Bring It On!

Lieberman: Let’s Bomb Iran Too!

June 11th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

There’s something about being an independent politician that must allow these maverick “people’s candidates” to feel free to speak their minds, especially when doing so goes against the grain of not just their supposed “peers,” but most of the country (including their constituents) as well. Sometimes, these kinds of political statements are refreshing, opening what may seem to the common citizen to be a “common sense” approach to a particular problem or issue. Other times though (and especially when coming from the mouth of a politician who only found the ‘calling of independence’ when he lost his party’s primary nomination and his ego couldn’t face the fact that “his base” no longer wanted him to be their voice in Congress) the things that escape from the lips of an elected official are enough to make you shiver. Case in point, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s Sunday declaration that the United States should expand the war in Iraq into neighboring Iran.

“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.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. - power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either.

(cross posted at Common Sense)

[tag]Joe+Lieberman+bomb+Iran, Face+the+Nation, Iran, War, military, Middle East, terrorism, idiot[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 12 Responses to “Lieberman: Let’s Bomb Iran Too!”

  2. By manapp99 on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    Ken, you say that Joe does not represent the “will of the people” with lines like this:

    “And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand.”

    and this:

    “Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman.”

    Seems to me that Joe was re-elected to office by a majority of the PEOPLE of CT. Are you infering that only the Democrat people of CT are Americans? He ran as an independent and got votes for all three groups. Dems, GOPers, and Indies. Seems like he is truly the bi-partisan representative from CT, unlike the very partisan Senator Dodd.

    Another point. When senators and others go on Sunday talk shows and espouse their views about things like Iran, you can bet there are those in Iran that tune in. This is, in effect, talking to Iran. Not just to the government officials but to regular Iranians like the business class that wants nothing to do with an invasion by anyone. Businessmen want business not war. There is a faction in Iran not at all happy with the rhetoric coming from their President. It may be that helpful to the cause of bringing change from within for those opposed to Ahmadinejad to have the “saber rattling” by Lieberman and others.

  3. By iluzjoniści on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    Good article

  4. By Jersey McJones on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    Manapp, the real power in Iran is in the hands of the Mullahs and they want to be a nuclear power. Sabre rattling does not nother to help Iran. The Iranian youth, who have turned on Mini-jad, are more concerned with the lousy economy than his goofy, over-the-top rhetoric.

    JMJ

  5. By manapp99 on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    JMJ, while it is true that the Mullahs and especially the Ayatollah Khamenei are the true powers there is a faction aside from the students who disagree. Though weaker than the clerics, the pragmatists are still relevent. From a newsday article a year ago:

    “CAIRO — An offer by the United States and five other powers to end the nuclear impasse with Tehran has ignited a struggle within the Iranian regime over who will ultimately control its nuclear policy.

    Two major competing camps in Iran are pursuing different strategies for dealing with internal pressure. One faction is led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other hard-liners who prefer confrontation with the West. Heading the other camp is Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a two-time Iranian president and leading pragmatist. He and others have urged negotiations with Europe and even Washington.”

    In researching this discussion I came across this article:

    http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/3538/153/

    There are many interesting points there. From the article:

    “A third option, which entails reaching out to Tehran’s organized democratic opposition as the catalyst for change, offers the only effective and viable approach. By way of experience, for any popular upheaval to coalesce into a mass movement, similar to the one which resulted in the toppling of the Shah’s regime, it must revolve around a nucleus of organized opposition that can mobilize and advance it against a theocracy far more ruthless than its predecessor and with the propensity to use overwhelming force in crushing dissent. Commenting on antigovernment protests a couple of years ago, a Tehran-based European diplomat made a remarkably accurate observation. “The pent-up anger is still there, beneath the surface. But for it to seriously take off you need a catalyst, you need a cause, you need organisation and leadership. It’s a big task,” he said.”

  6. By BobHiggins on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    Jeff

    I will personally pay for Joe’s helmet and rifle.

    I’ll even buy the cowardly little shit a plane ticket to the war of his choice if it will give him a clue about what happens to the bodies and souls of all those on both sides of a war.

    Joe is just another in a long line of chicken hawks.

    Bob Higgins

  7. By kip152 on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    You know, I remember when we used to deal with our enemies by talking from a position of strength. Whatever happened to that?

  8. By kip152 on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    You know, I remember when we used to deal with our enemies by talking from a position of strength. Using force was supposed to be the last resort. Whatever happened to that?

  9. By manapp99 on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    Kip, when was that time you speak of and what strengths? We impose economic sanctions but other countries continue to trade and weaken our position. We even get the UN on board as in the case of Iraq in the 90’s and Russia France and China do back room deals and weaken our position. Even the threat of or use of force is weakened by devisive political manuvering by our own politicians in Washington. If you were in charge what strength would you feel you would be able to count on in dealing with our enemies?

  10. By Paul Watson on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    manapp,
    That would be the same pragmatist who was President when George Bush included Iran in the Axis of Evil, right?
    And does Ahmadinijad’s sabre rattling make you more or less inclined to deal with him? Because as I doubt it makes you more prone to talk, why should your sabre rattling make Iran more likely to talk?

  11. By SteveIL on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply

    And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state.

    It was probably because those who vote for Democrats in his state are insane losers. I mean, look who they put up, Ned Lamont. Here’s a guy who is telling everybody he hates Walmart (like a good little Stalinist) while he owns Walmart stock. Great pick.

    This is an utter bullshit statement:

    More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

    You don’t have a clue (and neither do I) as to how many cells have been broken up through the military operations. Two reasons why we don’t know: 1) the military doesn’t tell us (because it would probably expose how it’s being done); and, 2) the American MSM wouldn’t tell us because that is not part of their agenda. Unfair charge? I don’t think so. It’s no more speculative than the crap you’re pushing.

    And here is another statement of utter bullshit:

    I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East.

    Yes you are. The fact that you had to qualify it goes to show it. How many of our people are you willing to risk for your “principle”? How about those of other nations? You discuss the 3500; how about 35,000? How about 350,000? We’re talking nuclear weapons by a government that has shown itself to have as stable a leadership as Nazi Germany. Remember what waiting did? 83,000,000 dead. 83,000,000. And now, nations don’t even need to be all that industrial to murder 10%, or even 1%, of that number. By the way, 1% of 83,000,000 is 830,000.

    And by the way, don’t even think about saying about how our being in the Middle East is what is causing this. That is rubbish and a lie. Monsters like Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, Saddam, bin Laden, etc., use statements like that to provide gullible liberals into believing there has to be some underlying altruistic reason for doing what they do. And they use it to get stupid people to follow them. Study criminality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It does have everything to do with an expansion of power and greed by those people, and they are allowed to do so in their own country because they are unaccountable. But it doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty. So you can forget using any of the usual arguments.

    Have you figured it out yet?

  12. By kip152 on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply

    manapp, How many countries did Clinton illegally invade with no clue as to how to achieve victory?

  13. By SteveIL on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply

    While Clinton didn’t invade Somalia, he sure had no clue how to achieve victory there. 18 dead and a retreat from which Clinton never resolved. That’s called a defeat.

    Clinton also bombed the hell out of Serbia and Montenegro. Our troops are still there. Hell, he let the EU dictate the whole thing.

    But, when he had the chance to really make a difference, he opted for someone other than his wife to “service” his “thinking” muscle. And I don’t mean the brain in his head.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel