Lieberman and Hewitt, Sitting in a Tree

Joe Lieberman does the Hugh Hewitt show. There are so many howlers here it's hard to just pick one. At any rate, since James Kirchick seems confused on this point, I'll just highlight Hewitt and Lieberman mongering for war with Iran:

HH: Right. In a statement earlier this month, Senator Lieberman, you said that, and I’m quoting here, “The fact is that the Iranian government, by its actions, has declared war on us.” Given that, if President Bush announced he felt compelled to take military action against Iran, would you support him?

JL: Yeah, of course I would.

Lieberman also informs us that Saddam Hussein "had a network of chemical and biological experts working on it, and a kind of fallback network on nukes, which is what he really wanted." In purely political terms, it's worth noting how stunning it is for Lieberman to go on the radio show of a hard-core partisan like Hewitt in order to attack Democrats while still operating under the Democratic Party banner.

Comments

thanks again, Connecticut.

Posted by cleek | July 13, 2007 12:41 PM

How to get Liebermanism out of the Democratic party is a more important question than who becomes the next Democratic Presidential nominee.

Posted by otto | July 13, 2007 12:41 PM

Joe's got a ways to go before the good people of CT get a chance to kick him to the curb.

If we can pick up 3 or 4 senate seats in 08 which I think is very likely, he should be stripped of his committee positions.

He doesn't vote with us anyway, if he can't swing control of the senate why not knock him down a few notches?

Posted by Davebo | July 13, 2007 12:48 PM

The tolerance for Lieberman among Democratic elites has to do with their years of working side-by-side with him, and so despite outrageous behavior like this he won't be kicked out of the club.

From our point of view, this is a problem that will shrink with time, because in the current far more partisan era there aren't any more Liebermans rising through the party ranks. As the old guard ages out, they'll be replaced with people for whom party discipline is a core instinct. (This happened already with the GOP, which replaced its Bob Michels with Newt Gingriches years ago.)

Posted by jimBOB | July 13, 2007 12:49 PM

I can't believe Al Gore picked Joe Liberman to be his running mate in 2000. After all these friggin years, still can't believe it. Worst decision of all time.

Posted by fnook | July 13, 2007 12:50 PM

I think Lieberman is dead wrong on the merits here. BUT I don't think there's any question that he actually believes and thinks the things he says he believes and thinks. On issues of national security that are this important, he should advocate for what he thinks is the best interest of the country regardless of party affiliation. Wouldn't you want a Republican that thinks invading Iran is a bad idea to speak openly about that and actively campaign against invasion despite the fact that his position is contrary to that of his fellow Republicans?

Posted by Led | July 13, 2007 12:52 PM

No one has even attempted to dispute the underlying point he made: Iran is waging war against us. What should we do? Just let it continue? You can argue for limited responses, but at least acknowledge what we are faced with and that SOMETHING should be done.

Posted by Dan | July 13, 2007 1:01 PM

Does Lieberman walk about anywhere in DC? If so praying for a speeding, out of control bus with his name on it might not be a bad way to start your day.

Posted by steve duncan | July 13, 2007 1:04 PM

I don't think the Liebermanism problem will shrink with time all by itself - the fact that many others in the Democratic party, both leadership and foreign-affairs-types, aren't willing to forthrightly oppose war with Iran is a good indicator of the widespread nature of the problem.

Posted by otto | July 13, 2007 1:07 PM

I don't think the Liebermanism problem will shrink with time all by itself - the fact that many others in the Democratic party, both leadership and foreign-affairs-types, aren't willing to forthrightly oppose war with Iran is a good indicator of the widespread nature of the problem.

nothing says "bomb bomb bomb Iran" quite like last week's 97-0 Senate vote.

Senate Jellyfish.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 13, 2007 1:13 PM

Iran is waging war against us.

I don't believe that, it's nonsense. Even if it were true, it would be similar to claiming that Egypt was waging war against France during the Algerian war by supporting the FLN (French right-wingers did in fact blame Egypt for everything going wrong in Algeria, and played pretend that their extremely modest political and military support was the key problem, not that the entire project was doomed to fail). Nothing new in this world.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 13, 2007 1:14 PM

Lieberman seems like an anomaly. He's the only Senate Democrat who actually supports the war, maybe the only Democrat in Congress (except for that dolt Reyes) who supports it. Now he backs the President, even though he ran against Bush's record both times he sought national office. Now, he's gone 180 degrees the other way, trying to agree with Bush as much as possible. What is up with this?

The truth is that Joe Lieberman cares only about Joe Lieberman, and increasing Joe Lieberman's prominence in the media. He'll never switch parties, because as a Republican, he will not stand out at all among the legions of people who thoroughly support Bush, despite 3/4 of the country hating his guts. Lieberman is like Zell Miller, which is to say that he is the antithesis of a conviction politician--it's all about making himself seem more moderate, more independent, and most importantly, more known. I've never been convinced that he's had anything he believes in more than his own fame. Well, one way or another, he'll be out of the Senate by 2013.

Posted by Lev | July 13, 2007 1:18 PM

If the 2000 election had gone differently Lieberman would be the Democratic frontrunner for President right now.

Posted by Bill | July 13, 2007 1:21 PM

How to get Liebermanism out of the Democratic party is a more important question than who becomes the next Democratic Presidential nominee.

How are these two questions unrelated?

Posted by Christmas | July 13, 2007 1:31 PM

I don't think there's any question that he actually believes and thinks the things he says he believes and thinks.

Nope. It's too easy to show he's spouting obvious untruths.

other points:

Iran isn't waging war against us -- that's a preposterous metaphor that yanks up "works against our interests" into a state of war. Nerts.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 13, 2007 1:45 PM

Look how many people refer to Lieberman as a "democrat" in this thread alone. Last time I checked, the people that make up the democratic party in Connecticut selected someone else as their representative for Senate.

Lieberman ISN'T a democrat anymore. You want to figure out how to purge Liebermanitis from the democratic party? It already happened in Connecticut. That's how.

In 2008 he will be stripped of his committee and become a republican, and his turn to the dark side will be complete.

Posted by Jim | July 13, 2007 1:55 PM

If Reid had any balls he would strip St. Joe of his chairmanship right now, Friday July 13, 2007, 2.30 p.m. Eastern.

If that prompts him to go GOP, it hardly matters. He's already with them. Nothing of substance will get done this session anyway, with the GOP fillibustering every single meaningful vote. Leadership of the Senate -- committee chairs, etc. -- won't change hands. The Dems should pick up a couple more seats in 2008.

As it stands now, Lieberman is making a fool of Reid.

Posted by Woody Bombay | July 13, 2007 2:20 PM

On issues of national security that are this important, he should advocate for what he thinks is the best interest of the country regardless of party affiliation

Well, but although I want senators to have the courage of their convictions, I want them not to be batshit crazy, too. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by rea | July 13, 2007 2:30 PM

No one has even attempted to dispute the underlying point he made: Iran is waging war against us. What should we do?

Continue to wage war on Iran. If the shoe fits on one foot, it fits on the other.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 13, 2007 2:41 PM

BTW, what's the deal with James Kirchick? His output is uniquely annoying. But not for the marginal utility of my time, I would start a blog devoted solely to his ouevre.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 13, 2007 2:45 PM

how are we at war with Iran ?

i hope your answer doesn't involve Karbala

Posted by cleek | July 13, 2007 3:20 PM

I don't think we are at war with Iran, as most people would understand that. Nor is Iran at war with us.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 13, 2007 3:26 PM

We aren't at war with Iran. Iran's support for the militias is something, of course, that we should thank them for. While the U.S. stood by, to the dismay of the neocons, Iran supplied SCIRI and DAWA with much needed support, sustaining them during the Saddam times. So, in a sense, what the senate should be resolving is a big vote of thanks for Iran for everything they've done for us. Our soldiers now are dying to protect the people the Iranians so bravely supported, armed, and implanted into Iraq when the time came - what is more touching than this, a brothers in arms moment?

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia not only supplied Osama with money and manpower, some of later slamming into the WTC, but is even now supplying money and manpower to the insurgency. Since the press corps has that brain dead problem, plus of course we are supposed to pretend that Saudi is our tooth fairy, nobody asked at the press conference what the president thought of the trip made this week of Maliki's National Security advisor, Muwwafe3d Al-Rubaie, who "left for Saudi Arabia on July 10 to discuss with officials ways to coordinate efforts to fight al Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Rubaie said it is necessary to stop the religious edicts coming from Saudi Arabia that justify the killing of Iraqis, and that the majority of suicide attacks in Iraq in past years have been carried out by Saudis." (stratfor)

So Dan should rethink his position, and come up with some suggestions as to some really nice gift we could buy for the Iranians. An appreciation present. How about a ticket for a year's worth of black turbans at one of NYC's finest designer clothing stores? Any other course of action is really not honoring the troops.

Posted by roger | July 13, 2007 4:02 PM

Posted by Led:
"I think Lieberman is dead wrong on the merits here. BUT I don't think there's any question that he actually believes and thinks the things he says he believes and thinks. On issues of national security that are this important, he should advocate for what he thinks is the best interest of the country regardless of party affiliation. Wouldn't you want a Republican that thinks invading Iran is a bad idea to speak openly about that and actively campaign against invasion despite the fact that his position is contrary to that of his fellow Republicans? "

As Bush has f*cked the war up totally, Lieberman has totally supported Bush. As Bush has repeatedly wrapped himself in the mantle of war leader, for domestic partisan political gain, Lieberman has totally supported him. As Bush has repeatedly screwed up domestically, Lieberman has supported him.

This all leads to the conclusion that Lieberman believes only in Lieberman.

Posted by Barry | July 13, 2007 4:17 PM

Russia and China were waging war on us in Vietnam by helping North Vietnam but we certainly didn't attack them- in fact, we were careful not to start a direct war between us and now, the Russian threat is gone and we didn't have to sacrifice millions of our men to do it.

Posted by arouet | July 13, 2007 4:51 PM

Sometime next year, before the election, Democrats should challenge Lieberman to jump to the Replblican party or shut up.

Posted by Carl | July 13, 2007 5:24 PM

So, Barry, you disagree with Lieberman's pro-war position. Me too. I just think it's WAY more important that Lieberman is wrong than that he disagrees with (and criticizes) Democrats.

Posted by Led | July 13, 2007 6:30 PM