I like that he's managing to compress what should be a years-long transition from moderate Democrat to psychotic rightwinger into just a few months.
« In Retrospect | Main | Morals and Medicine »
Joe Lieberman, Warmongerer
06 Jul 2007 11:11 am
Comments (79)
The electorate in Connecticut put the crazy bastard in office. How about we lay blame where it's due? I still say Lamont blew it by taking a VERY, VERY untimely vacation immediately after winning the Democratic primary. He had momentum and had Joe on his heels. Lieberman took advantage of Lamont's absence to do some damage control and gather his wits. Saved by the bell, a bell Lamont didn't have to ring. And now what? Holy Joe leads the march into another meat grinder. It's goddamned Wonderland and we're all Alice.
I guess there is no provision for a recall vote in CT?
In every neocon opinion piece, the alternative to warmongering would "send an umistakable message," presumably that we're weak. Is there a neocon style manual that dictates the use of the same tired language?
On the merits, the prevailing neocon theory is that nothing in foreign policy matters other than the projection of power. Putting aside the fact that Iran is at least a quasi-rational actor that has interests that can be addressed pragmatically, I'm not sure why the neocons think the dead-ender Islamic fundamentalists can ever be cowed into submission by the projection of power. The whole Islamist worldview is predicated on resentment against the west and an eschatological will to matyrdom. They don't need to feel like they can win to keep doing what they do. Have any of the neocons actually articulated how the projection of power solves the terrorism problem rather than making it worse? What's the underlying theory? I ask out of legitimate curiosity.
I guess there is no provision for a recall vote in CT?
You can't recall federal officials. It's unconstitutional.
Duncan,
Don't forget, the Republicans didn't put up anyone of consequence to run, so that is why Rove and Co. backed HoJo.
Vanya,
There is no recall provision for any Senator, no matter what state he/she is from. Once they are there, they have the whole 6 year term, unless they resign, die or are removed by their peers. The voters don't have another say on HoJo for another 5 years.
Do you Dems have a better plan to deal with Iran or, a la Ezra, do you care whether they pursue their goals in the region or not? Do you care whether they arm Hamas or Hezbolloah or not? Do you care whether they arm the Iraqi Shiite Death Sqads or not?
I have yet to hear a Democratic response (except for Old Joe of course) that doesn't reflect an equivocal or "head in the sand" approach to an adversary.
Please, tell me how you will respond to the Iraninan threat.
Lieberman's re-election:Connecticut::Didn't inhale:Clinton
IlP,
I wish someone would respond to you first by socking you in the teeth. Maybe then you’ll actually be forced to bloviate out your ass about “the Iranian threat.”
Mike,
Bring it on!!!
I guess you are just too stupid to actually, ya know, present a coherent argument.
I am waiting -- either a pen or a fist, I'll take them both.
I think what you are seeing is that Lieberman now feels the freedom to let his inner psychotic rightwinger show to the world, after years of keeping it hidden in deference to his Democratic constituency. It's not really a transition so much as a coming out of the closet.
The problem is that the moderate Democrats in Connecticut politics (which is of course a very blue state to begin with) are by and large very pro-Israel. Both the NYC corridor (Fairfield and Greenwich counties) and West Hartford power bases, who really can set the tempo for the state as a whole, came out for Lieberman, largely because of their support for Israel. Combine that with practically every Republican who voted going to Lieberman and there you have it. Don't blame the Connecticut Dems as a whole; we nominated the other guy.
(I know it's weird to think of Greenwich and Fairfield as Democratic power bases, and it's true that they are among the most Republican sections of the state. But the left wing within those counties are very influential in the progressive political scene as a whole.)
...do you care whether they pursue their goals in the region or not? Do you care whether they arm Hamas or Hezbolloah or not? Do you care whether they arm the Iraqi Shiite Death Sqads or not?
Iran is going to do all those things whether we bomb them or not. Short of physically occupying the country and installing a puppet regime to do our bidding, no amount of military force we apply on Iran will prevent those things from happening.
James,
If that's your attitude, prepare your burqa, you will need it.
the thing about self-righteous narcissists like lieberman is that they are (in their own minds) always correct. it's not so much that lieberman is unleashing his inner psychotic (blah's theory) in my mind as it is that having committed himself to a delusional course of action regarding iraq, he is psychologically incapable of self-doubt; indeed, he keeps doubling down on the rhetoric simply to reinforce his own "correctness."
as for psychotics like ILP, before anyone starts producing any plans (mine, for instance, is continue with sanctions and wait out the crazies), maybe you should define exactly what sort of "threat" it is that iran is supposed to be posing.
and to whom.
i realize there are lunatics (prof instanitwit, for example, and potentially ILP) who think that iran has been at war with us since 1979, but if that's the case, we can handle it; our losses over the past 28 years being pretty minimal for armagedon and all....
well, we're making progress with ILP: he seems to think that Iran is going to invade the US and install a shiite theocracy.
that's some deep, deep thinking you're showing us there, ILP! keep it up: we need those subtle insights.
howard,
I realize you don't possess the brain matter to actually engage in a discussion, but name calling will get you nowhere.
As far as "waiting out the crazies" good luck. what makes you think that'll happen?
And eventually, on the course we're headed (pretty weak sanctions, constant talking and the fact it took the IAEA 18 years to find Iran's nuclear program) that Iran will have nukes and the ability to deliver them to Israel, Europe and, yes, the US.
If you want to wait for that to happen, be my guest. Sounds like the modern version of "peace in our time".
Matt, he hasn't been a moderate Democrat for several years already. See also: losing the Democratic primary in '06.
ILP, if you want to fling around terms like "brain matter" then you need to demonstrate some.
i have no idea where you're getting your "18 years" from, but the IAEA (you know, the people with an accurate track record in iraq) hasn't even concluded that there is a nuclear weapons program in iran.
but you're not only assuming a nuclear weapons program, but the following: an ability to develop sufficient ballistic missile capability to shoot at the united states; a willingness unseen in the 28 years iran has been at war with us to engage in national suicide; no ability by the iranians to respond to a military action by the US; and a rationale for shooting a nuclear weapon at europe or the US.
or maybe this is all an elaborate smokescreen on your part and you think that insofar as Iran represents a potential existential threat to Israel (not very, in my estimation), that is good enough, since that's the only thing on your list that is actually part of the reality-based environment.
meanwhile, if you're going to fling around "peace in our time" accusations, you might know something about them, like "peace in our term" was a ratification of nazi expansionism. when iran overruns a neighboring country (and why should it? one of its neighbors, iraq, thanks to our brilliant piece of adventurism, has moved from enemy to likely ally) and i say "oh well, as long as iran promises to go no further," then you can use a "peace in our time" analogy. otherwise, you're not impressing anyone with your ratiocinative abilities by a false comparison.
we heard a lot from asswipes like you, ILP, in the run-up to the Iraq war, spouting precisely the same rhetoric; a handful have learned that life is not a game of risk. you obviously aren't among that handful.
Do you Dems have a better plan to deal with Iran?
Yes we do: negotiate a deal with Iran. They can offer important things we want, and we can offer important things they want - so let's iron out a mutually beneficial exchange. In the olden days, you used be able to count on Republicans to at least understand business, and recognize the ingredients for a deal when they obvious. That was before the GOP was completely taken over by the hair-on-fire fanatic holy roller contingent.
howard,
do you have the ability to read? It took the IAEA 18 years to find traces of radioactive material in Iran. I refer you to William Langewiesche's book (spelling may be off but he's a writer for the Atlantic) for further study. the problem with the IAEA is that they have a very weak mandate.
And i suggest you study the development of technology -- iran's nuclear capability (which even Europe assumes though you don't) wasn't homegrown. likewise, ballistic missle capability can be imported, even under a sanctions regime.
you may also want to consider the martyr complex of shi'ism - and the statements of supposed moderates like Rafsanjani with regard to nuking Israel and the effects of an israeli counter-nuke strike on Iran.
So instead of using SAT terms like "asswipe" and "psychotic" I suggest you actually pick up a book. But since you lack "brain matter" I doubt you will.
ILP is not a serious thinker. As a child, he pouts and throws his fists in the air. Tantrums solve his problems, and he insists that they should solve yours too.
One day, he will grow up.
One day he will stop hating America.
Do you Dems have a better plan to deal with Iran?
As far as I can tell they are on the same page as Joe Lieberman. The elected ones anyway. That's crazy and a catastrophe, but this is where we are headed.
Shorter ILP: "Iran evil. Iran crazy. We must bomb Iran."
That's about the extent of thinking ILP (and sadly much of the Administration) is willing to engage in. Unserious indeed.
ILP, those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it (i read that in a book once!).
there are two questions at hand: the first is what, exactly, are iran's "nuclear capabilities," and the second is what to do about whatever it is that those capabilities are.
wrt the first one, it's a reasonable thing to be concerned about iran's intentions. although they claim to be developing nuclear power, it's obviously not much further from nuclear power to nuclear weapons. still, iran's "nuclear capabilities" today (and tomorrow) (and for some years to come) do not include the ability to produce nuclear weapons, even if that's where they are heading.
wrt the second one, the simple-minded militarism of joe lieberman (our original subject), the bush-cheney administration, and the right-wing psychotics in whose number i include you doesn't appear to think things through beyond the orgasmic splendor of "shock and awe." as i noted, suppose we employ military action to try and wipe out the supposed nuclear weapons program; do you honestly think there isn't a price to be paid in the middle east (and especially to our troops sitting in iraq) for that? have you imagined a cost-benefit analysis?
or were you too busy flinging around "peace in our time" accusations (where i come from, btw, accusing someone of sympathizing with neville chamberlain is a much harsher insult than "asswipe," but one of the things we're learning over the bush-cheney years is what delicate little flowers most of these supposed right-wing toughs actually are)?
meanwhile, as for technology transfer, yes son, i know all about it (indeed, there is good reason to think that insofar as there is a nuclear weapons program in iran, the cookbook was written by dr. kahn), but it's one thing to have a cookbook and another thing to cook like escoffier.
i have no patience for people who fail to observe santayana's dictum and who, instead, suggest that anyone whose blood lust isn't as high as yours is an "appeaser." there are times, after all, when an ad hominem is perfectly justified....
if any of you bother to read, you may notice that Senator Lieberman was advocating a multipronged approach - economic, diplomatic,political backed by potential use of force.
ILP, you came in here acting like everyone else was stupider than you then wondered why you got called out on it. If you just looked through the archives of this very blog, you would see a Dem supporting engagement with Iran. You can find the same thing in the archives of bloggingheads.tv and Foreign Affairs. Even the neocon fellow traveler Christopher Hitchens suggested Bush pull a Nixon-in-China vis-a-vis Iran. Remember, when Nixon visited China, China had just gone through the Cultural Revolution at the hands of the man (Mao) who may have killed more people than any other 20th-century leader, yet his policy of engagement turned out to be good policy. Mao once said it would be ok if China got nuked because there would still be enough Chinese left to build world communism (even if the USSR was destroyed), which is one reason he told Chinese citizens to have large families. Mao was nuts, but he proved useful. Iran today is a much freer country than China was in 1971 in the wake of the CR and Lin Biao's failed coup. It is also more engaged with the outside world than China was. The majority of the people hate the government. They are our greatest resource in Iran. Bombing Iran is the greatest way to lose that resource via a rally-around-the-flag effect.
Are you referring to the Shah's nuclear plan that the mullahs ended with regard to the IAEA? If so, the US pretty much knew about that anyway and didn't really mind it.
In addition, you should know that the burqa tends to be rather unique to Afghanistan and is not relevant to the Islamic traditions of Iran. Even the Saudis were horrified by the burqa. You seem to be confusing the buraq with the chador. You really don't seem to know anything relevant to this discussion.
Dear Reality Man,
You are seriously using China as a model of what Iran can become and I don't have anything "relevant to this discussion".
you crack me up.
"if any of you bother to read, you may notice that Senator Lieberman was advocating a multipronged approach - economic, diplomatic,political backed by potential use of force.
Posted by ILP | July 6, 2007 1:43 PM "
Everybody here is smart enough to know 1) when you write about those policy prescriptions for the WSJ editorial page the writer is putting the emphasis somewhere else than if the same editorial was in, say, the NYT editorial page and 2) are knowledgeable enough of Lieberman's ouvre to know how to spot patterns in his writing. His is one of those annoying Munich obsessives who are obsessed with looking tough and being a Great Man of History, which means he needs wars to make himself look tough and serious.
Damn.
Reality Man with a surgical dismembering.
Nuff said.
I'll repeat my hope for ILP from before. Fist, teeth. That's about the level of understanding he's capable of. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time trying to engage him.
"Dear Reality Man,
You are seriously using China as a model of what Iran can become and I don't have anything "relevant to this discussion".
you crack me up.
Posted by ILP | July 6, 2007 1:52 PM "
If you want to enagage in ideas, then engage in ideas. If you want to just insult, be man enough to own up to it and don't be a whimpy Chamberlin. Did I say Iran would become a new China or that engaging Iran would be a good idea like how we engaged China? No two countries are ever exactly alike, but that doesn't mean that you can't use historical analogies if they are enough commonalities. Just about the only commonality between the early Nazi regime of your Munich analogy are anti-Semitism and authoritarianism, which could also be found, say, in Peronist Argentina, which wasn't exactly an existential threat to the US or Israel. Engagement allows for policy innovation in authoritarian societies as they are allowed to become less paranoid about American intentions. For instance, the Iranian reform movement of the late 1990's was partly a product of Clinton backing down on pressuring Iran. This weakened the radicals' hand and allowed for the more moderate elements to hold more power. When Bush started threatening to overthrow the Iranian government, the radicals' hand was once again stengthened. By now this should be International Politics 101-type common sense. Now, do you actually have any actual knowledge of Iran you want to share or would you rather call everyone stupid and then cry like a bitch when people throw that shit right back at you?
Because of the wide variety of hijab worn in the Muslim world, it can be difficult to definitively distinguish between one type of veil and another. The terms niqab and burqa are often used interchangeably.
reality man, i have to say that my rejoinders to ILP pale into insignificance compared to your brilliance, but i'm really writing to note that i'm going to steal the argentina riff (ok, maybe i'll attribute it).
so let me get this straight -- I try to write a post and it's "held" for yglesias to review. Mike threatens me with physical violence and it comes right up.
Typical hypocritical libs.
As to Lieberman, he certainly is behaving Independently of the Democratic party. Bush must love him, what with Republican Senators loosing faith in US policies.
But as to the actual issue of Iran, why should we be shocked that Iran might be supporting fighters in Iraq? If Russia had invaded Mexico, for example, wouldn't the US be sending arms and money to support those Mexican people who were fighting against the Russian invasion?
Hey, wait... Didn't the US once sell arms TO Iran and direct the proceeds to be sent to rebel forces in Nicaragua because the US liked the Contra's politics better than the Nicaraguan government's?
howard -- considering your ass-kissing of RM, I suppose you are the receiver and not the giver.
Giuliani was asked shortly after he left office as mayor if he now felt we were safer. He replied that he did, but not because of any hi-tech stuff, but because we were now aware of the Islamist Extremists' intent and simply understanding that there is, indeed, a threat makes us safer.
That is the problem with the liberals and in particular, the 'progressives'. They don't see the threat. They never have. That's why the public has rarely trusted them with national security in dire times.
As to Lieberman, he certainly is behaving Independently of the Democratic party.
Mmmmmm.....maybe that's because the Democratic party tried to fuck him???
Joe L. was just playing Clark Kent (D-CT), and he's taking off the biz suit real fast (in the Senate elevator) to respond to a crisis as SuperWinger.
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ..... senile SW.
ILP- You are the one threatening to annihilate an entire country. In contrast, I write about socking you in the mouth. The difference, apart from the magnitude of violence, is that I'm not seriously contemplating tracking you down so we can fight like third-graders. You, on the other hand, are completely serious with your half-cocked suggestions.
Reality-Man is right, you do cry like a bitch.
ILP,
I'm piling on here, but really, you need to go off and play in the kiddie sandbox. Everyone here is quite familiar with your neocon paranoid rants about how an impoverished incredibly corrupt 3rd world theocracy that can't even refine its own gasoline, design its own weapons, control its own restive ethnic minorities or educate its citizens adequately is now a threat to world peace and the second coming of Nazi Germany. Spare us. If you have nothing more to say but retread these prima facie ridiculous arguments then it is pointless for you to waste time posting. Why don't you go do something useful like learn Farsi?
It's actually interesting that ILP somehow stumbled here--must've gotten lost on the way to LGF or RedState or another lovely site of unserious dead-enders.
Nevertheless, none of ILP's blathering detracts from the point that the Administration and its enabler-in-chief, has made it magnitudes more difficult to engage Iran in any meaningful way. Of course, since that has never been the Administration's goal to begin with, the point is sort of moot.
Given how Iraq has turned out, one needs to ask vis a vis our "run up" to Iran: is it really some sort of neo-con megalomania at work, or the prospect of another no-bid bonanza hidden under the tattered drapery of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" meme?
I swear the wingnuts have been watching too many reruns of "Red Dawn" on TBS.
Sending a message of weakness in the Middle East would be a good thing - cause the U.S. is and will continue to be weak in the middle east. Weakness that disguises itself with halfassed interventions that are bound to fail send another message - that we are both weak and idiotic.
Of course, the right course is the one taken with China. It was the smartest thing the Republican wing of the foreign policy establishment ever did. Detente, recognition, economic ties, the whole deal. But since these are carrots, in negotiating with Iran we should get something in return - and that would be a non-aggression pact, at the least, concerning Israel. It was, by the way, under Nixon, too, that the U.S. first went back to Egypt - much to the chagrin of its hardcore right followers, like the ever pugnacious ILP, whose own ideas about Iran are sorta confused. Those on the right simply assume that it is in America's interest to continue to be hostile to Iran. It isn't. It is in America's interest to not intervene so frequently, with such expenditure of treasure and blood (on every side), in the Middle East. We obviously have neglected, to our great disadvantage, Latin America whilst engaging in all of this mass idiocy. It is in the American interest to invest and aid, for instance, Mexico, as at one time aided Israel, since the country is on our border and there will be no stopping illegal immigration unless Mexicans have something to stay home for. This is just one of a number of tasks that should be taking priority in American foreign policy, instead of feeding the fever dreams of such as ILP. Unfortunately, at the moment, American foreign policy is treated as an Xbox to give various rightwingers a testosterone high. It will all end in tears.
Dear all,
it's a sunny day. i would love to go play in the sandbox. Trouble is vanya, Mike, hooey and roger all have firmly placed their heads in the sand looking for Iranian good intentions. There is no room to play so I'll continue to cause trouble here with rational thinking.
"Giuliani was asked shortly after he left office as mayor if he now felt we were safer. He replied that he did, but not because of any hi-tech stuff, but because we were now aware of the Islamist Extremists' intent and simply understanding that there is, indeed, a threat makes us safer.
That is the problem with the liberals and in particular, the 'progressives'. They don't see the threat. They never have. That's why the public has rarely trusted them with national security in dire times.
Posted by Fred Jones | July 6, 2007 2:17 PM "
When Clinton bombed Sudan and sent out de facto assassination orders for bin Laden after Kenya and Tanzania, Republicans accused him of wagging the dog, just like they accused him during Kosovo. Ashcroft put fighting porn and weed higher on the FBI's priority list before investigating terrorist plots at home. Non-state actors simply don't factor in well with the current Republican mindset. When Clarke tried to get the Bushies to take bin Laden seriously, the likes of Wolfowitz just laughed at him. Giuliani showed he didn't take terrorism seriously when he put his war room in the WTC despite being told not to, which was then destroyed on 9/11, which is why he was on the street doing interviews instead of handling logistics (ironically, an Iranian international student I know was working as a relief worker on 9/11 and can be seen helping victims in that famous 9/11 documentary about the firefighters that came out a few years ago). It took Bloomberg to put the war room where Giuliani was told to put in, underground in Brooklyn. While Bloomberg criticized the Republicans after 9/11 for not providing NYC with the equipment for first responders it needed (such as the radios for firefighters that would have saved lives on 9/11), Giuliani was off making millions giving tough guy speeches. The DC Republicans, led by Delay, then put Bloomberg on their enemies' list and refused to stay in hotels in NYC during the 2004 RNC, preferring to stay on a yacht so as not to put any money into the recovering NYC economy. The Republican answer to al-Qaeda has been to not catch bin Laden, pretend he's not in Pakistan while kissing up to Musharraf, burn the major source of Afghan income (poppies) and overthrow secular Arab nationalists/socialists. They give Homeland Security pork more on a per capita basis to Wyoming than New York or California, where actual terrorist targets are. Acting tough and being tough and smart are two very different things. If you really are tough, you are confident and don't need to go trying to show your balls to everyone. You just look weak and overcompensating that way. The US military is not an extension of the Republicans' collective penises. That's how you get castrated, by whipping it out whenever you get your panties in a bunch.
ILP, to have rational thinking, you have to have thoughts. You have contributed nothing, you Billy Madison-wannabe. If you want to contribute to the discussion do that. If you want to be a dick and a troll, own up to it. You're just too much of a pussy to be a man and own up to it. If you think you are contributing anything, then you have more problems than you realize and really need help. I don't so much hate you as feel sorry for you as a human being.
RM --- you are so full of it. DeLay and the Republicans actually did stay in NY during the convention. And bloomberg raised millions and millions for them. So much for being on an enemies list.
Please come up with one iota of support for this statement --
The DC Republicans, led by Delay, then put Bloomberg on their enemies' list and refused to stay in hotels in NYC during the 2004 RNC, preferring to stay on a yacht so as not to put any money into the recovering NYC economy.
RM,
does being confronted by arguments opposed to yours cause you to lose all judgement and pratt on like an moron?
evidently it does.
it appears that when someone disagrees with you, both you and Howard trip the idiot part of your brain and you start bloviating vulgarity.
Your arguments are laughable. Iran is not China. Even if Iran can't provide for its own people, it can threaten us and our allies (see, eg, North Korea). The US never "went" to Egypt (they came to us and left the Soviet sphere of influence). The IAEA caught the Iranian mullahs with their pants down.
Please, all of you, come up with some, just an iota, of evidence for anything you say. I'm beginning to think you all go to Clemson.
you are so full of it. DeLay and the Republicans actually did stay in NY during the convention.
Only after a big embarrassing media fight about it. The plan at first was for the yachtage. Then the media got hold of it, and Hastert and Delay reversed course.
Otherwise, Reality Man...just keep doing what you're doing.
While ILP keeps making a meta argument asking for fact and rational discourse (while offering none of his own), you have been methodical and insightful - with healthy doses of each.
Even though it is highly unlikely ILP is arguing in good faith (and if he is, god help him), still, his arguments are typical and thus a "how-to" on dismantling them is worthwhile.
Thanks.
Mmmmmm.....maybe that's because the Democratic party tried to fuck him???
Mmmmmm ... so now a primary challenge from another Democrat who disagrees with Joe's views is trying to "fuck him." The rest of us call it "democracy" and "the electoral process."
Or did the Dems try to "fuck him" when they let him have a chairmanship even though he badmouths them at every turun as appeasing traitors?
You guys are such delicate little flowers.
ILP, repeating stupid right wing noise machine talking points isn't actually rational thinking.
Neither is feeding trolls, so I'll stop.
hooey --
only in your echo chamber is "do you have a plan with regard to Iran?" a stupid right wing noise machine talking point.
so i guess you don't have a plan. We do. move out of the way.
Whah, waaaah, sniffle, waaaaaaaaah, tear
so i guess you don't have a plan. We do. move out of the way.
Yeah, you guys have been doing a bang up job thus far. I mean, wow. So glad we all moved out of your way last time.
You say you have another plan?
Great. Can't wait to see how this one turns out.
My prediction: Mission Accomplished. Also, flowers, candies and ponies for everyone. Democracy spreading like wildfire through the region. Anyone who disagrees is racist, a traitor and/or rooting for defeat.
Good times, good times.
Posted by Led | July 6, 2007 11:52 AM:"On the merits, the prevailing neocon theory is that nothing in foreign policy matters other than the projection of power."
Well that is not entirely true. There is a whole Neo-Con argument that the Sixties and Britney Spears are to blame and by reversing those, sending women back to the kitchen and telling kids to stop sniveling and listen to their Fathers we can get along much better with Islamists. However the weakness of that argument is that it was the wild and degenerate world of the 1950s Mid-West that drove Sayyid Qutb over the edge. Which means unless we are willing to go back beyond "I Dream of Jeanie" to a simpler, witch-burning America, we will never share values with these people. That kinds of only leaves power projection don't it?
Posted by Led | July 6, 2007 11:52 AM:"Putting aside the fact that Iran is at least a quasi-rational actor that has interests that can be addressed pragmatically"
I am sure they can be addressed pragmatically. But what are they and are we willing to pay the price? Besides, why are you so sure they are quasi-rational? What possible rational reason is there for Iran to be involved in Lebanon and Gaza against Israel? Israel is no threat to Iran at all.
Posted by Led | July 6, 2007 11:52 AM:"I'm not sure why the neocons think the dead-ender Islamic fundamentalists can ever be cowed into submission by the projection of power. The whole Islamist worldview is predicated on resentment against the west and an eschatological will to matyrdom. They don't need to feel like they can win to keep doing what they do."
So some Islamists are quasi-rational actors, when they are Iranians, but some are not? Well which is it? Either they can be deterred by the thought of dying or they want to - which is it in Iran?
It has not been pointed out often enough that while Hamas sends suicide bombers out to blow things up they are never the children of Hamas' leaders much less the leaders themselves. Do you think you're over-buying this will to martyrdom just a little?
Posted by Led | July 6, 2007 11:52 AM:"Have any of the neocons actually articulated how the projection of power solves the terrorism problem rather than making it worse? What's the underlying theory? I ask out of legitimate curiosity."
Well historically America dealt with this issue in the past through power projection. When the Arab Muslim states waged Jihad on America, they burnt Tripoli down. You know, "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" etc etc etc. That more or less worked and faced with some pretty serious consequences to their Jihadi actions, they stopped their Jihad. I notice that the Founding Fathers did not waste time redressing the rightful grievances of the Jihadis of Tripoli.
I know it is not an answer to your question, but it is worth pointing out.
life goes on, i had better things to do, reality man and others were doing an excellent job, blah, blah, blah, and then i had a free moment to witness ILP's continued narcissism and misunderstanding of what constitutes "rational thought," highlighted by his 2:17, which is either some form of gay-bashing or something that is too deranged for me to begin to comprehend.
that's some rational thought, especially for someone who believes that it's rational to concern ourselves with an Iranian nuclear-armed warhead being aimed at the US to force us to install a shiite theocracy!
Posted by blah | July 6, 2007 12:32 PM:"I think what you are seeing is that Lieberman now feels the freedom to let his inner psychotic rightwinger show to the world, after years of keeping it hidden in deference to his Democratic constituency. It's not really a transition so much as a coming out of the closet."
Actually I'd disagree. I don't know if Lieberman was always "right wing" by modern standards (that is the Left has moved so far to the Left it has left older people on the shores of the Right) but I doubt it. Many Jews are moving away from their long historical home on the Left to the Right. The problem is not the Democrats, I think, but the Islamists. Having people who want to kill you not for what you do, but what you are, because you're a Jew, clarifies the mind I expect. And Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of them want to kill Jews, not just Israelis. At least Fatah had the decency to disguise their desire to kill Jews. Jews on the Left could get along with the DFLP, they have more trouble doing so with Hamas. Black Americans remain wary of the Republicans to this day.
Posted by Dan Kervick | July 6, 2007 1:05 PM :"Yes we do: negotiate a deal with Iran. They can offer important things we want, and we can offer important things they want - so let's iron out a mutually beneficial exchange."
Yes but what makes you think that any exchange will be mutually beneficial? We could sell them fighter jet technology for instance. What do you think they would do with it? What makes you think that the Iranians will respect any agreement? What makes you think they will not go on doing just whatever the Hell they want anyway either openly or covertly? A mutually beneficial exchange means that both sides have to accept the other side is going to be around for a long time. Lenin said that the Capitalists would sell the Communists the rope the Communists would use to hang them. Plus ca change.
heigou, various neo-con and neo-con lite folk keep telling us that american jews - apalled by the anti-semitism of the democratic party! - are moving to the right, but there is very little in the way of election data to show that.
and i have no idea what your explanation of lieberman is supposed to mean: if you are trying to say that lieberman sides with israeli hawks, just say that, why doncha?
after all, there is nothing new about arab opposition to the existence of the state of israel, which is 60 years old now....
as for iran, i could say much more or i could simply refer you to the dictator currently known as Muammar al-Gaddafi....
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 6:39 PM :"heigou, various neo-con and neo-con lite folk keep telling us that american jews - apalled by the anti-semitism of the democratic party! - are moving to the right, but there is very little in the way of election data to show that."
I said nothing about the Democratic party. I mentioned Hamas. Which is anti-Semitic. JL has done a simple transition - he has become concerned about Islamic terrorism which makes him the target for abuse from the Far Left which alienates him from most of the Left.
It is true that there is very little election data to support it - JL aside. But that is because the Democrats remain so strongly pro-Israel and talk the talk. However you only have to look at the long slow movement of Jewish intellectuals and commentators to see there is a tide to the Right. The Neo-Cons are often Jewish and there is a definite group of former Leftists grouped around papers like the Weekly Standard who tend to be from Jewish backgrounds. This group of very Right Wing Jewish intellectuals did not exist in the 1950s to any noticeable extent. Some Bomb designers apart.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 6:39 PM:"if you are trying to say that lieberman sides with israeli hawks, just say that, why doncha?"
Well he probably does but that is not my point. My point is that it is very hard to be friends with people who hate you and want to kill you - or even friends with their friends.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 6:39 PM:"after all, there is nothing new about arab opposition to the existence of the state of israel, which is 60 years old now...."
I specifically and clearly said the problem is not Arab hatred of Israel but the new hatred of Jews. Please don't waste my time ever again by replying before reading what I said. Fatah did hate Jews and killed them because they were Jews. For example, Leon Klinghoffer was killed because he was a Jew. He was not Israeli. In many hijackings they carefully separated the Jews, not just Israelis, and murdered them. But publicly they claimed to be anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. Hamas et al do not waste time on such niceties. They are openly anti-Semitic. They want to murder JL because he is a Jew. Hard to play nice with them after that.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 6:39 PM:"as for iran, i could say much more or i could simply refer you to the dictator currently known as Muammar al-Gaddafi...."
.... who suddenly started to play nice and dismantle his weapons program once America bombed the crap out of him? How interesting.
I think assigning the sobriquet warmonger to Senator Lieberman is a little over the top. Actually, the piece of the article referenced by Mr. Yglesias appears to merely state that a military option must be kept open in order to convince the Iranian mullahs that there will be a price to be paid if they continue to insist on developing nuclear weapons and interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. I don't think we can count on regime change, unless the government loses the support of the armed forces. In the Arab world (yes, I realize that Iran is not an Arab country), when the army tells you to go, you go.
.... who suddenly started to play nice and dismantle his weapons program once America bombed the crap out of him? How interesting.
You might want to check your chronology and causality on this one. There was little "sudden" about it, and the impetus for Qadaffi to dismantle his weapons program was his desire to get out from underneath UN and US sanctions. He wanted to be able to maximize his oil revenue, and in general take part in the global economy.
The process was a slow, negotiated settlement involving specific quid-pro-quo trade-offs. It occurred throughout the 1990s, through the early 2000's. Quite a bit after the bombings under Reagan, and those bombings didn't enter into the calculus in any material sense.
It is actually an example of the efficacy of economic sanctions. How very interesting.
HeiGou, when you defend this statement: "Many Jews are moving away from their long historical home on the Left to the Right," by talking about a slow drift of the Jewish intelligentsia, I think you are talking about a phenomena that has peaked and is now in retreat. Jews may be pro-Israel, but that isn't a predictor of what they think about foreign policy. This is from the latest Gallup poll:
"An analysis of Gallup Poll data collected since the beginning of 2005 finds that among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Catholics and Protestants are more or less divided in their views on the war, while Mormons are the most likely to favor it. Those with no religious affiliation also oppose the war, but not to the same extent that Jewish people do. The greater opposition to the war is not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who share the same political leanings."
Actually, instead of a slow turn to the right, I think Matt, a young guy, and others on the blogosphere demonstrate a clear impatience, amounting to contempt, for the old neo-con use of Israel as an attractor for rightwing politics. If young people - the 18-24 group - are getting more left wing, which the NYT said, I have my doubts that young Jews are getting more right wing. One of the ironic benefits of the Iraq war has been to strip the credit from people who supported it. This is why it is, in a way, a good thing that Lieberman and other ardent supporters of the Iraq war are banging the drums for bombing Iran - there is nothing that discredits war against Iran more than the embrace of that cause by the people who sold us the last lemon. And so far, there are no useful idiots - Peter Beinarts and Paul Bermans - out there advocating war against Iran. All of this is a good sign. But lack of a war isn't a policy - that is why it isn't a good sign that nobody on the Dem side is pushing for detente with Iran, which is in the long run the wisest thing America could do.
heigou, earlier in this thread we had silliness from ILP, now we have it from you.
Eric Martin has already exposed your lack of knowledge regarding Libya and reality.
meanwhile, your notion that from these words - "The problem is not the Democrats, I think, but the Islamists. Having people who want to kill you not for what you do, but what you are, because you're a Jew, clarifies the mind I expect. And Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of them want to kill Jews, not just Israelis. At least Fatah had the decency to disguise their desire to kill Jews. Jews on the Left could get along with the DFLP, they have more trouble doing so with Hamas" - one was supposed to glean this understanding - "I specifically and clearly said the problem is not Arab hatred of Israel but the new hatred of Jews" - is beyond me. pray explain, oh wise producer of crystalline prose?
still, the silliness of your article remains even with the new improved understanding you have provided: klinghoffer was murdered in 1985. what the hell does that have to do with why joe lieberman is now a right-winger? yes, in and among the various palestinian political/terrorist groups are some anti-semites (shockingly, there are even anti-semites in and among the american people; some of them even live in liberman's home state!); that's not new and is not satisfactory as an explanation of anything.
but then again, your notion is that the Left (whatever you think it is: one can hardly wait for your dramatic insights) is sitting around rooting for Hamas (or insert some other name here). no, it isn't.
PS. Heigou, i did mean to mention: count the number of Jews clustered around neo-con circles. you'd have barely enough to form a jury pool. this is your evidence for the movement of american jews to the right? sheesh....
It seems as if there's an ex officio role for 'fuckwit pseudo-Democrat', and when Zell Miller resigned...
I mean, if Rudy gets the nod, JoeHo is going to be at the GOP convention, isn't he?
Posted by roger | July 6, 2007 7:43 PM:"One of the ironic benefits of the Iraq war has been to strip the credit from people who supported it."
You think that is a benefit? I think one of the really depressing things is how much of the Left has openly come out in favor of "soft Stalinism". They always pretended, at least after 1956, to support socialism but abhor Stalin. However in Iraq they are openly supporting a mass murdering secular modernizing dictatorship over any other alternative. That too is a benefit.
Posted by roger | July 6, 2007 7:43 PM:"This is why it is, in a way, a good thing that Lieberman and other ardent supporters of the Iraq war are banging the drums for bombing Iran .... All of this is a good sign. But lack of a war isn't a policy - that is why it isn't a good sign that nobody on the Dem side is pushing for detente with Iran, which is in the long run the wisest thing America could do."
Why is it a good sign? Iran is a vastly more serious case than Iraq. It is also vastly more likely to work. The inevitable retreat of the US into isolationism post-Iraq is probably a bad thing even if the neo-Cons were worse. Sometimes something have to be done. Iran is probably one of them. What on Earth can America gain from detente with Iran? Even detente with the USSR was kind of dumb. But Iran has nothing to offer us and helping the Mullahs stay in power in utterly counter productive. Rollback is the only policy worth pursuing even if there is a question about how you do that.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 7:55 PM :"Eric Martin has already exposed your lack of knowledge regarding Libya and reality."
He has done no such thing. He openly admits that the US sanctions - as well as those America pushed the UN to enforce - brought Gaddafi to make peace. That is an excellent thing. The bombing was vital in that.
meanwhile, your notion that from these words - .... - is beyond me. pray explain, oh wise producer of crystalline prose?"
My words are perfectly simple. If they are too hard for you I suggest remedial English. The Left could get along with Fatah when they pretended to be merely anti-Zionist. Even though they were actually anti-Semitic. The Left could pretend. That is harder for the openly anti-Semitic Hamas if you're Jewish.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 7:55 PM:"still, the silliness of your article remains even with the new improved understanding you have provided: klinghoffer was murdered in 1985. what the hell does that have to do with why joe lieberman is now a right-winger?"
I am sorry you lack the basic knowledge to keep up with me. I will try to talk more slowly and use words with fewer syllables. It is an example of the hidden anti-Semitism of the notionally merely anti-Zionist secular Arab guerilla groups. LK was killed not because he was a Zionist but because he was a Jew. People like Lieberman did not have a problem with that in 1985 because no one much reflected deeply on the issues. Those in the West that supported such actions did so from an anti-Zionist perspective. But anti-Semitism is likely to have clarified some of JL's values.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 7:55 PM:"yes, in and among the various palestinian political/terrorist groups are some anti-semites (shockingly, there are even anti-semites in and among the american people; some of them even live in liberman's home state!)"
Indeed although so few of JL's constituents murder Jews in large numbers. You are also, of course, ignoring the anti-Semitism of their Western enablers as well. You are also ignoring and I assume dishonestly downplaying that these were not isolated acts of individuals but fundamental to the groups involved. They did not kill Jews as isolated acts but as policy.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 7:55 PM:"that's not new and is not satisfactory as an explanation of anything."
Again the issue is their professed anti-Zionism and dishonest rejection of anti-Semitism. Of course the Left must have known they were vicious anti-Semites, but the anti-Zionism gave a fig leaf to many on the Left to support them. And so it is an explanation of a lot, it is just that it needs someone with a little more comprehension than you seem to be displaying.
Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 7:55 PM:"but then again, your notion is that the Left (whatever you think it is: one can hardly wait for your dramatic insights) is sitting around rooting for Hamas (or insert some other name here). no, it isn't."
Well yes large chunks of it are. Chomsky takes part in Hezbollah rallies. Which is better than Robert Fisk having his photo taken with leading Holocaust deniers I suppose but not by much. The Stop the War coalition in the UK is an alliance between the hard Left and the Hamas-supporting local branch of the Muslim brotherhood which has spawned the Respect Party. Right across Europe, the Left is openly on the side of the Islamists in Palestine. As it is in much of America as well but much less so.
However in Iraq they are openly supporting a mass murdering secular modernizing dictatorship over any other alternative. That too is a benefit.
It would be nice if you posted under your real name to see if it would be possible to say enough vile things to actually slander you.
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 7, 2007 8:54 AM:"It would be nice if you posted under your real name to see if it would be possible to say enough vile things to actually slander you."
I don't know. You seem to be trying pretty hard.
I don't see that as slander. In fact I thought it was fairly content-neutral. A large chunk of the Left opposed the War which meant leaving Saddam in power. A large group of them openly say that things are worse now and that the War was a mistake. A significant group of people, on the Left and the Right, say that sanctions were a mistake.
So what is the position of a least a significant proportion of the Left other than what I said? It seems it was wrong to remove Saddam. It only made things worse. As Michael Moore tries to make so clear. It was wrong to even try to remove him through sanctions. The Left seems to have adopted Jacques Chirac's position all along which was and is that Saddam was a modernizer and anyone else would be worse. Where do you personally dissent from that characterization?
I will say this for HeiGou: he is absolutely relentless is his stupidity. He show very deep and impressive commitment to it.
Posted by grh | July 7, 2007 9:28 AM:"I will say this for HeiGou: he is absolutely relentless is his stupidity. He show very deep and impressive commitment to it."
Well thank you. Always nice to meet a fan.
However abuse does not amount to an argument. If I am wrong you have not even tried to point out why.
And this, at least in part, explains why the Neo-Cons were able to be so dominant for so long. Simple reflex opposition to everything and anything is not attractive. Say what you like about them, they had solutions for problems. Bad solutions perhaps. But better than cursing the darkness.
Before we go stampeding off in a war with Iran, could HeiGou and all the other supporters please outline a bit of analysis showing how we wouldn't be ending up in as big as a mess as we have in Iraq, if not more?
Or do you actually think that the US can handle war all the time with our present techniques (no draft, put the cost of the war on the credit card)? With the fact that our army is at this point almost completely broken?
What happens if the Iranians decide to render the Straits of Hormuz impassible? Hello, $200/bbl oil. Care to factor what a price shock will do to the US economy?
Care to factor in what should happen if China decides to call in all its loans, or uses its financial leverage? Or simply decides to not purchase all that government paper we've been putting out in an attempt to, y'know, fund the country including all that loverly military hardware?
Could we please have at least a little analysis of the possible ways that this could go wrong before jumping into yet another hornet's nest?
But no....that would too "unpatriotic" and "cowardly".
He has done no such thing. He openly admits that the US sanctions - as well as those America pushed the UN to enforce - brought Gaddafi to make peace. That is an excellent thing. The bombing was vital in that.
How was the bombing vital in this? Quite the opposite.
HeiGou, "soft Stalinism"? Man, if you are going to use unhinged invective, don't go for half and half measures! Hard Stalinism, surely, mounting to Nazism.
As for the rest of your argument, a., we should not engage in rollback of the Iranian regime, b., we should recognize that regime, c. there is no American interest in pursuing the same warmongering path that lead to the Iraq debacle, d., detente with the Soviet Union was a good thing, and finally, the embrace of the war with Iran plan by people like you, who also support and supported the Iraq war, is politically good for people like me, who oppose people like you. Your embrace of the war and the terms that you put that support in - finding opposition to your crazy scheme evidence of 'stalinism' - makes it likely that the war with Iran won't get off the ground, but will become a hobby of the staunch anti-Stalin pro-war groups, who, I am hoping, will accuse as many anti-war people as possible of Stalinism, and fullthroatedly demand rolling back the mad mullahs. The more they honestly say what they want, the more I think the majority of the American people will come to suspect that they are barking mad.
This, too, is a good thing. Not a good thing for you or your side, but a good thing for peace, justice and the american way. Like that.
Now I'm off to read Comrade Stalin's thrilling memoir, "George Washington was a friend of mine and I Slipped Him that Final Address - Now it can be told!"
So what is the position of a least a significant proportion of the Left other than what I said?
(Is English a 2nd language for you? Your syntax is beyond crabbed.)
For starters, you could name the people who you're talking about. Then, you could acknowledge that you're playing an incredibly stupid rhetorical game.
The all-too-familiar scenario proceeds like this. Someone accuses those on the Left of heinous acts or beliefs. "Left" is open-ended as if it simply means "Not Right". Then, when challenged to identify who is meant, the number of candidates shrinks to a handful. It's juvenile stuff.
If I am wrong you have not even tried to point out why.
Here's why: you're a fucking idiot, making fucking idiotic assertions. Are you Joe Lieberman? Or just Dorothy, skipping along with your men of straw?
(Spending any more time on you would be a waste of resources.)
Posted by Eric Martin | July 7, 2007 11:34 AM:"How was the bombing vital in this? Quite the opposite."
And you know this because ..... you and Gaddafi are good friends?
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:""soft Stalinism"? Man, if you are going to use unhinged invective, don't go for half and half measures! Hard Stalinism, surely, mounting to Nazism."
Except Saddam was many things but he was not Stalin. Nor Hitler. But both seem to have been an inspiration to him.
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:"As for the rest of your argument, a., we should not engage in rollback of the Iranian regime"
I fail to see why the removal of the theocracy in Iran would not be a thoroughly good thing. We may want to be more sensible about how but Rollback in Iran looks doable and worthwhile.
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:"b., we should recognize that regime"
I suspect you'll find America does but there is no reason to remove sanctions.
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:"c. there is no American interest in pursuing the same warmongering path that lead to the Iraq debacle"
On the contrary, keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of people like Iran is by definition an American interest.
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:"d., detente with the Soviet Union was a good thing"
As far as I can see detente with the USSR brought no benefits whatsoever. And it allowed a massive expansion of Soviet influence in Africa and the Middle East.
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:"and finally, the embrace of the war with Iran plan by people like you, who also support and supported the Iraq war, is politically good for people like me, who oppose people like you."
I have yet to embrace any war with Iran and I did not embrace war with Iraq. Or even Afghanistan. I have changed my mind since.
Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM:"finding opposition to your crazy scheme evidence of 'stalinism'"
Soft-Stalinism remember. Nor do I find opposition a sign of Stalinism, but rather the embrace of the Baathist program as evidence of S-S. You can oppose the War for sensible reasons that have nothing to do with S-S. I work next to someone who does so for religious reasons and that has nothing to do with Stalinism. I know this is going to be wasted on you but consider something like the status of women. There is a group who are opposed to the war who say that Saddam was better for women than democracy because he forced the population to embrace modernity - like Stalin. This is an open rejection of democracy and human rights in favor of what might be called the Fabian approach to Stalin - the lesser breeds without the law need a strong firm hand to whip them into the modern world. What I would call Soft-Stalinism. So the question ought to be ask, what do you oppose and why?
Remember, HeiGou is the same lunatic who thought we could have "won" the Vietnam War if we had killed a few million more Vietnamese.
So don't bother responding to this scumbag. Filth like him are beneath argument.
Posted by Josh G. | July 8, 2007 5:11 AM :"Remember, HeiGou is the same lunatic who thought we could have "won" the Vietnam War if we had killed a few million more Vietnamese."
I know responding to lies like this is a waste of time, but perhaps you might like to point out precisely where I said this?
Posted by Josh G. | July 8, 2007 5:11 AM:"So don't bother responding to this scumbag. Filth like him are beneath argument."
Indeed. Pot. Kettle. You know the rest.
Comments closed July 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What surprises me is that I actually thought he was a good choice for VP back in 2000 (until he got creamed by Cheney)....
Posted by Heath | July 6, 2007 11:18 AM