Lieberman talks up Iran attack

Joe must go!!!!!

Joe Loserman, like Mr. 5 deferment Cheney, is perfectly willing to send others to die while he had other priorities.

Thankfully, he's not a Democrat any longer. Good riddance.

Just WHO is he proposing should take this "military action?" I understand the US Army is having trouble making its recruitment goals.

Our soldiers are caught in the middle of a civil war, created by the chaos unleashed by Joe's friend in the White House. And now Joe wants yet ANOTHER war?

He is delusional.

If we start, how do we stop? Iran can keep up a low intensity war against our interests in Iraq for ever at a very low cost. We can respond at a very high cost, in Iraq forever. Foolish does not adequately describe Lieberman's suggestion.

Poor Joe. In America, fortunately, or unfortunately, we must endure the mundane utterances of dense individuals like Joe. It actually looks like he is advocating democracy at the point of the gun. What a losing proposition for everybody. We lost the trump card against Iraq when we got rid of Saddam, and gave it to Iran. Now Joe thinks we have to get it back by attacking Iran. Why is this man still in the Senate, you good people of Connecticut.

How quickly would someone get their lawnmower back from their neighbor if they threatened to hit them with a baseball bat? What would that do to your relations with your neighbor if you did threaten them, or actually to a bat to the knees of one of their kids? These type of threats poison any hope of a long term solution that actually diffuses the situation.

Oh you Loser Leftists. Funny, your boy Al Bore in 1992 gave a speech telling the world all about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, Iraq's biological and chemical WMDs, Iraq's ties to terrorism, and because of that we should NOT engage Iraq is any kind of dialogue. Funny, Iran is doing just that today, and you hypocrites want to play house with them.

"Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point."

-- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Sen. Joe Lieberman

Looks John D got the RNC talking points today

Handle Lieberman like the playground whiner he is.

Ignore him and he'll either shut or go away.

Jewish lobby at work.Just look at the Neo Nut roster,mostly made up of Jewish war hawks.How many nukes do they have thanks to the US?

John D. I saw that hilarious video as well. He looks just as smug in that video as he does today talking about Global Warming.

Jethro seems to dismiss a video of ALGORE giving his stance on Iraq in the 90's as a "RNC talking point"

Jethro: Which is worse?

A)When your left wing intelligenstia is lying to you?

or

B)When you lie to yourself.

I think both is happening here.

The Al Gore video speaks for itself. No talking points needed.

Let the Spin of it begin!

John D. I saw that hilarious video as well. He looks just as smug in that video as he does today talking about Global Warming.

Jethro seems to dismiss a video of ALGORE giving his stance on Iraq in the 90's as a "RNC talking point"

Jethro: Which is worse?

A)When your left wing intelligenstia is lying to you?

or

B)When you lie to yourself.

I think both is happening here.

The Al Gore video speaks for itself. No talking points needed.

Let the Spin of it begin!

JD aka Just Dumb,

Al Gore - didn't approve of invading and occupying Iraq.

Al Gore - as of now, if you Wingnuts are lucky, is not running for office.

Time to go back to the Swiftboat drawing board , little JD.

Pay no attention to loser Joe Lieberman. He's lost his marbles and has gone loco. he's a whiner looking for attention. The guy has a few loose screws. He's flaked out. Joe says, repeat after me...bomb Iran, bomb Iran, bomb Iran. Israel, Israel, Israel.

Brilliant plan Joe!

Because surely if we bomb Iran, they'll start doing exactly what we want and won't respond in any way that might make the situation in Iraq, where we are already overextended, worse. Heck I'm sure they'll greet the bombs with flowers and candy.

Little Johnny:

1992??? 15 years ago?? Is that the BEST you guys can do?? And what has that to do with Joe Lieberman?

Find something a little newer next time - if you can.

Jewish lobby at work.Just look at the Neo Nut roster,mostly made up of Jewish war hawks.How many nukes do they have thanks to the US?

Posted by: Raving Loon | June 13, 2007 12:58 PM

I am the head of the Jewish Lobby and I want to confirm that, yes, we do indeed control the US government. Joe Lieberman had our full consent when he gave that speech.

Some of our more liberal members like Bryan objected but we beat him into submission, as we always do.

If you have any questions about the activities of the Jewish Lobby, or the Conspiracy of International Jewish Bankers, which I also run, feel free to ask.

Little Johnny:

1992??? 15 years ago?? Is that the BEST you guys can do?? And what has that to do with Joe Lieberman?

Find something a little newer next time - if you can.

Psycho Joe isn't an independent, he is the senator representing Tel Aviv. And john Dingbat, sheesh, an Al Gore speech from 15 years ago?? You are really getting desperate.

Thanks for opening up to us Raving Loon.

I'll be sure to look out for the Jewish Lobby.

JD aka Just Dumb,

Al Gore - didn't approve of invading and occupying Iraq.

Al Gore - as of now, if you Wingnuts are lucky, is not running for office.

Time to go back to the Swiftboat drawing board , little JD.

Posted by: John E | June 13, 2007 2:16 PM

John E.. don't even try. These fools are trying to compare the diplomatic situation between the US and Iraq in 1992 (when we had the Iraqi government under our and the UN's collective thumb in a post-war environment and there was absolutely no need to negotiate anything) to what's going on between the US and Iran in 2007 (where our military is stretched to its breaking point in another war and we would have no international support in military actions against Iran) as though they are even remotely the same should speak for itself. These idiots have a 6th grade social studies grasp on world events.

The only thing they can comprehend is that there are weapons programs, guys wearing turbins, and politicians involved.. Therefore, it must be exactly the same!!!

Boy the anti-semetism is running amok in here.

David k., we and UN had Iraq under the thumb? Is that why tens of thousands of Shi'ites were slaughtered by Hussein in 1993?

You folks want more recent comments than Al Bore's 1992 speech? Hmmm, how about the Democratic Senate leadership signing a petition to Bill Clintoon in 1998 saying Iraq needs regime change? How about just about every Democratic Senator and even Al Bore himself in from 2000-2003 talking about the dangers of Iraq under Hussein, the WMDs, etc., etc?

"The only thing they can comprehend is that there are weapons programs, guys wearing turbines, and politicians involved.. Therefore, it must be exactly the same!!!"

Right on the money. Guys wearing turbines. Too funny.

Bobin ATl,

What has changed in 15 years? Where did the WMD's go? Did they mysteriously disappear on January 20, 2001?

David K,

6th grade grasp of world events is still three years ahead of JohnE.

HA Ha , nice spin David K.

Bottom line is AlGORE and other lefties have been accusing Bush of overstating the threat of Saddam, "cherry picking" the intelligence, and in the Joe Wilson case saying Bush was lying.

Now we have Gore complaining that Bush 41 was trying to "cover up" (Gore's words not mine)
the fact that Saddam had links to terror that hurt Americans, directly attacked American interests, persued WMD's including nuclear weapons and chastising him for not being tough enough claiming that Saddam had "no fear of retribution"

Again his words.

You guys are so pathetic trying to spin what is on video!!!!

Like I asked Jethro. What is worse

When you hero (AlGore) is lying to you or when you lie to yourself?

David K. sorry to break it to you, but both is happening here.

I feel sorry for you guys.

Can't wait to hear the next Spin David.

HA Ha , nice spin David K.

Bottom line is AlGORE and other lefties have been accusing Bush of overstating the threat of Saddam, "cherry picking" the intelligence, and in the Joe Wilson case saying Bush was lying.

Now we have video of Gore complaining that Bush 41 was trying to "cover up" (Gore's words not mine)
the fact that Saddam had links to terror that hurt Americans, directly attacked American interests, persued WMD's including nuclear weapons and chastising him for not being tough enough claiming that Saddam had "no fear of retribution"

Again his words.

You guys are so pathetic trying to spin what is on video!!!!

Like I asked Jethro. What is worse

When you hero (AlGore) is lying to you or when you lie to yourself?

David K. sorry to break it to you, but both is happening here.

I feel sorry for you guys.

Can't wait to hear the next Spin David.

JD, it's not that the Deranged Leftists lie to themselves, they are delusional. They live in some false alternate world of reality where what they think, no matter how ignorant and bastardized it might be, is reality to them.
9/11: an inside job becuase that is what their alternate world tells them to think.
Islamic Terrorists are kind and misunderstood people because that is what thier alternate world tells them.
Bush tax cuts only went to the top 1 percent because that is what their alternate world of reality tells them.

Deranged Leftists have nothing to do with reality because their moind-numbed, brainwashed little peabrains haven't a clue.

"What has changed in 15 years? Where did the WMD's go? Did they mysteriously disappear on January 20, 2001?"

They were destroyed by the Iraqis after the war as part of the UN monitoring program. This is not a mystery, it is an established fact as determined by the US government after the war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

Tony, did Joe Wilson tell you about that in a "verb tense" to your liking?

I thought the left's stance was the Clinton's operation Desert Fox in 1998 destroyed them all?

You gave us a link, but that's it. Care to be more specific?

I swear you people are hysterical.

Better than any sitcom I know of.

Gotta love it, the same people who now quote Clinton and Gore to make their case for war are the same people who 10 years ago were accusing those very same men of hyping the threat of Sadam (AND AL QAEDA), "wagging the dog" if you will, to distract from the really important public business of getting to the bottom of a marital affair.

No Tony is right they were destroyed after the war. However, Saddam kept a few hidden. We bombed Saddam in 1998 to prevent him form building up again his biological and nuclear weapons. Then after that inspectors went in and found nothing. We only decided not to continue the dance with Saddam of checking on him to make sure he wasn't building up once he found our sore spot, oil. He took the constant inspections as harassment, and decided to make it harder for us to get oil while offering it to to Europe. We didn't like that bc it threatened our supply. Fact is the Democrats just like the Republicans and the World were concerned about Saddam and his weapons. However, unlike the Bush Administration they realized that the song and dance of deterring Saddam from building up stocks was sufficient. That is why the UN wanted to continue with inspectors and maybe UN force (that the US ignored and went ahead with their plans). Sure Saddam had weapons. Something like a small 15 year old decaying stock pile, and was constantly being deterred from building up. The Bush Administration however over stated and embellished not only on what Saddam had. [Which anyone who knows the worlds demographic spread of nuclear proliferation would see that Pakistan India N.K. have not only the capacity of WMD, have voiced intent (Saddam never did)to use, but DO have commanders serving in the national army who are sympathetic toward terrorists and are more willing and likely to pass of weapons ] The selling point to the public was the imminent threat Saddam posed. He did not pose a threat. At least enough of one to go in and depose him (imminent). While recognizing that on the range of imminent threats Saddam was at number four. Not one. WE could have still did the whole song and dance. There was no IMMINENT NEED to go to war before putting the inspectors back or trying a UN force. WE could have done that and then (bc Saddam is reliable) used that intelligence information (since the one we used to go to war did not support us going in)to justify war. There was no need to rush.

"I thought the left's stance was the Clinton's operation Desert Fox in 1998 destroyed them all?

You gave us a link, but that's it. Care to be more specific?"

Well, no JD, that would make you wrong, yet again. No one has ever claimed that Clinton's strikes destroyed all the WMDs. The strikes were launched in response Iraq's ceasing to cooperate with the UN inspectors who were monitoring that Saddam had not restarted his programs.

As to the Iraq Survey Group Report, I know it's long, has a lot of big words, and no pictures, but you really should try to read it. It will answer most of your questions about what was really going on with Saddam and WMDs.

Tony - great read. Basically has no firm conclusions on where weapons went - destroyed, hauled off to another country or never existed. Facts is, Iraq had them at one time, Saddam up tpo the very day of the war acted like he still had them, and if Iraq destroyed them never documented them and allowed inspectors to perform their job for a decade.

UN Resolution 1441 - "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

Fact is, both President Bush and Clinton invaded Iraq. The only reason one is getting protested and the other is not is due to the outcome of the war, not the reasons the war was entered into in the first place.

"Fact is, both President Bush and Clinton invaded Iraq. The only reason one is getting protested and the other is not is due to the outcome of the war, not the reasons the war was entered into in the first place."

No. The the only reason Bush is being protested, and not Clinton is bc he actually went through with the plans of those people, he surrounded himself with, who were itching to get rid of Saddam since 1997. And their REASON to get rid of Saddam had NOTHING to do with the WMD or the "imminent" threat he posed.(That was a selling point to the public-which by the way the world who was also concerned by Saddam did not think it was necessary to go in. Including the UN.) It had everything to do with securing our status as a global sole power and making sure no one could ever compromise or rise to that status. That included securing the worlds second largest resource to Saudia Arabia (that more and more countries were looking to including China), that includes making steps to democratize the Middle East (starting with Iraq), and that includes getting the Palestinians to in some way give way to Israel.

People ARE looking back on the REASONS to go to war, and they see that those reasons WEREN'T about a fear of WMD, threat of terrorism, or genuine spread of democracy. And, then they take thsoe REASONS and COMPARE them to outcome of the war. Money spent, American, Iraqi Coalition forces lives spent, the abroad consensus on the deterioration of America's legitimacy as a sole superpower, what the reconstruction of Iraq will cost at the end, and the war hawks (whose involvement traces back to them and their reasons )driving the machine, to say to themselves we the people were jipped.

You can read about it here.

By WILLIAM BUNCH
Philly.com
January 14, 2004

It was 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, and rescue crews were still scouring the ravaged section of the Pentagon that hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 had destroyed just five hours earlier. On the other side of the still-smoldering Pentagon complex, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was poring through incoming intelligence reports and jotting down notes. Although most Americans were still shell-shocked, Rumsfeld's thoughts had already turned to a longstanding foe.

Rumsfeld wrote, according to a later CBS News report, that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL" - meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

"S.H.," of course, is Saddam Hussein. The White House has long insisted its strategy for a war against Saddam's Iraq - a war that could now begin in a matter of days - arose from the rubble of the deadly attack that day.

But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 - nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office.

An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.

"We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world," stated the letter to Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others. "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." (For full text of the letter, see www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

The saga of Project for the New American Century may help answer some of the questions being asked both across the nation and around the world as Bush seems increasingly likely to call for military action to remove Saddam from power.

Why does the Bush administration seem hell-bent on war in the Middle East when key world powers and U.S. allies - such as France, Germany, Russia and China - don't support it right now? Or when most Americans say they don't want war, either, as long as the United Nations won't endorse one?

Why the rush, and why now, when Saddam seems weakened by a decade of economic sanctions?

The answers are complicated, but most arise from the concept - endorsed by many of the key players in the Bush administration - that America, as the world's lone superpower, should be putting that power to use.

"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire," says the PNAC's statement of principles. "The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert, calls the Cheney-Rumsfeld group "a cabal" - a band of conservative ideologues whose grand notions of American unilateral military might are out of touch and dangerous.

"What happened was 9/11, which had nothing to do with Iraq but produced an enormous amount of political capital which allowed the government to do anything it wanted as long as they could relate it to national security and the Middle East," Lustick said.

Gary Schmitt, the executive director of PNAC, laughs at the notion that his group is a secretive force driving U.S. policy, even as he acknowledges that the current plan for ousting Saddam differs little from what the group proposed in early 1998.

"We're not the puppeteer behind it all," said Schmitt, noting that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration had adopted the moderate policies on Iraq favored by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Policy draft on U.S. power

Still, the most hawkish members of the Bush administration, who are clearly in the driver's seat, have ties to PNAC. Their ideas about the aggressive use of American clout and military force arose more than a decade ago, in the wake of the collapse of communism and victory in the Persian Gulf War.

U.S./Iraq History:

A timeline

When the United States routed Saddam's occupying army from Kuwait in March 1991, most aides - including Cheney - approved of the senior Bush's decision to not push forward to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

Cheney asked at a May 1992 briefing: "How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many."

Yet shortly before that, in February 1992, staffers for Wolfowitz - who was deputy defense secretary under Cheney at the time - drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to aggressively use its military might. The draft made no mention of a role for the United Nations.

The proposed policy urged the United States to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft caused an outcry and was not adopted by Cheney and Wolfowitz.

But in the years immediately following Bush's election defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, Saddam's tight grip on power in Iraq, and his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, began to grate on the former Bush aides.

"They wanted revenge - they felt humiliated," said Penn's Lustick. He recalled the now infamous 1983 picture of Rumsfeld as an American envoy shaking hands with Saddam, at a time when U.S. officials had thought the secular dictator to be a "moderating" force in the Arab world.

At the same time, the heady years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall gave rise to the notion that the removal of Saddam and the establishment of an Arab-run, pro-American democracy might have a kind of "domino effect" in the Middle East, influencing neighbors like Saudi Arabia or Syria.

At the United Nations last November, Bush said that if Iraqis are liberated, "they can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."

'Remove Saddam'

The neo-conservative ideas about Iraq began to come together around the time that PNAC was formed, in spring 1997. Although the group's overriding goal was expanding the U.S. military and American influence around the globe, the group placed a strong early emphasis on Iraq.

In addition to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, early backers of the group included Jeb Bush, the president's brother; Richard Armitage, now deputy secretary of state; Robert Zoellick, now U.S. trade commissioner; I. Lewis Libby, now Cheney's top aide; and Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's special envoy to Afghanistan.

In addition to Clinton, the group lobbied GOP leaders in Congress to push for Saddam's removal - by force if necessary.

"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power," the group wrote to Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott in May 1998.

Many of the best-known supporters have ties to the oil industry - most notably Cheney, who at the time was CEO of Halliburton, which makes oil-field equipment and would likely profit from the need to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. Lustick, while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.

"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."

Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel - an idea he scoffs at.

Both supporters and opponents of a war in Iraq agree on one thing: That the events of Sept. 11 were the trigger that finally put the theory in action.

"That pulled the shades off the president's eyes very quickly," said Schmitt, who'd been unhappy with Bush's initial policies. "He came to the conclusion that the meaning of 9/11 was broader than a particular group of terrorists striking a particular group of cities."

The fact that many U.S. allies, particularly in western Europe, and millions of American citizens haven't reached the same conclusion seems to matter little as the war plan pushes forward.

A frustrated Lustick sees the war plan as the triumph of a simple ideology over the messy realities of global politics.

"This is not a war on fanatics," he said. "This is a war of fanatics - our fanatics."

AR,

Nice tin-foil hat material.

Maybe these nasty neo-cons wanted Saddam removed because all he was doing was thumbing his nose at the world by ignoring the UN sanctions.

Maybe back in mid-90's, they saw the dangers of having the WMDs in the hands of a mad-man.

If they were in such a hurry, why did it take 18 months, not weeks or days, after 9-11 to go after Saddam? Reason is because President Bush was trying to build a coalition amongst the UN Security members (who happened to be in bed with Saddam on the oil-for-food scandal).

Back to my original premis, if the war in Iraq was going well right now, I guarentee the American public would be behind the war, WMD's or no WMD's. President Bush's popularity and the popularity of the war in Iraq are dwon not because the war was unjust, but because of lack of results.

And I meant Afghanistan. We were in Afghanistan. Sorry.

Terry. I posted my reply to you somewhere in the wrong place. Here I repasted it for you...It was a long night.

Terry,

Nice tin-foil hat material.

-You can always tell when people don't want to be taken seriously. Its when they use this phrase.

Maybe these nasty neo-cons wanted Saddam removed because all he was doing was thumbing his nose at the world by ignoring the UN sanctions.

-Maybe it was just so convenient for them to remove him not bc he was thumbing the nose at the world and ignoring the UN , but bc he started playing with the resources we were becoming more and more depended on. Maybe OIL, in the COMBINATION of WMD and OIL tipped the scale for the US to take an active interest in this madman we had no problem sleeping with ourselves. Shoot we didn't mind him when he stayed quiet, we didn't mind him when we became friends, we didn't mind him when he started flipping the UN the bird, but it sure as hell changes when he started making moves for oil while trying to deny ours.

Maybe back in mid-90's, they saw the dangers of having the WMDs in the hands of a mad-man.

-There were plenty of madmen. The only thing that made him different was the oil in the equation. You know that "other" danger every administration has been voicing concerned about before and during Saddam.

If they were in such a hurry, why did it take 18 months, not weeks or days, after 9-11 to go after Saddam? Reason is because President Bush was trying to build a coalition amongst the UN Security members (who happened to be in bed with Saddam on the oil-for-food scandal).

-Who said anything about hurry. Why would they be in a hurry. They waited what years. 18 months they could spare. We were in Iraq right. Pretty preoccupied with that. Not to mention it would take time for them to try to build a possible consensus (That failed. Who cares why, we slept with him too when we had interests). Weigh their options. Sell it to the public.

Back to my original premise, if the war in Iraq was going well right now, I guarantee the American public would be behind the war, WMD's or no WMD's. President Bush's popularity and the popularity of the war in Iraq are dwon not because the war was unjust, but because of lack of results.

- Really? "Well" is a relative term to people. What do you consider well. Semi-stable region as a result of a foreseeable messy invasion (before we went in based on the regions histrionic and ethnic politics) that could have been prevented should we not have invaded. Notice the prevented pulls in reasons. The lack of results stems from the reasons. To the Administration it is mission accomplished bc they never went in doing what they said they were there to do, but what they accomplished was what they left out from what they said they were planning to do. The oil is secured. The region is not. People will get behind the results of this move only after the next president comes in, and that administration will reap the rewards as far as energy security is concerned.

AND you assume that people don't care to weigh the reasons for being there (WMD or not). They do. It's human nature to evaluate. It was the reason why people backed him up. Naturally when it came out intelligence did not back him up his rating fell. Believe it or not the "WMD or not" weighs heavily on this administration even in that face of doing "well" bc there would never be a clear cut visible outstanding success but ride on the thin line of worth it or not.

Unjust? Unjust and unjustified are two separate things.

Any way, I'm sure you disagree. I respect that. But the tin foil cr@p on here only says something about the person saying it, and not the person it is directed to.