Skip to main content

The contrast between the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and of the Financial Times, the two main business dailies worldwide, is becoming increasingly striking. On energy policy, Europe, the environment, they have pretty much opposed views. In part, that reflects the growing divide between Europe and America on these topics and others (the latest on being torture and extraordinary renditions), but the Euro-Atlantic business community used to be a lot closer even when public opinion was divergent. No longer.

Today's op-ed pieces on Iraq (both written by Americans) are particularly symbolic:

Our Troops Must Stay by Joe Lieberman (WSJ)
Decadent America must give up imperial ambitions by Anatol Lieven (FT)

I'll quote the FT piece a little bit more as it is behind the subscription wall.

Lieberman's piece is pretty much in line with the WSJ's editorial line, and worse, with the White House's line. It's a sorry piece of propaganda which I don't recommend you read if you're already in an angry mood...


I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical.

Modern, self-governing, self-securing? Was this written by Karl Rove himself? You know, write the exact opposite of the truth, and repeat it as a mantra... Well, I suppose Iraq does have the most modern Army in the world on its territory... As to "self-securing", this is so idiotic, especially in the same sentence that says that the presence of the US Army is vital, that it's beyond words.


It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern.

Typical attempt to claim everybody that is not actively against you as being for you. It's a big like the Democrats saying that 55 extremist Republicans voted for a law in the Senate but 290 million Americans did not vote for it (and support the Democrats) - actually that last one sounds a lot more true...


I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Let these words stay for the record.


Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years.

so Bush was stubborn, but now he is a flip-flopper? comes the easy snark. But why is a Democratic Senator defending the White House - this White house - against overwhelming evidence?


Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves.

"cleared" = White Phosphorus burnt everything (including the skin off of children)
"held secure" - like those prisoners, right?

There's even more in the article. I sure can understand the White House writing this sorry piece of propaganda, but, again, a Democractic Senator? Defending the White House against Republican criticism? What exactly is he trying to achieve? It's beyond me.

So instead, let me offer you the kind of things we get to read in the European business press:


US global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the US establishment, is unsustainable. To place American power on a firmer footing requires putting it on a more limited footing. Despite the lessons of Iraq, this is something that American policymakers - Democrat and Republican, civilian and military - still find extremely difficult to think about.

The basic reasons why the American empire is bust are familiar from other imperial histories. The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted and key vassal states are no longer reliable. In an equally classical fashion, central to what is happening is the greed and decadence of the imperial elites. Like so many of their predecessors, the US wealthy classes have gained a grip over the state that allows them to escape taxation. Mass acquiescence in this has to be bought with much smaller - but fiscally equally damaging - cuts to taxes on the middle classes.

There you have it, in two damning paragraphs. Overstretch, betrayal of the elites with their grandiose plans and no desire whatsoever to pay for them. And the corruption required to hide their bankrupt plans.


The result is that the US is incapable of waging more wars of occupation, such as in Iraq. It can defeat other states in battle easily enough but it cannot turn them into loyal or stable allies. War therefore means simply creating more and more areas of anarchy and breeding grounds for terrorism.

Again, the War on Terror (TM) in a nutshell. Bush's America can break countries, but cannot rebuild anything, and leaves chaos, hate - and terrorism.


It is important to note that this US weakness affects not only the ambitions of the Bush administration, but also geopolitical stances wholly shared by the Democrats. The Bush administration deserves to be savagely criticised for the timing and the conduct of the Iraq war. Future historians may, however, conclude that President Bill Clinton's strategy of the 1990s would also have made the conquest of Iraq unavoidable sooner or later; and that given the realities of Iraqi society and history, the results would not have been significantly less awful.

That last point is a pretty provocative one. I do remember that there was a lot of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy in the 90s (after all, the term of "hyperpower" was coined back then), and the numerous skirmishes with Saddam were a source of annoyance in Europe throughout the 90s. But the fact remains that Clinton did not invade Iraq. The fact that the USA had the potential for overstretch then does not mean that such overstretch would have happened with President Gore - we'll never know, but the point that a number of Democrats are complicit in Bush's plans is certainly true, as demonstrated by the above article.


For that matter, can present US strategy against Iran - supported by both parties - be sustained permanently without war? Indeed, given the nature of the Middle East, may it not be that any power wishing to exercise hegemony in the region would have to go to war at regular intervals in defence of its authority or its local clients?

Furthermore, the relative decline in US economic independence means that, unlike in 1917 or 1941, really serious war risks US economic disaster. Even a limited US-Chinese clash over Taiwan would be likely to produce catastrophic economic consequences for both sides.

With current policies, war is likely both to happen and to be costly. The current political fight about the War in Iraq is not just about Iraq, it is also about future American policy in the world, with direct relevance in view of the number of current hot spots and build up of pressure around them.

Anatol Lieven is not optimistic:


In theory, the desirable US response to its imperial overstretch is simple and has been advocated by some leading independent US thinkers such as Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard.* It is to fall back on "offshore balancing", intended to create regional coalitions against potential aggressors and, when possible, regional consensuses in support of order and stability. Not just a direct military presence, but direct military commitments and alliances should be avoided wherever possible.

When, however, one traces what this might mean in practice in various parts of the world, it becomes clear how utterly unacceptable much of this approach would be to the entire existing US political order. In the former Soviet Union, it could mean accepting a qualified form of Russian sphere of influence. In Asia, it could mean backing Japan and other countries against any Chinese aggression, but also defusing the threat of confrontation with China by encouraging the reintegration of Taiwan into the mainland. In the Middle East, it could involve separating US goals from Israeli ones and seeking detente with Iran.

Not relying on the military? The emperor has no clothes...
The only instrument left to the USA after having alienated pretty much the entire planet is the big hammer. And it is unaffordable.


it is pointless to dream of long maintaining an American empire for which most Americans will neither pay nor fight. My fear though is that, rather than as a result of carefully planned and peaceful strategy, this process may occur through disastrous defeats, in the course of which American global power will not be qualified but destroyed altogether, with potentially awful consequences for the world.

That's what we non-Americans all fear. A mindless rush forward, provoked by military defeat in Iraq, or another terrorist attack on US soil. The fury of a wounded animal, intent on destroying what it can no longer control.

You have to realise that: the rest of the world is really scared of what a furious, self-righteous America could do. Thus the semi-desperate attempts of the Europeans to talk to Iran; the continuous Korean efforts to egange North Korea; and the diplomacy of appeasement viz. Bush and Rice by most governments, with a motto 'let's not piss them off more, for fear they'll go crazy'.

The problem is that they have gone crazy. The CIA prisons scandal is just beginning in Europe, and it is growing, and it is soon going to make peaceful relations impossible. The diplomacy processes around Iran's nuclear programme and the enquiry into Syria's involvement in the assassination of Hariri in Lebanon are soon going to come to crunch time. A major energy supply crisis can strike at any time in the absence of spare capacity. And Iraq is festering and suffering, and is draining the US Army.

We are scared. And Lieberman's words are a sick joke.

Originally posted to Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:41 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar - Nov. 29 (4.00)

    In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
    Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

    by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33:03 AM PST

    •  European Tribune (4.00)
      We have front paged Plutonium Page's coverage of the growing CIA Prisons scandal in Europe which you can also read at the Next Hurrah

      We discuss what the EU can do about the situation in Iraq

      We have a couple of diaries about Venezuela.

      and open threads with pretty pictures...

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:36:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you doing working for a bank? (none)
        You should go into advertising.
      •  Wow, I love brunettes (4.00)
        Especially European ones.
      •  Not Brown Nosing - Just An Honest Opinion (4.00)
        Jerome the non-American insight you offer here and other blogs is very thought provoking. To be able to get the views of a Euro who is not in the press is invaluable and your well rounded knowledge of many subjects is key in your ability to comment on the big picture as well as the nuances of numerous issues. Thanks.
      •  Another great diary... (none)
        and here's a suggestion:

        Would love to see the following question explored fully:

        Where did Joe go in Iraq?  Did he stay in the Green Zone the whole time?  How many Americans and Iraqis died while he was there?

        I would love to see a map of Joe's travels in Iraq and how this gave him such good information on how things are going over there.

        I bet he was in the Green Zone the whole time.

        How can we find out where Joe went?

        A little animation would be even better: "Joementum's Iraq Adventure"

        •  Did he stay in the green zone... (none)
          I'd be surprised if he was anywhere else.

          Hell, he might not even have gone to Iraq. He might have been in Kuwait, and they TOLD him it was Iraq.

          That would at least make his comments a little more believable.

    •  Here is a simple question (4.00)
      The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $251 billion March 31, 2006. The Cost of Iraq War calculator is occasionally reset based on new information and new allocations of funding. Source

      My question - if the US had allocated that sort of money to alternative energy research and development, would we have a good chance of solving our energy problems?

      Think about it: a quarter of a trillion dollars every four years.

      Methinks so.

      "Just a quick observation, when people don't want to play the blame game, they're to blame." --Jon Stewart

      by Marcus Junius Brutus on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:51:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  $251 Billion (so far) Flushed... (4.00)
        and there's still hell to pay.  Just for some perspective on that amount, yesterday BP got headlines here for investing $8 billion in alternative energy projects over 10 years.

        Nature never breaks her own laws. --da Vinci

        by lale on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:51:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ah, to dream.... (4.00)
        in the midwest, rows of windmills above the corn (or wheat) for as far as the eye can see....

        every university with a new well funded research dept in alternative sustainable energy technologies.

        free college for anyone who are qualified and commit to teaching.  massive supported retraining of people from all backgrounds and ages to support a national goal of K through 12th grade class size halved (with a target of 15 students/class).

        theory and practice of sustainability (including permaculture) taught at every grade level....

        ....in my dreams.

      •  Plus (4.00)
        Nothing would stabilize the price of oil more that clean renewable energy. And in addition to prices, worldwide clean renewable energy would also stabilize geo-political conflicts (read: war).

        But unfortunately there are some among the human race who do not want that.

      •  Or building levees.... (4.00)
        • Or providing health care.
        • Or educating the illiterate and finding jobs for them.
        • Or financing energy alternatives or........

        "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

        by Bensdad on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:58:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  if our energy problems aren't solved (4.00)
          none of the rest of this really matters, we won't have a technological civilization that can support health care, jobs, or human rights.

          Fixing our energy problems either from the standpoint of running out of oil or fixing the global warming problem while there is still time is a matter of survival.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:04:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Simply put ... solved ... (4.00)
        Biggest problem would be ability of system to accomodate the influx ...

        By the way, there is no 'one' solution.  Renewable energy is great ... but the cheapest energy right now is achieved through efficiency reducing demand.  

        But, re energy:

        •  Solar panel installations:  At 20k for a 3.5 kwh installation, could install 50 units per $1 million, or 50,000 for a billion dollars, or 500,000 for $10 billion ... and, oh by the way, with the mass investment, would have to expect that costs would start to nose-dive at some point in terms of system costs with true mass production, legions of knowledgeable installers (and inspectors), new technology developments.  

        •  Hot water solar:  $4000/home, 70-90 percent of domestic water heating.  Home hot water heating is about 4% of total US energy use.  (If, somehow, 50 percent of residences were on solar hot water heating, that would cut energy use nation wide by roughly 2 percent without introducing any efficiencies.)

        Combining solar hot water heating and PV installations in a balanced plan, probably could achieve 1 million solar roofs every six months with a $1.5 billion / month investment (and that assumes the Federal gov't picks up 100% of the tab -- drop that to a reasonable 50% and we could achieve that 2 million solar roofs / year with perhaps $8-10 billion of Federal investment / year).

        •  Wind and other flow based (e.g., tidal, currents, new approaches to river hydro production) energy production ...

        •  Efficiency -- through combinations of regulations, research investment, and subsidies -- drive up new car fuel efficiencies by up to 10% a year for perhaps a 7 year period (moving 'average' fleet from 20 mpg to 40 mpg) with advanced PHEVs, EVs, bio-diesel, new auto components, etc ...  

        •  Efficiency -- drive out non "Energy Star" from the market via disincentives (taxes on resource hogs from inefficient washing machines to halogen lights) and incentives (subsidies / rebates on more efficient systems).

        •  Massive (4% or more) surcharges by utilities on gross revenue to be invested in demand reduction (no 'tax' dollars involved) -- such as providing insulation into homes, etc ...

        And, so on ... marry up demand reduction (efficiency) with new production (renewables) and we could radically change America's energy picture.  

        Sadly, this would take a form of leadership that the Chimp is incapable of conceiving of and would take on those very interests that Dick (et al in BushCo) are so closely tied to ...

        9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

        by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:14:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you know what's saddest of all? (4.00)
          If anybody could have done it, it was this bunch. They had the ins with the oil business, they could have put in some tax breaks for them, and given them priority on bringing some of the new technologies to market (to take the place of the oil money they'd lose), and gotten buy in from them.

          If they had, who knows where we'd have been by now?

          But vision, planning, and thinking of the future is something they're sorely lacking in.

          Especially the planning and thinking part.

          •  Can you imagine if this had been part of (none)
            post 9/11?

            "Oil nations in the Middle East have been using oil revenues to fund radical madrassahs throughout the world rather than focus on improving the future prospects for their nations.  It is incumbent on all Americans to pitch in to stop our reliance on foreign fuels and to stop our indirect funding of the indoctrination of future terrorists.  I call for an energy independent America.  An America with a distributed energy system impervious to serious disruption by terrorist action or natural disaster.  An America that produces the technologies that produce our power ... and produce good jobs for today's and tomorrow's Americans with money that would otherwise be exported to pay for oil in tankers."

            Bush could have pulled it off ... and with that we would be laughing at a California program for 1 million solar roofs as there would be a national drive for efficiency and renewable energy ... between solar PVs and hot water, after four years of a crash program, we'd probably be at 1 million solar roofs nationwide already.

            The Bush Presidency will go down in history as one focused on political campaigning and power accumulation over competent governance, and one of squandered resources and squandered opportunities ...

            Oh, what a lousy note to head home on ... I need a beer!

            9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

            by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:57:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  if every american could be buttonholed (4.00)
        and forced to grok that, over and over and over, till they got it, then they may wake up from bring led like sheep-lemmings off the eco-cliff.

        or down into the valley of dark despair....nuclear.

        go michael meacher!

        do the math, it's the energy, stupid!

        why? just kos..... *just cause*

        by melo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 01:43:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't this what all or most (none)
      great empires throughout history have done?

      Overreach while simultaneously pursuing policies that weaken them from within?

      The ancient Athenians did this.  The Romans did this.  The Ottomans did this.  The British did this.

      The arrogance of the people currently in power is such that while many of them fancy themselves intellectuals that are aware of history (including that of the ancient Athenians), they somehow think they are exceptions to the pattern and that they can engage in the same follies without experiencing the same consequences.

      Either that, or they really don't care, and are just in it for what they and their buddies can get out of it all for themselves RIGHT NOW.

    •  But is Lieberman right? (none)
      Quoting lieberman:

      "Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves."

      Is this true?

      The biggest problem that the US has faced from a security perspective has been the inability to maintain security.  They go in, clear out insurgents, and then have to leave because they have to deal with other threats.  If it is true that Iraqi troops can hold those areas with a minimum of US support, then there really is cause to be optimistic about the future of Iraq.  

      --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

      by sterno on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:44:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Define 'cleared' (none)
        If you bomb everything in sight, and destroy anything that's left, and kill most of the population (or drive them away), I'd say you 'cleared' the area.

        And it's pretty easy to hold if there's nothing there for anybody to want.

        Easy to clear and hold a desert, kinda hard if it's a city.

        Fallujah USED to be a city. Now it's a desert.

  •  That's Joe (3.85)
    Not only is he stupid, there really is no other word for it, he is a liar.

    He is useless and has been for some time now.

    What more can we say about him?

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:44:39 AM PST

    •  An evil liar (4.00)
      I could still understand (disagree with, but barely understand) the position that the USA are responsible for what's happening in Iraq and must stay to help improve things. But this is just shilling for the White House - at a time when, for the first time, it is in a position of weakness.

      Either they have something really bad on him, or he is really evil. either way, he doesn't behave like a Dem.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:55:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He may soon be left behind (4.00)
        by the Republican party.
        •  Lieberman is disgusting (4.00)
          GOP Joe has just cemented his ties of loyalty to the evil idiot Bush with one more piece of propaganda.  Did he have Karl Rove ghostwrite this?  Lieberman is one sick, twisted slime of a congress critter.  

          Does anyone know the status of any primary opponents for GOP Joe?  Connecticut voters should get rid of this stain on America, he is a total Bush suck-up.

          •  it should go without saying (4.00)
            that Joe Lieberman sat out the Vietnam War. Lieberman attended Yale as an undergraduate, graduating in 1964. He then went on to Yale Law, graduating in 1967. While tens of thousands of his contemporaries were dying in Vietnam, Lieberman spent the late 1960s working at a prestigious New Haven law firm, Wiggin & Dana.

            Fun Fact: according to Wikipedia, Lieberman is 5' 10" tall.

            "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- George W. Bush on Oct 7, 2003

            by QuickSilver on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:09:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  He wants something from Bushco (none)
        There was talk of him as homeland security "czar" prior to the Kerik debacle. He's also a big fan of the Patriot Act, (and torture, for all I know). There's also the the closet Likunikism shared by Lantos and Feinstein (and damn few other Jewish Democrats).

        But even many Rethugs wouldn't dare call what's happening in Iraq "progress." Unless of course, one has one of those wretched Islamist agendas.

        And "modernity"? The Iraqi standard of living has demonstrably plummeted in the last three years, independent of any violence whatsoever. And that was after 12+ years of sanctions, and billions of dollars in "reconstruction."

        Don't know how a whiny, milqetoast DLC cog got such a hatred for truth and civil rights.

        Connecticut seems to love him, though. Yuck.

      •  Here's what you can say about Lieberman (4.00)
        and I hope I can say it without being pounced on. There is an elephant in the room. The elephant, I suppose is Israel, Liberman is Jewish, etc. I am Jewish so as I said, perhaps I can say something that others might think but not say.

        I am certainly not as up to date on all the nuance of Iraq as Jerome or Armando, but Lieberman undoubtedly, links Iraq and Israel.  If we leave Iraq in a way that he construes as premature, this places Israel at grave risk.

        If we get into the whole, Israel, Liberman connection there could be a riot here. But isn't it necessary to at least make the point?

        http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

        by nyceve on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:22:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You took (none)
          my words. Israel is the key word here and Joe is Jewish. Imagine how much he has to explain in the synagogue if doesn't support Bush's war for which Israel is one of the chief beneficiaries.
          •  Except (4.00)
            that most Jews do not support the war in Iraq.  and i have anecdotal evidence that that includes even those who are most pro-israel.  my guess is he would more likely have to explain at the synagogue (and probably everywhere else in his state) why he is supporting this war.  
            •  Exactly!! (4.00)
              Nyceve misses the point. Lieberman's religion and pro-Israel stance doesn't explain why he supports the Iraq war at all.  It explains why he shouldn't support the Iraq war.  I just can't understand why so many people can't grasp that conflict between Lieberman's views and the views of the overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:14:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Paul, Lieberman has probably 100% . . . (4.00)
                support in the conservative Orthodox Jewish community.

                The Orthodox support Bush. I know some of them, I find it mindboggling. They also support DeLay and the entire Christian evangelical movement.

                Christian evangelicals and Orhodox Jews are linked at the hip.  Wait until the Abromoff (Orthodox Jew)/Delay love fest gets really peeled back.  What you're going to see will likely blow you away.

                http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

                by nyceve on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:29:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know (4.00)
                  I have some relatives who fit that mold. But as I mention in my comment lower down, I don't think Orthodox Jews make up a very significant percentage of American Jewry overall.  Probably in the 20% range.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:50:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But Lieberman (none)
                    himself is Orthodox.  He shares the mindset, and I agree that this is totally driving his thinking.  It may appal him to know that this relentless shilling for Bush and his atrocities makes him, to quote Abbie Hoffman, a shande far di goyim.

                    "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

                    by fishhead on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:46:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Salon (none)
              Salon has a story that parallels your comments.  If Jewish support did exist for the war, it's quickly crumbling.  Poor Joe; behind the curve again.
              http://www.salon.com/...
        •  Bingo (4.00)
          Thanks for telling it like it is.

          You're right there were some this morning, myself included, wanting to say what you just said but refrained for fear of starting the anti-semitic argument. But I can agree with you without fear of being attacked (can't I?)

          Let's face it, there is no question that many war influencers in and out of the administration had their loyalties to Israel in mind when advocating for this war - that has been documented many times. Joe is just one.

          When people put heritage over the good of the country that is just plain dangerous. Which is another reason IMHO to never have a foreign born President.

          •  The sad irony... (4.00)
            ...is that Ahmad Chalabi, working for the Iranians, sold Ariel Sharon and Likus on the idea that invading Iraq would make Israel safer.

            Instead, it has weakened Israel -- both by further enraging its already-hostile neighbors, by encouraging the rise of an Israel-hostile Iran-style theocratic state in Iraq, and by rendering the United States, Israel's protector, unable to provide much protection should, say, Syria decide to take back some territory.

            I think that many American Jews are now starting to recognize that many of their leaders made a bad, bad mistake when they got into bed with the Bible-thumping racists solely on the idea that they'd "protect Israel".  Hence the ADL's sudden decision to protest the GOP's intent to make America a Christian nation.

            •  Ignoring electoral figures (4.00)
              Your comment ignores the electoral figures. American Jews voted for Gore/Lieberman, and for Kerry/Edwards, at rates of 75-80%.  Overwhelmingly Democratic.  And opposed the war in Iraq by overwhelming numbers too.  Still do.  If the leaders got in bed with the Christian right, as you assert, they did it on their own, and didn't take too many followers with them. But the leaders didn't get into bed with the Christian right.  Some did, and some didn't.  You have Lieberman, acting like a tool, but you also have Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer and other Jewish Senators and Representatives, who opposed the Iraq war and still speak out against it.  You have the Reform Jewish rabbinate, which speaks out against the Bush agenda.  

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:12:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You bring up a good point... (none)
              The bible thumpers. There you have no heritage issue - it is a purely religious issue which as history shows can be an even more dangerous catalyst than heritage.
          •  Who? (none)
            "Let's face it, there is no question that many war influencers in and out of the administration had their loyalties to Israel in mind when advocating for this war"

            This whole argument makes very little sense.  Let's just look at the Senate, at the Jewish senators (according to wikipedia):

            Carl Levin (D)
            Arlen Specter (R)
            Frank Lautenberg (D)
            Herb Kohl (D)
            Joe Lieberman (D?)
            Dianne Feinstein (D)
            Barbara Boxer (D)
            Russ Feingold (D)
            Ron Wyden (D)
            Charles Schumer (D)
            Norm Coleman (R)

            Note that only two of these are Republican, although we have our doubts about Lieberman. I've excluded John Kerry from the list because he has lived his entire life as a Catholic.  

            All of these senators are Jewish, and all are strong supporters of Israel. How many of them are "war influencers" as you put it?  Specter and Coleman, sure, they are Republicans...Lieberman too.  That's 3 out of 11.  I'm not familiar with the voting records of the others, but I don't recall any of them speaking out much in favor of the war. Most spoke out against it.  You said it's been well-documented, so perhaps you can provide some of that documentation for us?  

            Most of the war supporters are Christian, not Jewish.  Most Jews in America (and in government) oppose the war.  So this notion that Lieberman's religion and support of Israel somehow "explains" his support of the Iraq war just makes no sense at all. It's completely unsupported by any facts.

            (and spare us the obligatory "wanting to say what you just said but refrained for fear of starting the anti-semitic argument. But I can agree with you without fear of being attacked (can't I?)" nonsense. Nobody is attacking you or nyceve for being anti-semitic. But I am attacking you for being wrong.)

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:22:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Voting for IWR (4.00)
              For:

              Spector (R)
              Kohl
              Lieberman
              Feinstein
              Schumer
              Coleman (R)

              Against:

              Levin
              Boxer
              Feingold
              Wyden

              New to Senate:
              Lautenberg

              So half the Jewish Democrat senators voted for it and half against it.  That is a higher % against it than the overall senate body.  Where 58% of the Democrats voted for the IWR.

              The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

              by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:32:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That should be (none)
                Jewish Democratic Senators.

                The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

                by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:36:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the figures (none)
                So I would say that with a 50-50 split among Democratic senators listed above, it's pretty inconclusive that being Jewish or a supporter of Israel is an indicator of support for the war.  Could go either way. And look at their support now, too.  Of those that voted for the IWR, my sense is that Schumer is very displeased with the war now.  I'm not quite as sure about Kohl, just because I don't see him on TV as much.

                In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:39:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Paul (none)
                  You have valid points about Senators and NYC Sophia  fined tuned it for both of us. However Who I was trying to point out were the "non-elected" officials such a Wolfowizt, Feith, Pearl and various others in the administration and influential think tanks.
                  •  Wrong vs Disloyal (none)
                    I'm not here to defend Lieberman, because I disagree with him on so many things.  I disagree with him on the war, in particular.  I think he was just plain wrong.  I think all the war supporters were wrong. They may have honestly believed they were doing the right thing for the US, and they also may have believed they were doing something good for the US's ally, Israel.  In this particular case, I believe they were wrong on both counts. But that doesn't mean they were disloyal to the US, or putting another country's interests ahead of ours, and that's a significant difference.  It's the claims of dual loyalties, or disloyalties, that trouble me.  On another thread on the same topic, someone referred to Lieberman as "the senator from Likud."  Several months ago, someone referred to him as "the senator from Tel Aviv."  That's extremely offensive, as are claims that he is being disloyal to the US.

                    One can disagree with his views, as I think we both do in this case, without casting aspersions on his loyalties.

                    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                    by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:38:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  But what about Feingold? (4.00)
          And Boxer? And the overwhelming number of American Jews (a clear supermajority) that opposed and still oppose the Iraq war?  Let's get something straight here, for all the Jewish worldwide conspiracy readers -- if Lieberman supports the Iraq war because he's Jewish, or pro-Israel, he's doing it on his own.  The vast majority of American Jews, almost all of whom are pro-Israel, oppose the Iraq war.  So I dispute the notion that being Jewish and pro-Israel somehow makes one support the Iraq war.  In fact, being Jewish and pro-Israel makes one oppose the Iraq war, and Lieberman's position is strange and confounding. He's the oddball, not the norm.  

          And THAT'S the elephant in the room.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Paul, IMO, you need to add . . . (none)
            conservative Orthodox Jews to the mix. Orthodox Jews puts lots and lots of money on Joe Lieberman's plate.

            The Orthodox Jewish community in the United States is incredibly wealthy.  I know who these Lieberman supporters are.

            http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

            by nyceve on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:32:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the numbers are few (none)
              But how many Orthodox Jews are there, compared to Conservative, Reform, and other affiliations?  I would suspect that Orthodox Jews comprise a relatively small percentage of the overall Jewish community in the US, maybe 20%.  I'll look for some figures, but I would be surprised if it were more than that.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:48:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Paul, you are correct in everything you say (none)
                Orthodox are a small fraction of American Jews, but they likely control a disproportionate share of the wealth.

                Also as I said, Orthodox are linked--tightly to Christian evalgelicals.  This unholy alliance controls staggering amounts of $$$.

                http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

                by nyceve on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:06:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you sure about that? (none)
                  I'm not even sure about the money thing. I have this vision, perhaps wrong, of all these guys studying Torah all day, while their wives struggle to raise a dozen kids.  But even if the Orthodox community is well-off, the money only goes so far.  We're talking about support for the war here -- voting for it, and speaking out in defense of Bush.  Money has little to do with that.  It certainly hasn't had any effect in shutting up Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:27:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  well mentum's been sold a bill o goods by rw nazis (none)
          dude needs to get with the program. big time. pronto. whatta shillin freepin lyin moron -- it's truly disgusting and shameful what he's doing. inexcusable. period.
    •  Orwellian (4.00)
      How long will the American Press allow these obvious lies to go unchallenged? Is it out of some misguided respect for high office that none can call bullshit when it is so plain to see?

      There is nothing natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. -Stephen Walsh, Ph.D.

      by timerigger on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:56:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beware the desperate freep, standard op procedure (none)
        this is what these guys do-rw playbook

        they (shrub.chen.rov.rum.cond.co) try to get or freep people or institutions (powell, blair, mccain, nyt, cbs, cspan, pbs, cnn, abc, msnbc, wp, ap, mentum) that they think the public trusts and respects as an agent of legitimate 'authority' so they can corruptly manipulate them for twisted illegal gain, undermining and coopting everything into a crooked crony playing ball, ie. puppet arms of the WH (a la faux news) with deliberate lies, fabrications and false propaganda deceptively made to appear 'authentic' with the false illusion of 'perceived integrity'.

        This is sick, wrong, crooked, illegal stuff.

        It is a massive coverup, deceiving the public, the nation, members of congress, other nations, the UN, and it destroys the media and our government, not to mention our country and society, and is responsible for the blood and deaths of thousands, while it also violates our constitution, the republic, checks and balances, and makes the goverment and media look ridiculous as it exposes them as a corrupt pack of liars.

    •  He's not useless. (4.00)
      I don't know what kind of evil bastard supports ol' Joe, but there has to be someone. I don't mean the straight-ticket voters in CT, of course. They're just stupid.

      But I'd love to be a fly on the wall in one of Joe's cocktail parties. I think I'd hear lots of talks with defense contractors and Likud party folk.

      The neocons started out Blue and switched to Red for convenience. Joe stays Blue to provide them legitimancy.

      Evil is genetic. Sterilize the Bush crime family.

      by rjo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't Leave Out The Insurance Industry Lobbyists (4.00)
        Joe's been pimping for them for a very long time.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:19:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dem cockroaches (4.00)

      Lieberman, Zell Miller ..... dems need a house cleaning.
      •  Well, one down (none)
        Zell Miller, thankfully, is gone.

        Now if only Lowell Weicker would run as a (D) [or even an (I) that caucused with the (D)s. . . .]

        And as for the straight-ticket voters in CT: unfortunately, most of us CT folks can't actually go up and, say, make John DeStefano (New Haven mayor) be our Senate candidate. . . .

    •  Lieberman ended his speech on the Senate (4.00)
      floor after his last trip to Iraq screaming "WE'RE WINNING.

      He's an embarassment to every Democrat in CT.

      From Freedom Rider to Torture Apologist should be printed on his tombstone.

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:25:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "winning" with Shia death squads? (4.00)
        Here's an example of the great "progress" Joementum sees in Iraq:  http://www.truthout.org/...

        Baghdad - Shiite Muslim militia members have infiltrated Iraq's police force and are carrying out sectarian killings under the color of law, according to documents and scores of interviews.

            The abuses raise the specter of organized retaliation to attacks by Sunni-led insurgents that have killed thousands of Shiites, who endured decades of subjugation under Saddam Hussein.

            And they undermine the U.S. effort to stabilize the nation, and train and equip Iraq's security forces - the Bush administration's key prerequisites for the eventual withdrawal of American troops.

            In recent months, hundreds of bodies have been discovered in rivers, garbage dumps, sewage treatment facilities and alongside roads and in desert ravines. Many of them are thought to be victims of Sunni insurgents, who are known to target Shiite civilians and Iraqi security forces, and even Sunni Arabs believed to be collaborating with U.S. forces or the Iraqi government. But increasingly, the Shiite militias operating within the national police force are also suspected of committing atrocities.

            The Baghdad morgue reports that dozens of bodies arrive at the same time on a weekly basis, including scores of corpses with wrists bound by police handcuffs.

      •  is there anything in the works, keith? (none)
        i want to see this man removed from office, is there any hope of that?

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:08:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think Joe is representing some Israeli thinking (3.25)
      or hoping. Israel has a lot to lose or gain from this misadventure. I suspect the thinking is that a large permanent US force is gonna be necessary to protect Israel. He may be right. But I would much rather protect Israel in some sort of Murtha plan than continue in Iraq.

      Treason's Greetings from Karl Rove and Scooter Libby: Merry Fitzmas and Happy New Smear

      by seesdifferent on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:39:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the middle east conflict were solved tomorrow (4.00)
        Some very powerful people on both sides of the fence would lose billions.  

        As long as everybody is all pissed off and killing each other, the people in power are making a killing.

        Every conflict in the last 50 years can be traced back to a single source: the disparity between rich and poor and the rich's pathological desire to keep the poor under foot.

        Joe is simply a hack with a bad dye job and his pockets lined with National Review money.

        Pray for my Beloved Country

        by lubarsh on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:00:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some Context for Lieberman's Remarks (4.00)
        which bear noting.  The following series of events is interesting:
        1. Nov 3. Abe Foxman, (not exactly the Left's best friend) head of ADL, slaps down Orthodox Judaism and the Christian Right with a righteous club of home truth.
        Foxman's text
        2. Nov. 19th Yoffie The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists.
        Limbacher news account    Note that there is a linked story with that article about Lieberman calling to stay the course in Iraq.
        3. Nov. 21st. Sharon bolts from Likud.
        Sharon rocks Jews world wide
        4. Nov. 28th  The Orthodox minion comes up with apologetics in favor of the Christian Right and against Abe Foxman.
        One Orthodox response.  There are others even more vitriolic

        Lieberman, who is an Orthodox Jew and a neo-con on the Dem side of the aisle, is not just spouting idiocy.  He's responding to a specific set of events that are reflected in a variety of settings and that threaten to take some political wind out of the sails of Orthodox Jewery.

        •  He can't admit.... (4.00)
          ...that Ahmad Chalabi played him, Sharon and the rest of the AIPAC/Perle/Rumsfeld/PNAC contingent for suckers.

          Iran's most dangerous enemies have for the last three decades been Iraq, the US, and Israel, roughly in that order.   By sending their agent Chalabi to con the leading political figures of both Israel and the US into invading Iraq, they managed to destroy one enemy, hogtie another, and endanger the third.

          The sooner Lieberman admits this, the better off he will be.  

          •  They sure did! (none)
            Iran sat back to watch everyone hit the wall.  Can't say I blame them.  If I were watching and listening, to Israel and the US, I'd sure try to get a "Let's  you and him fight" senario going.  However, one would have thought that any American in his or her right mind would have naturally backed up at the sleaziness of the Iranian agents, but what the hell do I know?  I'm one of those picky people who wouldn't have allowed a Chelabi or a Khoshaggi get within a five state distance of my "house".  On the other hand, knowing how sleazy Perle and Feith are, I guess I shouldn't be naive about the company the rest of the DOD keeps.
    •  Marshall WIttman (none)
      Over at BullMoose, he is applauding Lieberman for being an "adult".

      Why anybody listens to a single word of crap that man spouts is beyond me. To both of them actually.

      "I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

      by trifecta on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:00:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prediction: (none)
      LIEberman will leave the party, join the GOP, and run with McCain as his VP pick. The question is, will CT voters allow him to pull this? If he wins re-election to his seat, and then leaves, this slaps the Dems. If he loses the primary, and then leaves, he would look like a sore-loser. Either way, I predict he's gone....

      Lieberman has always been a Likudnik shill, valuing Israel more than his own country, with no apologies at all. In my mind's eye, this is called treason, when one puts another nation before their own.

      He also seems to have no problem sacrificing American kids on the battlefield.... I detest him, and everything he stands for.

      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

      by Hornito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:04:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's a heckofa fundraiser? (none)
      Because this Op-Ed in the WSJ does quite an effective job of reaching the shareholders of Halliburton and other companies profiting from the Iraq conflict and assuring them that he is committed to staying the course.  Did he neglect to mention where those shareholders can send their campaign contributions?

      On Bush's Brain: "What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."

      by Rusty Pipes on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:34:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How exactly is Lieberman a Democrat? (4.00)
    And please somebody, tell me someone is opposing him in a primary next year.

    "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

    by Steven D on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:52:39 AM PST

    •  Joe's first priority is the safety of Israel (3.62)
      On bread-and-butter issues Lieberman votes reliably democratic.  If he didn't he wouldn't still be in office.  But on foreign policy, and he makes no bones about it, the security of Israel trumps everything else.  He is extremely religious (remember the kerfuffle about whether he would campaign on the sabbath?), and he is sanctimonious to a fault.  Big business is comfortable with him, so he doesn't have to worry about is campaign funding.

      What a putz.  Abe Ribicoff has got to be spinning in his grave.

      •  I wonder if these AIPAC types (4.00)
        recognize that Iraq will be a much bigger problem for Israel now than it was when an actual internation force was containing Hussein.

        Perhaps they're just hoping for a wider conflagration in the mideast, where the US and Israel come out on top, and lots of people who don't go to $1500 a head conferences get killed.

        Assholes.

      •  Bad miscalculation there... (4.00)
        Hard to see how Israel's security is enhanced by the presence of a failed, fragmented, Islamist state that's a client of Iran's, smack in the middle of the Middle East.

        You'd think at least Joe would accuse these guys of bungling the job.  He's marginalized himself within the party, and I would align myself with those who would support a primary challenge in CT.

        •  obviously that wasn't the plan (none)
          They wanted Chalabi to be the new Saddam, and he was promising them a supply of oil, piped through Jordan.

          That really worked out.

          It's good that these evil bastards are so stupid, I just wish Americans were smart enough to see that they're evil bastards.

          As it is, most Americans think Israel is a democracy.

          Too bad it's about as democratic as Missippi was in 1950.

          Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by racerx on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:23:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He's done some (4.00)
        On bread-and-butter issues Lieberman votes reliably democratic.

        terrible things like co-sponsoring 'faith based' legislation with Rick Santorum. While he'll vote for bread and butter Democratic issues he's also reliably undermining 'progressive' domestic policy at every opportunity.

        I hope to God that he is caught up in the mestasizing Abramhoff scandal. The fact that this man was almost Vice President is sickening.

        "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

        by colleen on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:14:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Worse than Cheney? (none)
          I think Lieberman is a turncoat traitor, but you said:  "The fact that this man was almost Vice President is sickening."

          Could he be worse than Darth Cheney?

          I don't think so, especially if the reality based Gore was president.  The real question for me is this:  Why did Gore pick this turncoat liar/loser for his running mate?  A real democrat on the ticket might have given Gore another million votes or so, perhaps enough to overcome the Supreme Scum felons!

          •  Just one more reason (4.00)
            That President Gore is not running things. Who were his advisers? What role did the DLC play?

            Please keep those people away from the rest of the party--they have no use for real Democrats anyway.

            "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

            by thingamabob on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:42:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I really don't understand (4.00)
            the sort of reasoning that leads to that question but I'll answer it anyway.
            I do not believe he would have been better than Cheney and I think that as VP he would have been far more damaging to the future electoral prospects of the Democratic party. His not being elected to higher office is the sole silver lining of the election of '00.

            "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

            by colleen on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:07:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  yep. dudes showin his stripes-damaging wacko shill (none)
      •  Re His Voting Record (4.00)
        It would be interesting for someone to do a study of just how often Holy Joe has cast a vote that actually made the difference between victory and defeat for an issue important to most Democrats, or when he ever made a point of standing in support of such an issue even if he realized the battle was lost.  It's easy to compile a voting record that looks good to your constituents while violating their trust behind the scenes.  Just let the lobbyist termites do their work, don't try to influence your colleagues one way or the other, and cast your vote the PC way without having lifted a finger to stop one more violation of the public trust.  It's one thing to vote the correct way 100% of the time on, say, environmental issues, another to actively fight the polluters, bring things to the public's attention, help rally support among your colleagues by both gentle and hardnosed persuasive tactics.  Voting the right way on an issue is meaningless if you know the full Senate will vote the wrong way and you don't do anything to prevent that from happening.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:32:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lieberman approved Brownie + others (4.00)
          You're right, there is a lot more than just the roll call votes going on.  Lieberman was part of the "Heckuva Job" Brownie confirmation process along with plenty of other Bushite scum types who are ripping apart our country.

          Lieberman is one disgusting person, he is without conscience and a sickening suck-up to Bush.  Imagine calling yourself a Democrat while actually KISSING BUSH!

      •  And how's that workin' out for him? (4.00)
        Which part of Iraq does Joe think makes Israel more safe, the terrorist training ground, the influence of Iran, or the spread of anti-Americanism throughout the world?
    •  In support of Lieberman (3.66)
      (I can't believe that I just wrote that) His op-ed is disgusting and for that, I too would like to see him out.

      However, from two conservative groups that rate Senators on their voting records, he has been respectable in his voting record.

      ACU (American Conservative Union) rates him a 0%.  He voted against (or didn't vote) every one of their positions.  Link

      The National Journal gives him a 78 Liberal rating (For comparison: Boxer 93, Feinstein 73)
      Link

      The National Journal breaks it down on specific issues Link on social issues, he is very liberal, on security not so much.

      The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

      by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:08:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  See My Comment Just Above (4.00)
        This is pretty much meaningless if those votes aren't backed up by fighting in support of the issue.  I'm sure there are plenty of senators who get plenty of money from lobbyists for just keeping quiet on a particular issue, even if they cast a vote against the lobbyist's desires.  As long as they have enough votes in the bag, they're probably delighted to keep these JustShowUpAndVoteW/oFighting types in office to preserve the illusion of honest legislative deliberation.

        Does Holy Joe actually fight for any of those worthy causes he votes for?  If so, the MSM is ignoring it in favor of his denunciations of his fellow Dems, and the many things he's said that have given aid and comfort to BushCo. and the wingnuts.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:39:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point about Joe standing up (4.00)
          for other issues.

          He was just on CNN supporting Bush's Iraq policy.

          He mentioned that he had just returned from Iraq and things were improving there.

          One of his examples was that there are satellite dishes on almost every roof.

          I thought to myself that sure because watching TV at home is probably one of the few safe forms of entertainment available.

          "Joe must go"

          The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

          by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:48:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Satellite Dishes A Sign Of Improvement? (4.00)
            Someone should inform him that they're all watching al-Jazeera.  You know, Joe, the network Dim Son wants to obliterate with a bombing raid?

            "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

            "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

            by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:53:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually... (4.00)
              ..it's interesting that each group in Iraq tends to watch different channels.  Sunnis and some Shia' watch al-Jazirah.  Kurds hate al-Jazirah and watch Kurdsat instead.  Shia' are more likely to watch al-'Arabiyyah or the Iranian Arabic language channel.  Satellite disks are in fact a measure of freedom of information - which is better than before.  Saying so does not absolve the Bush administration of lies, mistakes, failed policies, etc.  Some things are improved, others much worse.  Lieberman's error is in ignoring the bad and exaggerating the good.  
          •  Yeah well...... (4.00)
            I just had a family member return (thankfully, in one piece) from Iraq (second tour!), and he says things SUCK! So fuck Joe. I am sure he was shown a bed of roses, and/or, saw what he wanted to see, ...for the benefit of Israel, not the U.S.A., and its kids being killed on the Iraqi battlefield!

            LIEberman is a traitor to his party, and more importantly, to this nation.

            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

            by Hornito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:18:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm glad to hear that your (none)
              family member returned home safely.  I hope he's back for good.

              I trust his views on Iraq much more that Joe's.

              If everything in Iraq is so peachy keen, don't you think there would be Fox news reporters would be all over the place reporting on all the good things happening?

              The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

              by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:28:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  From today's "The Note" (4.00)
          Joe Lieberman is mentioned twice:

          Best Reasons to Read America's Finest Op-ed Page: The Wall Street Journal's editorial on Duke Cunningham; Joe Lieberman's Nicolle-Wallace-couldn't-write-it-better-herself op-ed on staying the course in Iraq; and Dick Armey's op-ed trashing the Republican Congress, complete with an anonymous swipe at Tom DeLay.

          Which is a pretty good dig as Nicolle Wallace is a perfect example of a Bushbot talking head coolaid drinker who parrots the current talking points.

          Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and the National Institute on Media and the Family release the 10th annual "Video and Computer Game Report Card" at 12:00 pm ET in Dirksen 3432. The report concludes that the ratings system is "beyond repair" and calls for a national summit to come up with a better, more accurate system.

          See he is working on important issues besides Iraq <snark>

          The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

          by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:16:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, He's Big On Censoring Video Games (4.00)
            When was the last time he did anything to help his constituents get affordable health care?  

            Unfortunately, he's got too huge a warchest for anyone to beat him in the primary, most likely.  I think there was someone who was going to run against him who dropped out because Lieberman had accumulated so much cash.

            BTW, hard to believe we've been posting such nasty things about Holy Joe for this long without his trusty in-house troll biggest Kossack fan showing up to downrate everyone who dares suggest JL isn't the greatest thing that ever happened to the Nutmeg State.

            "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

            "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

            by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:44:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  From the looks of it (none)
              His trusty fan is going to be very very busy catching up today.

              The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

              by NYC Sophia on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:02:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Alas, There's Another One (none)
                Already doing some advance work for him, one JPhurst, who seldom comments but loves to hand out "1s", as a check of his comment/ratings history shows.

                "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

                "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:22:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's possible to present an alternative... (4.00)
        ...in Iraq that does not involve parroting Bush talking points.  Lieberman damages the Democratic Party by backing Bush, repeatedly, at critical moments.  Obama also says that the US should not pull out immediately (and I agree also on that position) but he manages to eviscerate Bush with humor.  Remember that comment about firing the bus driver, then figuring out how to get the bus out of the ditch?  

        I like dissent in the Democratic Party - that's one of the things (besides being right on the issues) that distinguishes us from Republicans.  But healthy dissent means differing from other Democrats on particular issues, while standing up to the Republican Party.  Time and time again, Lieberman votes Democratic and then hands PR material to the Republicans.  He has to go.

        •  Murtha has a good idea (4.00)
          John Murtha's policy is not exactly what I want (total withdrawal in six months and impeachment of Bush and Cheney), but at least it is realistic and possible to implement within the six month time frame he sets out.

          GOP Joe is acting as a shill for the Bushite scum, he deserves nothing but scorn.

          I disagree with you and Obama on the pace of withdrawal, but at least neither of you is directly supporting the evil Bush and his Bushite scum.  

          Lieberman is approaching Zell Miller status in the Dem party- time for a primary opponent.

        •  mentum's a freepin shill + a troll (none)
      •  But, look, (4.00)
        on social issues, he is very liberal

         this is a guy who also says that the Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion and not freedom from religion and he actively pursues alliances with the religious right. This is a central argument of the religious right and, reading Booman's excellent diary this AM it's hard to argue that there's not some religion we need to discredit. When Concerned Women for America start arguing for not treating STD's which are, lets face it, attractive to the RR because HPV kills women exclusively, when they start envisioning a world in which our daughters are forced to die for what is as warped a view of Christianity as the Wahabbi view of Islam, it becomes very personal. You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, otherwise that whole area of public policy is dictated by the lowest, most authoritarian and vicious common denominator. The fact that that's pretty much what is happening now and that Lieberman encourages it nullifies every 'liberal' domestic vote he ever cast.

         Lieberman's the Senate's equivalent of Alan Colmes and about as effective. His 'liberalism' is a fragile facade. Even operatives concerned with the 'image' of Democrats as weak should be concerned by the notion of Lieberman as the 'moderate' face of the Democratic party. McCain is the face of the 'moderate' Republican party in the senate and Lieb is the Dem equivalent. How distressing is that?

        "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

        by colleen on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:35:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Liberman/ Zell Miller (none)
      Republicans in sheeps clothing

      inspire change...don't back down

      by missliberties on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:46:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lieberman has to go. (4.00)
    We need to place a candidate up there in the Nutmeg State, preferrably a young war veteran hungry for change.  
    •  Open comment to Nutmeggers (4.00)
      Please, I beg you, seat someone else instead of Lieberman!!  The future Democratic majority could depend on one vote; we need to be assured that the state of Connecticut will vote with the Democratic majority when the time comes.
  •  tragic! (4.00)
    The report by lieberman (he has, in my opinion,lost the right to have his name started with a capital letter) is such a disgrace that maybe the response should be to "Shun" the fool. As was described by a Time mag reporter, directly from Iraq, and voiced on AA this AM, "what country was he (lieberman) in?"
     This is the tragedy of a man who has no moral or ethical center. If the people of Ct don't vote him out of office, that betrayal will be one of the greatest acts of shame in this countries' history.
      How is possible that two people can be so diametrically opposite in their view of what is taking place before their eyes! The answer is simple- one is reporting while one is being told what to say.
     The senator no longer represtents anything close to the truth and must be driven out of office!
  •  apparently (none)
    he's going to be on imus tomorrow.

    perhaps that can be missed.

    Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

    by BiminiCat on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:08:54 AM PST

  •  The American Empire (3.30)
    The Lieven piece is an excellent one. Thanks for posting it. I'm dissapointed in Jerome's frankly knee-jerk defense of Clinton/Gore here. This ia real blindspot at Kos that needs to be addressed. The invasion of Iraq was NOT simply the concoction of a neo-con cabal. It was the logical outcome of a bi-partisan commitment to replacing Hussein with a more compliant regime and to U.S. global domination in general. The timing and the particulars of an invasion and occupation might have gone differently under a Gore administration, but the bi-partisan support for the resolution authorizing the use of force was NOT just an expression of spineless electoral expediency by secretly anti-war Dems. It was the logical continuation of a policy of regime change explicitly articulated in the Clinton administration. And not just articulated, acted on in the form of a murderous regime of sanctions and aerial bombardment that devastated Iraq over twelve years.

    It is facile to say that Clinton didn't invade Iraq and that we can't know whether Gore would have. More importantly it is an evasion of the more essential point that Lieven clearly understands: the Democratic Party is a pro-imperialist political party. The rank and file  base of the party includes many who are at least highly skeptical of U.S. imperial aims, but the leadership of the party has always been loyal to the preogatives of empire. And in this regard Lieberman is not at all outside the mainstream of the Democratic leadership.

    "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

    by Christopher Day on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:16:24 AM PST

    •  Change in progress (none)
      The sea change is under way.  The netroots -- those of us without imperialist ambitions -- got a DNC chair of their choice, one who is similarly without imperialist ambitions.

      The roots of the party, rank and file members, are NOT imperialists.  They just want their jobs, a roof over their heads, want better for their kids.

      The bottleneck is and has been the DLC.  Leadership they are not.  The question now: what are we going to do about this?

    •  When you say (4.00)
      "Democratic Leadership" do you mean the DLC?  Otherwise, I think you're sadly out of date.
    •  Not defending Clinton (4.00)
      But it's one thing to accuse him of imperialistic trends, which I acknowledged, and another to go and waste the USA's treasury, repuation and blood in a few years.

      What you are saying, in effect, is that we should be grateful for fucking up American imperialism faster than would have happened under Dems, and bringing the needed "return to reality" much more effectively. It's a defensible point of view, but maybe not the one you had in mind!

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:29:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indefensible is what it is (4.00)
        Or can you defend it?

        I lost all repsect for Day with that comment.

        I won't be reading him anymore.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:50:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's defensible... (none)
          ...like "staying the course" is...

          You know I try to be polite!

          In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
          Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

          by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:05:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with Day, and I find your closed mind a (4.00)
          bit more than disappointing. Maybe I should quit reading you?

          What a childish comment. What is it meant to do?

          I find Day's point to be a good one.

          The Democrats have been so terrified of looking soft on national defense that they will do anything to look tough, including abdicating their constitutional responsibility to oversee the waging of war and to act as a reasonable check to an imperial Executive.

          How many Democrats voted against it?

          How many Democrats in office voted against Kosovo? How many voiced dissent when we pulled the inspectors and bombed Iraq based on the intelligence that the arms inspectors gave to the Clinton administration?

          Regime change was the policy, DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. It was not peace, it was not containment, it was REGIME CHANGE. We were going to depose Saddam regardless of his actions. Given that the sanctions simply terrorized the populace and left him comfortably in power, there was little doubt as to how this was going to be resolved.

          The Democratic party is only now starting to get its feet under them, and their platform is developing. I truly hope that the party takes a turn from its centrist DLC path that Clinton and friends blazed.

          It's the economy stupid was titanically stupid. It laid our entire platform wide open to the appearance of hypocrisy. We are for Universsal Health Care, but they want it to be market based. We are pro-environment, but they want the market to work things out, and changes that will not harm their sponsors. We are for helping the poor, but single moms were thrust into the workforce with nothing to bargain with. We are for open communication, but they set forth this massive consolidation of the fourth estate.

          Who is 'They'? They were the Democrats during the Clinton administration, and the administration itself.

          Now these things are not addressing the imperial nature of Clinton, which clearly was less startling and dangerous than Bush, but they point out how stupidly Republican the Democrats got under Clinton. They got so far right that the last 2 elections showcased candidates that could only disagree semantically.

          Rambling now...

          Armando, please don't lose respect for me and quit reading my stuff because I disagree with you.

      •  I don't read the comment that way... (4.00)
        at all.  What I think that he's trying to say is that Clinton stumbled down roughly the same path that W has proudly marched.  Or, perhaps, that Clinton paved the path down which W has marched.

        Yes, W and those around him are primarily responsible for this clusterf**k that will haunt all of us for the rest of our lives.  But the Dems, sadly, have made it relatively easy for W's cabal to embark upon its disastrous course.  Clinton enforced punitive sanctions, engaged in various bombing campaigns for political purposes, and helped reinforce the ridiculous idea that SH posed a threat to American security.

        Most Senate Dems and far too many House Dems voted for the IWR.  We can all agree that JoeMentum has traveled well beyond the pale on this issue.  But Biden, HRC, and far too many others aren't all that much better.  The silence of the Dems when Jack Murtha finally decided he'd had enough was pretty damned deafening.  Reid, Pelosi, and Kerry all publicly distanced themselves from his remarks.

        I'm glad that Dean is DNC Chair, I'm glad for the likes of Murtha, Feingold, Conyers, and others, and I'm really glad that the blogosphere has pushed the party beyond where it really wanted to go.  I'm not going to kid myself, however, into thinking that the party has only traveled a fraction of the necessary distance.  I really have no idea whether or when the remaining distance will be traveled.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:38:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read it the same way (4.00)
          Clinton was pretty good at just keeping the hounds at bay. "Stumbled" might be the best word I've heard yet as the neo cons and corporate fascists have gained ground.
           "RFK lives" in my heart too.  I still feel that John Edwards comes the closest to RFK in my life time.  RFK realized that his belief that they could form a more democratic Vietnam was just plain wrong. He felt he had been naive about the amount of corruption.   In 1968, he said we had to get out now.  Al Gore's most fateful decision was picking Lieberman instead of Edwards for his running mate.  Maturity is defined by gaining wisdom as you age.  Maturity is making  the transition from everything being about you to making the world around you a better place.  Look to the people who will run, like Eisenhower did;  "Vote for Peace.  Vote for Prosperity.  Voke Ike."  Ike ran on getting us out of Korea.  Thom Hartmann says that he was more of a Democrat and that Clinton was more of a Republican i.e. Imperialist.  George Washington also urged us to stay home.  Join the New Democratic Party by going back to our Jeffersonian roots.

          "Life is a zoo in a jungle." Peter De Vries

          by MontanaMaven on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:03:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well (none)
          How did you read this?

          "It is facile to say that Clinton didn't invade Iraq and that we can't know whether Gore would have."

          Excuse me, but that is a joke.

          How can someone say whether you started a war is facile?

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:08:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That I agree with, Armando (4.00)
            "Facile" is an over the top word and deliberately provocative.   Clinton did not use our troops.  He was smarter than that.  But our policies were still causing civilian deaths.  What  I was responding to was the overall argument and  the bi polar nature of our party and how complex this issue is.  In my heart I believe that President Gore would have actually started out with a Clinton like approach of keeping Saddam at bay, but would have looked for a better solution with Edwards not Lieberman.  I thought that he had chosen Lieberman  to get the stink of the Monica scandal off him.  But folks here have made me think that it was a bit more "diabolical".  The "leadership" wanted a strong Israeli hawk.  This I find the most disturbing part of this whole diary.  

            "Life is a zoo in a jungle." Peter De Vries

            by MontanaMaven on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:34:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  One hyperbolic sentence doesn't make... (none)
            someone's comments no longer worth reading.  Clinton obviously did not invade Iraq, but, as I noted in my comment, he made it a hell of a lot easier for W to do so.

            The post-election theft Al Gore, to his credit, opposed the invasion.  What a Gore/Lieberman WH would've done had they been allowed to take office is pure speculation.  Gore was a visibly different person in 2000 than he has been since, and I don't need to add anything more about his running mate to this thread.

            As Rummy would say, we go to battle w/ the party that we have.  That doesn't mean that we should ignore the party's obvious deficiencies while we do so.  

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:04:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  THE central issue/question: (4.00)
        Can the American right ever be defused?

        Until then, speculating about whether this or that Democratic personality could have avoided imperial overstretch is pointless. No one can withstand the machine of the American right.

        As long as the toxic brew of American fundamentalist puritanism, outsized military industrial complex profits, and a cowed, increasingly ignorant, easily manipulated populace exists, we are at the right's mercy. And the world will continue to be in grave danger.

        How do we defuse the right? How?

        The Right is killing America

        by grushka on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:42:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is by attacking their religion as hypocritical (none)
          and anti-Christian, as I argue here. But for this to happen, liberals have to get over their hang-up about criticizing other people's religion.

          The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, but a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

          by Alexander on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:20:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It may take the fall from grace... (none)
          the Bush administration seems to be willfully taking. It may require the US' collapse as a major power. It may take another global depression. It could even end up with the US (and some other nation) nuked and hopelessly crippled but not yet dead. These are some of the things that keep me awake at night.

          Or it could just take a group of liberals, of varying stripes and colors, to get over themselves and truly unite behind a field of candidates with stripped-down, no-nonsense progressive agendas. If we do not unite, who is to force us to do so? And so long as we are divided, the right will continue to make us their bitch. Unless the right breaks up under its own strains, it will be a rampaging juggernaut.

          I constantly hear us bitch among ourselvee, even on this site. (Especially here.) You don't like what somebody else says? Fine. Disagree. But do so without breaking out the flamethrowers. Better yet- watch what you say BEFORE you say it. Read what the other person wrote, and try to understand its nuances. And remember- the right sniggers behind our backs every time we fall apart.

          My view on guys like Lieberman are simple- ask him if he is at base loyal to the Democratic platform and its constituencies. If he does not, try to pry staffers and people away from him. He may have the money, but he won't have the people or the hard-core party to work for him. He can always become another Voinovich or Specter. There are a few pro-choice Republicans left. I'd rather have a dozen more Harry Reids, who are concerned with party discipline, than one more Joe Lieberman, who repeatedly tweaks his own party's nose. The Republicans are disciplined, even when they disagree with each other (which happens more often than we would like to think). We have to emulate them in that respect, even if we totally disagree on the shape of the country we live in.

          This state of affairs, believe it or not, did not happen overnight, nor will it take just a few years to correct. It may require a degree of educating total strangers previously unknown, to prevent their total ignorance from rolling over and crushing us. It may require sacrifice, as we have never known before, to avoid the machiations of the military-indutrial complex that counts Lieberman as one of its minions. We must try and try and try again. Learn how to be firm yet diplomatic, learn the workings of the right-wing's noise machine and how to best sabotage it, and steer fundamentalist Christians away from their death cults toward a more progressive and optimistic, less fearful view of the world outside their communities and of the power of the giving Christ. We can either live in fear of so-called "Red States", or we can work to change them from within. We must also not ignore the plight of our own.

          You're right- no one can withstand the reach of the Imperial Right. But we can band together and act as its ruin.

      •  As you probably know... (4.00)
        this is a standard radical position. For instance, Gabriel Kolko, the historian of the Vietnam War, favored a Bush victory in 2004 (Why Bush May Well Be The Lesser Evil). This is what the Dem establishment's refusal to abandon imperial hubris has forced upon us.

        I agree with Christopher Day that what Lieven (a very sophisticated observer of American empire) overlooks is that even if a Gore presidency would have gone for some kind of military action in Iraq (which I don't think it would have: the Clinton-Blair policy of bleeding Iraq to death could have been carried on indefinitely), there can be no question that a Democratic president could have managed the American empire much more effectively and "professionally". And that is exactly what Kerry was running on.

        The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, but a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

        by Alexander on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:03:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  lieberman is... (none)
      to a policy of liberal interventionism...

      what vader is to the force.

      kind of...

      in any case.  

      suffice to say, there's a world of difference between breaking into someone's house to put a man beating the crap out of his kids and wife in jail...

      and...

      breaking into the same house, putting the same asshole in jail so you can rape his wife, sieze ownership of the house and put his kids in a labor camp.

      one is a distinctly imperial agenda, the other is not so much.

      the fact that lieberman supports the later is pretty damn despicable.

      Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

      by BiminiCat on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:38:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But what about the excuse? (4.00)
      It is facile to say that Clinton didn't invade Iraq and that we can't know whether Gore would have.

      How is it facile to point out that we can't know if the Sept. 11 attacks would have even occurred on Gore's watch? How is it facile to point out that Gore wasn't exactly down with the PNAC crowd's invasion program? Without the "9-11 changed everything" excuse and the installation of PNAC heavies on the Cabinet, the invasion of Iraq would have been a hell of a lot less likely.

    •  A little more complicated than that (4.00)
      Clinton got boxed in by the Republicans in 1998 when he was especially weak. The legislation was forced upon him, but he was ready to compromise because he had no intention of following through.

      There was and remains, however, an aggressively hardline pro-Israel constituency in the Democratic foreign policy establishment (I'm thinking of Pollack) who clearly favored internvention. It is the position espoused by Peretz's TNR.  In that degree there is continuity.  

    •  That's a crock (4.00)
      And to say it is facile that Clinton didn't start a war is the biggest pile of shit yet laid.

      If you believe that there is no reason to read you at all.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:49:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Certainly what Bushco and the Neocons (4.00)
        have done with Iraq is a quantum leap beyond anything envisaged by Clinton.  Starting this war is no small detail.
        But it should be borne in mind that the appalling Clinton-driven sanctions regime caused an appalling level of degradation to the lives most Iraqis- Independent analysts suggest that the number of deaths brought about by the resulting malnutrition an disease reached into the hundreds of thousands.
        It was one thing to focus on weapons containment- but the Clinton targets were far broader than that- Although it is highly unlikely that he waged the all out folly of war that Bushco were slobbering for from the outset.

        "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

        by normal family on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:30:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  this is always a difficult decision (none)
          bob geldof was on some news show a couple weeks ago talking about some african countries they can't help with Live8 cause they know the leaders there can't be trusted.

          so it seems unfair.  why some countries will get aid whereas the people who just happen to live in a country run by a shithead thug will not get aid.  

          well.  whose fault is that??  

          the shithead thug who won't comply with some basic standards of transparency??

          or is that the fault of the people at Live8??

          Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

          by BiminiCat on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:38:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your last sentence (none)
          is my point.

          the rest we can discuss.

          Day said the last sentence you wrote is "facile."

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:03:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Armando, did you see (4.00)
        "Fog of War", the documentary about Robert Macnamara and the Vietnam War?

        At the end, there's a haunting scene where he's driving a car, and saying that essentially, even if they wanted to end the war, they couldn't. There were forces in America that would never let them.

        And throughout the film, we see democratic presidents deepening our involvement in Vietnam... yet there's also a telling bit of footage of Goldwater fulminating about the communist takeover of Indochina. The right made Vietnam necessary...

        My point: the real enemy of all that is decent is the American right. The American right is the side of war, aggression, ignorance, folly, short-sightedness, racism. Yet they own the game and set its rules. Until we seize control of it, we will continue to play their game, no matter how defensively or reluctantly.

        The Right is killing America

        by grushka on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:49:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Explain that to Day (none)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:09:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't so much the right, but the LIEbermans (4.00)
            that legitimize the right's positions.

            The Right's positions are totally insane. They are packed full of logical fallacies and over-simplification. Once they moved from the pamphlet to the pulpit in terms of power, these fundamental flaws were naked, and what do the LIEbermans of our party do?

            Attack anyone that dares to challenge this insane status quo, that is what LIEberman and his buddies' job description is. He is just protecting his sponsors.

            Grow or Die:
            Grow or die is a stupid method of operation for any organism or institution, let alone for global economic health. STUPID! LIEberman and his ilk lambaste anyone who dare challenge this uniquely Republican economic system.

            War is Peace:
            How many Democrats have talked about bringing peace to Iraq with our military in the last year? Every single frontrunner for the nomination talks of increasing, or maintaining our military presence over there; for peace. Bullshit!

            Free Markets are Democracy:
            How many Democrats have you seen parrot this tripe? What does that do for the concept of regulating business in the public's interest?

            Over and over again, the leadership of the Democrats parrots republican talking points. It is fucking sad, man!

            The reason we have been losing for so long is that we have been chasing the corporate sponsorship for election while our base gets shut out of the debate by legislation written to satisfy the sponsors and by the sponsors chokehold over the creation and dissemination of information.

            Corporate values are not Democratic values, period. The LIEberman/Biden/Clinton faction of the Democratic party is aiding and abetting the extreme right's assault on America, and the sooner we realize that the sooner we will win.

        •  great doc-met mcnamara-said reagan=2 hawkish 4 him (none)
      •  Of course it's facile (4.00)
        It's a dumb line of argument which has, unfortunately for him and for us, obscured some important points that he did manage to make.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:25:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  welcome back! (none)
        happy day!.... it is good to see the old armando back!
    •  Haven't Been Paying Much Attention (4.00)
      The last 10 years, have you?

      The invasion of Iraq was NOT simply the concoction of a neo-con cabal. It was the logical outcome of a bi-partisan commitment to replacing Hussein with a more compliant regime and to U.S. global domination in general.

      No one in the Clinton admnistration was speaking out in favor of launching an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Hussein.  They were perfectly content to use the no-fly zones to box him in, bomb Baghdad and various other military targets when he got uppity about complying with weapons insepctions, and try to organize coups that would overthrow him.  Say what you will about those tactics, that is a very long way from mobilizing your forces for an invasion, and going to war.  The only people urging about that were the neo-Cons and their allies.

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:46:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Real Bipartisanship (4.00)
      You're right about Democratic collusion re: hegemony in the ME. One would have to be a mere partisan to think otherwise. (Me, I suspect a McCain/Lieberman 2008 "fusion" ticket for the addle-headed uninformed.)

      I think Europeans should understand what I think to be the essential character of the American people at this point in history: a) We reduce all war to a commemoration of our glorious triumph in WWII. b) With this as a given, all wars we wage must be just because we are good. c) Then, since we engage in good wars, they bring benefits to us. d) The contrary view, that wars are destructive is discounted unto oblivion. e) With the result that Americans are, in general, warmongers.

      •  Here's A Point f) (4.00)
        Everybody we decide to take down, no matter how isolated or neutered or ineffectual, is another Adolf Hitler, and failure to act against them with all the power we possess is the same Mistake-Worse-Than-A-Crime that Chamberlain's Munich Pact appeasement policies were.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:04:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't bash Neville Chamberlain! (none)
          Going to war in 1938 would have been merely on the basis of suspicion - because of what we thought Hitler might do next.  Britain and France would have been bitterly divided, just as the US currently is over Iraq.

          If the continental land war had gone peachy that wouldn't have mattered, but if France had fallen, Britain would probably have fallen with it.

          Historically, when Britain and France did go to war in 1939 they were united - by what Hitler had done since Munich (annexing rump-Czechoslovakia, and signing a pact with the Soviets).

          •  See my diary on debunking WWII myths (none)
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            Even if a 1938 war against Germany had been won, the geopolitical situation would have still been dire.  Either the failed Versailles order would have been resurrected, or the West would have jumped out of the Nazi frying pan and into the Communist fire.

          •  Uhhhh (none)
            Suspicion of what Hitler might do next?  He was threatening war against a neighboring country if it didn't turn over large sections of its territory that included its best natural barriers to invasion, as well as fortified positions that would have proved very difficult for the Germans to punch through (as the Germans themselves admitted after they got a good look at them after the Munich Pact).  The Czechoslovakians had a technically advanced, mechanized army with first rate weaponry.  The French and British would also have been able to get their own troops and planes into the theatre of combat, something they were not able to do a year later when Hitler invaded Poland.

            I'll go so far as to agree with A.J.P. Taylor's statement that the appeasers should not be painted as evil men trying to consciously do Hitler's bidding, but they certainly were foolish, and they delayed the inevitable war for a year during which the enemy got stronger, and was able to commence hostilities under more favorable circumstances, i.e., consolidating its grip on Central Europe by seizing what remained of the Czechoslovak state, and signing that pact with Stalin that removed the possibility of the two-front war.  Just how you think those two things strengthened France and Britain against the Germans is beyond me, and contrary to what any intelligent historian thinks.

             

            "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

            "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

            by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 01:24:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  About those fortifications (none)
              Did they stretch all the way round from the Polish border to the Hungarian?  If so, that would make them considerably longer than the Maginot Line - rather unlikely for such a small country.  If not, the Germans would simply bypass them, much as the bypassed the Maginot Line historically.

              Czechoslovakia would have been a tougher nut to crack than Poland, but unless France got more aggressive, merely holding out longer wouldn't do them any good.

              Also, about the position of Britain and France relative to Germany - yes the position on land got worse for the Allies, but Britain needed time to modernize its air force.  Britain's first priority  was ensuring that Britain itself would survive even if the continental war was lost.  Fighting the continental war itself was only the second priority.

              However, I'm not sure that "buying time" was really Chamberlain's motivation anyway.  Chamberlain was determined to avoid war at any price, because he knew that the Soviets would be drawn in, and that (since the United States was still isolationist), the war must end with a totalitarian empire from the Bay of Biscay to the Bering Strait - ruled either from Berlin or from Moscow depending on who won the Russo-German conflict.

              That didn't happen, but not because of anything happening in Europe.  Pearl Harbor saved Western democracy.

              •  You Have A Keen Grasp Of The Obvious (none)
                . . . I'm not sure that "buying time" was really Chamberlain's motivation anyway . . .

                Yes, as the appeasers themselves forthrightly stated on many occasions, they were simply trying to satisfy German grievances, believing this would prevent war.  Congratulations on being able to discern that this was the case, just like literally every other person who has ever paid attention to this matter.

                As to the rest of your post:

                The Czech fortifications did extend along the frontiers where the Germans would have attacked, and no, they could not have gone around them the way they did the Maginot Line because there were no gaps like the ones the French had in their defensive system, as well as mountain ranges that the Franco-German frontier didn't have.  The Maginot Line was designed to entice the Germans into attacking through those gaps, providing for a small front and long flanks against which the French could have launched devastating counterattacks.  What ruined this strategy is that the German infantry didn't travel on foot, they were loaded into trucks that followed the panzers, they were able to move much fasther than the French had dreamed possible.  Further, the regions over which the Germans attacked France were flat country with no significant natural barriers, while the Sudeten areas were mountainous, another reason the Germans would have had a great deal of difficulty.  And yes, the Czech fortifications did ring almost the entire area of the country's borders with Germany and Austria (which by then was part of the Reich).  Here is a map showing the Sudetenland.  You can see why the Prague government was so eager to hold onto it even though it contained a population which wanted so much to be a part of another nation.  Without that territory, they lost the best natural barriers to invasion, the Sudeten and Ore Mountain ranges that formed the northern border with Germany.  Once the Germans had this territory in their possession, they had merely to cross about 100 miles of lowland to get to Prague.

                You really don't know what you're talking about.  Please become better informed before discussing this subject any further.

                "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

                "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                by JJB on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:53:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The British and French wouldn't invade Germany (none)
                  First of all, sorry for my mistake on the Czech fortifications.

                  You still haven't addressed my main point though.  The Finns held out longer against Stalin than the Poles did against Hitler, but still lost.  Since the British and French were completely unwilling to launch any serious offensives into Germany (look at 1939), wouldn't the Czechs inevitably lose, even if they did give the Germans a bloody nose before they went down?

                  •  Why Do You Assume The British And French (none)
                    Would have behaved in exactly the same fashion in 1938 as in 1939?  For one thing, their air forces could have provided the Czechs with a great deal of support against the invaders, the British might even have been able to drop paratroopers into Bohemia.  They could not have done either of these things to help the Poles due to Poland's being situated beyond the range of the aircraft they had at the time.

                    Not to mention that the extra year gave Germany that much more time to build more planes, tanks, halftracks, etc.

                    If they had gone to war in 1938, perhaps the British and French would still have dallied away a chance to strike a blow against the Germans in the opening weeks of the war, but if nothing else they would have put their air forces into action, and perhaps the troops would have followed.  One reason for the so-called Phony War is that the Western allies realized they could do nothing to help the Poles.  Once Poland fell so quickly, there seemed even less reason to do anything, especially with Autumn and worsening weather coming on.  Assuming the Czechs, with a much better equipped army and their excellent defensive system, would still have been fighting at the end of October 1938, the reasons for the Anglo-French forces to undertake action would have been much greater.

                    The circumstances for taking early action would have been much more favorable in the event of a German invasion of Czechoslovakia.  Of course, that's no guarantee it would have happened.

                    "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

                    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                    by JJB on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:39:14 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What happens AFTER the war though? (none)
                      If Poland does not fall before Germany is defeated, then we're basically restoring the Versailles order, which has already proved itself unstable.  Won't the Germans try a third attempt to dominate Europe, in the 1950s or 1960s?

                      If Poland DOES fall before Germany is defeated then Poland ends up a Soviet puppet, along with eastern Germany.  Only the United States is still isolationist and there is no atomic bomb to deter further Soviet expansionism.  The probable result is that in this world "World War II" is fought by the British and French (with the Americans almost certainly coming in at some stage) against the Soviet Union.  This would be far worse than the real World War II for the Western democracies (because in the real World War II almost all the big bloodbaths were on the totalitarian-vs.-totalitarian Eastern Front).

                      •  Why Would Poland Have Been Involved v. Germany? (none)
                        At the time of the Munich summit, they were aiding Hitler against the Czechoslovakians by refusing to allow the Soviets to have a corridor through their territory in the event of war (remember how far to the east the USSR was at that point, and how far east both Germany's and Poland's territory extended).  After the Munich conference, Poland seized the city of Tesin (or Teschen, as the Poles called it).  It was Poland's threats regarding this piece of territory that tipped the balance in favor of Eduard Benes reluctantly agreeing to give up the Sudetenland to Germany.  

                        If you're going to indulge in speculative history, it helps to know the history that actually did occur.  Sorry, but you obviously don't.

                        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

                        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                        by JJB on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 04:32:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I knew all about Teschen (none)
                          At the time of the Munich summit, they were aiding Hitler against the Czechoslovakians by refusing to allow the Soviets to have a corridor through their territory in the event of war (remember how far to the east the USSR was at that point, and how far east both Germany's and Poland's territory extended).

                          Ah, so you've finally admitted you want the Soviets in your anti-German coalition.  I understood that this was the standard anti-appeaser position at the time, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth.

                          A war in 1938 against Germany, in alliance with the Soviets, could go wrong in one of three ways:

                          1. The Nazis could still manage to conquer France even without the aid of captured Czech tanks.  After all in theory the conquest of France shouldn't have happened even WITH the captured Czech tanks - but it did.  Given that Hitler didn't "show his hand" by tearing up a Munich Agreement a mere six months after signing it, British resolve would be much less than it was historically in 1940.

                          2. The Soviets could double-cross the Allies during the war, by gobbling up the Baltic States and Eastern Poland, while leaving the Allies to stew in their own juice.

                          3. The Soviets could successfully help the Allies defeat Hitler, only to double-cross them after Germany is defeated, such that Allies have merely gone from the Nazi frying pan to the Communist fire.

                          Anyway, is it really so surprising that the Poles refused to allow Soviet troops into their territory?  After all, Poland spent the years from 1815 to 1914 under the Russian jackboot, and the Soviets had unsuccessfully tried to conquer Poland in 1920!
                          •  This Kind Of Statement (none)
                            "Ah, so you've finally admitted you want the Soviets in your anti-German coalition."

                            Is the lowest form of debating tactic, and is only utilized by people lacking the knowledge and skill to argue effectively.

                            I'm going to ignore your latest, near-incoherent attempt to create realistic "what if" scenarios, since you are so ignorant of the relevant history that you might as well be talking about Martian attempts to conquer Venus.

                            I will point out that you've made yet another error concerning historical fact.  The Poles were under Russian (and Prussian, and Austrian) rule considerably before 1815.  The process by which Poland was dismembered by her neighbors began with a war that lasted from 1768 and ended in 1772, with the first partition of Poland.  Two more followed in 1793 and 1795, after which Poland ceased to exist as an independent state until reconstituted after the First World War.

                            The time you waste here spinning your silly fantasies serves only to highlight how little you know, and with each new comment you post one more howler of a mistake.  Time to find yourself a few good history books and acquire the knowledge you so obviously lack.  Your local library is an excellent place to start.

                            You can continue this exercise in cyber auto-eroticism to your heart's content.  Not only will I no longer reply to what you write, I won't even read it.  Have a nice rest of your life.

                            "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

                            "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                            by JJB on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:22:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why 1815? (none)
                            The Polish heartland including Warsaw and Lodz was originally assigned to Prussia and Austria, but in the 1815 Congress of Vienna it was transferred to Russia, as a reward for Russian participation in the Napoleonic Wars (Prussia was compensated with the Rhineland and part of Saxony, while Austria was compensated with much of Northern Italy).  So it was not until 1815 that the bulk of Polish-populated lands were under Russian rule.

                            I don't think my historical knowledge is deficient - but obviously I need to improve my debating skills.

    •  Goal right, method wrong... (4.00)
      I don't condemn Clinton for promulgating a policy of regime change.  I condemn Bush for the way he went about it.  In 1991, I saw first-hand what Saddam was all about.  One could drive for literally hours across a landscape in which ancient Assyrian ruins were in better shape than the several thousand Kurdish villages that had been destroyed just three years earlier.  Witnessing the aftermath of a fresh genocide has a way of changing one's mind about the need to force some governments from power.  For me, the issue to was, and remains, the method you use.  We have squandered multiple opportunities - Sudan in 1988, Rwanda in 1994, and even the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, to really put together a multilateral structure for dealing with the likes of Saddam, or Milosevic, or Omar al-Bashir.  Each conflict was in one way or another a policy failure, although Bosnia and Kosovo turned out reasonably well in the long run.  

      I could never take the position that leaving Saddam in power was a good thing, just as I feel the Sudanese government should be forced from power.  Hopefully Bush's Iraq disaster will force a re-thinking about how to do that as an integral part of an international community rather than in isolation, with transparency rather than fake intelligence and lies, and with planning, rather than wishful thinking.  

      But I don't blame Clinton in this.  I saw those destroyed villages (and also worked in Sudan in 1988) and I will not condemn intelligent, multilateral military action to remove rulers who commit genocide.  

    •  You got hung up... (4.00)
      ...on the Clinton invading Iraq thing. Because everything else you say, aside from that, is absolutely true.

      During the 1990s Clinton argued that it was right for the US to take unilateral global leadership. Just because he was not as reckless as as Bush was about it doesn't mean Clinton was not an imperialist himself. He most certainly was. And Day makes a very solid point when he writes:

      The invasion of Iraq was NOT simply the concoction of a neo-con cabal. It was the logical outcome of a bi-partisan commitment to replacing Hussein with a more compliant regime and to U.S. global domination in general.

      Now I disagree with Day's argument that this would have led Gore to invade had he taken his rightful place as president. But what Day gets right is that Clinton's Iraq policies laid the groundwork for Democratic support of Bush's Iraq policy. It was not such a big leap for the Senate Dems to vote for the IWR in October 2002 - we are wrong to see it strictly in the context of September 11, although that's the main context for it. Dems had been supporting all kinds of actions, overt and covert, against Saddam for years. It was Clinton policy. So it was not hard for Dems to be given that final push to supporting Bush by September 11 and midterm elections fears.

      I do wish Day hadn't insisted on arguing Gore would have invaded Iraq because it takes away from the absolutely critical point that is made here, a real life or death point. That Democrats have been pro-imperialist for a while now, and it MUST end. Dems MUST abandon that approach for that of FDR and Henry Wallace, as I describe in my comment below. We have to repudiate Clinton's foreign policy, repudiate it utterly, if we are to right this ship for the long-term.

      It's just another example of how the notion among so many of us that, if we can return to the 1990s all will be well, is deeply flawed.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:24:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lieberman - Lie, Bag Man (none)
    We so have to ditch this crud.

    Everyone has a right to the orgasm of their choice. :)

    by cskendrick on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:21:04 AM PST

  •  Lieberman--deeply annoying, (4.00)
    sanctimonious, and just not all that intelligent. My husband, who refers to himself as a "'rootless cosmopolitan atheist intellectual', in other words, a 'Jew'" cannot, cannot, cannot stand Joe Lieberman.

    Bush/Cheney want to stay in Iraq. The question is, why? Answer: 1 superembassy, 14 military bases, and oil.

    by lecsmith on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:34:33 AM PST

  •  What do you expect..... (4.00)
    Joe Lieberman is a hardcore neocon Zionist and is all for anything that protects Israel, whether by war, money, or politics.

    Al Gore: Why'd you have to pick Joe Lieberman as a running mate in 2000?!

  •  Heavy Sigh... (4.00)
    Can we neutralize the power of the DLC yet?  Also, Joe, can you please just switch parties please.  Oh no I guess you can't.  That would require an honest bone to be present in your body.
  •  the perception of being crazy (none)
    is a successful strategy and deterrant.  if your enemies think you are crazier than they are, they'll stay away.
    escape from foreign domination has been our goal from the beginning and outside of congress and bushco, we are not decadent.  perhaps, being stupid and abrasive in nature helps me, but there is no decadence in my life.
    our state dept. should just smile a lot and wash their hands after shaking hands with foreign dignitaries.

    "Welcome to the Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut.

    by realheathen on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39:58 AM PST

  •  Minor correction (none)
    Minor correction

    Anatol Lieven is a British subject, I believe.

    •  Minor correction? (none)
      If you're right about Anatol Lieven, Greco, which I suspect you are, to judge from the content and the English of the extracts cited in Jerome's diary, your correction is not a minor detail. Lieberman's nasty tripe is such coarse, rehashed propaganda in comparison, the contrast becomes almost a caricature of any debate which can further the discussion. There must be Americans who have written or stated similar or linked ideas to Lieven's on other days and in other publications or the same ones. Of course the theatrical polarites of WSJ/FT, USA/EU are hard to resist as an obvious polemic frame for a diary. On the other hand the glaring contrasts of crude/polished, stupid/intelligent greatly diminish the usefulness and worth of comparative analysis.
      •  I think (none)
        he is American. I've seen his work in relation with Russia, and he has always been based in US universities. Maybe I am wrong, but he reflects a strand of US geopolitical thought.

        In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
        Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

        by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:30:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lives in Washington and is a senior research (none)
          fellow.

          Lieven, 45, does not hate America. He lives in Washington where he is senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. However, he sees serious problems afflicting the world's only superpower.

          ...To explain, Lieven goes back to colonial times, the frontier era, and most particularly to America's early 19th-century President Andrew Jackson, whom Lieven says did much to nurture nationalism, and a "messianic" belief America can do no wrong.

          Jackson personified a new "folk law" of America, taking precedence over written law, Lieven writes. Along with it came deep suspicion of America's East Coast, its intellectuals and "Yankee" lawyers -- a regional hostility Lieven says persists to this day in the South and in Texas, Bush's home state.

          -snip-

          He counters his critics by in effect quoting their words back at them, citing major American historians and political figures, such as the late Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright, an outspoken foe of the Vietnam war three decades ago.

          "He (Fulbright) sets out categorically this argument against a messianic belief that America can tell other nations what to do, even if they don't agree, because we (the United States) have the best system in the world and American power was inevitably good.

          "It's in Fulbright; it's not something Anatol Lieven made up," the author said.

          Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

          by bronte17 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:26:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Attention Leiberman apologists: (4.00)
    Had enough yet? For those of you around here who have defended Joe Lieberman for the last couple of years-you no longer have a leg to stand on-this editorial proves Lieberman is not only cooperating with the Bush administration, but supporting their lies and propoganda every bit as much as an overt Republican.

    Liberman represents what is deeply wrong with this country-mainly, people who are willing to deny reality to support their own (perceived) short-term best-interests. Lieberman is a sick fuck and he needs help.

    In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor- let them be caught in the schemes they have devised. Psalm 10:2

    by chicagochristianleft on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:29 AM PST

    •  Attention spelling police: (none)
      There is no need to pursue me, I plead guilty to spelling Lieberman three different ways in the same comment, I am turning myself in...

      In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor- let them be caught in the schemes they have devised. Psalm 10:2

      by chicagochristianleft on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:54:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lieven (4.00)
    Anatol Lieven has an amazing depth of understanding in regards to foreign policy.  Everything written by Lieven over the last five years is well worth reading.

    Here is a site with a collection of his aritcles:

    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/...

    Here is one particular thought provoking Lieven article on American Nationalism:

    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/...

    •  Thanks for the Lieven links. (none)
      Does anyone have the entire article?  Is there a standard time-lapse between when the FT publishes and when it is available outside the gated subscription community?

      I know several American businessmen who might listen to Lieven, or at least read it, while they still suck on the empty calories in George Will's drool

      -5.13;-6.92 Bu$hCo is a flesh-eating cancer: emergency radical surgery is required

      by Yellow Canary on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:38:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Timber! is spreading (none)
    My fear though is that, rather than as a result of carefully planned and peaceful strategy, this process may occur through disastrous defeats, in the course of which American global power will not be qualified but destroyed altogether, with potentially awful consequences for the world.

    Hey Jerome now it sounds to me like the FR is yelling "timber!" too, with qualifications, of course, but nevertheless.

    I'm mainstream now.

    The end (or the transformation as I like to think of it) of the US of A-as-we-knew-it is all too clear: an almost classic scenario. Retaliation on US soil, increased home facism/chaos in the name of security, economic collapse.

    Russia.

    Europe and Asia are already nudging or betting on the collapse, as they did with Brezhnev.

    Getting out of the way safely while Uncle Sam collapses will be the challenge of the next decade. (I factor in the energy free-for-all in the above.)

    •  FR? You mean FT? (none)
      You'll never be mainstream, Lupin, but you may very well be right.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:12:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  meme is spreading tho (none)
        Well at least it's nice to see other people saying it - better and more articulately than I, clearly.

        Have you read Richard Clarke's article way back when in THE ATLANTIC?

        No one has a crystal ball, but to think (as many do here) that thoings will return to normalcy, "bounce back", "swing the other way" once we get rid of Bush... Ha!

    •  Lieberman is irrelavant. (3.00)
      Murtha made him so.

      It may disappoint some on this board but the US has survived worse that Bush.  

      Bush is a lame duck today, after November '06 he will be a mannequin with a pulse, and after November '08 a reviled memory.

      The FT should focus on how Europe is going to assimilate its growing Moslem population.

      (-2.75,-4.77) "Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose." Senator Barack Obama

      by Sam I Am on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:18:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the FT (none)
        should not write about America? At least not critically, until Europe is perfect?

        Surely you know that the FT is a British paper. Europe is overseas for them.

        In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
        Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

        by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:20:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's my question Jerome (none)
          the portion of the diary which is your words seems to present FT and European as one viewpoint.
          How do the Europe/not Europe divisions in British opinion play out here?
          Does FT trend European?
          Do they publish Mr. Lieven's opinion as a Europeanist contribution?
          Has Iraq changed the terms of the Atlantic/European discussion in the UK?

          Compare and contrast.
          Use examples.
          Spelling and neatness count.
          You may beging writing.... now.

          "Anything that's good for your heart is good for your penis." Dr. John Mulhall,New York Presbyterian Hospital

          by sayitaintso on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:50:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  FT is pretty pro-European (none)
            They also have one of the most diverse Op-Ed pages around, ranging from American neo-cons to European Socialists and going through various shades of the UK establishment

            I know Lieven as a scholar of Russia, and I think he is American.

            In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
            Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

            by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:30:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  lupin: (none)
      get a grip.  lighten up.  the pendulum (or whatever) will swing the other way.
      english speaking people (yes, i'm prejudiced toward our culture), are not victims like most of the rest of the world.  we did not screw them up.

      "Welcome to the Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut.

      by realheathen on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:46:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Dino in Iraq (4.00)
    I'm sure ol' Joe did see lots in his Iraq visits, including improvements.  Let's seeeeee ...

    Joe's Trip Report

    *The bar in the embassy club deep in the Green Zone is better stocked.

    *The uniforms of soldiers in the Green Zone are now starched, and their boots a shiney.

    *The Green Zone now has newer bigger generators, so there is aircon, 24/7.

    *Its not to bad in the aircon, so no need to venture outside, or even out of the bar, for that matter.

    *The walls and barriers around the Green Zone do a really nice job of muffling all that extraneous and irritation noise - you know - from the car bombs, and all that gunfire.

    *The free market and privatization are working really well, especially for Halliburton, Bechtel, CACI, Blackwater, and a whole bunch or other outstanding Americans.

    *Chalabi made a courtesy call and promised us the first 100 barrels of oil each month - right after he takes his cut.

    *Those 6-8 hours in the Green Zone finding out all those facts, as outlined above, really are hard on an old guy.  So, I recommend that you all do what I do -- take a few days layover on the way home just to unwind.  London is a pretty nice place.  Or Paris, or Rome; whatever floats your boat.

    *Oh, did I mention all the improvements in that really neat bar in the Green Zone?  Yep, nothing but progress everywhere ya look!

  •  Excuse me, (none)
    Jerome, you know I love ya but....  you quoted Lieven:

    In the former Soviet Union, it could mean accepting a qualified form of Russian sphere of influence. In Asia, it could mean backing Japan and other countries against any Chinese aggression, but also defusing the threat of confrontation with China by encouraging the reintegration of Taiwan into the mainland.

    Isn't that what we have now?

    In the Middle East, it could involve separating US goals from Israeli ones and seeking detente with Iran.

    Detente with Iran?  Since when did Iran become the new Soviet Union?

    You wrote:

    You have to realise that: the rest of the world is really scared of what a furious, self-righteous America could do.

    Really?  What more could we do?  I suppose we could drop a few nuclear bombs on people - we've done it before.  That would be bad, no question, but that's the worst-case scenario.  What else is "the rest of the world" afraid of?  

    I'm reminded of Life of Brian: "You're only making it worse for yourself!" "How could it BE worse?  Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!"

    New Orleans will never die

    by hrh on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:03:41 AM PST

    •  What could be worse? (none)
      C'mon now, hrh, you're not using your imagination. How could things be worse? What is the rest of the world afraid of? If you can't think of anything for yourself besides 'just' dropping a few nuclear bombs on people (um, yes, I agree that would be bad), listen to far right talk radio a bit or read their blogs and see what some of those people dream about. In 2000, if anyone had said that some Americans would be systematically torturing, killing, and trampling the Geneva Convention today, I'd have had trouble believing it was possible. I guess I'm more pessimistic than you; I have every confidence that the Bush administration is fully capable of inflicting horrors on our country and the rest of the world that we can barely conceive.
    •  Invading Iran... (4.00)
      ...would be orders of magnitude worse than invading Iraq.  Many Iraqis actually supported us at first.  All 70 million Iranians would be against us.  
  •  Traitor (4.00)
    Lieberman is a self interested egotistical turncoat.  He should be thrown out of the Democratic Party and given honorary membership of the GOP (oh sorry, he already has that).  

    The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

    by brit librarian on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:07:10 AM PST

    •  It would be worth (none)
      the short-term political damage ("Looky!  Your vice-presidential candidate from five years ago done changed his party!  Bwahahaha!") to get rid of him and the other conservative tools out of this party.

      I'm starting to feel the need for a purge.  Is this what started Lenin down the road to hell?

  •  Lieberman (none)
    I'm very afraid of Lieberman changing parties. He is to conservative for me.
  •  The Politics, Economics, and Logistics of Empire (4.00)
    are unknown to modern Short Attention Span Americans, who have lost the ability to associate current events with any historical perspective.

    Europeans generally know a lot about empire; they've seen quite a few rise and fall. Unfortunately for Americans, we are told that's "irrelevant", it's just the "old Europe".

    Looks like junior is due for a reality-slap.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:11:50 AM PST

  •  Indeed (4.00)
    US global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the US establishment, is unsustainable. To place American power on a firmer footing requires putting it on a more limited footing. Despite the lessons of Iraq, this is something that American policymakers - Democrat and Republican, civilian and military - still find extremely difficult to think about.

    A more limited footing means (1) respect for international institutions, (2) an international war crimes tribunal for the Bush administration figures and uniformed military responsible for the decision to go to war and for the decision to torture, (3) a renunciation of plans to have an extended military presence in Iraq, (4) a greater effort to figure out how to do effective global mutual security.

    The basic reasons why the American empire is bust are familiar from other imperial histories. The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted and key vassal states are no longer reliable. In an equally classical fashion, central to what is happening is the greed and decadence of the imperial elites. Like so many of their predecessors, the US wealthy classes have gained a grip over the state that allows them to escape taxation. Mass acquiescence in this has to be bought with much smaller - but fiscally equally damaging - cuts to taxes on the middle classes.

    Tax cuts that represent the greatest reverse Robin Hood transfer of wealth in recent memory.  Yellow Elephants cheerlead a war in which they refuse to serve.  The business elite claims that they have a responsibility only to shareholders but rule by the doctrine of the "divine right of CEOs".  The media, so corrupted by money and power, conspires against its audience.

    It's all true.

    So how are Europeans going to help progressives handle this when the GOP grip on power starts unwinding?  We will need willing partners in creating a system of mutual security.  We will need friends who bring a war crimes tribunal authorization to the UN Security Council.  We will need help in removing this 40-year-old totalitarian ideology from American life.  We will need help avoiding calamity as the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East collapse.

    -6.00/-7.18 The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

    by TarheelDem on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:12:06 AM PST

    •  Like I wrote this week end (4.00)
      Most countries would have followed the USA after 9/11 in putting a clamp on financial offshore havens, arms trafficking, nuclear proliferation, using international institutions led by the USA and with real teeth.

      This is never going to happen now, unless the USA acept to restrain themselves and to be seriously bound by some international rules. Maybe do something - with teeth - about global climate change? That's pretty important too.

      But yeay, first stop that senseless "war on terra", and put its instigators in jail, for real.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:16:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This would be a tad more believable (none)
    If the FT had been against the first Gulf War, but it wasn't.   And if Europe had not watched while Yugoslavia went up in flames.

    There are two sides to this coin. One is certainly  American overstretch.

    The other is the inability of the Europeans to lead.  

    And frankly comparing this country to a wild animal is beyond insulting.

    •  Thank God (4.00)
      for these spineless Europeans. Now that you officially torture more than Saddam, you're lucky that we're still around to be worse than you.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:18:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Europe has many flaws. (none)
      But compare to the US, it (to the extent we can speak of a monolithic Europe) generally leads.
      It leads for one by what it desists from doing-going easily to war.  After centuries of inane carnage and bloodshed, the lesson was finally learned.  
      More importantly human rights are taken seriously in Europe- not simply as cudgel to with which to pummel states that are political adversaries, but as something that applies at home.  The european convention of human rights, imperfect as it is, offers the possibility for redress of grievances of a more expanded roster of rights than the once magnificent but now antiquted US Bill of Rights- and most European (full 50 or so Council of europe) member states have incorporated these provisions.  there is also a European social charter which provides for fundamental economic and social rights.
      So when European nations speak of human rights and "freedom" abroad they frankly have more credibility than the US:
      They do not lead by torture or disappearing people, or throwing them into indefinitely into gulags, or denying them habeas corpus.
      And the CIA torture centers run on their soil will prove intolerable.
      Because as cynical and hypocritical as some European government might be - once exposed, they would never be able to turn a blind eye to this- while in the US the primary torturers and those operating these places, continue to do so without accountability, in total impunity.  Where are the leaders to hold them to account.
      Sorry for the digressive rant, but Europe has long left the US in the dust when it comes to respsonsible "leadership"

      "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

      by normal family on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:46:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  europe's been at it a lot longer (none)
        and america will never catch up to the level of carnage achieved by european nations during their less the peaceful times.

        even if it takes america another 1,000 years to get our shit together....  etc. etc.

        Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

        by BiminiCat on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:51:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No European Country has ever used (none)
          Nuclear weapons.  
          One drinking binge by an angry and frustrated Bush boy in his last days in the bunker could set off more carnage than in two millenia of crusades, religious wars, imperial wars, and world wars.

          "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

          by normal family on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:00:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yep (none)
            the technology of killin' folks is different and the stakes are certainly enormous.

            one can only imagine nukes in the hands of european despots of centuries gone by.

            Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

            by BiminiCat on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:08:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The governmental leadership of the US (none)
      is most definitely comparable to wild animals -- specifically a pack of rabid, filth-riddled wharf rats.  I think the writer knows the difference between the madmen running the US government and the citizenry itself.
  •  Have to approach this wholistically (none)
    Or try to.

    You write:

    "That's what we non-Americans all fear. A mindless rush forward..." and other statements of global trepidation regarding American hegemony, but as others have pointed out, there is another side of this equation, and that is: what the hell are Europeans and others around the world doing to curb or counter Hyper-Americana besides going along with it? Or standing politely on the sidelines wringing their hands? Or desperately trying to find "fixes" to problems that they fear will cause American power to be used insanely. (Which is already happening?)

    The European non-responses to the genocides in various places, including the Former Yugoslavia, prior to the American intervention, is one of many reasons to be skeptical of European "concern" now.

    Seems to me the rest of the World, Europe included, has to deal with America Rampant in as clear and severe a way as possible.

    That means consistently saying "no." It also means electing governments that will say "no." Millions may march in the streets, but then their governments still go along with the hegemon's demands. That's what the Busheviks and neo-cons count on.

    Unfortunately...

    --felix

  •  Joe's mystery poll (4.00)
    The Lieberman article says this: "polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam"

    I've tried pretty hard to find more information about this poll, but can't. Can anyone help?

    Here is what seems to be a pretty comprehensive list of polls, but I don't see one that looks like a match for the one Lieberman mentioned.

    Of course he didn't mention this poll, which said 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops, and "Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified."

  •  lieberman is likud filth (1.66)
    a thoroughly sorry human being.
    •  No... (4.00)
      He's a Republican imperialist in a Democrat's clothing.  The Likud Party has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      You must understand, Preston, that...it is not the message that is important, it is our obedience to it. -- DuPont, "Equilibrium"

      by DH from MD on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:23:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not so sure (none)
        His motivations are clearly of the religious variety.  Bush may be using him, but I believe that Lieberman is too smart to be unilaterally used.  His allegiance is not to the Republican Party, and it's certainly not to the Democratic party, which leaves... something else.  Likud is as good a guess as I've seen.

        "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

        by The Termite on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:34:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But Likud is not religious (none)
          It's just another right-wing secular party.  So I'm pretty sure that the "something else" is either oil or money.  Since I can't see even Joe with stocks in Halliburton, I'm guessing he has it good with other companies who are making a ton of money off of the occupation.

          He's just another proponent of U.S. imperialism who happens to be a Democratic Senator (dammit all).

          You must understand, Preston, that...it is not the message that is important, it is our obedience to it. -- DuPont, "Equilibrium"

          by DH from MD on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:01:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Defense businesses. (none)
            Right-wing groups like the National Review.

            Wealthy alumni from Yale.

            Banks. (Guess who also voted for the "Screw the Middle Cla-" sorry- the "Bankruptcy Reform Act"?)

            All of them are in Connecticut. All gave money to Lieberman. Nope, nothing to see here.

            It's not oil, per se. But it's security of that oil. It's the money that oil supports.

      •  He is a... (4.00)
        SCHMUCK, in pure and simple Yiddish.
  •  Goodness, he's written Colbert's routine (4.00)
    from last night, when the 'Word' was "Never," as in "When can we leave Iraq? Never."

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:01:41 AM PST

  •  Screw Lieberman and the C130 he rode in on (none)
    Measuring "success" by satellite dishes and cell phones?

    Give me a friggin break.

    Do your part for world peace - visit Iraqi Blog Count and interact!

    by Sharon Jumper on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:09:36 AM PST

    •  No way is he screwing a C-130. (none)
      He could burn his dick on the turboprop exhaust pipes. Besides, you want some poor airman to clean up the mess?

      There are so many Republicans he could fellate, instead -- and we can be there to take pictures!

  •  Sometime in the future... (4.00)
    We may well discover what the dirty little secret on Lieberman was that the Bush administration discovered.

    Even better than having an enemies list and the use of the intelligence agencies to investigate them, is to turn one of your opposition party into a tool for yourself...

    Or else Lieberman is just an idiot, could go either way...

  •  I guess Lieberman got a kool-aid shipment from (none)
    Zell Miller over the holiday.  He was bad before, but this too much, even for him.  

    Reality is just... a point of view - Philip K. Dick; Beautiful thing, the destruction of words. (from Orwell's 1984)

    by LionelEHutz on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:27:56 AM PST

  •  I came across mention of Traitor Joe... (4.00)
    ...last night as I was mindlessly flipping through cable channels before finally turning the fucking TV off and going to bed.

    I made a rare stop at Fox "news" on my run down the channels, and caught a repeat discussion featuring that most loathsome trio of bloviators Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, and Brit Hume, along with some like-minded woman whose name I didn't recognize or pay attention to.

    During my 120-second stay the topic was "Why we're winning in Iraq," and Traitor Joe's name and opinions came up as the clearest evidence that we are indeed doing so.

    At that point my pyloric sphincter started quivering - a sure sign that it was time for me to either barf or move on.

    I clean up enough of other peopel's barf at work to want to deal with my own, so I moved on.

    Fucking Traitor Joe. Let's take him down in the primaries so he can finish out the FratBoy years as an ass-sucker on their (our non-Senatorial) payroll.

    "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

    by RubDMC on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:29:52 AM PST

  •  Scares me too (4.00)
    That's what we non-Americans all fear. A mindless rush forward, provoked by military defeat in Iraq, or another terrorist attack on US soil. The fury of a wounded animal, intent on destroying what it can no longer control.

    I'd bet I'm not the only American anxious about this scenario.

    To me, the NeoCon (plus anyone they've managed to drag along) insistence that the world revolves around the US is about as tenable as those long ago ideas that the sun revolves around the earth.  Just saying it don't make it so.  Trying to enforce it in a gung-ho fashion pretty much assures early and, likely, catastrophic failure.

    Your vaguely sourced "European business press" has it about right to my thinking:

    To place American power on a firmer footing requires putting it on a more limited footing.

    The world is littered with the artifacts of empires that have overextended themselves.  Clinton's approach to the world (whatever his many flaws) was one which has better hopes.

    An old friend, a geologist, bought himself a run-down small first house years ago.  On a hillside that was "slipping" a little.  Had little projects to jack the thing up and stabilize.  He observed (as perhaps a geologist best can) that nothing lasts forever, and that the key to success is graceful disintegration.  Oddly wise, that remark has stuck with me over all these years.

    The mix of this NeoCon imperialism together with religious right apocalyptic beliefs is especially troubling.  For those who think Armageddon and the Rapture are just around the corner, there's little need to worry about the long-term consequences of their actions.  Talk about an unholy alliance!

    Never could figure out why Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate.  Was it because he felt he needed a religious conservative?  Some kind of "morality" innoculation?  This was pre-9/11, after all.  Lieberman's view of the world and "defense" weren't needed for pandering purposes.  Inexplicable back then.  Is there any chance of a primary challenge to Lieberman for his Senate seat?  He's up for relection next fall.

  •  Peaceful relations? (none)
    When you say "The CIA prisons scandal is just beginning in Europe, and it is growing, and it is soon going to make peaceful relations impossible," are you suggesting that NATO will soon kick the US out and go to war against us?

    Or do you just mean that the EU leaders will make a forceful and insistent statement about the need for the US to remove our insane and incompetent president? For that to happen, our British friends may need to replace Blair first.

    And it should happen. There needs to be a persistent messsage from all corners of the world that Bush is batshit fucking crazy — a message that can pierce the membrane of the American media.

  •  No Mo Joe (4.00)
    Joe Lieberman has been a talking piece for the Bush administration for a long time. My husband had lunch with him during a stop at one of the Democrat lunch venues last year in our town. He asked Joe why he didn't switch party affiliations, and Joes' response was that most of the time "he votes with the Democrat majority".

    Part of his problem is that his fund raising base would want him to continue this war. He has very wealthy Jewish patrons who have Israel's interest at heart. (Notice the inclusion of Israel is the WSJ opinion piece)

    Finally...Joe himself got 2 deferrments during the Viet Nam draft, one educational and one because he became a father. Sound familiar? He fits right in with all the repulsive Republicans who NEVER enlisted or fought in a war! But maybe Joe will urge his son Matt or his stepson Ethan to fight this noble fight!

    "Live right. Think left." Gregory Peck

    by bookwoman on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:47:29 AM PST

  •  On CNN Today (none)
    that American Morning show--the one with that fake ass pouty puppy looking Soledad---UGGGGGH she's terrible...anyway, Joe was on there and had I not looked at the TV I'd have been convinced it was a WH Staffer...this guy has got to get out of the Party---I'm all for a big tent, but come on.
  •  Seriously (4.00)
    Considering that on any official visit to Iraq, the most Lieberman could have seen of the country is something like .000001%, serious improvement probably means a new working toilet was installed inside the green zone. Come on Joe.

    Personally I am very worried about the state of our nation and what could happen if a serious economic collapse were to occur.  Recently while cleaning out my grandmothers house I found old German Reichsmarks from the German depression era that my family had brought to the US.  Knowing that the 10,000 mark notes were worth about a penny remided me of how bad things could get.  Worse is knowing what good people were capable of when backed into a corner with a lot of pent up anger, hurt national pride, and money that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

    Under W, the worst is possible.

    I was also reminded this Thanksgiving at how petty people have become.  Eating dinner among many of my nouveau riche relatives I was reminded that "they" now see themselves as part of some elite because "they" drive a certain car, or "they" went to a certain school.  I kept my mouth shut because "I" know that it's all an illusion and that they are full of shit.  American decadence needs to go.

    •  American decadence (none)
      won't go without taking the civilization with it.  Too entrenched.  Want proof?  Watch an hour of any major network's programming, keep track of the things for sale in the commercials, and ask yourself who buys that shit anyway?
      •  I don't disagree. (none)
        I have a degree in design and worked for a while designing crap to feed the consumer machine.  About five months ago I quit my job, decided to get out of the consumer product business, and I am currently running my own company working on websites since it lets me be creative without polluting as much.

        There is nothing worse than going to work everyday knowing that the things you create are going to be mass produced, sent to retailers, used once, then thrown in the dumpster.  It's a total waste.

        I knew it was time when I was on a design blog and people were talking about how many pairs of shoes they owned, and what new cars they wanted, and this and that.  It went on and on.  They are all convinced that they are the greatest thing in the history of the world.  They talk endlessly about innovation and "green" design but its just that - talk.  Nobody in the design industry will seriously promote designing and making "less stuff" because they would be designing themselves right out of a job.

        Planned obsolescence is great for everything in this country except the culture attached to it.

  •  Different title? (none)
    I agree with most of what you said about Lieberman, but I wish you had titled this diary something different.  People who are visiting this site for the first or second time, and agree with us about most issues, are going to be turned off by seeing the words "decadent America," and think that you are just doing mindless America-bashing in this editorial, which you aren't.  

    I don't think it's fair to judge America by the Bush administration, any more than it would be fair to judge Chile by Pinochet, or Iraq by Saddam Hussein.  

    •  Black flag (none)
      Since Hussein and Pinochet were once associates of the CIA, perhaps we should judge America by them.
    •  Huh? (4.00)
      We ARE a decadent America. We spend like there's no tomorrow, ignorant of the recklessness of such an approach. We allow our elites to get away with it, and many Kossacks are complicit in it. Just because people might not like seeing it doesn't make it any less important to say it.

      Plus, we are ALL responsible for Bush. Every last one of us. It's not fair, but it's true. We are responsible for him because we have the power to stop him and his actions. If we do those things - prevent his SCOTUS nominees from winning, bring his wars to an end - then we are exercising our responsibilities correctly and properly.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:16:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Every place has its problems (none)
        but nobody, from any country, will ever like to hear their country being called "decadent," I can tell you that.  It's not a great way to win elections, which is the best way to stop Bush and his cronies.  And I assure you that I am doing everything I can to stop said president and cronies.  
  •  Joe Leiberman: Filthy Judas Rat. (none)
    The more I think about it, the more I suspect Leiberman was part Brutus to Gore's wannabe Caesar.

    He is worse than just a DINO, Leiberman is a backstabbing, two-faced, elitist, parasite.

    He reminds me of both Golum in LOTR and Scabbers the Rat-thing from Harry Potter.

    If you shake hands with Joementum, smell them afterwards, you'll find the unmistakeable stench of fearful urine.

    Bitch.

    You want to downsize the government?
    Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

    by deafmetal on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:11:37 AM PST

  •  While most are focusing on Lieberman (4.00)
    I think Lieven's points need to be given more serious consideration. It's a shame that many who have talked about them here in this thread have done so only to dismiss them, out of some sick sense of jingoism ('Europe should tend to its own affairs' or something like that). Such attitudes are a major reason why we're in the mess we're in.

    The point is that the US must abandon its designs on world leadership. Absolutely must. We must give up the hoary, un-American idea that we have a right or ability to unilaterally impose our will on this globe. We don't and never did.

    Unless we begin to see ourselves as just one of 200 nations, as just 300 million of a planet of 6 billion, as no worse or no better than anyone else, we will continue to dig our own graves. The solutions to the problems we face are global in nature. Even to our own political problems here at home - we will never solve them without alliances and aid from abroad. That's not to say we need invasion or anything like that - but we do need other countries to agree to stop financing and supporting the current US regime.

    Many of you are reluctant to embrace these ideas. You refuse to leave the 20th century behind, refuse to admit that the US and its citizens have global responsibilities - not to lead and dominate, but to work with others to solve common problems.

    And it's absolutely key that we be the ones to do it. If Democrats continue to buy into outmoded, obsolete ideas of American global superiority, of unilateralism, of militarism, then we are truly fucked. Democrats have to be the ones to start the move toward a more responsible foreign policy.

    It shouldn't be too difficult. After all, it was Democrats who came up with the concept in the first place. Wilson and the League of Nations. FDR and the United Nations. FDR's Vice-President Henry Wallace and the Century of the Common Man.

    We need to NOT follow Clinton's approach, which was to assert US hegemony and unilateralism. Just because he was not reckless with it, just because he probably would not have invaded Iraq does not mean he had the right approach to foreign policy. He did not. Instead we must rehabilitate our Democratic past. Look to FDR and Wallace - not Clinton and Kerry 2004 - as our guides.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:12:48 AM PST

    •  Bless You and remember (none)
      Ike.  Vote for Peace.  Vote for Prosperity.  Vote for Eisenhower.
      We need to look back to Those who hated imperialism;  George Washington, Henry Wallace,  Eisenhower, RFK eventually, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter.... and who will be next?

      "Life is a zoo in a jungle." Peter De Vries

      by MontanaMaven on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:46:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  On behalf of Connecticut, I apologize for him (4.00)
    Lieberman is holding tenaciously to his nominal Democratic affiliation, because he knows full well that the minute he becomes a Republican, he will be challenged and soundly beaten by strong Democrats like Stamford mayor Dan Malloy, or AG Blumenthal, or New Haven mayor John Destefano.  He would be toast.  There is noone of any stature amongst the Republicans anyone would trust with another statewide office.  Even Republican governor Jodi Rell would be clobbered by any reasonably prominent Democrat here.  So he remains a nominal Democrat, keeps his seat, and continues to get smooches from George Bush.
  •  Hey Jerome (none)
    kos didn't link to your diary . . .

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:39:00 AM PST

  •  so who's running against lieberman in the primary (none)
    and how do i contribute.

    that's all i need to know.

  •  CT dem party (none)
    calls me regularly for a donation. And each and everytime I tell them I can no longer give to the state Democratic Party as lomg as they have Leiberman running.

    My suggestion to take back Connecticut is this. We (from Ct) each send the party a note saying
    I would have contributed "x" amount if Leibermen were not supported by the party.

    SOCIAL SECURITY: Invented by Democrats yesterday, Protected by Democrats today

    by mollyd on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:05:56 AM PST

  •  Lieberman is a disgraceful politician. (none)
    How dare he come back with a rosy scenario when even the generals and Bush's aides and former appointed Iraqi leaders concede that the place has fallen apart.  He needs to be excommunicated from the party for providing an assessment that is so far from the actual reality as everyone knows it.  He is simply a shill for the Bush Administration.  We should extricate him from the party.  Let him be an Independent.  He's certainly not a Democrat any longer.

    Democrats don't propagandize.  We tell the truth.  Lieberman supports the war and is willing to lie to continue propping up support for it and for Bush.  How does he know more than Murtha?  Answer:  he doesn't.  He's just making it up like Fox News does.  

  •  Michael Ware Of Time Magazine (He's Their (4.00)
    Baghdad bureau chief) has this to say about Holy Joe and his recent visit to Iraq on Morning Sedition this AM (I saw this mentioned on Atrios site just now):

    I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting.

    Even the MSM isn't willing to parrot this ridiculous propaganda anymore without trying to introduce a sense of reality.  Not a good sign for BushCo., or Lieberman.

    "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:06:46 AM PST

  •  I find the juxtaposition of the two ironic (none)

    not to mention that they're both drama queen levels of wrong.

    Lieberman is supposedly arguing the 'pro-Empire' side by, well, demonstrating a basically petty and make-it-up-as-you-go-along scheme at work and a small-thinking delusive-qua-brutish grasp of things.

    Lieven is supposedly arguing the 'anti-Empire' side by sweeping big scheme generalizations and the assumption that Great Power politicking is the relevant frame.

    Lieberman is an old man and stuck politically in a Pollyannish American world view of the early/mid Seventies, Cuba and Vietnam and the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War are the relevant frames.  Lieven I don't know, but it sounds like middle-of-the-Cold War Europe under existential danger that is the frame there.

    I think the two views are telling, not of what is going on in physical and political reality in Europe and the U.S., but what is going on in the psychological reality- both sides are reliving and rearguing and recovering from their past.  Europeans are de facto free of the Cold War annihilation threat and can revel in expressing all their Cold War trauma and paranoia of annihilating superpower run rampant then, now that actual physical danger is not there.  Like the abused woman taking out her anger at her father on her husband, the rage is somewhat displaced.  Americans in turn are overcompensating for the deprivations and costs and frustrations of being terribly mighty back during the Cold War- but ever foiled of triumph and rewards for the sacrifices made.  So there's a bullying, a revelling in cheap victories over people peripheral and weak in the Cold War.

    I wouldn't buy into the paranoid take or the triumphalist take.  That's old men reliving their past and wanting to change it before they die.

    Realistically, the American military hates this stupid and criminal enterprise against an umimportant Third World people in Iraq.  What they are really doing in a serious and quiet fashion, and Bush is via his anti-Muslim behavior fucking it up for them in Central Asia in a painful way, is putting up a military containment of Chinese totalitarian convulsions eastward, efforts to bully its eastern neighbors, while it slowly transitions to democracy.

    But the world is in reactionary convulsions all over, full of older generations that hate Modernity and make their claim of usefulness in wanting to (re)settle scores with their enemies from Medieval times before that.  World War 2 and the Cold War were in many ways a recapitulation of the fight between Western Europeans and the invading Asian Hordes, a rearguing of history from Chalons-Sur-Marnes to the Lechfeld and the suppression of the Awars and turnback of the Mongols to the wars pushing the Tartars back to the steppe and even the Turks back to the Bosporus.  Now we're seeing a foolish (but happily more rapid) rearguing of the smaller medieval Western fights with the Desert Hordes- Tours and Poitiers in Afghanistan, the Crusades in Iraq, the Castilian/Moorish conflict in the suburbia of the western EU.

    It is insanity of sorts, of course.  The sane thing is to not become a direct participant or casualty.  The sadly pragmatic thing is to allow each desired conflict to find a focus, otherwise the parties who desire to fight will precipitate one where the damage done to innocents is far greater (that is the deepest crime to the Bush people's lying about Iraq, as I see it).  But it seems painfully unescapable in general that the reactionaries of the world want to review and reargue and revise the major conflicts of History.

    Modernity will in due course greatly level the significance of much of the human distinctions the major wars were 'about'- wierd religious views, race and caste and ethnocentrism, material culture, relative power- from political to personal.  The reactionaries know this far more acutely and viscerally than liberals do, and these present conflicts are attempts to fill the labels and identities and values they consider at risk with meaning.  That means finding a willing antagonist and testing your values and assumed identity against his.  So Al Qaeda fights the fight of eremitic Arab desert tribes against the decadent vile materialistic corruption of the agrarian and industrial society urban masses.  'Heartland' Americans seek to impose their feudal European serfdom's paganish mores on other serfdoms via "Christianty".  Russian skinheads 'defend' their agrarian Slavic worldview and dominions from Asiatic infiltrators.  Israel/Palestine is all the intra-Semitic conflicts conflated into one.  India's Muslims and Hindus are back at it again.  Everyone acts in the name of dying theisms denied to be dying, in the name of dominion of their particularistic god(s) and theologies aka ideologies.

    Of course the fighting is all ultimately futile.  And the true elites know this.  But all the idols must be smashed and proven powerless in the world before their Believers retreat, and the most adamant of them will engage in murder and suicide/martyrdom.

    And that's the global context in which Lieberman ambles through Iraq and proclaims it good, and Lieven from a desk in Central Europe sees a disintegration into chaos and weakness.  What is missing is the voice of the young, the Zapatero generation, which says the wreckage and selfdestruction of the old is opportunity for renewal and breaking the chains of the past, for creative freedom.

    Renewal, not mere Reform.

    by killjoy on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:10:57 AM PST

    •  Yes, Lieven is reliving his past (none)
      That's called learning from history. There have been plenty of once great empires that ultimately collapsed. The US is just the latest instance. (Although, as someone writing on TomDispatch noted, it was only with the neo-cons that the effort to turn the US into a full-fledged empire began, at which point, ironically, the implosion of the empire began.)

      It is absurd to equate Lieberman and Lieven as both projecting "psychological reality" as opposed to dealing with "objective" reality. Lieberman is either exceedingly deluded or knowingly making things up, as posters above have said; Lieven on the other hand is giving a good and accurate description of where the US is at at this point of its development.

      The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, but a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

      by Alexander on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:36:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree (none)

        that Lieberman is formally irrational and Lieven formally rational on facts.  But despite that better grasp, Lieven's interpretation of them is pathetic.

        The point that Lieven is making that is supposedly new is the contraction of American military power he has suddenly realized is inevitable, which isn't actually news in the U.S.  And he wrongly thinks the Iraq fighting was about expansion of American military power, as Republican rhetoric has been.  Rather than the willful overstretch and wearing out and corruption of much of it that it has been the observable reality.  I think he very much missed out on the significance of the pre-invasion debate about the size of the military force.

        Iraq is the American military expending/wasting its residual Cold War-derived equipment and officers and tactics and domestic and international support.  Iraq is the American political establishment burning up all the now excessive goodwill and moral high ground and favors and no longer due international privileges (e.g. on Saudi oil and European military help) it earned via the Cold War.  If you intended to do exactly that, to bring the U.S. from emphasis on the primus to emphasis on the inter pares part of the classic phrase there would be no better way than the way it's being done.

        Lieven, for all his rationality, is not as far behind the curve as Lieberman is in many ways, but he's behind it too.  The contraction of strong American military power projection to the western edge of the Atlantic and eastern edge of the Pacific is strategically obvious and long planned.  As residual Stalinisms go, the destruction of which has been the general point of this post-Cold War era in American military and foreign policy eyes, toppling Hussein was the only point to the Iraq thing and there's abiguity about whether to see Syria or Iran as the like kind of dictatorships.

        Lieven doesn't see the specificity to what is being done, the American Right's rhetoric and messy public debate and propaganda strategy of deliberate conflations confuses him into thinking the priorities are not as sharp as he imagines.  He simply doesn't see the depth of absolute hatred and fear of Stalinism and its close allies/partners/heirs that is the one unity and driving emotion, that constitutes the Nixon legacy, in the present American Right.  Without that they're crude isolationists and xenophobes.

        So I don't know whether rationality lacking in insight a la Lieven is such great improvement relative to the simple irrationality and wishfulness of Lieberman.  Both have underwhelming prediction power in the present and no sense of where the serious American interests are pegged.

        And your .sig is sort of annoying.  American history says that institutionalized social progress precedes permanent, commensurate, economic progress.  American slaves were well-paid, in part, but only after abolition of slavery- involving a Civil War- did their wealth not largely go into buying themselves free, or were they able to truly own property and do with it as they wished.  Liberals may not be very interested in the material wellbeing of the people they champion, but the commensurate critique of progressives is that they have never won anyone freedom or fundamental change in their social condition....

        Renewal, not mere Reform.

        by killjoy on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 01:18:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess you have a point there (none)
          I think that what you are saying basically is that it is unfair to leave all the blame at the door of the neo-cons, since they did kind of have a point: what's the sense in having all that firepower unless you use it? Probably many people are conflicted in this way, not just Lieven: even if we know about the misdeeds of America that have been constant no matter which party was in power, a certain nostalgia for when the US was on the whole a positive force in the world makes us tend to exagerate the degree to which BushCo is especially hienous.

          My signature is intentionally provocative, but you are reading too much into it. I think the term "liberal" has been so tarred by the Rethugs that there's no point trying to hang on to it. So we might as well use it as a term of abuse, too. And one thing that does annoy me about liberals is precisely their inclusiveness and non-combativeness. The first thing that disappointed me about Clinton is that he didn't from day one of his administration treat the Republicans like the shit they are, but as rightful partners in governance. That was a very liberal thing for him to do. And a lot of good it did him.

          One of my first exchanges on dKos by the way was with Armando, with my expressing my annoyance with this liberal tendency of Democrats.

          The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, but a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

          by Alexander on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:18:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ehhh.... (none)
            After WW2 there was no giving Hitler or Tojo or Mussolini any posthumous victory.  After the Cold War there was/is no giving Lenin or Stalin any posthumous victory.  Or Castro, for that matter.  Yes, the neocons tapped into that on Hussein, but as you see everything unrelated to that they tried to sell as a rationale- and they've tried everything- has had no public resonance.  As to weapons, the American military has little nostalgia and quite a throwaway consumer attitude.  The slew of domestic manipulations and pretensions are different story, of course.

            Clinton...it's easy to forget that he never had a majority election and that the American political center was running to the Right for the first five or six years, then plateaued at that extreme for the next four or five.  I'm more critical of some of the stuff he's been doing recently.

            Renewal, not mere Reform.

            by killjoy on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:47:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Kudos (none)
    Great comparison. We even have the idiot boy king to guide us to our doom.
  •  well done .... (none)
    Good essay.  Thanks.
  •  What's the plan again? (none)
    Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years.

    Do you think he'll let us know what his plan is?  

  •  There is a sickness in America (4.00)
    The basic reasons why the American empire is bust are familiar from other imperial histories. The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted and key vassal states are no longer reliable. In an equally classical fashion, central to what is happening is the greed and decadence of the imperial elites. Like so many of their predecessors, the US wealthy classes have gained a grip over the state that allows them to escape taxation. Mass acquiescence in this has to be bought with much smaller - but fiscally equally damaging - cuts to taxes on the middle classes.

    This is the most insightful paragraph written about America today. Anyone who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of the history of other imperial states like Athens, Rome, Spain, or Britain know that this is true.


    That's what we non-Americans all fear. A mindless rush forward, provoked by military defeat in Iraq, or another terrorist attack on US soil. The fury of a wounded animal, intent on destroying what it can no longer control.

    You have to realise that: the rest of the world is really scared of what a furious, self-righteous America could do. Thus the semi-desperate attempts of the Europeans to talk to Iran; the continuous Korean efforts to egange North Korea; and the diplomacy of appeasement viz. Bush and Rice by most governments, with a motto 'let's not piss them off more, for fear they'll go crazy'.

    I fear it too. There is a sickeness in American politics and I'll call it for what it is -- fascism. A major crisis, outright defeat, or another major terrorist attack here in the States could finally let it come out in the open. I think Americans don't really realize the extent to which fascism is a growing reality in our own country.

    Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

    by Benito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:47:32 AM PST

    •  Why empires fall (none)
      Not all empires fall for the same reason.

      The Roman Empire fell because its rulership was based purely on force.  Too big an army would pose an intolerable risk of coup or civil war, too small would be unable to defend against barbarians.  The Emperors used barbarian mercenaries in order to get soldier loyal to them personally, but this was catastrophic in the long run as it allowed the barbarians to learn the Roman art of war.

      The Spanish (and Ottoman) empires were war states maintained solely by plunder.  Like sharks, as soon as they stopped moving forward, they drowned.

      The British empire was done in by the loss of its elite in two world wars, by the Jap occupation of SE Asia in WWII, and by the post-war dominance of the United States and Soviet Union (both of which opposed European imperialism).

      •  symptoms -- not the core reason (none)
        Empires fall because internal politics becomes calcified -- elites and vested interests begin fighting over their share of the pie instead of making the pie larger and or more secure. What ensues is internal conflict that prohibits needed reforms from taking place in order to shore up the empire's relative position vis-a-vis other powers.

        Britain's decline began well before the 'elite' was mowed down on the fields of Flanders. Spain's empire was a dynastic enterprise that began to fall apart once Phillip II began the process of consolidating it into a Spanish-run affair. The Ottoman empire, too, was unable to reform itself once its 'food supply' was cut off and it was forced to rely upon its internal resources. Rome fell because it was unable to find a way to tax the landed elite which held most of the empire's material wealth without setting off coups and rebellions.

        Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

        by Benito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:44:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Republic has fallen.... (none)
    "LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE!"

    Q? What is the difference between the London of 1905 and todays?

    You could say the lack of neon signs or heavy traffic, or that big wheel strandling the Thames, but the reality is both intangiable and overwhelming. In 1905 London was the capital of the British Empire, ruler of the seven seas. Today, the Royal Navy is lucky enough if it can rub two destroyers and a carrier together.

    Building Empires is cheap, defending them is impossible.

    Q2? What will be the main difference between the Washington of today and of lets say 2055?

    Besides the fact that it may lie underwater....

    Shift through the ashes. You might learn something.

    by Ralfast on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:10:36 AM PST

  •  Decadent Leiberman? (none)
    What, did he drink a white wine spritzer and sing Phil Collins songs at kareoke night?

    "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

    by McGirk SF on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:25:22 AM PST

  •  What a phony! (none)
    Lieberman spends two days in Iraq, one of them Jet lagged and he has it all fiqured out. My feeling is some senator's are Idiots example Sen Inhofe, others are just like Lieberman who ride the wave, without saying anything..
  •  Lieberman's Controversial War Stance (4.00)
    A collection of 3 LTTE's in yesterday's Hartford Courant.

    There are 3: 1 Supporting Lieberman and 2 against. My LTTE is the last one on this page

    http://www.courant.com/...

    Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, was quoted in The Courant as saying, "Voters tend to associate the war with the president, not Sen. Lieberman."

    The only vote Sen. Lieberman will get from this Connecticut Democrat is one to convict him of war crimes. I won't be voting for Sen. Lieberman in next year's election, regardless of whether he has opposition.

    When this period in U.S. history is written, Ahmed Chalabi will go down as the greatest con artist in history. He suckered the last great superpower into an immoral war that is bleeding our military and treasury dry. Some of us voters remember Sen. Lieberman calling Chalabi, who is a known convicted embezzler, a "principled man." What does that say about Lieberman's judgment?

    Sen. Lieberman was instrumental in getting Democratic support for the 2002 Iraq war resolution in the Senate. Based upon the legal and moral philosophy from the Nuremburg Trials, Sen. Lieberman is an enthusiastic accomplice to President Bush's war crimes against Iraq.

    I have nothing but utter contempt and disgust for Sen. Lieberman. It's a shame that the Connecticut Democratic Party cannot develop a sound alternative to Sen. Lieberman.
    ------------------------------------------------

    I got a call from Doug Greene http://www.nbc30.com/... NBC Channel 30 news reporter yesterday.  I talked to him a bit today.  He said that he had read my LTTE in the Courant and said that my sentiments are a growing chorus of dissent against Sen. Lieberman.  He's looking to interview some of us.  I told him that yes, I'd be willing to be interviewed.

  •  Lieberman is such a piece of shit (none)
    He should change his party registration from Democrat to Republican, and be bestowed with the title of Executive Vice President of the Bush Asslickers Club.

    Joementum says we shouldn't worry our pretty little minds about how Bush lied us into a fucking war?!?!?!

    I hope CT can get someone to challenge Joe in the primaries. But it probably won't happen.

    I Supported the War When I Believed the Lies

    by bejammin075 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:48:10 AM PST

  •  Oh, come on. (none)

    "cleared" = White Phosphorus burnt everything (including the skin off of children)
    "held secure" - like those prisoners, right?


    Are people still trying to pretend RAI's claims have even the slightest resemblance to the truth?  Even the soldier they quoted apologized and claimed they misrepresented him.  Also, their claim was they didn't burn the clothing.

  •  Gained isn't really quite the correct (none)
    word in this grahp:

    Like so many of their predecessors, the US wealthy classes have gained a grip over the state that allows them to escape taxation. Mass acquiescence in this has to be bought with much smaller - but fiscally equally damaging - cuts to taxes on the middle classes.

    They haven't so much as gained control as the American electroate has let them take it. I disagree that the middle classes are receiving any real tax cut: what they may lose on the Fed level will have to made up for on the State and local level. It's simply a shell game.

  •  I have e-mailed Joe (none)
    We all need to contact him and ask him to rethink his stance on keeping the troops in Iraq. If he gets enough e-mail he might just back off.
  •  what do you suggest as (none)
    a diversified asset-protection market basket of currencies given the current situation?

    I don't feel that patriotism means going down with the ship when America's leadership puts on blinders and heads the ship of state for the rocks.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:48:30 AM PST

Leslie in CA, Marshall, colleen, fly, wozzle, gina, Lupin, Alumbrados, stevelu, vicki, Armando, Stirling Newberry, northsylvania, JJB, Hubris Sonic, melo, raincat100, Rayne, bluecayuga, chassler, Hornito, yerioy, tikkun, misscee, mickT, aed, ubikkibu, Rolfyboy6, kellymonaghan, Mr Murder, ScientistMom in NY, Alexander, RunawayRose, wytcld, Maryscott OConnor, TGeraghty, BooMan23, Sprinkles, liz, Fledermaus, Ralfast, OLinda, rhubarb, Mnemosyne, ackfoo, object16, timerigger, bumblebums, HL Mungo, Cache, Plan9, HeavyJ, shermanesq, RubDMC, km4, mlafleur, bronte17, northcountry, afox, elveta, nyceve, MD patriot, miholo, Steve159, Dont Just Stand There, boilerman10, KS McCann, oslo, jukeboxgrad, Bearpaw, itskevin, Kenyan, corncam, MadEye, Thaxter, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, Gonzophile, kharma, normal family, Barbara Morrill, Moody Loner, NYC Sophia, Quentin, missliberties, Chicago Lulu, lapolitichick, DianeL, kdrivel, waf8868, Black Maned Pensator, GN1927, chargrove, cat chew, LeftyLimblog, Chukuriuk, osf, DriftawayNH, lecsmith, DH from MD, 4jkb4ia, Democratic Hawk, lubarsh, inclusiveheart, TheJohnny, One bite at a time, mattes, DrReason, Deward Hastings, Steven D, montanamatt, DarkSyde, moggie12, DrewDown, kcurie, rickeagle, kd texan, notcho, AaronBa, Gowrie Gal, vcmvo2, Skennet Boch, danz, Cyphrus42, Chris Kulczycki, Alexander G Rubio, LarisaW, revbludge, zaraspooksthra, ignorant bystander, pursewarden, Greco, station wagon, lil bird, Jason Soup, Douglas Carpenter, eru, curtadams, mojo workin, Sharon in MD, concerned, Count Imbroglio, Gegner, sofia, Overseas, QuickSilver, shawn214, wgard, power model, zinger99, LithiumCola, rsr, maracuja, Migeru, pmc1970, TheGerman, virginia cynic, Keone Michaels, Medium Head Boy, Petrasays, Dayspring, cazimi, blackthorn, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, Drezden

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site