Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Why did the Democrats forgive Joe Lieberman?

Ah, Joe Lieberman.

The so called democrat.

The so called American.

Here is a short history lesson on Joe (big thanks go to Thinkprogress for their hard work compiling all this).

Thinkprogress.org - nice article, lets start there.

“I’m a Democrat with a 35-year record of fighting for progressive causes, for the middle class, for civil rights, for women’s rights, for human rights and a lot more. I voted with my Senate Democratic colleagues 90 percent of the time.” — Joe Lieberman, 7/6/06

Sounds nice.

In an interview with Salon.com, Lieberman said, “I worry that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have a hard time scampering back to assure people that they’re prepared to take on the Islamist extremists and [any] other nation that threatens our security.”

Translation: Democrats are pussies, and do not hate islamic terrirsts enough.

When asked if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case,” Lieberman replied, “Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question.” [4/14/08]


“There are ways I suppose you can make an argument that there are some similarities between what Sen. Obama is talking about (‘spreading the wealth’) and classic, what used to be known as socialist theory…[but] I’m not going to use the name calling,” Lieberman said. [10/23/08]

You just name called, Joe.

And perhaps piece de resistance:
Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that he “fears” for the survival of the U.S. if Democrats break the filibuster threshold. [11/04/08]

When you say that you fear your own party coming to power, and speak against it - again and again and again - perhaps the party should become a bit fed up?

Take some sort of action to thwart you?
Said investigating Katrina was like “playing gotcha”: Lieberman said he was not interested in “looking back, and assigning blame would be a waste of Congress’ time.” Lieberman said he was reluctant to mount an investigation of the failures of the initial response, saying “We don’t want to play ‘gotcha’ anymore.”

Yes, placing fault and having accountability in government is bad. Hope you have your sarcasm meter at full blast here.

Lieberman claimed that the United States is going to “make progress on health care and the energy crisis and climate change” under a McCain administration. “John McCain is more ready to be president on foreign and domestic policy because of his extraordinary experience.”

Here we have Joe actively praising a republican presidential candidate.

Actively campaigning against your own political party is a no-no, correct?

Spoke at 2008 Republican National Convention: Lieberman spoke at the 2008 RNC, criticizing Obama for not being “willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.”

Joe spoke at the REPUBLICAN national convention.

I wonder what powerful interest groups Obama was not willing to take on.

Perhaps the one whose acronym is AIPAC?

Lieberman donated $5,000 to the re-election campaign of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). “I’m going to support Sen. Collins’ re-election,” he said in April 2007. “This is without regard to who the Democratic nominee would be.”

Joe gave his own money for a republican candidate, without knowing who a democratic challenger would be.

Refused to say whether waterboarding constituted torture: “It is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological,” Lieberman said of waterboarding. “You want to be able to use emergency tech to try to get the information out of that person.”

Waterboarding - simulated drowning. By putting lots of water in your mouth, holding your nose and preventing you breathing.

Nope, not torture.

Not in the brand new world order America.

Lieberman once asserted that there is “an appeal” to bombing Iran. Iran “ought to believe that we’re going to hit those training camps,” Lieberman has said.

Ah, bombing Iran. The PNAC plan that pro Israel Jewish intellectuals / Washington power players wrote for Israeli government then came back to America... and put into motion. Iraq was just the first step - Iran and Syria the next.

Don't believe me?

Look in here, and get educated. That article should (I say should, it may not) clue you in as to what is going on here.

Lieberman declared that Iran represents an “existential threat” to Israel and that Arab countries in the Middle East are “next” because “they’re worried about the Iranian [nuclear] program and want us to ask strongly to stop it.” Lieberman concluded, “And we’re next! Because Ahmadinejad in Tehran constantly leads the mobs in shouts of death to America. And they mean it.”

And here we have crux of the matter.

Iran is an existential threat... to Israel... and uhmm, to other Arab countries.

And uhmmm, hmmmm, yeah, and also to America come to think of it!

Yeah, that's the ticket. I meant a threat to the USA, heh heh heh.

When asked if Barack Obama had “the right stuff to bomb Iran if it came to that level.” Lieberman added, “Well, I worry about that. I worry that Sen. Obama’s world view is naive.”

Bombing Iran is an adult thing to do.

Diplomacy, all that talking, is for pussies and naive idiots... like Obama and other democrats.

When asked, “if President Bush announced he felt compelled to take military action against Iran, would you support him,” Lieberman replied, “Yeah, of course I would.”

Now, think on that.

Whose interests do this guy represents?

If you have read my blog (or just thought about Joe Lieberman for a few seconds) you would get a sneaking suspicion that he is more pro Israel than pro USA.

How can we try to prove that hypothesis?

The old PNAC plan called for America to do Israel's dirty work for it, by attacking Iraq, Iran and Syria, in that order, no less.

(again, take a gander in here... and also here)

Iraq is taken care of, so Syria is next.

All according to the PNAC plan, made many years ago and now being carried out by the (dumb? stupid? clueless?) American soldiers and taxpayers.

Lets see what Senator Lieberman thinks of American and Syrian relations.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last year, Lieberman wrote that the U.S. “road to victory” in Iraq goes through Damascus, and urges Congress to “send a clear and unambiguous message to the Syrian regime.” [8/20/07]

To win in Iraq, we - the poor, dumb American goyim - must attack Syria.

And while at it, also Iran... right, Joe?

I will spare you Joe's views of the Iraq War 2 and the occupation of Iraq - when Joe is praising America's involvement in Iraq, he is basically ready to have either a stroke or an orgasm (can't decide which when watching this man in action).

So what is this man, really?

Why does he think, act and speak the way he does?

If you realize that this man is a neocon - which is a fancy word for somebody who places Israeli interests over American ones - all becomes clear.

It is not hard to spot, and once you open your eyes, it is fairly easy to see.

You do not need to read my blog (although it helps, I guess) - you only need to see the evidence and think critically, logically for a very short period of time.

It is obvious.

Of course, to say it out loud, especially in any kind of mass media - even a liberal blog - is forbidden, verbotten, and punished with accusations of anti-semitism, being called a racist, a bigot, and other, less nice names, in a flood of email messages and phone calls (and in the comments section).

So what was the punishment for Joe after betraying his political party?

Why, nothing.

To be sure, he was "kicked out" from the democratic party (well - he left on his own really - Joe became an "independent").


NYTimes, November 18, 2008, title: Democrats Let Lieberman Keep Senate Chairmanship.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut, was allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday despite his support for Senator John McCain in the presidential campaign.

Democratic senators voted instead to oust Mr. Lieberman from the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he had been chairman of a subcommittee. That penalty was a slap on the wrist compared with the prospect of losing the homeland security leadership post.

The democrats bravely voted Joe out of the Environment and Public Works Committee (no bearing on Israel, national security and law enforcement).

But they cowed, and let him keep his chairmanship (he is the boss of) the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

What is that Committee all about?

Wikipedia clues us in:
The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over matters related to the Department of Homeland Security and other homeland security concerns, as well as the functioning of the government itself, including the National Archives, budget and accounting measures other than appropriations, the Census, the federal civil service, the affairs of the District of Columbia, and the United States Postal Service. The committee's name was formerly the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, prior to homeland security being added to its responsibilities.

This is basically the committee that oversees the national security concerns.

Think FBI.

Think police force.

Think Patriot Act, FISA and other anti-privacy laws.

Since I believe (and perhaps you do also) that in "Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut)", the "I" stands for Israel, this is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

And who is responsible for this clusterfuck - why was Joe allowed to be chairman of one of the most powerful committees in Congress.

(after appropriations, which decides who gets the money and how much - you ought to read the book Charlie Wilson's War if you haven't - screw the movie. In fact, feel free to read another one of mine - Charlie Wilson's War - two main points everybody missed).

Lets go to CNN : Lieberman credits Obama after Dems let him keep post.

"I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was," he said Tuesday. "But I also believe that if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, 'Boy did we get even'?"

Mr Reid. Ousting Joe Lieberman from the 2nd most powerful committee in Congress is not "getting even", it is a matter of principle as well as the security of this nation and all of us, its citizens. This man betrayed YOUR party, he actively campaigned against democrats, and now all is forgiven?

Obama urged Reid privately to let bygones be bygones, sources said.

It came from on high that Joe must stay as the boss of the United States Security.

Something smells here.

Something is not right here.

1 comment:

A. Peasant said...

It reeks to high heaven.