Lieberman ... Who he is really aligned with.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Rose Siding posted a great article yesterday, ""Vice Squad" - Cheney's secretive freak show staff terrify other officials", from the american prospect (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11401) describing the ideologues that work, with and for, cheney. It also really clarifies, in my mind, who actually runs this nation through fear and intimidation.
One of the names in the article was Samantha Ravich and out of curiosity I googled her name in images. It led me to this site http://www.fightingterror.org/members/index.cfm and , lo and behold, who pops up but our great senator Joe Lieberman. If you look at the other members it looks like a rogues gallery of neocons.
I don't think that there can be any doubt where his loyalty and interest lie. So much so, that I really need to be carefull about the tin hat.

Has Joe been in bed with Cheney all along?

Was he in bed with cheney when he was Gore's running mate?

Was Gore destined to lose and Lieberman was Cheney's ace in the hole?

Is Lieberman a neocon mole working within the democratic party?

It kind of explains why joe refuses to rule out running as an independent. His mission has nothing to do with the democratic party.

I could go on and on. Maybe I've gone over the edge myself but it was like a light went on and all of a sudden you could connect all the dots.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

4. Unbelievable.

nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

8. Listen to what you are saying.

Not that it probably matters to you.

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. It does matter to me.

I thought long and hard before I wrote anything just because of how it will sound but I don't know any other way to put it. That is exactly why I didn't mention Israel in the original posting.
Believe me when I say that I know I am treading very dangerous water here.

[Clark2008]

25. I understand what you mean and so does my Jewish husband.

While I didn't see the original message, that got deleted, I don't think you meant or mean to come across as anti-Semitic. One can think Israel's government is evil without being anti-Semitic. Heck, my husband thinks Israeli's goverment is evil.

I also think it's the very definition of treason to hold more alligence to another country over the United States, particularly if one is a US senator, in Lieberman's case. It's treason, period, and he should be tried for it.

[Me.]

34. I Think The Issue Has Been Mis framed

I think we should realize that that the hawkish, hell bent on war, people on both sides are two very small groups who have, for the most part, managed to wrest control of both governments, from the people. The neos here and the zionists there represent a philosophy that wants to change the structure of the mid-east in any way they can, and war seems to thrill them right down to their socks. The fact that Iraq has been such a dismal failure means nothing to them. It was always Iran all along, with Iraq as a stepping stone. Further, there has been collaboration between these two group to the point of treason.

[pat_k]

19. Theocracy and Democracy are poor bedfellows. . .

. . . I'm sure I'll be jumped on, but the belief that a theocracy can simultaneously be a democracy -- a fundamental belief asserted/given legitimacy with the creation of Israel -- has muddled modern thought about the nature of, and limits on, the power a society can legitimately exercise on individual members.

Although he made no reference to Israel, the phenoomon Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr described on Meet the Press reflects, at least in part, the effects:

. . in Europe, and not the whole of Europe, just in Western Europe. In the 18th century, in a sense, religion lost a public arena and so-called secularist philosophies became dominant in the field of politics, science, which is very important, but it talks about if you believe in God today. But many of them deal with a secularist science which brings about all these moral issues and economics and the like. Since the second half of the 20th century, there is a revival which one might call the desecularization of the world, in contrast what everybody thought in the 19th century and early 20th century. Now, this desecularization of the world has brought with it the claim of religion again, to have something to say about those very domains from which it was cut off. . .

The foundation of Israel, and the associated belief that Theocracy and Democracy can co-exist, is not the only force driving the desecularization/creeping theocracy we are seeing, but it has given it a boost. Whatever the driving forces, when Bush seized the reigns of power, he dismantled the defenses against "creeping theocracy" that were built into our Constitution.

It is probably impossible to know why Sen. Lieberman has chosen to align himself with the Bush administration. Sure, his support of the Jewish state is part of it, but I think it may reflect more subtle support of "desecularization" -- something he shares with the current occupants of the executive branch.

[bryant69]

3. When did Joe Lieberman join this group?

How long has he been a member? Is this a secret organization or a public organization?

Joe Lieberman has been staunchly in the Bush camp over the war on terror, there's no question of that. And there's no question why an organization of this sort would want him as a member (since it clearly is a public organization - created to promote a point of view). But I don't see that this proves that he was ready to betray Gore or that he is in Cheney's back pockt.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. It does raise questions.

At least in my mind.

[bryant69]

11. Indeed it does

Questions like, when was this group founded? 2004. When did Joe Lieberman join? 2004 or early 2005. Is this an open or a secret organization? It is an open advocacy organization.

Joe Lieberamn favors the Bush strategy in the War on Terror, and he supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Dick Cheney favors the Bush strategy in the War on Terror, and he supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So it's not really that surprising that they would both end up connected to an organization that favors the Bush Strategy in the War on Terror. If you want to prove conspiracy you are going to have to do better than this.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lurking Dem]

21. Common sense post

Thank you.

[Emit]

29. Group was originally founded in 1950, for what it's worth

It had a resurrection in the '70's, and Lieberman notes in his statement as Honorary Co-Chairman here that the group re-launched it's efforts -- dated July 2004:

... The leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties have so far stood firm in their commitment to finish the job in Iraq and to fight to victory the war on terrorism. But that bipartisan consensus is coming under growing public pressure and could fray in the months ahead. Although the tide is turning in the war on terrorism, a political undertow in this country could wash out our recent gains. We must not let this happen.

To make sure it doesn't, we are relaunching today the Committee on the Present Danger, a group of citizens of diverse political persuasions who will work to sustain and strengthen bipartisan support for the war on terrorism in Iraq and beyond.

The Committee on the Present Danger was first formed at the dawn of the Cold War in 1950 to educate Americans about the growing threat of Soviet communism. Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington state revitalized the group in the mid-'70s; this time it was focused on working for a stronger stance toward the Soviets and the increased defense spending necessary to carry out that policy. ...

http://www.fightingterror.org/newsroom/lieb_kyl_oped.cfm


And curiously, it states in their "Our Mission": "Our membership is limited to those in private life and does not include elected or appointed full-time federal or state officials or candidates for public office..."

Isn't Lieberman an elected official?

Edited to add, seems like it's resurrection was due to Joe Lieberman's and Jon Kyl's efforts, for what that's worth, too.

[mmonk]

30. Thanks for posting the McCarthesque

"The Committee on the Present Danger".

[Emit]

32. Another interesting tid bit about this group

funny how all these groups cycle back with the same people: Team B, Scoop Jackson, Pipes Sr. The list goes on and on.

"The post Vietnam era, however, saw the reemergence in the American public of anti-interventionist sentiment. In Congress, new policies of detente and arms control reflected a more conciliatory attitude toward East-West relations. Such trends were anathema to the CPD's bipolar view of the world. Led once again by Eugene V. Rostow and Nitze, members of the CPD regrouped for action.

"The revitalization of the CPD grew out of an independent group called Team B. Team B was authorized in 1976 by President Gerald R. Ford and organized by then-CIA chief, George Herbert Walker Bush. The purpose of Team B was to develop an independent judgment of Soviet capabilities and intentions. Team B was headed by Richard Pipes and included Paul Nitze, Foy Kohler, William R. Van Cleave, Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham (ret.), Thomas Wolf of RAND Corporation and Gen. John Vogt, Jr. (ret.). Also a part of Team B were five officials still active in government: Maj. Gen. George Keegan, Brig. Gen. Jasper Welch, Paul Dundes Wolfowitz of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and Seymour Weiss of the State Department. Team B was housed in the offices of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority.

"The political base for CPD II was in the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, a group formed in 1972 by the hard-line, anti-Soviet wing of the Senate, led by Sen. Henry M. Scoop Jackson. These conservative Democrats contended that communism was a great evil and that the U.S. had a moral obligation to eradicate it and foster democracy throughout the world. The 193 individual members of the revitalized CPD comprise a who's who of the Democratic Party establishment and a cross-section of Republican leadership. Eventually, 13 of the 18 members of the Foreign Policy Task Force of the CDM, lead by Eugene V. Rostow, joined the CPD. Notable among them were Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Leon Keyserling, Max M. Kampelman, Richard Shifter, and John P. Roche.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:7i-O9NsEag0J:www.answers.com/topic/committee-on-the-present-danger+Senator+Henry+%E2%80%9CScoop%E2%80%9D+Jackson+Committee+on+the+Present+Danger+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

[mmonk]

51. The neocon connection.

Nuff' said, Lieberman is one.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

9. My only problem with these scenerios...Lieberman's voting record

With the exception of his staunch support of Bush's War, Joe has been a VERY democratic voter over his years. While the Gore assasination plot makes for exciting tin-foil hat reading, I'm more inclined to think that Joe has simply lost his way after too many years in a safe seat. Oh, and that whole Jewish thing, of course. It is hard for him to be objective, being an Orthodox Jew, and all. I'd be more inclined to believe he started getting the special BushCo treatment only after it was readily apparent to them that he was on board. They needed to keep him on board, due to his high-profile democratic status. I don't think Joe is aligned with anybody but Joe and his own needs.

[rateyes]

12. Two other names on that list jumped out at me...

Laurie Mylroie...who is in bed with Judy Miller in helping to get the Iraq war started by printing a bunch of BS about WMD in Iraq...

Elie Wiesel...a holocaust survivor who wrote "Night," which is probably the best book out there describing the horror of those days...I wonder what he thinks of the "torture" of innocent Iraqis in Abu Ghraib and around the world...seeing as how he is a victim of torture.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Chenney Thinks He's CEO

A local public radio station had a fascinating discussion recently about who really runs things and one of the guests put things in a very corporate way.

He says Chenney sees the government strictly as a business venture. It's a profit making operation designed to benefit his "corporation"...the Repugnicans. His role while #2 in the corporate ladder is as important if not more than #1, just like the CEO or CFO is the real power in a corporation and the President is nothing more than a figurehead. He also sees this corporation as one where the parts that deliver the most money to his company (Repugnicans) are enhanced and those that could weaken his "position" are eliminated.

There's zero human equation in here...it's all bottom line with short term results always trumping the best long term interests. He called Chenney the Skilling to Bush's Lay in how this regime is similarily structured and functioned like Enron.

Cheers...

[Bonhomme Richard]

14. There is no bush policy.

There is only a Cheney/Rumsfeld policy. That's what I got from the article.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonhomme Richard]

17. I actually think bush would have been the better choice..........

because he is totaly amoral and easily manipulated. Someone else could have been much harder to control.

[stepnw1f]

20. Makes Me Wonder if Lieberman

was the Neo-Con Insurance Plan. If Bush did lose after the rigging, they'd still have their man in place.... only speculation on my part, but I just won't put it past these people.

[Me.]

16. This Is Turning Out To Be An Iraq Redux

All along we were pushed into war by a neoconservative cabal run out of Cheney's office. H20Man always said there 3 leaves to the clover Plame/AIPAC/Niger forgeries. Here we find the same names popping up again; Hannah, Wurmser,Luti. They are the shadow government and unless they are stopped will have their way and get us into another war. They have set up another group, ISOG, the Iran Syria Organization Group, which just like WHIG is being run out of the OVP. They are running the same play again and unless they are all put down will continue to embroil the world in war. As for Lieberman, I don't know the extent of his involvement but reading this thread, we can see all those involved in the war with IRAQ and the Plame affair, are involved directly or peripherally, are involved here. The only way this is going to be stopped is to stop Cheney first, get him out.

[Dora]

18. I'm happy to be the 5th recommend!

Very good call!

[Coastie for Truth]

22. Total Guilt By Association

My gosh man - you could hang any of us - most of us - on DU with a guilt by association trip.

I have a good friend whose grand father provided the safe house for Leon Trotsky and whose uncle was blacklisted by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee -- and he is a muckety muck with the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA.

[depakid]

23. "Has Joe been in bed with Cheney all along?"

It sure as hell looked that way during the 2000 vice presidential debates.

What a sorry performance that was....:grr:

(and of course- since Lieberman was also running for Senate at the same time- he didn't have that much to lose. Nice vote of confidence for the ticket, eh).

[Tom Joad]

24. What about Barack Obama? Big supporter of Joe.

LIEberman was certainly a de-inspiration for many in 2000.
But i don't think his views are all that different that a majority of congressman.
Which is terribly unfortunate.

We gotta make a whole lotta changes.
Forcing warlord LIEberman from the party would be a good first step.

But why are people who are opposed to Joe's right-wing pro-war views (and rightfully so) still so supportive of those that have advanced his career? Like Al Gore. or Barack Obama, who just a few weeks ago went stumping for Joe. Barack, by the way, was beating the war drums for Iran years ago, before it was fashionable.

It ain't just joe and hellery.

[Lurking Dem]

26. Because, unlike you,

many of us here are actually members of the Democratic Party.

[Tom Joad]

36. Lurking...

Avoiding the subject. Why are people so critical of Joe, and so supportive of his backers.

Simple question, that has nothing to do with my party affiliation or hairstyle or choice of tv shows.


If people appreciate what Joe is advocating in the Middle East, then it follows that they would be enthused with his backers. On the other hand, it seems incongrous that some people are so criticial of Joe yet applaud the very people who have been so supportive of Joe.

It could be argued that Barack really has no choice to support Joe for Senate. However, he went beyond a simple statement of endorsement and travelled all the way to Conn. to embrace him. Barack no doubt has turned down engagements this year, as any Senator does... he rejected calls from good people to go bat for Joe... and batting for Joe and his agenda, and that is batting for war.

I do oppose the war agenda in the middle east of bush/cheney/joe and the other war criminals.

It goes against everything i believe, and is a threat to all life. Whoever supports it, or gives aid and comfort to those that do (like Barack did), is not one that will get my political support.

[Lurking Dem]

41. Did you miss the Bash Barak thread?

I sure didn't. Most of the same people here that lambaste Lieberman were livid by Barak's support.

Those that don't follow your pre-scripted path are maybe looking at the bigger picture.

I am not a one-issue voter. Lieberman is liberal on everything except the war/terrorism. Do I like him? Not particularly. Do I like his stance on Iraq? No.

Do I want a Democratic majority including Lieberman and supporters like Senator Obama who vote on many, many issues including Social Security, health care, and environmental legislation to win a majority of seats so they can be effective?

Hell yes.

[Tom Joad]

43. Martin Luther king stood against the Vietnam war, knowing

that we could not build a great society at home, while bombing another part of the world back to the stone age.

We cannot afford the war of terrorism supported by Bush and Joe. It will bankrupt America.

[Lurking Dem]

47. And I don't disagree with that.

But I think it is the Democrats and working WITH the system we have that will get the job done. We can't afford to be single issue voters.

Nader already cost me my life by helping put this asshole in office. I'm not inclined to warm to pie-in-the-sky dreams of utopia or 3rd party calls for anarchic upheaval.

[Tom Joad]

48. Nader did?

That is a foolish statement. Not the people who fixed the election? Not the people who voted for Bush. Not Bush... but you blame Nader, you blame choice in elections. And it cost you your life? ... for someone who is dead, you are very intelligent and capable, or maybe you were using just a bit of hyperbole there.

How many lives were claimed by bush/hillary/joe/ cost when they supported the bombing of Iraq. I mean literally. I mean it cost their lives were lost as in their brains were blown out and scattered in the street. I know, almost all the lives that have been lost have been Iraqi, so for many it is just a side-issue. Like, what have Iraqi kids ever done for us, anyway.

I know that people are suffering more under bush, here in the US, but don't blame democracy. It only means we need to take action, and oppose bush policies, whoever may be espousing them.

[karynnj]

28. There are alternatives that are much easier to believe

In 2000, most of the issues were domestic - social security, healthcare, tax cut etc. On those issues Lieberman is a solid Democrat. Lieberman was more conservative on the social issues, but so was Gore. (Tipper and Joe had parental guidelines in common)

I suspect that after 911, somehow decisions were made to implement PNAC. From the DSM, they knew they had to "fix" the intelligence, because the country wouldn't agree with war for regime change, espicially to remake the world. Since then they have become more open with that being the agenda. Remember the positive comments in most of the media for Bush's 2nd innaugral address. I suspect that we might be in a time where a new axis has come into being that controls froeign poilcy. For lack of better names, PNAC vs Realism. On this axis, Lieberman, Bush and Cheney etc are on the PNAC side, along with many in the media.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. Psychological and Generational Terms

There are really two sets of (whatever we call ourselves-Progressives, Liberals):

Those who "Came of Age" before Kennedy's Assassination
In the "Cold War" era of the "Anti-Communist Left" with the prosperity of the WW2 GI Bill and the success of the Marshall Plan.
This era seems so quaint when viewed through the perspective of the 21st Century.


Those who "Came of Age" after, e.g., the Tet Offensive, My Lai, and Watergate when the folly of the VietNam "domino" theory of our VietNam militarism lay discredited and tattered, and the social injustices of our previous history were laid bare for all to see.
This era seems so jarring when viewed through the perspective of the 1950's

The two generations have different preconceived notions, chisled in different rocks of granite, and each 100% valid for a particular moment in time and a particular distillation of circumstances.

[karynnj]

39. You forgot us mixed up people who came of age between those events

You are so right that there is a gigantic difference- those were 6 important years. (This might also explain the difference between Kerry and many of the other candidates. He has some of the optimism and idealism of the earlier time period combined with the realism from his own history. Others, like Edwards are totally the second period.

[Coastie for Truth]

44. I'm 65

Viet Vet - VVAW - Hubert Humphrey and JFK and RFK and MLK Jr molded my world view.

[karynnj]

46. I'm 55,

JFK, RFK, MLK are the heros I admired, who molded my world view. Kerry was the first candidate I was absolutely happy with once I read his biography. (I liked McGovern but had no hopes he could win - though I canvassed for him.)

[ripple]

35. Not so fast

Do you have a link to back up the claim that Obama has long supported going to war with Iran?

Also, I think it's important to remember that one can respect a person while still disagreeing with their ideology on a number of issues. Personally, I think Obama respects that Lieberman has remained true to his convictions in the face of political pressure. I don't agree with most of what Lieberman does on Capitol Hill, but I don't hate the man. Hell, I and most of the people on here actually voted for him in 2000. I think you're giving Obama an unfair shake.

[Tom Joad]

37. Joe does stand for what he believes, despite political pressure to change

.... reminds me of Bush in that regard.

[ripple]

40. I don't necessarily disagree with you,

however Bush has nothing to lose at this point, while Lieberman has the next election to lose. I just wonder if Obama respects the fact that he's willing to risk that. At least that is my hope, anyway. The way I see it, if that is the sort of political figure Obama emulates, he may very well conduct himself similarly when push comes to shove- only, I think he will come down on the progressive side of the issues. I'm a card-carrying liberal democrat, but I'm sick of seeing so many of my party's leaders tip-toe around provocative or unpopular issues, for fear of voter retribution.

I'm still wondering if you have a link showing that Obama has long supported going to war with Iran. You made that claim in an earlier post.

[Tom Joad]

42. Here is a link.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7098310.story

And neither Joe or Obama will mention that the Middle East is already brimming with nuclear weapons, out of fear of offending Israel and its domestic supporters. Or maybe their motivation is true-believer support for all Israel's actions, but i don't think the motivation matters.

A true progressive policy would be to urge all nations to rid themselves of nuclear weapons, and not support proliferation in one state while hypocritically condemning it in another.

Remember, Iran does not have even one nuclear weapon. Not one. Israel has close to 300 or so, and is probably the third of fourth largest arsenal in the world.

We have Mordechai Vanunu to thank for that information, and may he one day be free.

[ripple]

45. Thank you for the link

Obama mentioned strikes against Iranian nuclear weapons facilities as a 'last resort' several times in the article. I think if pressed, most US leaders wouldn't rule that possibility out completely.

I think you're absolutely right about the hypocrisy of our policies with regard to nuclear proliferation. The problem is that the Genie is out of the bottle and nobody knows how to put her back. There just aren't any simple solutions to that.

[porphyrian]

27. Himself, and the preservation of his career. - n/t

[Marr]

33. Joe is about Joe. He's wasn't loyal to Gore OR Cheney.

[Tesha]

38. The minute he laughed at Cheney's joke in the Veep debate...

For me, the jig was up the minute he laughed at Cheney's joke
in the Veep debate.

You remember, where they were discussing how many millions Cheney
had made through Halliburon and Cheney jokingly lied that the
government hadn't made a penny of that for him?

That was an outright lie and rather than call Cheney on it,
Lieberfool laughed along with him. I knew right then that
he wasn't on my side.

Tesha

[cosmicdot]

49. by the company one keeps

I just don't know how a Democrat could feel comfortable hobnobbing with these folks ... but, there's Joe sitting on the Board along with Henry Kissinger, Maurice "AIG" Greenberg (one of his sons is on the Advisory Council), Conrad Black, Leslie Gelb, Pete "Blackstone Group" Peterson, Pat Roberts, James Schlesinger, Brent Scowcroft, etc.

The Nixon Center
```````````````

Board of Directors Advisory Council

Honorary Chairman: Henry A. Kissinger

Chairman: Maurice R. Greenberg
Dwayne O. Andreas
George L. Argyros
Jeffrey L. Bewkes
Conrad M. Black
Robert Blackwill
Charles G. Boyd
Tricia Nixon Cox
Julie Nixon Eisenhower
Robert F. Ellsworth (Vice Chairman)
Leslie H. Gelb
Henry A. Kissinger
Eugene K. Lawson
Joseph I. Lieberman <-----------------------------------<
John McCain
Lionel H. Olmer
Peter G. Peterson
Richard Plepler
Pat Roberts
James Schlesinger
Brent Scowcroft
J. Robinson West
Dimitri K. Simes, Center President (Ex Officio)
John H. Taylor, Executive Director of Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation (Ex Officio)

Advisory Council

Chairman: James Schlesinger
David Abshire
Richard V. Allen
Christopher Cox
John Deutch
David Eisenhower
Susan Eisenhower
Evan G. Greenberg
Lee H. Hamilton
Rita E. Hauser
Donald M. Kendall
Peter Kovler
Charles Krauthammer
Robert C. McFarlane
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Alexei K. Pushkov
John E. Rielly
Peter R. Rosenblatt
William V. Roth, Jr.
Thomas A. Russo
Angela Stent
Marin Strmecki
Yuli Vorontsov


http://www.nixoncenter.org/boardac.htm

[KAT119]

50. Joe is Likud/Neocon Zionist working for Israel via Pentagon n/t