Join 3,513 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Will Joementum carry us to Iran?
June 11, 2007 10:11 AM   Subscribe

Senator Lieberman advocates military strike on Iran Newsfilter: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday morning laid out a case for the US taking military action against Iran. Glenn Greenwald says that while neocon true believers are becoming harder to find in the GOP ranks, Holy Joe embodies one in its purest form. The Salem-News simply calls his demands cowardly, and others wonder if he has a point.
posted by psmealey (106 comments total)

 
He still has no real power to do anything right?
posted by chunking express at 10:16 AM on June 11, 2007


Iraq is now the main front in the long war we are fighting against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

What? Lieberman is a bit of a dumb ass.
posted by chunking express at 10:17 AM on June 11, 2007


I have a counter-proposal: How about we give Joe and Cheney as many guns as they can carry and a few bottles of Gatorade and a couple BBQ Beef MRE's and push them out of a speeding van somewhere just over the Iranian border and whoever God loves more, wins.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:19 AM on June 11, 2007 [32 favorites]


Something stuck out at me:

As it is, American soldiers are being corralled behind barbed wire fences when they return from war because the command at Fort Carson, Colorado for example, has concluded that they can not be trusted after combat duty.

Huh?
posted by mkb at 10:20 AM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


he's talking tough because he can, and he's not the one who'll decide whether to strike Iran or not anyway. most American liberals I know tend to dismiss Uncle Joe as a crazed old asshole, but for an asshole he's winning a lot of games: he beat back the Lamont campaign ridiculing that clueless man who tried to unseat him, got a shitload of Republican votes in the general election, and by going Independent he bought himself the right to spit in Capitol Hill Democrats faces as much and as often as he wants.

he's by far the most shamelessly pro-Iraq war politician in Congress -- possibly in the entire town because most of Bush's men seem to have figured out what a mess Iraq is.

I'm sure he enjoys all the ass kissing now. who wouldn't --
he just has to switch to take the Senate majority with him.

memo to my Democratic friends: it's not Joe's fault if your party hasn't been able to get a deadline for withdrawal, has declined the chance to require Congressional authorization for a Iran strike, and has generally been little more than a nuisance for the most incompetent and downright corrupt administration of the last 35 years, possibly of the last 100.

not Joe's fault, sorry. and I say this as someone who thinks Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and a few others should be in the dock at the Hague
posted by matteo at 10:22 AM on June 11, 2007


Divnie_Wino: Is a belief in God necessary to support this plan?
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:23 AM on June 11, 2007


For those who don't want to watch the video, the Raw Story piece is a little slim, more at the Guardian. Relevant quote

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me, that would include a strike 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.... I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran."

The question is interesting, even if you don't like the answer. Yes, we caused this mess. Yes, we understand why Iran would want the US to hurt as much as possible in Iraq. But what is the proper US strategy vis-a-vis Iran at this point?
posted by blahblahblah at 10:24 AM on June 11, 2007


Is anyone really surprised by this anymore?
posted by SBMike at 10:24 AM on June 11, 2007


sorry for the name misspell, Divine_Wino.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:24 AM on June 11, 2007


"This could be achieved mostly with air attacks." Lieberman said.

Really?
posted by RMD at 10:25 AM on June 11, 2007


From a speech delivered on the House floor by Ron Paul in April 2006:
First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance – though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.
posted by chlorus at 10:26 AM on June 11, 2007 [7 favorites]


Iraq is now the main front in the long war we are fighting against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

What? Lieberman is a bit of a dumb ass.


Maybe. But he's banking on the fact that most members of the public are dumbasses.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:28 AM on June 11, 2007


"[...] there's no nation in the world where the government is more anti- American and the people are more pro-American than Iran, and that's the equation we have to flip." [...] "This could be achieved mostly with air attacks." Lieberman said.

Like this.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:29 AM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


Joe has jumped the shark, probably did about the same time as Paris Paramus did. Hmmm, has anyone seen the two of them in the same room together?
posted by caddis at 10:32 AM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


I don't get people who promote bizzare short-term strategies that are so obviously unsustainable in the long term. Is the US going to invade everyone in the end? Isn't that pretty much where this strategy is going?

Or, in the non-question form: The US cannot invade everyone. Might as well stop now, shithead.
posted by GuyZero at 10:33 AM on June 11, 2007


From a speech delivered on the House floor by Ron Paul in April 2006

Is any one else troubled that this wacko is the only Republican making any sense?
posted by briank at 10:34 AM on June 11, 2007


Lieberman is about 18 months away from becoming "who?"

Bush's base is in tatters and the GOP candidates are so pathetic the right-wing base is fawning over the former star of Baby's Day Out who celebrates the GOP's commitment to moral values by taking a second wife younger than his own daughter. They hate him on immigration, and with the domestic agenda impossible because of a Democratic-controlled Congress Bush's only other option to raise GOP cred would be escalating the war.

Lieberman knows this, and he also knows that war in Iran and its potential to re-rally the GOP base is the only chance for the Republicans to either A. take back the Senate or B. Win the White House in 2008.

If/when the Democrats pick up more Senate seats in 2008 Lieberman is fucked. A Democratic President won't make him a cabinet member and allow Rell to swap his seat with a Republican, he won't get a chairmanship because that'll go to an actual Democrat, and after that no one will give a shit about what he has to say or who he caucuses with.

And that's pretty much why Lieberman does nothing but try to talk about how Democrats are shit and how bombing the fuck out of the scary brown people is awesome. Because it's the only way he'll get more Republicans elected to keep him relevant as their certified salad tosser. Lieberman's platitudes about the threats from Iran are as nonsensical as they are ironic- Lieberman wants to go to war with Iran because his life depends on it, not ours.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:38 AM on June 11, 2007 [12 favorites]


YoBananaBoy, for my plan to work you don't even need to believe in Joe Lieberman.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:39 AM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


As much as it sometimes occurs to me to want to regret having worked on the Lamont campaign, I can't really think of what else I could have done. When this jerk got re-elected, I was stunned. Lieberman has been off the deep end since 2002, and this bit of posturing surprised me not at all. What I wonder and fear, though, is if he's sending up a trial balloon for his masters in the White House, who seem to be itching to make this a reality (consequences to our military and our economy be damned).
posted by psmealey at 10:40 AM on June 11, 2007


there's no nation in the world where the government is more anti- American and the people are more pro-American than Iran, and that's the equation we have to flip.

So is Joe saying that we need Iran to have a pro-US government, and an angry anti-US popular sentiment? 'Cause that worked out so well the last time.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:40 AM on June 11, 2007 [3 favorites]


Leiberman represents Tel Aviv, Israel as much as he represents Groton, Connecticut. There aren't enough subs being used in the current middle east theater, and the possibility of nukes in Iran scares the Israelis more than it probably scares the rest of humanity.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:42 AM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


He's a Republican? Where the flying fuck was he 7 years ago?!
posted by Talanvor at 10:46 AM on June 11, 2007


'Joementum?' Is that as potent and long-lasting as the Willenium?
posted by NationalKato at 10:46 AM on June 11, 2007


I am so glad I never voted for that fucker.
posted by serazin at 10:50 AM on June 11, 2007


This is typical of Lieberman's behavior over the past 6 years, and why I thought most folks (liberal or conservative) would agree that he needed to go (apart from his stance on the war, Lamont was pretty pro-business). Joe is an autocrat who thinks he knows what's best for all of us, when he was hired to be an extension of our interest and collective will. He has come to think that he governs us.

If there's a more classic example of an out of touch Senator who has become corrupted by his station, I cannot think of one.
posted by psmealey at 10:59 AM on June 11, 2007


The FOX News Democrat strikes again!
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:03 AM on June 11, 2007


briank,
Yes, it is very scary that Ron Paul is the most sensible voice wishing to run for president on the Republican ticket.
Sadly, the same can be said for the Democratic candidates as well.
posted by daq at 11:04 AM on June 11, 2007


Sadly, the same can be said for the Democratic candidates as well.

Don't believe the hype. John Edwards is a real candidate, and I haven't ruled out a last minute entry by Gore (who seems to be slimming down).
posted by psmealey at 11:07 AM on June 11, 2007


Joe Lieberman is a waste of skin, and why the Democrats have not distanced themselves from him is something I just don't understand. They should take every opportunity to put out a "he may caucus with us, but he's not our friend" message. They may need his D, but there is nothing wrong with calling a skunk a skunk.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:08 AM on June 11, 2007


Ron "deep, longstanding links to the white nationalist Patriot movement from the 90's" Paul is sensible?

Pat Buchanan has criticised the war, too. It doesn't make him any less a racist lunatic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:09 AM on June 11, 2007


John Edwards is a real candidate

Amen. I'm a little worried about his traction so far, though.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:09 AM on June 11, 2007


John Edwards is a real candidate

So are kids running for student council, and they've run a more polished and gaffe-free campaign than Edwards has in the last six months.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:12 AM on June 11, 2007


Lots of conservatives say "9/11 changed everything" and there's actually a lot of truth in that statement.

It unraveled 30+ years of progress in the US in a couple of years. Only now are we starting to claw out of it just a little bit, only to be running head-first into things like another cold war, and opening another military front we can't possibly maintain.

I want to think, I need to think, that the madness of the last 7 years, the shifting of intelligent people whom I used to respect from reasoned individuals to blathering idiots, the groundswell of populism and support for an absurd-on-its-face military action, that all of that would never have occurred without 9/11.

If there are continued rumblings of war in Iran, then those people in the large urban centers in America need to prepare, because this administration will be happy to force, or at least allow, "a very bad thing" to happen if we could pretend to pin it on Iran and let those stealth bombers clock a few thousand more air miles.

(BTW, before it even starts again, I'm not saying the administration "made" 9/11 happen. However, I think the jury is out as to if they knew something was going to happen and didn't do enough to stop it. I don't know enough about the intelligence departments to know how common it is to make a memo saying "Osama is going to use planes to fuck us up" and then a month later, Osama uses planes to fuck us up. If they are that clear, yeah, it seems to this citizen that someone dropped the ball, and badly.

But that's not my point, my point is that about 80% of people now agree that the administration lied about the causes leading us into Iraq, so I do not doubt for even a moment they would like to get us into Iran.)
posted by Ynoxas at 11:14 AM on June 11, 2007 [3 favorites]


polished and gaffe-free campaign

I'm not convinced that his gaffes are anything other than press corps fetishes fed by boredom with the absurdly early campaigning and too-long primary process. The $400 haircut thing will be long forgotten by the time Iowa rolls around. Edwards has practically been living there, and is likely to do some damage in the early primaries. We'll see.

But if your kid wants to skip student council and throw his or her hat into the ring for the Democratic nomination, I'll consider it.
posted by psmealey at 11:19 AM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


Juan Cole: Turns out that the CIA is using Sudanese spies against the Iraqi guerrillas. Bush sees no enemies among the oil states, only opportunities to be exploited. Most Americans don't realize that Bush has also de facto deployed Iran-trained Badr Corps fighters against the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, as well. So Iran and Sudan are the great bogeymen in Bush rhetoric, but the pillars of his Iraq policy in reality.

That is why Senator Joe Lieberman's call for aggressive air strikes on Iran are unlikely to eventuate.

posted by acro at 11:20 AM on June 11, 2007


Wait. Is this the same guy that was going to be Vice-President of the United States? Remembering that, I'm not quite as thrilled with Al Gore as I'd like to be.
posted by pax digita at 11:21 AM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


The Iranian Dep. Interior Minister says that if Iran is attacked, oil will go to $250/barrel. Hmmm......
posted by Adamchik at 11:22 AM on June 11, 2007


Wait. Is this the same guy that was going to be Vice-President of the United States?

Vice-president, it's not like vice-presidents have any policy making powers, right?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:25 AM on June 11, 2007


Dave Faris speaks the obvious, and yet this line of thinking will be immediately attacked as racist, or rather as a special class of racism distinct and more odious then all other forms of racism, and thus never becoming part of the argument. This is the situation America finds itself in as it attempts to negotiate the treacherous waters of the Middle East, with one paddle.
posted by cell divide at 11:26 AM on June 11, 2007


So are kids running for student council, and they've run a more polished and gaffe-free campaign than Edwards has in the last six months.

Yeah, okay. It would be fantastic if we picked a candidate based on their ability to avoid media-created 'gaffes'. Worked so well 4 years ago.
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on June 11, 2007


I always like Joe, even when he was in the wrong party.
posted by tadellin at 11:31 AM on June 11, 2007


"...
It unraveled 30+ years of progress in the US in a couple of years...."

from a comment. Bush may be about as bad a president as we have had, and the GOP control of Congress may also be horrible. But under 8 years of Clinton etc tell me how Bush junked our outstanding health care programs, our daycare provisions, our minimum wage initiatives etc etc--dare I say that under both parties the average American if lucky enough to have a job is losing money (cost of everything) on a rather steady basis, and his kids see outrageous college costs, scarcity of many jobs (outsourcing), etc. Sure, no Patriot Act and sneaky this or that, but how many military bases got closed down worldwide, and was the military budget rather small till Bush got in, etc etc. In sum: progress from what to what was cast out by Bush and Gang?
posted by Postroad at 11:34 AM on June 11, 2007


matteo - he just has to switch to take the Senate majority with him.

That's not true. The organizing resolution adopted at the start of the 110th Senate doesn't contain a provision whereby majority control and committee chairmanships would change if the balance of seats changed.

The resolution adopted at the start of the 107th Senate did contain such a provision, which is why control changed when Jeffords did.

Anyways, the point is that there's nothing Lieberman can do to hand Republicans control
posted by pruner at 11:35 AM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


quarter waters and a bag of chips advocates military strike on Joe Lieberman.
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 11:36 AM on June 11, 2007


I'm not just talking about the $400 haircut, though the suggestion it'll be forgotten is hilarious. (If Gore runs it'll be 24 hours before "invented the internet" jokes start right up again.)

I'm talking about the horrible handling of the campaign bloggers fiasco, the ill-timed scheduling of his official announcement, the bungled response about the National Intelligence report, and so on. But that said, yes, the haircut is an important issue because it was a ridiculously fucking stupid move for Edwards to pull. This is his second run for the White House.

Edwards is a fantastic candidate and if the primary were tomorrow he'd very likely get my vote. But that's because I read blogs and news articles and his website and know about his policies and if we're going to pretend the typical voter does all that we're delusional. He's running a shitty campaign, and you know what? THAT's what was "so helpful" for us four years ago, now, wasn't it?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:40 AM on June 11, 2007


he talks like a sanctimonious eunuch. i hate that.
posted by bruce at 11:45 AM on June 11, 2007


If someone swiped your balls, you'd be sanctimonious too.
posted by spicynuts at 11:54 AM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


I always hate being brought to the realization that the voting public at large has the intellectual maturity of a 7 year old, but there are some fair points to what you say XQUZ. However, I still hold out some hope that after 8 years of this dismal man and his horrible administration, people will be moved to vote on real issues rather than style points. Probably naïve.

However, if you want the candidate who has (by far) run the most disciplined, careful campaign to date, it's Hillary. And for the life of me, I don't have a clue what she stands for. Still, if she does get the nomination, I have serious doubts that she can pull enough votes from undecideds to actually win the damn thing.
posted by psmealey at 11:54 AM on June 11, 2007


Is the US going to invade everyone in the end?

Yes. We're spreading the Democracy Love.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:03 PM on June 11, 2007


briank,

Ron Paul is not a whacko. He is a principled candidate promoting sound policy.

Anti-war Democrats would do well to register as Republicans so they can vote in the primaries. He is the only Republican candidate who is dedicated to bringing the troops back from Iraq at the nearest opportunity.

What does Hillary stand for? That's easy. Higher taxes.
posted by BigSky at 12:03 PM on June 11, 2007


Dave Faris speaks the obvious, and yet this line of thinking will be immediately attacked as racist, or rather as a special class of racism distinct and more odious then all other forms of racism, and thus never becoming part of the argument. This is the situation America finds itself in as it attempts to negotiate the treacherous waters of the Middle East, with one paddle.

Whenever somebody posts something slightly critical of Israel here, there are always far more posts predicting that the argument will be ignored because somebody will accuse them of anti-semitism than people actually accusing them of anti-semitism. Dave Faris made an argument that is perfectly valid and is worth considering. Why the pre-emptive call-out? I'm pro-Israel and I can tell the difference between anti-semitism and legitimate concern over the conflation of Israeli and American interests. I've actually seen nuanced and respectful debate on this site. Why set your expectations so low?
posted by SBMike at 12:04 PM on June 11, 2007


I was just thinking the other day how weird it is that Al Gore is now seen as some kind of near-Kucinichian progressive while his 2000 running mate has revealed himself to be somewhere to the right of John McCain. I guess no one will care unless Gore gets into the 2008 race, but I wonder if he'll ever have to apologize for having picked Joe.
posted by Clay201 at 12:10 PM on June 11, 2007


MetaFilter: Why set your expectations so low?
posted by pruner at 12:10 PM on June 11, 2007


Oh, and I really thought I was the only one in America who remembered the word "Joementum."
posted by Clay201 at 12:10 PM on June 11, 2007


The sad part about this is that we're talking as though we have any say in the matter. The decision to invade Iran has already been made. I'll say it again for emphasis: THE DECISION TO INVADE IRAN HAS BEEN MADE. And we're in the middle of the propaganda process, of which Lieberman's appearance is one of the pieces. There will be many more such appearances, by others, saying the Lieberman equivalent. There will be stories about how Iran is politically in disarray ("it'll be easy to invade"). And, just like the invasion of Iraq, there will be so many stories, so many pundits saying the same thing, that the mind of the populace will bend in consent.
posted by zorro astor at 12:12 PM on June 11, 2007 [5 favorites]


Ron Paul is not a whacko.

::tries the veal::

Seriously, can someone please explain to me the Ron Paul Experience? Dude makes a couple of cogent points in Congressional hearings (which are pretty thinly veiled stump speeches), and all of a sudden he's the one who's going to shake up the system? It's like Dean fever four years ago, if Dean was a xenophobic John Bircher who was against gay rights.

None of this would be terribly surprising from a Republican candidate, granted, but he's supposed to the libertarian alternative, no?
posted by Mayor West at 12:15 PM on June 11, 2007


Why set your expectations so low?

I was commenting on the general debate in the United States, not here. Although, obviously, that doesn't make much sense when I'm replying to someone's comment here, with a comment here, so point taken :)
posted by cell divide at 12:33 PM on June 11, 2007


In sum: progress from what to what was cast out by Bush and Gang?
posted by Postroad at 1:34 PM on June 11


I'm not sure where to even begin Postroad.

I think the most lasting and most serious damage this administration has done has been on the world stage. We are viewed much more negatively by basically every country in the world now than we were in the 90's. Look at the fiascoes Bush has presided over: Powell at the UN, Bolton at the UN, Wolfowitz at the World Bank, Rice anywhere. Our estimation has fallen in the eyes of the world, because it was made clear, verbally clear, that this administration had no regard for the world political stage. They do not care to seek consensus, do not mind acting against the will of the world body, and basically have a wild west cowboy attitude of "I'll do what I want". The appointments of Bolton and Wolfowitz, especially, were purposeful slaps in the face, showing blatant disregard for the institutions.

Then, the war in Iraq, which has turned from folly to catastrophe to debacle. George Bush lied to the American people about our reasons for going to war. I consider this to be treason.

Next, faith-based initiatives. Trying to equate religious education with real education. Assisting efforts to squash real scientific discourse in favor of faith-based mythology. Then the religious injection into reproductive rights. Using federal funds to force agencies to counsel against abortions and not to issue birth control.

Then rejection, as a matter of policy, of the overwhelming evidence of global warming. Refusal to participate in any global initiatives aimed at improving the environment. Forcing scientific documents at various agencies to be amended or deleted from their public web sites for straying from his PERSONAL OPINION on serious scientific issues.

Katrina. Patriot Act. Secret CIA bases. Indefinite detention without trial, lawyer, or formal charges. Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Scooter Libby. Harriette Miers. Gonzales. Entire months spent in Crawford, TX on vacation.

Then, how about the greatest reversal of fortune of any economy in the history of mankind? From record surpluses when he took over to record deficits. With much of it going into the pockets of a handful of companies the vice president has intimate dealings with.

Increasing interest rates. $3/gal gasoline, despite record profits for oil companies every quarter. Collapse of the American auto and airline industries. Removal of protection for federal lands.

What else do you need Postroad? At what point do you just drop your arms and say "Yeah, you know what, the guy is an incompetent ass".
posted by Ynoxas at 12:40 PM on June 11, 2007 [11 favorites]


Optimus Chyme has linked to a neo-Nazi hate speech site, in case anyone cares.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:41 PM on June 11, 2007


Yeah, okay. It would be fantastic if we picked a candidate based on their ability to avoid media-created 'gaffes'. Worked so well 4 years ago.

i've never understood the whole 'gaffe' thing. Ronald Reagan was on gaffe-o-matic practically the whole 8 years (5 minutes until the bombers anyone?) But, everyone thinks he was fucking superman...
posted by geos at 12:45 PM on June 11, 2007



However, if you want the candidate who has (by far) run the most disciplined, careful campaign to date, it's Hillary. And for the life of me, I don't have a clue what she stands for.


She is a robot. She stands for her own careerism. And I think Obama is not far behind in that department. Which is why I really hope Edwards pulls it together because I will hate to have to vote Anti-Republican for the third time in a row rather than voting for someone I actually care about.
posted by spicynuts at 12:47 PM on June 11, 2007


A neo-Nazi hate speech site which really didn't even make the point, either.
posted by nevercalm at 12:48 PM on June 11, 2007


everyone thinks he was fucking superman...

I thought he was fucking us exclusively!! Turns out he was two timing us with Superman?? Rat Bastard!
posted by spicynuts at 12:49 PM on June 11, 2007 [5 favorites]


OK, a few words on Ron Paul.

He is not an authoritarian figure like Giuliani, instead he has consistently voted against any increase in executive powers. Taking a hard line on illegal immigrants, specifically, denying them amnesty and refusing to pay for their welfare is not the same as xenophobia. Or perhaps you were referring to what some call an isolationist foreign policy. After our latest 'adventure', I would think others might be more sympathetic to a reduction of our meddling in the affairs of other countries. Given that our national debt is somewhere on the order of nine trillion, perhaps a more conservative fiscal style might be in order? Add to this a firm belief in individual and property rights and it makes an appealing package for some of us. Unfortunately, too few of his positions are shared by other candidates of either party, and I am thinking here specifically of his opposition to the Patriot Act and associated infringements on privacy.

And as for being against gay rights, what? He is not interested in providing federal support for homosexuals to adopt a child. What does that have to do with gay 'rights'? They don't already have some rights that he is trying to take away, rather, he is not a partner in their desire for more. Personally, I don't give a damn whether gays adopt or don't. But the notion, on both sides that this is some kind of major 'issue' that determines votes makes me sick to my stomach. There are major policy issues that have to be addressed and to ignore the substantial differences between candidates because of some position on gay adoption is nutty and the worst kind of partisan thinking. Mayor West, I am not saying you were doing that, but to even list that as a defining attribute is weird in my eyes. And phrasing it as against gay rights as opposed to does not support gay adoption is just ugly.

Is that a Stormfront link I see posted on preview?

Nice.

Very subtle.

I'll have to wait until I go home to read it. I hope you'll understand.
posted by BigSky at 12:49 PM on June 11, 2007


Ronald Reagan was on gaffe-o-matic practically the whole 8 years (5 minutes until the bombers anyone?) But, everyone thinks he was fucking superman...

Yeah, but he was like everyone's "kindly grandfather" all the time so people were like, "aw, grandpa is so heartwarming when he dodders like that, aw."
posted by Pollomacho at 12:50 PM on June 11, 2007


I'm talking about the horrible handling of the campaign bloggers fiasco, the ill-timed scheduling of his official announcement, the bungled response about the National Intelligence report, and so on.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the "ill-timed scheduling of his official announcement" I know some people said it was ill-timed, but how so? How exactly was it handled in a way that would turn off any voters? How his pre-announcement any different then Fried Thompson's' announcement that he'll announce around the 4th of July? You see the press bitching about that? Just more IOKIYAR wankery.

As for the bloggers thing. I can see the error there (I'm not exactly a fan of Marcotte myself). But it hasn't really been much of an enduring story.

But if you're going to pick a candidate based on inconsequential shit like that you deserve what you get. I suppose you think it's good we got Bush in 2000 because Gore sighed during the debates and claimed he invented the internet?

What does Hillary stand for? That's easy. Higher taxes.

Durrr, I don't think I've heard her advocate higher taxes. She says we can pay for health care by creating 'efficiencies' in the system. And anyway, most Americans now support raising taxes. So it's not as unpopular position as it used to be.
posted by delmoi at 12:56 PM on June 11, 2007


Personally, I don't give a damn whether gays adopt or don't. But the notion, on both sides that this is some kind of major 'issue' that determines votes makes me sick to my stomach.

Well, I doubt you would feel that way if you were actually gay. (or a bible-thumping cretin)
posted by delmoi at 12:59 PM on June 11, 2007


"Durrr, I don't think I've heard her advocate higher taxes. She says we can pay for health care by creating 'efficiencies' in the system. And anyway, most Americans now support raising taxes. So it's not as unpopular position as it used to be."

If you google: +Hillary +Clinton +"raise taxes", you will find out different. It is true that raising taxes does have wide support. I would speculate that there may be some connection between our freeness in spending another man's money and the financial trouble we regularly get into, perhaps, even a connection with most people's failure to save money in their personal lives as well...

And as for gay adoption I think you have a small point, but it is small. Going childless is painful, as is seeing your values overturned, and I sympathize. No matter how attached one is to gay adoption though, there needs to be a sense of scale. Other issues loom larger.
posted by BigSky at 1:11 PM on June 11, 2007


Interestingly, most of the results of your search BigSky come from Republican bloggers and media.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:17 PM on June 11, 2007


Pollomacho,

It was just the first phrasing that came to mind. I had seen mention in the news about 4 or 5 days ago that she spoke of being open to raising taxes, so I knew something was there.

If you feel I am putting too partisan a spin on things, let me point out the 11th search result, Rasmussen Research: "59% of American adults agree with Hillary Clinton's proposal to raise taxes.".
posted by BigSky at 1:28 PM on June 11, 2007


BigSky, I'll cede to you that Paul is so much less awful than the other Republican candidates that it barely warrants comparison--he's the only one I don't actively despise, and has some good ideas. But huge parts of his background aren't being publicized, and they do tend to cast some doubts on his pure Libertarian stance. He sponsored the effort to place the Defense of Marriage Act outside the purview of the judiciary (which is totally contrary to mainline Libertarian views), and seems to have settled on gay rights as his one sticking point for cultural conservatism.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on immigration issues, but his proposal to deny citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't citizens is more extreme than most conservatives short of Pat Buchanon.

He's an interesting character, and he livens up the debates, and I wouldn't be horrified to see him elected (as opposed to, say, Guiliani, who would have us under martial law the next time the TSA found a nail clipper in someone's carry-on), but he doesn't represent mainline libertarianism (big or little-L), and he's not the cross-party savior folks seem to be making him out to be.
posted by Mayor West at 1:32 PM on June 11, 2007


What is Joe's plan when the Iranians send tens of thousands of "volunteers" into Iraq? What in the hell is he going to do then?
posted by wuwei at 2:10 PM on June 11, 2007


From The Jerusalem Post: “On Sunday, the Israel Air Force held joint exercises with visiting US pilots, but IDF sources dismissed speculation that the drills were connected to an attack on Iran.”
posted by Huplescat at 2:26 PM on June 11, 2007


Hillary Clinton, besides being an opportunistic weasel, is pro-censorship. Frankly I think she's Guiliani Lite.
posted by Foosnark at 2:32 PM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


Whenever somebody posts something slightly critical of Israel here, there are always far more posts predicting that the argument will be ignored because somebody will accuse them of anti-semitism than people actually accusing them of anti-semitism. ... Why the pre-emptive call-out?

Because here on Metafilter, we have been carefully erecting straw men of fascist, Islamophobic Zionazis, who use anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as an excuse to eat little brown babies, since about 2001. Of course, it's actually possible to count the pro-Israeli posters here on the fingers of your hands, but it would be so much harder to rally the proverbial sheeple without a boogie man.

*heads off to Metatalk to pre-emptively call out dios*
posted by Krrrlson at 2:33 PM on June 11, 2007


I was just thinking the other day how weird it is that Al Gore is now seen as some kind of near-Kucinichian progressive while his 2000 running mate has revealed himself to be somewhere to the right of John McCain. I guess no one will care unless Gore gets into the 2008 race, but I wonder if he'll ever have to apologize for having picked Joe.

While I hate the cliché, it's all about their reaction to 9/11.

Gore called for building alliances, making sacrifices and engaging with the root causes of terrorism.

Lieberman called for blood.
posted by uri at 2:35 PM on June 11, 2007


Of course, it's actually possible to count the pro-Israeli posters here on the fingers of your hands, but it would be so much harder to rally the proverbial sheeple without a boogie man.

I prefer to count the pro-Israeli Senators and Congressmen when looking for a suitable boogie man.
posted by uri at 2:39 PM on June 11, 2007


“there's no nation in the world where the government is more anti- American and the people are more pro-American than Iran, and that's the equation we have to flip.”

Helflipyow. Flipyowfreel.
*Finsterfilter*


“Ronald Reagan was on gaffe-o-matic practically the whole 8 years (5 minutes until the bombers anyone?) But, everyone thinks he was fucking superman...”

‘Cos he followed Carter who apparently couldn’t shoot straight. Nothing to do with facts, but that’s what it looked like. Also the country was in a mess and lot of things happened under Reagan that were pretty good. Debatable whether he can claim credit for all of them. Same could be said about Clinton, but he’s a big hero.
Seems to me congress keeps getting shorted in terms of praise/blame for stuff that goes on.

/on topic:

related piece from the jpost .
from the article:
“The goal of such action, he continued, would be "to delay it, to deter it, hoping that you set the program off course, so that by the time they catch up back to where they were, there's been a change in the government. That's the limited objective that I would see.”

Problematic (given that he’s in earnest as to that actually being the goal). Iran’s weakness appears to be the physical locations of their nuke operations.
Is there some reason covert action won’t work for Iran against the U.S. as well? (it’s been proven in its effectiveness). Is there any reason why Iran can’t play a waiting game while trying to influence our government? Or secure its nuke program better or spread it through urban areas? Indeed, if we agree they will at some point catch up us what’s to prevent them from running a false flag operation while there’s still ambiguity?
(If we know they don’t have it, ok. If we know they DO have the bomb, we can target them if anything goes off on our territory - N. Korea as well - anything happens to us, whether it’s you guys or not, you’re getting it - pretty big deterrent there. But if we don’t know either way - pretty big matzo ball hanging out there)

Iran wants the bomb for a variety of reasons, many of which are based on easily appeasable goals (e.g. their national pride). Very little in concrete terms and what little there is we could cover ourselves (e.g. guarantee their security from outside invasion, keep Israel off their backs, et.al.)
I find it ridiculous that the diplomatic angles are so obvious and viable to me (ex-military) while a senator can only see - or rather posit - a military solution. Which (IMHO) is the worst option open to us. At best we’d have to lay down constant suppression of Iran on a bunch of fronts (military, political, covert) to prevent retaliation while we’re plugging our money into their antagonists to tip them over - way way too tough (“If he prepares to defend everywhere, everywhere will be weak” - Sun Tzu).

I can only surmise therefore that Lieberman’s aim is regime change, not national security. Given that it’s regime change - who does that benefit?
Lots of answers to that question.
Certainly an Iran with a less intolerant government would benefit the world, but the risks are too great to not sit down at the table. We don’t necessarily have to deal, but you can’t strike because you’re not sure what the future holds.
Outside of an ongoing firefight recon by fire works on occasion, it’s used sparingly because it identifies your position. And if no one shoots back you still aren’t sure if there’s an ambush there. And speculative fire can sometimes wind up provoking someone who otherwise wouldn’t have bit.
Same deal here.

S’why there are reconnaissance units - the policy equivalent would be the guys in the state department.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:06 PM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


America can't touch Iran, and the reason is simple -- the thinnest shred of hope for a dignified withdrawal from Iraq, as opposed to what will probably happen in the form of a disastrous, Saigon-esque collapse, is to hand the keys over to the Shia bureaucrats and warlords. (Not to mention the fact that oil prices would skyrocket, and this is the only thing that would actually make impeachment a viable possibility with the American public.)

Then again, I used to think Lieberman, despite all his bluster, knew obvious facts like this. Who knows -- maybe he's talking to his skygod too. In which case I hope the American military is ready to get its ass kicked for the second time this decade.
posted by bardic at 3:46 PM on June 11, 2007


Lieberman just broke ranks with the Democratic caucus (again) to vote against the motion to invoke cloture on the Gonzales "no confidence" resolution.

5 Republicans (Coleman, Collins, Hagel, Smith, Specter, Snowe, Sununu) voted for cloture.
posted by pruner at 3:50 PM on June 11, 2007


obviously, that's 6 Republicans who voted for cloture... not 5.
posted by pruner at 3:53 PM on June 11, 2007


Reid needs to grow a pair and strip Lieberman of his committee leaderships.

I mean, remember how the Republican congress bent over backwards to play nice? Yeah.
posted by bardic at 4:08 PM on June 11, 2007


Optimus Chyme has linked to a neo-Nazi hate speech site, in case anyone cares.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:41 PM on June 11


Ron Paul advocates Neo-Nazi politics, in case anyone cares.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:43 PM on June 11, 2007


obviously, that's 6 Republicans who voted for cloture... not 5

I count seven, but, whatever.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:53 PM on June 11, 2007


Ron Paul advocates Neo-Nazi politics, in case anyone cares.

Only in the same way that any textbook Dem advocates neo-Maoist politics.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:54 PM on June 11, 2007


I count seven, but, whatever.

*hangs head in shame*
posted by pruner at 4:56 PM on June 11, 2007


Ron Paul also supports Scientology.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:14 PM on June 11, 2007


Ron Paul introduces a bill that would prevent the Supreme Court from adjudicating any matter involving the free exercise of or establishment of religion.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:22 PM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions" — Ron Paul
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:26 PM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


RON PAUL
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:33 PM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


wasn't Ron Paul that 7-feet-tall African American drag queen? I liked him a lot
posted by matteo at 5:56 PM on June 11, 2007


So what... the whole country is certifiably insane, and the Republicans are crazier than everyone else put together. In that context, Rue Paul is a breath of fresh air.
posted by Huplescat at 6:35 PM on June 11, 2007


The racist Ron Paul has long-standing connection to the militant right that Dave Neiwert at Orcinus writes about.

In fact, here's Neiwert writing about Ron Paul's long-standing, willing association with racists and fascists. Highlights are Paul's support of racism, his association with Christian Reconstructionists, his support for the tax evasion positions commonly found amongst the more extreme Libertarians, pulling the US out of the UN (as the UN is part of the plot to bring about a New World Order), opposition to public schools, his defence of the Branch Davidians and the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, and the support he receives from the David Duke/Stormfront types.

Ron Paul isn't "reasonable", he isn't anything approaching mainstream, and any liberal or leftist (or, for that matter, mainstream conservative) who looks at him as anything other than a dangerous loony is either ignorant of the facts or severely lacking in critical thinking skills.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:48 PM on June 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


I should have said that the Republicans are twice as crazy as everyone else put together, but what it all comes down to is that we’re stuck with a rogues gallery of hopeless hopefuls wooing
an electorate rendered desperate by a span of attention, attended and fostered by the MSM, that is too short to link one crisis to the next and draw conclusions.

Given that, my dream ticket is Gore/Kucinich.
posted by Huplescat at 7:42 PM on June 11, 2007


[RON PAULIST]
posted by spicynuts at 8:13 PM on June 11, 2007


Huh.

Well, thanks for the links everybody but I didn't see much of alarm beyond some poorly phrased comments on black youth. OK, he doesn't have the most racially sensitive rhetoric. Fair enough. Is that a sufficient criticism?

Optimus Chyme,

Your links were particularly weak. He supports Scientology? What were you thinking in saying that? Were you hoping no one would actually click and read the linked article. He proposed a bill that would strengthen parent's rights on their children's psychological development. This bill was written about so the Church of Scientology could connect with a mainstream politician and federal legislature. Ron Paul is a church going Protestant and there was nothing in his quote supporting or even referencing Scientology. This was as weak of an attack on a candidate as possible. There was nothing more to it than mentioning his name and Scientology in the same sentence.

He is a strict Constitutionalist. Some of us see this country as a collection of states and value local government and giving communities power to make decisions. This means limiting federal power. I don't get what is so offensive here.

Sure saying 5% of blacks have sensible opinions is some pretty poor phrasing. He defines sensible opinions as free markets, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Those are all opinions I share as well. And pointing out that a small minority of blacks share those opinions in such a way is bound to be alienating. I thought his comments about 13 year old boys though, was worse. But none of it is a big deal, it's just a minor overstatement of the case. If you made thousands of public statements it's pretty likely they would catch some doozies falling out of your mouth.

By the way, your Stormfront link was stupid, and making the first line of my post and then skipping down to include my handle, as the hyperlinked text to a neo-nazi white pride website was a real douchebag thing to do.

Mayor West,

I agree that his views do not match up with the Libertarians on gay marriage. As for immigration, we do agree to disagree. I don't think it has a chance in hell of happening any time soon but I agree that the Constitution should be amended to remove citizenship by birth. It provides far too great an incentive for people to break the law. His line about illegal birth at some hospitals being 70-80% is not fear mongering. I have a relative who works in the maternity ward of a large hospital in Dallas and illegals are 70% of the patients.

And finally, Pope Guilty,

I didn't see much to your link beyond a poorly executed smear. Yes, he and some rather unpleasant people share some similar views, especially on taxation. That the wrong people may like an idea does not make the idea itself wrong. Evaluating policy by seeing if you like the supporters may be a popular appoach but I think it's a pretty poor one. Sure he isn't a big fan of the U.N. or NAFTA or the I.R.S. Good job digging that up, it was buried pretty deep. Consider me unimpressed.
posted by BigSky at 8:42 PM on June 11, 2007


Joe is an autocrat...

... which explains why he attracted Republican support in CT.

I want to apologize. I helped out with Lamont's primary campaign in August, and I thought that Lamont's victory meant that we would be done with Joe forever. Unfortunately, between packing up my apartment and moving down to DC, I wasn't able to help out with the general election campaign, and now we're stuck with Joe for another 6 years. Sorry, I tried my best.

... and just because Ron Paul is right on the war doesn't mean I want him running the country. Also, I certainly don't want Republicans getting political appointments across all the government agencies. However, a strong showing in the primaries from Paul will through the Republicans in a sufficient amount of disarray that they wouldn't be able to recover in time for the general election.
posted by deanc at 10:23 PM on June 11, 2007


By the way, your Stormfront link was stupid, and making the first line of my post and then skipping down to include my handle, as the hyperlinked text to a neo-nazi white pride website was a real douchebag thing to do.
posted by BigSky at 8:42 PM on June 11


That's how I quote people. That's how a lot of MeFites quote people. Deal with it.

But you know what's an even worse thing to do? Supporting a lunatic racist New-World-Order- fearing gold-standard-returning freakonaut whose biggest supporters are white supremacists and people who find LaRouche a little too stable.

And you know who else was against the Iraq war? Saddam Hussein - but just because he and I happen to agree on one fucking issue doesn't mean I'ds support his posthumous Presidential run. Jesus Christ. Shouldn't you be stockpiling guns and graham crackers, BigSky? The Zionist Illuminati could be coming for you right now! Ron Paul!
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:31 PM on June 11, 2007


Optimus Chyme,

Rest assured I will not again try to interrupt your fear of liberty and fiscal responsibility with reasoned argument in the future. However, I can not resist indulging myself in responding to, "whose biggest supporters are white supremacists and people who find LaRouche a little too stable.".

Don't start looking over your shoulder just yet.

And as for, "Shouldn't you be stockpiling guns and graham crackers, BigSky?". While I appreciate the reminder, Ron Paul has been doing such an excellent job in his fund raising, [Did you know the vast majority comes from individuals? (96.8% in 2005-6!)], that I'm feeling surprisingly calm, despite my ammo stockpile dropping below five figures.

Thank you for your well crafted arguments and on point criticisms. They were truly a step beyond what one typically encounters on the internet.
posted by BigSky at 11:02 PM on June 11, 2007


Given that, my dream ticket is Gore/Kucinich.

My dream ticket would be Gore/Edwards. That would be a viking campaign.
posted by effwerd at 7:05 AM on June 12, 2007


“That's how I quote people. That's how a lot of MeFites quote people. Deal with it.”

Metafilter: That’s how I roll


So who’s this Lieberman guy? S'he a viking?
posted by Smedleyman at 9:07 AM on June 12, 2007


The Iranian Bomb in a MAD world
posted by homunculus at 12:00 PM on June 12, 2007


I want to apologize. I helped out with Lamont's primary campaign in August, and I thought that Lamont's victory meant that we would be done with Joe forever. Unfortunately, between packing up my apartment and moving down to DC, I wasn't able to help out with the general election campaign, and now we're stuck with Joe for another 6 years. Sorry, I tried my best.

So it's your fault. Damn you, Deanc, DAMN YOU.

Actually I counted myself among those who believed the hype about Lieberman's sense of honor and character. I sincerely believed that after he lost the primary, that he would bow out gracefully and go back to running his father's package store in Stamford.

To add insult to injury, when Lieberman jumped ship and declared himself an independent, he and his backers actually had the balls to say that it was Lamont that was fracturing the Democratic Party.

It was bad enough that he subverted the process (such that it is) to suit his own personal aspirations, but to resort to that kind of Orwellian nonsense along the way was beyond the pale.
posted by psmealey at 1:09 PM on June 12, 2007


Connecticut for Lieberman party, please.

those who believed the hype about Lieberman's sense of honor and character

Are they the same ones who believed his 1988 promise to only serve three terms?
posted by kirkaracha at 3:02 PM on June 12, 2007


Why we must break with the American crazies
posted by homunculus at 6:18 PM on June 15, 2007


Curious about the Stormfront angle, I had a look at their website. And listened to the netcast version of Stormfront Radio. After a bit of music, the next thing on the schedule was a ringing endorsement of Ron Paul... I have no idea whether he associates with white supremacists or not, but some of the white supremacists evidently considers him the only viable candidate.
posted by bouvin at 2:50 PM on June 16, 2007


« Older Consumer Reports has videos of over 150 different ...  |  "50,000 Years of Resilience Ma... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments