opihimoimoi]

17. The MF'r has no Class, Charactor, Integrity, etc....He is the Lowest of the LOW, Whale shit level

[Hubert Flottz]

23. He's a Bushnazi enabler...

Soulless asshole!

[opihimoimoi]

59. He is WORSE THAN HITLER....Adolf didn't know any better...Bush KNOWS WHAT he is doing is EVIL

[Hubert Flottz]

76. The BushNazis have replaced the Hitler Nazi's "Chosen People"

with Arabs this time round.

You'd think Joe would wise up before it's too late. I'll bet Bush and Karl sit back and laugh their asses off at Lieberman for being such an gullible, unsuspecting, tool of the new BushReich.

All the Arabs in the world didn't do the 9/11 air raid on America, but the PNAC wants to exterminate them all, it looks like. "Bomb Iran!" Then who after that? How many dead Arabs will be enough?

"NEVER AGAIN," your ass Joe!

Come, we go watch Joe help make the selections with Dick, Karl, Alberto, Pat, Mitch, Trent, Arlen, Orrin and George!

Democrats to the left Arabs to the right...Will Bombing Iran be Joe's final solution to the PNAC/NSDAP's Arab Problem?

[opihimoimoi]

81. Annnnd, what does it say in the BIBLE??? "Put all to the sword, man, woman, and child..."

...."the virgins you may keeep...but not to have sex for 1 month....then its OK"......

It so funny......

They actually think they can kill all of the ARABS...and...if them.....maybe the Browns are next....and if them...what about US????

This is a bad Philosophy they are adhereing to....Leads to self distruction in the long term....

[Hubert Flottz]

82. Joe and Bushwaaaa are getting kind of wreckless with the...

Sword of the Lord! "Kill 'em all and let Gawd sort 'em out" diplomacy at it's finest hour! Who'd-a-thunk-it?

Joe is like the killer rabbit on the Holy Grail movie! He has Atomic Balls now, but when it was HIS TURN, to turn out and fight for his country, he had a chicken heart.

[opihimoimoi]

83. Ole Joe never did have balls...Instead he has sour grapes

and he wants to share,,,,his sourness,,,,

[Hubert Flottz]

84. Lawd help me, my uncle the preacher is coming to cast the devils

out of my semi-young arse!

The JWs ain't got nothin' on this here hellfire a brimstone old dude!

I hope he don't bring any snakes!

Pray fur me!

[Octafish]

45. A Catch 22 Nuclear World: Nuclear Weapons Programs Are about Regime Survival

For Iran's mullahs and shakers, here's what it's all about...

A Catch 22 Nuclear World

Nuclear Weapons Programs Are about Regime Survival

by Dilip Hiro
Published on Monday, June 11, 2007 by TomDispatch.com

For countries — small, middling, or great — acquiring nuclear weapons is all about the most basic requirement: the survival of the regime or nation. Joining the “nuclear club” has proved an effective strategy for survival. The possession of city-busting, potentially planet-ending weaponry threatens to bring about a MAD — the Cold War acronym for “Mutually Assured Destruction” — world. While the “madness” of this strategy is apparent, a rarely mentioned aspect of today’s geopolitics is that acquiring nuclear arms has proven a logical step for a regime to take when its survival is at stake.

SNIP...

The Lure of Deterrance

In 1998, four years before Iran’s push for nuclear power, India officially detonated an atomic bomb and, soon after, its arch rival Pakistan followed suit. Like Israel, neither of them had signed on to the NPT. India exploded a “nuclear device” in 1974, claiming it was for “peaceful purposes.” U.S. sanctions followed but did not impede Delhi’s progress in this field.

India had embarked on this path after acquiring a bloody nose in its 1962 border war with China over disputed territories in the Himalayan region. Following its defeat in a conventional war, its leaders concluded that only possession of atomic weapons would deter Beijing from invading again. By so doing, they underlined a growing belief in the deterrent power of nuclear arms — a route by which militarily inferior countries could hope to deter their superior rivals or enemies.

Pakistan, engaged since 1947 in a bitter struggle with India over the status of the disputed province of Kashmir, was a case in point. Well aware of their country’s inferiority to India in population and economic development, Pakistan’s leaders knew that it would be no match in conventional warfare. The only way to achieve parity with their larger, more powerful neighbor was by acquiring nuclear weapons.

So they started a clandestine nuclear-arms program in the late 1970s, reaching their goal a decade later. They waited, however, to test their first bomb until after India had officially admitted to doing so in May 1998. A year later, fighting between Indian and Pakistani troops in the Kargil region of Indian-administered Kashmir did not escalate into an all-out war because both sides were nuclear-armed, with their leaders seemingly prepared to use their arsenals in extremis . The episode, frightening as it was, reassured Pakistani officials that their country was now secure from being overpowered by India.

In the mid-1950s, the same reasoning had led Israeli leaders to pursue the nuclear path. Uncertain about how long they could maintain their edge over the combined forces of their Arab neighbors in conventional weaponry and the quality of their troops, they concluded that an effective deterrent for a beleaguered country was the atomic bomb.

CONTINUED...

www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1787/

Gee. Wouldn't it be great to live in a world where the impossible could be a reality?

Like going to the moon?

Like ending poverty?

Like living in peace?

You know that'd be really neat.

[opihimoimoi]

60. There are those who think Peace is a dirty word....for shame

[blm]

85. Um, mr. opihi, could you be a little more specific about what you think about Joe?

heheh

[Hippo_Tron]

18. I'm just glad that we have a President who would never take Lieberman's suggestion seriously

Oh wait...

[Octafish]

47. War Opposition Made Easy

Thanks to you, Hippo_Tron, I'm gonna host one of these things...

War Opposition Made Easy

by David Swanson
Published on Monday, June 11, 2007 by AfterDowningStreet.org

The new film “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” makes arguing against wars easy. If you get into a debate about war, just make the points made so clearly in this film, or - better yet - convince a war supporter to watch the film. Best of all would be to persuade every American to read Norman Solomon’s book of the same title, on which the movie is based.

SNIP...

We like to think that the media has grown drastically worse in recent years, but Solomon and narrator Sean Penn make a compelling case that the fundamental lies used to sell wars to the American public have not changed over the past 50 years. The Bush Administration’s campaign to take the country to war in Iraq on the basis of lies was remarkably similar to President Lyndon Johnson’s use of the media when he wanted to attack the Dominican Republic and Reagan’s when he was inclined to invade Grenada, not to mention Bush the First’s when Panama was his chosen victim. In fact, Solomon draws disturbing parallels to Johnson’s and Nixon’s lies about Vietnam, Reagan’s about Libya and Lebanon, Bush the First’s about the First Gulf War and about Haiti, Clinton’s about Haiti, Yugoslavia, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and Bush Jr.’s all too recent lies about Afghanistan. There just doesn’t seem to be anything new about a president taking this country to war on the basis of laughably bad lies that anyone who was paying attention never fell for. Those who do not learn to see through these war lies are condemned to fight more wars, and the more such wars we put behind us the more we should be blamed for allowing each new one.

SNIP...

In “War Made Easy” we see highlights of the media’s coverage of the current war, including much glorification of high-tech weaponry. The message we are being fed, Solomon points out, is that bombing from a distance with “precision” weapons is moral, whereas strapping on a bomb and committing suicide is immoral. This distortion of morality, to focus only on the effects of one’s actions on oneself is part of an American view of war at a time when we have shifted from 10% of war deaths being civilian in World War I to 90% being civilian in the current invasion and occupation of Iraq.

SNIP...

The so called Vietnam Syndrome, Solomon says, is misunderstood as American public resistance to wars with too many U.S. casualties. Solomon points out that the public supported World War II, but rapidly turned against the Vietnam War and even more rapidly turned against the occupation of Iraq. The difference is not the death count, but rather the public belief that the war is based on deception. The U.S. public never came to believe that World War II was based on lies, but as it did reach that belief about these other two wars, its support for the wars dropped off accordingly.

Solomon points out, however, that once a war has been begun, ending it is a lot more difficult than preventing it would have been. All sorts of ready-made propaganda supports keeping any war going. Phrases like “cut and run,” “stay the course,” and “support the troops,” are revived with each new war. And they displace the question of what the war is really being fought for, even after the original justifications for the war have been fully exposed as lies.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1788/

I almost certainly wouldn't've without your interesting observation, my Friend. It gave me what felt like the first laugh in a long time. Thanks!

[DemBones DemBones]

19. ENRAGED!!! I have not forgotten how LIEberman

ran for re-election to his Senate seat and for VP at the same time. Gore should have told him if he was going to be on the ticket he'd have to give up his Senate seat.

I also have not forgotten that LIEberman in his "Holy Joe" mode said on national tv that of course all the military votes would be counted. Everyone knew there were military votes that should not have been counted, mostly because they were dated after election day. And I seriously doubt that Gore had told Joe to say anything like that.

They were throwing out ballots on which someone had both marked an X for Gore and circled Gore's name but they counted the votes that were cast late by the military, and other military votes that had errors. I grew up in a military family but the military has to get their absentee ballots in on time like any other American out of the country.

President Gore might well be finishing his second term now if it weren't for Joementum. :puke:

Lieberman's name will live in infamy.

[Octafish]

48. Those 70,000 ''Overvotes'' were valid.

Even if the X marked the spot and the voter also wrote in the name of their candidate.

Gore Won Florida

Selection 2000 will stick in my craw so long as I have breath, DemBones DemBones.



The SCOTUS rat bastards are traitors who trampled the Constitution and enabled what's happened since then.

BTW: What was William J. Clinton doing during the recount stoppage?

[DemBones DemBones]

65. To me, at least,

December 12, 2000 was so much like November 22, 1963.

The thought "This cannot be happening in the United States of America" just kept running through my head on both days.


You raise an interesting question about where President Clinton was during all that time. Would Gore have welcomed his help?
Would Clinton have given it, or was he already forging a friendship/business partnership with Poppy Bush?


I couldn't believe they were arguing about a recount! Recounts have always been automatic in close elections.

I couldn't believe James Baker kept appearing on tv saying "The ballots have been counted and recounted and counted again."

I knew lawyers lie sometimes but that was a real whopper!

I couldn't believe the yuppie mobs outside the vice presidential mansion yelling "Get out of Cheney's house!" Anyone who paid any attention in school, or in previous elections, knows that incoming presidents and vice presidents don't get their new homes until Inauguration Day.

I couldn't believe the media talking about how this court order making us effectively a banana republic was "proof of how our system works" and congratulating themselves on how it was resolved without tanks in the streets. I wonder if that meant the tanks were on alert. . .

They had it all planned out, even to books that came out soon after about GORE trying to steal the election!

[Decruiter]

20. Yes, but it's not okay to say so. It is that I/P thing.

So sad.

Lots of tears to see what may be coming.

You are the best, Octafish, you truly, truly are!

[Octafish]

56. Can you spell Sunburn missiles, Senator Joe Lieberman?

An attack on Iran might do more than open up a can of worms.

It could easily unleash the hounds of hell.

That wouldn't be good for our men and women on the ground in Iraq, our friends in Israel and throughout the region, and We the People here in the USA.

Can you spell Sunburn missiles, Senator Joe Lieberman?

By Mary MacElveen
OpEd News June 12, 2007

In the past, I have written a number of scathing articles concerning Senator Joe Lieberman for my blog. In fact, I invite all of you to read each and every one of them. This is what the Nutmeg state re-elected to represent them in our United States senate? What fools are those who voted for him over Ned Lamont.

In wishing to bomb Iran, one must ask; whose interests is this senator representing? Is he representing our nation or the State of Israel? I would say the latter since he is one among the many elected officials in the back pockets of AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee). In fact if one goes to their homepage, you will clearly see the alarm coming from AIPAC when it comes to Iran.

They are deathly afraid of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, but what they are failing to tell the American people is that Israel owns a nuclear stockpile that includes 400 nuclear war heads. One must ask; who is the greater threat to our national security and the security of the Middle East. Is it a nation that is years away from even attempting to bomb a nation with the use of a nuclear war head or a nation that has many?

SNIP...

Is he forgetting the economic ties that Iran has with countries such as Russia and China? Right now our relations with both countries are strained. Not much was thought of China blowing up a weather satellite last year, but could our military action against Iran cause China to take out some of satellites we depend upon for our national security in which we will be flying blind within the Middle East. Also there have been news articles lately in which China is building up their military forces and it should concern all of us as to why they are doing so.

At this juncture, Russia has within its stockpile of weapons missiles that are able to breach U.S. security forces. Will we awaken that sleeping giant should Lieberman get his wishes in which we will preemptively strike Iran?

CONTINUED...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_mac_070612_can_you_spell_sunbur.htm

PS: Thank you for the kind words, Decruiter. Same goes for you and yours!

[IChing]

21. I am beyond outrage and hopefully Americans are "listening"?

Paying attention to these sounds and sights of manipulation.

[Octafish]

57. US-IRAN: New War Rhetoric Undercuts Iraq Talks

People should be listening to the crazy warmonkey and his enablers.
With all the hogwash in the information environment, they may not be able to hear.
The message: Bush and his cronies act like they WANT Chimpageddon.

US-IRAN: New War Rhetoric Undercuts Iraq Talks

Analysis by Trita Parsi*

WASHINGTON, Jun 12 (IPS) - U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman's call for cross-border raids into Iran appears to be the culmination of a two-week long campaign by proponents of war to put the military option centre-stage in the U.S. debate over Iran once more.

The immediate effect of reigniting the let's-bomb-Iran discussions is the undercutting of the recently initiated U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq, which in turn will cause the military confrontation with Iran to be viewed in a new light.

Senator Lieberman out-hawked the George W. Bush administration on the television news show "Face the Nation" this past Sunday by calling for "aggressive military action against the Iranians," including "a strike over the border into Iran." Repeating by now all but abandoned accusations by the Bush administration of Iranian complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Connecticut senator's comments caused a storm in the U.S. media Monday. Suddenly, the military option against Iran was once more at the centre of the U.S.'s Iran debate.

Earlier that week, Israel's hawkish trade minister and former defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, had visited Washington to hold strategic discussions regarding Iran's nuclear programme with Bush administration officials. According to press reports, Mofaz urged the United States to give diplomacy with Iran an expiration date of the end of the year, after which the military option would be exercised.

"Sanctions must be strong enough to bring about change in the Iranians by the end of 2007," Mofaz reportedly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to Channel 2 News in Israel, Mofaz went on to declare to Rice that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities by year's end if diplomacy and sanctions fail to persuade Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities.

A week prior to Mofaz' visit to Washington, Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative editor-at-large of Commentary, published a lengthy op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled "The Case for Bombing Iran." Comparing Iran's fire-brand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler, Podhoretz accused Iran of seeking to "overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism."

CONTINUED...

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38133

*Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Alliance -- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States" (Yale University Press, 2007). He is also president of the National Iranian American Council (http://www.niacouncil.org/).

Maybe we can make like the "Whos" Horton heard.

[kineneb]

63. interesting name- side note

The Parsi are the Persian Zoroastrians who moved to India to escape persecution after the Islamic "conversion" of Persia. It comes from the same root word as the country's name "Pars/fars".



And Norman Podhoretz is an ass. Ahmadinejad is less close to Hitler than Cheney is (I discount Bush because he is the puppet; Cheney is the puppetmaster). And ol' Ahmadinejad has to answer to the Mullahs, so he can't get too out of line.

[libodem]

22. He is an outrage.

Somebody owns him. He sold his soul somewhere along the way. What is with this pre emptive striking shit? I though we had to be threatened to declare war? This is all being done in Corporate Oil's interest, if you ask me. Must be too much of a free market system with Iran and Hugo to compete with. The goal must be to get Oil up to a hundred dollars a barrel. Grab everything and manipulate supply. And sometimes I believe we really did promise Israel a pipline of oil straight from Afghanistan and it has to cut across Iran. Nothing else makes sense, either.

[Octafish]

68. The Smirking Moron just before the invasion warned the Iraqi people not to hurt the oil wells.

Here's what Gov Bush told the Iraqi people on March 13, 2003:

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation

The Cross Hall
March 17, 2003
8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

END 8:15 P.M. EST


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

A lot of irony, there. And a week later we were no different than the NAZIs, taking what wasn't ours.

"Money trumps peace. Sometimes." -- George Walker Bush, Warmonger.

[Tyler Durden]

24. Take a NUMBER.

The guys who should be most pissed are Ned Lamont for the IDIOTS who call themselves DEMOCRATS who actually supported that asshole Leiberman, AND Alan Schlesinger who was expected to fall on his GOP sword for that whore Joe and the Pig Bush.

They have numbers 1 and 2.

[Octafish]

77. Here's who else has got me steamed...

...well, two of the lesser lights, anyway:



Image courtesy of the Bartcop Collection.

From PoliticalArithmetik comes analysis: From what I understand, Lamont got about 52-percent and Joememtum grabbed a little ove 48. My guess is that later, in the general, the urban districts didn't turn out in the big numbers Lamont needed. I'm in Motown. We're lucky to get 30-percent turnout in the city, although we did break 50-percent in 2004.

[KharmaTrain]

25. And Liebermann Means Anything? You Give Him Too Much Credit

As a Jew, I find Liebermann a complete embarassment and he's done a great deal to hurt his pet cause, Israel, than he realizes. He sold out to the "goys" who he thinks are his friends but will turn on him the second he's no longer useful (which was last January).

With Hagel's vote on Iraq siding with Democrats, Liebermann is irrelevant now and short of a 50-50 tie (and Crashcart wlll break that tie), Joe can pound sand on most votes.

The Repugnicans need Iran as a distraction...a game...s means to feel like they're still in control of a mess that they long since lost. It's whistling past the graveyard as our military is stretch beyond the breaking point and doesn't have the capacity to wage THREE wars at once...and any push for such I suspect will lead to a near military revolt.

A lot of this sabre rattling is a dive for the campaign bucks...AIPAC and its allies are out writing checks right now and if you say the crap like Joementun, you'll get a nice pay-off. But it's blood money for the futures of Joe's "buddies"...Collins, Sunununu, Showe, Smith and other so-called GOOP moderates. Joe will be the kiss of death next year if we make him so!

[Solly Mack]

26. I'm not angry. I expect such things from Lieberman

I am disgusted however.

In many cases people only have the power that is yielded to them - yield power to Lieberman and he has it. Reject the premise that Lieberman has any power - just take him out of the equation completely - and you remove his power.

Don't look to him on votes, opinions - anything at all - and the need he seems to fill will cease to exist. Stop feeding his ego. Stop feeding the thinking that he's needed or even wanted.

Marginalize him, in other words.

Yes, he'll go republican but well...hasn't he already more or less?

If I were in 'the game', I'd make sure Lieberman had a great fall (Humpty-Dumpty)- figuratively -taking him down politically.

But then I really think he needs to be out of government and Congress may place a value on Lieberman for their own reasons. (blm understands what I mean by value)

[burythehatchet]

27. I believe its time to reconsider

whether Tel Aviv should have a senator.

[Nihil]

33. You've got more chance of reforming the "electoral college" ...

... than of removing the Israeli "casting vote" from the US administration.
(Note: Not just refering to Lieberman but also his cronies in both parties.)

[leftchick]

28. Here is what Juan Cole thinks about it....

I hope he is right... :scared:

<snip>

That is why Senator Joe Lieberman's call for aggressive air strikes on Iran are unlikely to eventuate. Bush needs Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in order to avoid immediate and complete defeat in Iraq, and SIIC is very, very close to Iran. Lieberman doesn't seem to understand, by the way, that Iraqi Shiites would mind the US bombing their coreligionists and would probably massacre the entire British garrison in Basra as well as interdict US fuel convoys to the north from Kuwait and Basra. His irresponsible warmongering would get a lot of US troops killed for no good reason. One only hopes he isn't talking this way primarily for the purposes of Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's rightwing government; he just met with Olmert and: "The two also discussed U.S. policy toward Iraq and the West's capabilities for dealing with the Iranian threat." If Lieberman and Olmert want to start another war, they should please do it themselves and leave American servicemen out of it.

http://www.juancole.com/labels/Iraq.html

[LeftishBrit]

29. Yes. Lieberman is a warmongering nutter!

And he just adores Bush! And he never was a real Dem - Dems don't run to the right of their Republican opponents, with the backing of the National Review.

Elect a Dem as president in 2008, pleeeeeaaaaase, and let the entire world breathe more easily! Bush and his pals are a MENACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[malaise]

31. I sure am n/t

[Philosoraptor]

32. He endangers us all.

[H2O Man]

34. Neo-liberal Joe

Lieberman is one of the "new" breed of neo-liberals who will be carrying the ball for their neoconservative allies. They will attempt to convince moderate democrats that they have much in common in terms of liberal social policy, and that their "tough on defense" stances will win elections. But their "tough on defense" policies do not make the world safer for US citizens, and do not promote our national interests.

[SIMPLYB1980]

35. Screw you Lieberman!

[paparush]

36. I'm just flabbergasted that Lieberman was the Dem VP Nominee...

what the fuck has happened to Joe?

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. That continues to baffle me as well. Weird, just weird.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. I'm sure Gore wishes he had never chosen him.

It was Joe, as I already said somewhere in this thread, who decided on live national tv that the Gore campaign would not challenge any military votes.

Excuse me? Military personnel have to abide by the same rules as anyone else who votes an absentee ballot. But in 2000, thanks to Holy Joe trying to look like an uber- patriot, improper military votes were counted.

I grew up in the military and never heard of military officers telling their subrdinates to vote for Bush, as they were said to have done in 2000, even encouraging those registered to vote in Florida to send in ballots after the election was over. The military is not supposed to get involved in politics but all the rules are considered optional by many Republicans. "Rules? Rules don't apply to us/.

[Schema Thing]

38. Yes, Wes Clark is. n/t

[lonestarnot]

39. I'd like to wipe my ass on him.

:grr:

[The Stranger]

42. Arrest him for conspiracy to commit war crimes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. No.

I've come to expect that sort of thing from him.

[libnnc]

46. I'm furious. I'm sick and tired of his shit

Enough already Joe. Just fucking leave.

[Tyler Durden]

49. Good people have heart attacks and die every day: Demons seem to live forever.

Next to Cheney, I have never in my life wanted to watch someone's massive fatal coronary.

That includes Bush, Bush 1, Reagan, DeLay, Gingrich, and Nixon.

I swear to god, I'd watch it happen and sell popcorn.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

50. Angry? Hell yes!

This myopic thug cares nothing for the people he represents (the ones who cast the votes, I mean). He is the ultimate panderer to moneyed interests and will sacrifice tens of thousands of lives to gain his goal. Fuck this asshole! He is corrupt to the bone.

[wiggs]

51. Preventative...not preemptive. One's legal, the other not. Regardless,

I agree with your sentiment and to me this is just another sign that this cabal is pursuing a master plan that always included Iran as the ultimate prize. Think this is just Lieberman on his own figuring this stuff out and making statements? Or has he been tabbed to be the guy posing as a centrist to bring a scripted message to the public?

So is Lieberman interpreting intelligence on his own? Is he being shown cooked intelligence? Or is he just making it up because he BELIEVES the neocon long range plan that we must have it out in the middle east to establish dominance and he is simply doing what he thinks is necessary? Is he pulling a Colin Powell, allowing himself to ignore nagging doubts and contrary evidence in order to keep momentum for a master plan? And isn't it a similar situation to Iraq in that small, incremental, daily mistruths and exaggerations could lead to AN EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE AND RISKY CONSEQUENCE? So, isn't there any other way to deal with supposed incursions (by govt agents or otherwise) short of attacking Iran and risking WWIII?

We need to be damn sure and accurate about what we say, what evidence is relied upon, who is saying what, and why. The official word was that Iranians were making IEDs and giving them to Iraq. It ended up being a much weaker accusation...but there have been so many inaccurate, exaggerated statements that BY NOW WE SHOULD BE ASSUMING THEY ARE FALSE unless proven otherwise.

I assume what Lieberman is saying is wrong, exaggerated, or untrue until proven otherwise.

I hope my congressmen consider all statements wrt Iran similarly and hope they are working diligently to ensure that we don't have another Iraq to deal with, only worse. It will only take a few dc dems to be on board with military action against Iran and this scares me.

[fooj]

52. Wonder what they have on Joe. There's gotta be something...

[triguy46]

54. He's irrelevant and racing to obscurity. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

55. A Neo-Conservative International Targets Iran

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/

Before the week is out, it’s worth noting the “Democracy & Security” conference in Prague last Monday and Tuesday where Bush, on his way to the G-8 Summit in Heiligendamm, confirmed once more — just in case his tightening embrace over the past year of Sunni-led authoritarian regimes around the Middle East had provoked any doubts — his commitment to spreading freedom and defeating tyranny throughout the world, particularly in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. Held under the auspices of the Czech Foreign Ministry and Prague’s municipal government, the meeting was organized by the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI), the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Likudist Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and Spain’s Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis (FAES) headed by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Read the rest of this entry »

Kristol Disses Bush Big Time
June 6th, 2007
In a truly remarkable statement published in the online version of his ‘Weekly Standard’ Wednesday morning, William Kristol essentially slapped George W. Bush with his glove, accusing him of disloyalty, indecency, and cowardice with respect to the president’s failure so far to issue a pardon for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff who, as of Tuesday, is looking at a 30-month prison term for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair.

Read the rest of this entry »

Meanwhile, Back in the Bahamas….
June 4th, 2007
For those of you interested in last week’s off-the-record meeting sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) on “Confronting the Iranian Threat: The Way Forward” in the Bahamas, we have a bit more information, specifically, a list of the intended participants and the program, and another on selected readings that the participants were encouraged to review before the meeting itself. These documents were prepared roughly a week before the actual get-together. It should be stressed that not everyone cited in the first document actually attended. Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad’s office told me Monday that he did not attend. In addition, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, who is listed on the program as one of the speakers on the subject of “Prospects for Reform or Revolution,” never accepted the invitation.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Wurmser Squirms
June 3rd, 2007
Helene Cooper’s article in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune Saturday could mark a decisive moment in the fight between the hawks and the realists within the administration.

That Cheney, via David Wurmser, has been shopping attack scenarios on Iran without Bush’s approval could very well bring things to a head. If Rice/Gates/Burns want to go after the Vice President’s office, this gives them a very big opening.

[KamaAina]

58. What else would you expect

from a Republican?

[opihimoimoi]

62. YEAH...What Else???

Hi There Kama...hope all is well with you

[KamaAina]

64. Yup, same as ever

preparing for my next mainland run at the end of the month. :hi:

[opihimoimoi]

80. Run? Ya coming back I take it? Well, have a good trip...have fun, and stay safe if ya can help it...

:beer:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

61. I can't say what 'vested' interest he has,...other than himself.

He is beyond my comprehension.

I have NEVER understood people who are COMPLETELY INTO THEMSELVES, without thought.

He is a "ho". IF he had lived in Hitler's reign, he would have sold his soul to retain his 'worth'.

He has no honor. NONE.

[seemslikeadream]

66. Gambit to link Iran to the Taliban backfires

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF13Ak02.html

The fact that the officials making the accusation about Iran and Afghanistan are unwilling to go on the record and the refusal of Gates and McNeil to go along with it suggest an effort by Cheney and his allies in the administration to do an "end run" around official policy by conjuring up a regionwide Iranian offensive against US forces.

Steve Clemons reported on his weblog The Washington Note on May 24 that an aide to Cheney has told gatherings at right-wing think-tanks that Cheney is afraid Bush will not make the "right decision" on Iran and believes he must constrain the president's choices.

[seemslikeadream]

69. very, very clear signal and a clear statement that all options are on the table."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0612/p99s01-duts.html


Over the weekend, Israel officials indicated that a strike against Iran was an option being considered if diplomacy fails. The Associated Press reports that Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said the US and Israel would review the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran at the end of the year, and that the two allies share a strategy on dealing with Tehran.

"The strategy shared by the U.S. and Israel has three elements," Mofaz told Israel Radio. "One is a united international front against the Iranian nuclear program. Secondly, at this time, sanctions are the best way to act against the aspirations of Iran."

He said the third element is "a very, very clear signal and a clear statement that all options are on the table." Mofaz added: "I never said there is no military option, and the military option is included in all the options that are on the table, but at this time it's right to use the path of sanctions, and to intensify them."

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

70. He really sucks.

Now we're supposed to get dragged through this same pack of lies with a different "enemy"???

:wtf:

Look at that hug. He and Chimp deserve each other. :mad:

[blm]

72. Does anyone REALLY think Lieberman speaks only for himself? Other powerful Dems

who can't afford to say publicly what they really believe right now, have long SHARED Lieberman's views on this.

[spanone]

73. he never met a war he didn't like.

[Oilwellian]

74. I think it's criminal, Octafish, and it makes me furious

Lieberman needs to clarify his thoughts on the danger to our troops in Iraq, should Bush decide to bomb Iran. Wouldn't it be nice if it were part of the national dialog?

[Breeze54]

75. LIEberman: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..."

Is this really anything new?? He's just repeating the same
crap he did at that AmVets gathering. What a fucktard! :grr:

[Kat45]

78. Yup. Wes Clark. And he gave him a smackdown:

>After wrongly supporting George W. Bush's strategic blunder of attacking Iraq, and continuing to >support Bush's failed policies after the invasion, Senator Joe Lieberman made irresponsible comments >this weekend regarding military action against Iran.

See more on Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/12/151042/484

[caligirl]

79. Paid by the word by the RNC, LIEberman sold his sole, the DEMS should kick him out.