« L'Shana Tova | Main | The Israel Lobby Strikes! »
September 13, 2007
Lieberhawk
I didn't watch this part, but Joe Klein saw Joe Lieberman trying to bait General Petraeus into saying we should attack Iran.
Joe Lieberman was again notable yesterday for moving to the right of most of the Republicans on the panel, asking General Petraeus if it might be a good idea to invade Iran and take out the Revolutionary Brigade facilities allegedly supporting the Shi'ite militias. Petraeus said he had no authority outside Iraq. But you can see where Lieberman is heading now--and it's atrocious.
There was a period when the anger between Lieberman and the Democratic Party really did seem to center around a limited disagreement on the path forward in Iraq. At this point, though, Lieberman's hawkishness seems more of an unthinking positioning device. But it's very serious, and will undoubtedly receive a warm reception on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
September 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
And at The Spine.
Posted by: Farty Peretz | Sep 13, 2007 10:40:05 AM
I sure can't figure out Lieberman's slide to the right.
I can almost understand him being resentful enough to the anti-Iraq-war folks effectively taking away his Dem. party card.
I can almost understand him trying to position himself as the great moderate that ignores political party positions.
I can almost understand that Joe feel a debt to Bush/Rove for their various kinds of support in his run as an independent after being defeated in the primary.
I can easily understand that Joe wants to do anything that goes beyond just backing Israel by advocating the most unyielding position possible for Israel regarding the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria.
What I can't understand is his ubber-hawkishness on a general mideast conflagration. He seems to be advocating an all out war of religious and social cultures. That is NOT moderation under any label.
Can anyone explain what's going on in his mind? Why has he become a Michael Ledeen or Richard Pearl?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 13, 2007 10:50:18 AM
I don't have a problem with liberman being a Hawk. I'm not saying I agree or disagree as much as I'm saying that the democratic party is a big party and is bound to have differing opinions on certain issues, even important ones.
What I do mind, and what seperates Liberman from any other conservative democrat or democrat I disagree with, is that he gives ammo to the other side on purpose, such as bashing his own party or supporting partisian right wing bills thus allowing conservatives to claim they have bipartisian support.
You don't have to agree with me on everything to be on my team but you can't plot against me and be on my team.
Still, the decision to get him to caucus with us was politically necessary.
Posted by: Phil | Sep 13, 2007 10:56:13 AM
Has Lieberman actually changed, Jim? Or are people only now noticing how extreme his foreign policy views are, perhaps because he feels a little freer to express them? I remember voting against Lieberman in 1988, when he first ran for the Senate, because in the debates he was attacking the liberal Republican incumbent Lowell Weicker from the right (for example, criticizing him for questioning the Cuba embargo). The man is best pals with Sean Hannity, and hung out with him, Giuliani, and Ann Coulter on 9/11, after decrying the loss of civility in our political culture.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 13, 2007 11:01:30 AM
When I wrote "9/11" above, I meant this 9/11, two days ago.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 13, 2007 11:07:48 AM
Why has he become a Michael Ledeen or Richard Pearl?
No, he's worse: he's become a Zell Miller with added crazy AIPAC topping. And I think the parallel is sort of accurate. HoJoe has been freed from any moderating influence: he can cheerily guest-star with Hannity, Coulter and Gingrich, and snort wingnuttery from Pamela Oshry Geller's tits. "Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive."
I'm sure Abe Foxman will be along soon to tell us that we're all bigots.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 13, 2007 11:13:17 AM
, Lieberman's hawkishness seems more of an unthinking positioning device
How does it differ from the American Likudnik ME foreign policy we expected before? I don't see a change. I don't think it's particularly unthinking, and I certainly don't think it's merely positioning. I think this has always been his position on ME foreign policy, even well before this Iraq war.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Sep 13, 2007 11:23:57 AM
Can anyone explain what's going on in his mind?
Dunno, but I am always reminded of the rumor that he was seen in a DC movie theatre, during some action film or another, punching the air and cheering at the big explosions. That, to me, does not seem like the behavior of a sixty-year-old man who has a firm grip on reality. Or decorum, actually.
Posted by: latts | Sep 13, 2007 11:30:42 AM
I'm sure the last thing Petraeus needs now is to have the Iranians fall upon his lines of supply in the South of Iraq (those Iranians who survive Shock and Awe II, that is). It will be Petraeus, who is not suicidal, who prevents this.
Posted by: bob h | Sep 13, 2007 11:36:32 AM
Latts, it was in New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Goldberg:
Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 13, 2007 11:39:43 AM
I am always reminded of the rumor that he was seen in a DC movie theatre, during some action film or another, punching the air and cheering at the big explosions.
That was from this New Yorker article. The relevant anecdote:
"Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”"
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 13, 2007 11:51:51 AM
Dammmit, sorry.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 13, 2007 11:52:10 AM
Thanks to both of you, although rereading it is disturbing, lol. Seriously, this man's a US senator and treated as a substantive thinker* on foreign policy? WTF?!
*yes, I know that the GOP is basically working from a mashup of action-film and "24" scripts, too, but usually our standards are higher.
Posted by: latts | Sep 13, 2007 11:58:30 AM
Lieberman hates liberals and can hardly stand to hide it now that, as he says it, the liberal wing of the Democratic party forced him to run as in independent. i think he's using his posturing to further exacerbate the culture war.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 13, 2007 12:19:36 PM
For anyone interested, Talk Left has the video of this exchange, including Petraeus' response, here:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/11/194232/811
Posted by: Midwest Product | Sep 13, 2007 12:28:39 PM
Sorry, that was supposed to be http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/11/194232/811
Posted by: Midwest Product | Sep 13, 2007 12:30:07 PM
he had an opportunity, coming from a great spiritual walk, to use his leadership as a voice for peace, tikkun olam, for civil rights, environmental healing and a voice for peace.
a shonda.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 13, 2007 1:09:03 PM
Well, he has been leading the fight in the Senate for DC voting rights. If that actually passes, I think I'll have to give him a break for a little while.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 13, 2007 2:30:45 PM
The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”
Well, that explains why Owen Wilson's so fucked up.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 13, 2007 2:37:11 PM
Crooksandliars to the rescue! The Video is right here.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/12/lieberman-begs-petraeus-to-invade-iran/
Posted by: M.O | Sep 13, 2007 2:41:44 PM
Well, he doesn't care anymore, does he? He knows that he's inviolable as long as the Senate makeup is what it is, and also knows that the second that the Dems get more Senators, he'll probably get quietly cut loose as a sop to the netroots.
Thing is, he's a creature that used to get a bye back during the cold war: A Democratic hawk who was liberal domestically, but in favor of hardcore foreign policy positions. The problem is that politics no longer ends at the water's edge, and the Democratic base (like the Republican base) cares about foreign policy far more than they used to. Some politicians have responded to this; others are stuck in their old pattern. Lieberman is part of the latter, who lucked out from having a weak Republican opponent and enough connections to avoid being forced out.
Hopefully, he's a dying breed.
Posted by: Demosthenes | Sep 14, 2007 11:47:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
