So if we take Lieberman at his word

Can we negate HIS citizenship?

Lieberman On Revoking Terrorists' Citizenship: 'American Citizenship Is A Privilege, Not A Right'

Because he's really really irritating me. And he obviously doesn't give a shit about the Constitution. Reason enough!

A case of premature teabagulation

The top ten conservative idiots!

Here's one....

Don't you get fired

When you refuse to do your job?



Josh Marshall:

As we and many others have chronicled, there's a surfeit of reasons to strip Sen. Lieberman of his committee chairmanship. But one, perhaps the most obvious and substantive, has gone little mentioned. Simply put, he was terrible at it. Lieberman's committee is the senate investigations and oversight committee, the senate's counterpart to Rep. Henry Waxman's committee in the House. And if you remember a lot about Waxman's investigations and hearings and nothing about Lieberman's, that's because Lieberman didn't hold any. Even in the face of endless scandals of the late Bush administration, Lieberman couldn't find anything worth poking into.

You backed the wrong man, Holy Joe...

So you get to deal with the consequences:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is scheduled to meet with Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) on Thursday to discuss his future in the Senate Democratic Conference, according to a Democratic Senate source.

A growing number of Senate Democrats have been pressuring Reid to penalize Lieberman for aggressively backing Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in this year’s presidential contest. At stake for Lieberman is his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and his place in the Democratic Conference.

It remains unclear what Reid will say in his upcoming meeting with Lieberman, but Democrats believe he is inching toward at least wresting the Homeland Security gavel from him. Lieberman, who sides with Democrats on most issues except the war in Iraq, became one of McCain’s most ardent allies and one of President-elect Obama’s vocal critics this presidential season.

Quavering sanctimony

That is the essence of Joe Lieberman.

Maybe he should have called for brrrraaaaaaains...

Via Atrios at Eschaton:

When Zell Miller appeared at the Republican convention, it was a key development. When Joe Lieberman, who isn't even a Democrat anymore, announced his own appearance at the GOP convention, this was a major story. Some former Democratic delegate in Wisconsin moved inexplicably from supporting Clinton to backing McCain, and her switch is treated as exceedingly important.

Leach, however, is getting the short shrift. He's a credible, serious guy, who was part of the House Republican caucus for decades, and this year, Leach concluded that Obama is the leader the nation needs.

Is that why Mikheil Saakashvili made a direct appeal to John McCain?

He thought he had the endorsement from the Senator? Promises from Bush to stand behind him?

So here comes McCain, trying to shove Obama aside as inexperienced and declaring that he knows these people personally:

BIRMINGHAM, Mich. — Senator John McCain turned aside questions today about whether Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, had strayed over the political line yesterday when he said that Senator Barack Obama had shown inexperience in his initial response to the war between Russia and Georgia.

And he tried to tamp down earlier charges from the Obama camp that he was responding to the Russian crisis with a belligerence that could only make the situation worse. He said he was taking a hard line on Russia but wasn’t trying to “reignite the Cold War.”

It was all part of a continuing effort by the McCain campaign to seize on the events overseas to appear presidential and in command on the world stage while at the same time not appearing to be political. At several points today, he emphasized that he had visited Georgia many times and was familiar with the players.

You know these players well, Senator? Could that be because of your lobbyist hired by your campaign for foreign relations? You know, the one who has Georgia as a client?:

WASHINGTON — John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randall Scheunemann, lobbied for the nation of Georgia for four years, including for about a year after he joined the Republican senator's presidential campaign staff in early 2007.

Georgia has paid Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies, LLC, nearly $900,000 since 2004, including $200,000 for an eight-month contract that began on May 1, two weeks after McCain issued a strong statement criticizing Russia and supporting Georgia.

Scheunemann took a leave from lobbying for Orion in March, two months before McCain barred active lobbyists from serving on his staff. He's still listed as Orion's president and owner.

[snip]

Saakashvili has been criticized for authoritarian tendencies following a crackdown on demonstrators last year, but McCain has been a staunch ally, sternly criticizing Moscow for its backing of pro-Russian, separatists.

On April 17 of this year, McCain issued a stern statement assailing "Russia's moves to undermine Georgian sovereignty." Two weeks later, Georgia gave Orion a $200,000 contract extension.

Gee. All this begs the answer to why on earth Saakashvili thought he'd have the Western democracies behind him when he kicked Putin's shins.

Did he really think Bush would attack Russia on his behalf? Did he think McCain could demand military action? Could it possibly be for political purposes? (Here, you attack Russia and I'll look presidential and play the foreign policy card which will trump anything Obama's got...Then Bush will help out...) Really?

Then look at this: (my bold)

Bank analyst forecast Georgian crisis 2 days early By Guy Faulconbridge:

MOSCOW, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia shocked most of the world last week, but an investment bank analyst predicted it two days in advance.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili sent troops into the breakaway, pro-Russian region of South Ossetia on Aug. 7, on the eve of the Beijing Olympic Games, and Russia responded with overwhelming military force.

Geoff Smith, a Kiev-based analyst for Renaissance Capital investment bank, had anticipated the Georgian move with uncanny prescience in an e-mail two days earlier to a fellow strategist.

"So whaddaya think? I say Saakashvili is going to 'restore the territorial integrity of Georgia' five minutes before the opening ceremony starts in Beijing and dare the Russians to invade while the games are on?" the note said.

Reuters has seen a copy of the e-mail and confirmed its validity with both the sender and recipient of the message.

The Kremlin swiftly asserted its vastly superior military might and thousands of Russian troops pushed out Georgian troops from the rebel region. Russian units are still operating inside Georgia proper.

Russian sovereign Eurobond spreads, a measure of investment risk, widened on the hostilities, and shares tumbled.

"It was just intuition," Smith said by telephone. "I said nothing about the possible Russian response, but if you had asked me I would say that Moscow could not have taken it lying down," Smith said.

Explaining his reasoning, the former journalist said the upcoming presidential election in the United States could have played a role in Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia.

"Certainly the next White House will not be as supportive of Saakashvili as this one and so if Saakashvili wanted to reunite Georgia he really had to do it this year and he was probably hoping the Olympic Games gave him the right cover," he said.

He refused to forecast how the crisis would end.

I think we know how this will end. Innocents will die, communities will be destroyed, oil will be controlled, money will be made.

We've seen this plot before, haven't we?

crossposted at American Street

Short and sweet

And super:

Darkblack catches the essence of John McCain.

Watertiger shows what Cheney secretly thinks of Lieberman.

Freeway Blogger's one two punch at the pump.

McCain's Panamanianess may actually make it illegal to run for president.

And anyway, I like McCain better!

Declares Lieberman in a huff...

Senator Joe Lieberman, serving aptly as John McCain's foreign policy attack dog, jumped on a conference call with reporters on Wednesday to rip holes into Barack Obama's stance on Israel.

Playing off of Obama's address to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the Connecticut independent acknowledged that he hadn't heard the speech -- and urged for a "civil and constructive" presidential campaign -- before taking Obama to task for not being consistently tough on Iran.

"I appreciate many of the very good intentions to Israel and Israeli security that Senator Obama express today," said Lieberman. "I thought in the speech there was a disconnect between things Senator Obama said today, particularly in regard to Iran, and things he has said or done earlier either in the campaign or the Senate."

Lieberman said this BEFORE he heard the speech?



There was a 'heated exchange' between Obama and Lieberman on the Senate floor later...

Free speech means even the people you hate get to talk

You don't have to listen.

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy

We might even find out that Iran is filled with innocent Iranians and that most of them have no desire to attack Israel or the United States...

Film Noir doesn't begin to describe

What Morse of the Republic of Sestakastan has done. Go and see, but be warned.... It will scare you into voting the straight Democratic ticket.

And he's promised to bomb Iran....

...Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) made news by crossing party lines and endorsing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president. Announcing his support, Lieberman said he backed McCain because the Arizona senator is “a leader who can break through the partisan gridlock.”

Today on MSNBC, Lieberman admitted that McCain was the only ‘08 presidential candidate who sought him out, telling MSNBC’s Monica Novotny that “not one of the Democrats asked for my support”

Holy Joe also liked the way McCain sang that totally cool song, "Bomb bomb bomb Iran...."

We even refuse to wear the little party hats

You have to wonder what it would be like to be Joe Lieberman. Only three years ago he was the Democratic Party's choice for Vice President, and enjoyed all the national attention such an honor entails. Now the only way he can get sucked up to is to go on Fox News and offer up made-to-order fibs about his former party.

Lieberman just went on Fox and gave an extended interview in which he repeatedly suggested that Dems won't acknowledge any progress of any kind in Iraq. "It’s time that everybody including Democratic candidates get off this storyline," Lieberman said.

[snip]

The key point here is that the falsehood Lieberman is telling here is critical to the GOP's last-ditch efforts to prevent support for the war from dribbling away completely. The game plan is to misrepresent what the Dem position has been, in order to (a) paint Dems as churlishly refusing to acknowledge the military's hard-won gains; and (b) conflate the military progress we've seen with the political progress that was always the goal and that still remains elusive.

Senator Lieberman, Fox News thanks you for your devoted service -- and hereby rewards you with the attention you crave.

Lieberman of Arabia

Knows what is good for the Middle East... like nuking Iran... Syria... Jordan... Egypt..


(Via Morse at Republic of Sestakastan)

hell, while we're in the neighborhood... Russia.. China...

General Wesley Clark:

After wrongly supporting George W. Bush's strategic blunder of attacking Iraq, and continuing to support Bush's failed policies after the invasion, Senator Joe Lieberman made irresponsible comments this weekend regarding military action against Iran.

On CBS's Face the Nation, Lieberman said, "If [the Iranians] don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

This type of "tough-talk" by the Bush Administration and folks like Senator Joe Lieberman is why VoteVets.org and I collaborated to create StopIranWar.com, calling for heavy diplomatic, economic, and political action to discourage the acquisition of nuclear capabilities by the Iranian government.

Senator Lieberman's saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it's highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I urge him to stop.

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don't need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.

Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point. What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Senator Lieberman must act more responsibly and tone down his threat machine.

Visit StopIranWar.com, and sign the petition to President Bush today!

We cannot let people like Joe Lieberman dictate the terms of this debate.

Lieberman supports Cheney

In all things Iranian.



Gareth Porter of the Huffington Post:

The Cheney proposal for an airstrike against three bases in Iran can have only one purpose -- to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would then make it possible to unleash a full-fledged strategic air attack against Iran. The provocation strategy would be an obvious way around the political obstacles in the way of an unprovoked attack.

This is not the first time that such a provocation strategy has been attributed to the Bush administration. In February 2007, Hillary Mann, the National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs until 2004, told CNN that the Bush administration was "pushing a series of increasing provocations against the Iranians in, I think, anticipation that Iran will eventually retaliate, and that will give the United States the ability to launch limited strikes against Iran, to take out targets in Iran that we consider to be important."

The revelation of the Cheney attack proposal throws a new light on a series of developments relating to Iraq since early June. The first event that takes on new meaning is Joe Lieberman's public call on June 11 for exactly the same kind of attack on the alleged training bases in Iran as Cheney was advocating inside the administration.

Lieberman, appearing on CBS's Face the Nation, said, "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

Was that just a coincidence? Not a chance, says one Washington insider who is very familiar with Lieberman and the inner workings of the whole neoconservative demi-monde. "Lieberman is not the kind of guy who goes off on his own to make a proposal like this," says the observer. "He's very disciplined. He's a foot soldier, an integral part of the neoconservative movement.

In other words, Lieberman was acting as a stalking horse for Cheney's proposal, softening up public opinion for later war propaganda.

[snip]

It is not clear whether Bush has explicitly authorized Cheney to prepare the ground for Cheney's new strategy of provocation. In the spring, Rice succeeded in getting Bush to go along with direct diplomatic contacts with Iran. Cheney then let it be known in Washington right-wing circles that he was concerned that Bush would fail to support the military option against Iran and that he, Cheney, was planning an "end-run strategy" to ensure that it would not prevail. But at a White House meeting of key policymakers on Iran in June, according to an article last month in the Guardian, Bush sided with Cheney in an argument over whether these diplomatic talks should be allowed to continue to January 2009.

Whether the Cheney's conspiring with Lieberman and the U.S. command is part of an "end-run strategy" or are sanctioned by Bush, Cheney's ability to manipulate Bush poses the chilling possibility that a hapless president will commit the ultimate blunder of war with Iran.

Joe Lieberman sold his soul a long time ago and became

Republican Lite.



PSoTD explains:

The timing is about right for Democrats to start stating the obvious suspicion: Joe Lieberman will endorse a Republican Candidate for President in 2008. There’s no reason to cede news value to the Republicans for such an “announcement” next year, when some regular drumbeating of this political opportunity for Lieberman can easily reduce it. Democrats shouldn’t be concerned that by doing so now they will appear to be “moderating” the Republican candidates, but should be concerned that a Lieberman announcement of support of the Republican nominee next year will be reacted to by the shallow national media in such a way.

In short - the likelihood is too great that Lieberman will support ANY REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT in 2008 over ANY DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT in 2008 to ignore until it happens. It won’t be about people, but about power, and about Lieberman’s future political opportunities. Rather than act dismayed when it does happen, Democrats should be honest in the news media - and repetitively vocal - about why Joe Lieberman may just do that next year.

Of course Lieberman will endorse a Republican candidate for President, he can do no else.

What do Delay, Santorum, and Lieberman have in common?

They came to support the Christians United for Israel Tour that eagerly awaits the Rapture and the second coming.

Max Blumenthal:

But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation. Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow. Among the rapture ready was Republican Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. None of this seemed to matter to Lieberman, who delivered a long sermon hailing Hagee as nothing less than a modern-day Moses. Lieberman went on to describe Hagee's flock as "even greater than the multitude Moses commanded."

...I was forbidden from asking Hagee about statements he made in his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," that appeared to blame Jews for their own persecution. After doing just that during a press conference, I was removed from the conference by off-duty DC cops summoned by members of Hagee's family.

I have covered the Christian right intensely for over four years. During this time, I attended dozens of Christian right conferences, regularly monitored movement publications and radio shows, and interviewed scores of its key leaders. I have never witnessed any spectacle as politically extreme, outrageous, or bizarre as the one Christians United for Israel produced last week in Washington. See for yourself.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

Update: Maha of Mahablog has more on the history of Christian fundamentalism.

Compare and contrast

Compare this: (my bold):

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died Sunday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad. The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.

[snip]

The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed Sunday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.

"People have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property," al-Hashemi said in a statement. "But in the case of (their) inability, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense."

He said the government should provide communities with money, weapons and training and "regulate their use by rules of behavior."

Another prominent Sunni lawmaker, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had failed to provide services and security but he stopped short of saying his followers would seek to topple the Shiite-led government.

"The situation has become terribly bad," al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press. "All options are open for us. We are going to study the situation thoroughly, and we are going to look into the possible measures which go with the interests of the Iraqi people. We will also consider whether to keep on with the government or not."

To this:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), returning from a visit this week to Iraq along with his pro-escalation partner Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), offered the following assessment of the situation in Iraq:

“The military part of the surge is working beyond my expectations,” Graham said. “We literally have the enemy on the run. The Sunni part of Iraq has really rejected al-Qaida all over the country. We’re getting more information about al-Qaida operations than we’ve ever received.”

Graham isn’t the only proponent of the military surge who is now desperately spinning reality in order to maintain the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) also contended recently that the escalation has the enemy “on the run.”

Psst.. tell them we have the enemy on the run...

Even International Atomic Energy chief ElBaradei thinks Lieberman is nuts

Well... he didn't really say that:

Vienna, Austria (AHN) - International Atomic Energy chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that an attack on Iran because of its nuclear program would be "madness" that would not solve the problem. His comments came at the end of an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting with the 35 member nations on Thursday. While warning against attacking Iran, ElBaradei also urged Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and ease what has become a standoff with world powers.

Maybe more bonkers than nuts....

Lieberman explains

About what exactly, I'm not sure. Something about his declaration of war with Iran. Do you think he's getting just a little bit of heat?

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe:

Lieberman addressed the question of whether the military is strapped:

"We have a mighty military."

He sought to reassure his listeners that he doesn't envision all-out war with Iran:

"I'm not talking about any massive land invasion of Iraq. I'm not talking about any bombing of civilian areas."

He addressed the question of whether hostilities with Iran might have adverse consequences (our favorite):

"So what I'm saying is, if we knock out a base of theirs, if we have to do that, at which they're training these terrorists, yes, they may respond. But look, they're already on the move against us, and they're killing people as a result of it. I hope this is not necessary."