Joe Lieberman is a socially liberal, pro-environment NEOCON

I just realized this while listening to him for a short time on the Senate floor last night. He was talking about an amendment for additonal funding for Homeland Security. What struck me was the way in which Lieberman was talking about how we can "expect terrorist attacks for the foreseeable future". Now, in this same vein, Lieberman utterly refuses to examine how our foreign policy might actually inflame passions against the United States to the point of helping recruit terrorists.

Lieberman has a record of being extremely pro-environment and pro-civil rights. Both stances are admirable. However, by the same token, his record and stances on foreign policy and militarism dovetail almost PERFECTLY with that of the neocon establishment. In fact, Joe Lieberman expresses almost the same kind of outlook, with regards to America's role in the world, as the neocons. He still, to this day, derides Howard Dean's comment that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein in power. And he certainly doesn't denounce any further military adventurism, let alone call for a withdrawl of our troops.

Joe Lieberman, IMHO, is a pro-environment, pro-civil rights, pro-corporate advocate of imperialism. I don't think he does this because he's trying to pander to any one constituency -- I think he does it because he believes it to be a correct course of action. I'm not saying this to bash him, but simply to point out that this realization makes me see him as even MORE dangerous as a spokesperson for the Democratic Party.

Thoughts?

as are most politicians of his ilk. They are part of the problem - not part of the solution.

Although, I wouldn't go so far as to call him socially liberal in general. He is socially liberal in some areas, not so much so in others.

Definitely pro-big business, definitely pro NEOCon agenda. His NEOCon support stems from his blind, kneejerk support for Israel.

I think that Israel is a part of it, but the overarching reason is his belief in the myth of American exceptionalism -- that is, that it is the God-given duty of the United States to bring its version of civilization to the rest of the world. In short, he's an advocate of empire.

anti-choice
anti-gay
anti-labor
pro-Likud

Uh, just what is he socially liberal about?

... neither does pro-Likud. I'm also a bit puzzled over the anti-gay charges, I've never thought of him as being anti-gay. He's been a staunch defender of Roe v. Wade. He's also had a deep history of being adamantly pro-civil rights and pro-environment.

at least that is what he said when the marriage amendment came up last year.

I would hardly characterize such a stance as "anti-gay".

marriage amendment, that he voted to outlaw late-term abortions, and was in favor of broadcast censorship. I understood that he was anti-labor, meaning that he favors exploitation of the worker by corporations. Pro-Likud equates with disenfranchisement of the Palestinians by a religious-based political party.

Then again, most of the information I have I gleaned from the rampant "I hate Joe" postings here, so he may not be as bad as portrayed. I know he has a good environmental record and he is strong on civil rights legislation, which somehow doesn't carry over to civil rights of the Palestinians.

If I am wrong, and rated him more harshly than he deserves, I apologise.

he is just against racism and somewhat environmentally liberal.

that this was an overreaction

His voting record is actually very progressive in the first three areas(from project vote smart):

2004 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003-2004 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003-2004 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorships the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2004 , Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

he has an excellent voting record on that issue, and a good voting record on gay and labor issues. I don't know what "pro-Likud" means in regard to being socially liberal, so I can't comment on that.

From vote-smart.org

Abortion Rights

2004 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003-2004 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Gay Rights
2003-2004 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorships the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time..

Labor

2004 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the American Postal Workers Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time. Those who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus. Priority issues are given double weight in this voting record.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 67 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

they why the hell doesn't he pack his bags, get his ass out of the United States, and move to Israel?

It's just on the Israel issue he's got blinders on. He's not alone in this country on that score. The Fundies are simply nuts on Israel. I wish THEY would move to Israel! On second thought, I wouldn't want to do that to the Israelis--they've got enough troubles as it is.

Think like me or leave the country?

I support Israel and the ouster of Dictator bush and I resent your remark.

and he will support what ever will accomplish the Israeli agenda.

I do not agree with them one bit. I think that Israel certainly factors into Lieberman's thought process, but no more or less than the vast majority of Democratic Politicians (and that it is too much, IMHO).

I do not in any way advocate or express the POV that Joe Lieberman is controlled by fealty to Israel in some kind of grand ZOG plot, the likes of which would be advanced by white separatist movements.

position. Not once has Lieberman chastised Israel for brutally murdering or maiming American citizens, like Rachel Corrie and Brian Avery. Not once has Lieberman chastised Israel for bulldozing the homes of innocent Palestinians. Not once has Lieberman demanded the US be "even handed" when negotiating with Israel and the Palestinians.

Lieberman uses his senate position to pass resolutions demanding that his fellow senators condemn Palestinian suicide bombing attacks on Israeli citizens and re-affirm their blind support for Israel's right to exists, which includes existing on Occupied Territories. Not once has he ever uses his senate position to pass resolutions condemning Israel for murdering American citizens and for murdering and brutalizing the non-violent advocates for Palestinian rights. Lieberman is a Zionist who favors the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.

reason you would NOT condemn the bombing of civilians? IMO that's a terrible thing, one which SHOULD be condemned on general principle. The United States of America stands for the rule of law and last I heard condemning suicide bombings is the least we can do to attempt to protect civilians within their own borders - including our own. Moreover, the practice of wiring up children and sending them to their deaths is appalling. The same sort of thing is going on in Iraq and at this juncture it is pointless and tragic. As a "grand gesture", killing ones neighbors may be spectacular but it is never going to result in a good outcome, for anybody.

The same goes for Israels' right to exist. We should no longer be arguing this issue, and this is not the forum to do so, at least not this morning. But any suggestion to the contrary would be anathema to our philosophy and to our history, to the history of Europe, the Jewish people in the Middle East and Europe, and to the compelling reasons behind Israel's existence. Condemning Senator Lieberman for affirming Israel's right to exist is no reason to condemn Senator Lieberman. It is a rational and principled position, not at all in contravention of liberal values.

We liberals believe in protecting the weak - and although the Israelis may appear to be powerful, they are in fact a minority of 5 million Jews in a region of 500 million Arabs. There is no reason to assume that throwing these people to the wolves is a better, more principled stance than helping them protect themselves.

As far as your perception of his positions concerning the Palestinians, have you written to him of your thoughts? I'm sure, if you phrased your letter in terms that did not suggest you advocated the destruction of Israel, he would listen. Many Americans and many Israelis are concerned about these issues too, and a great many steps have been taken recently to empower the Palestinians and help create a State.

By the way, there never was a "State of Palestine", although there could have been, long before now. Palestinian leaders have rejected all offers. Arafat in particular was beyond frustrating to deal with and personally advocated violence, including suicide bombings. The new regime has proven to be a much better for the people, they believe in LAW. As do we.

Nevertheless, I just picked up a story stating a Palestinian coalition refuses to disarm and is advocating violence again:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=World&cat=Mideast_Conflict

This is in spite of the dismantlement of settlements, the withdrawal of some 9,000 Jewish settlers from the territories, the plans to turn over several towns to Arab leadership, etc.

Incidentally, these occupied territories belonged to Jordan and to Egypt, and were to have been returned upon the solidification of a lasting peace. That peace never really arrived so the territories stayed occupied, as a buffer zone, much needed as you can see from a map. Now, there is no reason whatsover, if these states, and also Lebanon and Syria, are concerned about the fate of the Palestinian people, they should not kick in some land for them to live on. There is no reason why the Jordan river has to be the eastern boundary and no reason why the western border of Gaza has to end where it does. Unless, of course, the people of THOSE states aren't really all that concerned?

Perhaps, your condemnation of Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian people, should extend a bit farther, to their neighbors, and to the extremist groups who refuse to aid in the peace process and continue threatening violence. Even now, although Hosni Mubarek has brokered a "period of calm" with Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah has rejected an extraordinary overture by Bush to lay down their arms and be recognized as a legitimate political force within Lebanon. They prefer to continue advocating violence against Israel.

Perhaps, if you take all these factors into account, this other point of view becomes a bit easier to comprehend.

and 5 times more Paelstinian children than suicide bombers do Israeli children.

I have no problem condemning suicide bombers as long as Israel is condemned for it's brutal military, economic and political policies against the Palestinians. What I have a problem with is the one-sided support Lieberman gives Israel. Israel made the conditions ripe for suicide bombers. Israel practices apartheid policies and intentionally harrasses and humiliates ALL Palestinians it can.

It's one thing for Lieberman to have that pro-Israel bias as a private citizen, but as a senator, I have problems with him using his power and influence to serve Israel and Israel's imperial ambitions at the expense of the United States' welfare.

Otherwise, this thread is going to get locked down in a very short time.

and hasn't ended yet apparently, was not the result of some one-sided attack by Israel on innocent Arabs. That it has resulted in brutality by both sides is tragic.

The characterization of Israel as an apartheid state is misleading. Israeli Arabs vote, they are full citizens. The people in the occupied territories are in a dreadful situation. They are not citizens of Israel nor in any meaningful sense, of any other state. That they are being mistreated is wrong. To state that there is no provocation for that mistreatment, however, is also wrong.

Counting bodies in this context is meaningless: if you want to look at population percentages, in the war of 1948 Israel, then pop. 600,000, lost about 1% of its citizens. This in the US would equate to 2,500,000 deaths. On the Arab side, numbering some 50,000,000, the deaths were about 8,000.

Where do you start drawing the line as to who's responsible for what? Israel did not set up the preconditions for the terror. The unwillingness of the Arab side to give up violence - which they are even NOW not willing to give up - set up the preconditions. The endless cycle of WAR set up the preconditions. The refusal of surrounding Arab nations to meaningfully assist the Palestinian people by offering homes, land, citizenship and economic means, preferring to keep people in cages and refusing to accept the existence of Israel, set up the preconditions. Meddling by the great powers and the oil industry, set up the preconditions. Continuing poverty and lack of empowerment throughout the Middle East, set up the preconditions.

Israel is a much a pawn as a player, trapped in the same web as everybody else in the Middle East.

The rule of law and principles of democracy can't survive in an atmosphere of violence. At no time since the '40's has a condition of peace and stability existed in the region. Many of the Arab states, however, have implemented peaceful and economically intermeshing relationships with Israel. The remaining forces of violence are coming primarily from armed extremists, some of whom have ties to Iran via the Shi'a, and whose record on civil rights is questionable to say the least.

I would submit that wiring up children to bombs and sending them to murder civilians, is counter to democratic principles and has also proved to be catastrophic for the people of the region. In what way is Lieberman, as a SENATOR, wrong to condemn this? We as Americans have a sworn duty to uphold these principles, IMO, and not to offer any kind of cover or excuse whatsoever for betraying them! This is the very basis many of us deplore the war in Iraq, we see the violence as a betrayal of our principles.

It is curious to me that one would find the bombers' means of political expression attractive. Would it not be more appropriate to support the implementation of law, security and ultimately, peace, than to encourage terror? Is that not Lieberman's POV?

Had Arafat signed the peace agreement proposed by Clinton NONE of this, none of the horror of the past few years, would have occurred. Had the Arab population not gone to war in '48 and continuing advocating it, decade after miserable decade, none of this would have occurred.

Meanwhile, would you, involved in an uprising threatening the existence and stability of the US, put it down GENTLY? Would you stop to count the bodies, making sure they came out even; or would you fight for your life with whatever means you had available?

By all means, exercise your right to vote. And I reiterate: as a constituent, you have a right to contact your Senator and express your views. I can't influence him as you can, I don't live in your state. Perhaps he SHOULD have spoken out before now, regarding the brutality of the intifada. Many of us have and the Israeli people have done, as well. It is definitely having an effect. As long as Arafat was in charge over there, however, and he and Sharon were in a sense mirrors of each other, it was almost impossible to make any real strides concerning a just resolution, and the cycle of violence continued.

It's a very different situation now and we should pray that the progress continues, that Mubarek continues to be successful in working within the Palestinian community, that the terrorists lay down their arms and that some damn fool doesn't shatter the calm.

That's a far cry from suggesting that the Israelis are responsible for the suicide bombers. I find that point of view repugnant. We all have choices and we can choose to work within a structure of nonviolence, diplomacy and democratic principles, or we can choose the bomb.

... could NOT be classified as neoconservative? After all, it's important to remember that many of the leaders of the neoconservative movement initially came out of the DEMOCRATIC party.

Republicans on foreign policy. That has long been the case. Even Nixon was applauded for his historic visit to China - a daring move in its day.

Part of the problem has been a lack of a coherent Democratic position on foreign policy issues and on the day to day, nuts and bolts issues related to the conduct of global economics.

Another aspect of the situation is simply this: the world is full of conflicting, often violent differences of opinion. There are reactionary forces abroad, and the US has real enemies, which we would have regardless of any tactics of appeasement or attempts to make ourselves kinder, gentler, or better understood. Cultural, religious and regional politics are not always tractable.

Moreover, ALL Americans, including liberals, are accustomed to a certain standard of living. We do not have a philosophical means of dealing with the dirty business of acquiring same. Much of our wealth has been obtained at the expense of others. We complain about the tactics of the Republicans and the multinationals but seemingly have no desire either to lose our lifestyle or to design alternative economic models.

Interestingly, many posters a few weeks ago seemed to adapt a pro-Buchanan, realpolitik stance when discussing a CNN show on which Buchanan appeared. Buchanan was arguing AGAINST the Bush pro-democracy doctrine - which might or might not be completely cynical, but which, nevertheless, advocates change within nations presently governed by totalitarian or radically theocratic regimes.

I found the reading highly interesting: liberals praising PAT BUCHANAN, in favor of maintaining and/or empowering friendly dictators. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

About 95% of what comes out of Pat Buchanan's mouth I find to exist somewhere between abhorrent and insane. However, when it comes to foreign policy, he has always been incredibly consistent and, most importantly, anti-imperialist.

I recently wrote a paper for a history class about Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge's speech regarding US possession of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. As a projection of the attitudes he expressed into the future, I chose to include some choice quotes by Madeline Albright. Specifically, her interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes in which she tried to justify the deaths of 500K Iraqi children due to sanctions, and also her comment about America being the "indispensible nation".

When searching for a citation for the second quote, which I had heard numerous times before, I found that many of the sources actually referred to Pat Buchanan's acceptance speech of the Reform Party nomination in 2000. Buchanan absolutely blasted this way of thinking.

Ultimately, I think such debates often come down to that between the pro-imperialists and the anti-imperialists. Pat Buchanan is a staunch anti-imperialist. So am I. So are many on these boards. Viewed through that lens, the phenomenon you describe isn't so surprising.

Furthermore, I think you're making a gross mischaracterization when you say that liberals are arguing "in favor of maintaining and/or empowering friendly dictators". What we are primarily arguing is that it is not the duty of the United States or any other singular nation to impose change on such countries from the outside. I such nations are perceived to be a real problem, that is what the United Nations is for. Those of us who believe in the concepts of democracy as envisioned by the Founders largely believe it to be something that has to come from WITHIN, that it cannot be imposed from the outside. In fact, such a definition is in perfect keeping with the Enlightenment principles upon which this nation was initially founded.

equally strong arguments for intervening when people's lives are at risk. Oppressed groups can't always fight for themselves. If we, within the US, accept the principle that minority rights should be defended and protected, then why is that not a principle extended past our borders?

Beyond that, as human beings we are all interconnected and increasingly our economies, our families, our friends, are as likely to be based in China, say, as in Detroit.

As far as strenthening the UN I heartily agree, it should be the means of choice, with REAL alliances of nations as a second choice. And please don't get me wrong, I reject violence as anything but an absolute last resort.

As far as those damn sanctions - don't get me started. They only hurt the people, not the "leaders" who are generally the ones responsible for their nations' policies. There has GOT to be a better way - treating millions of people like global pariahs is both unjust and counterproductive.

My point: there are ways of interacting with our neighbors around the globe, which are NOT imperialist, and which promote our democratic principles. Buchanan, while he sounds perfectly reasonable, is in fact as much of an imperialist as anybody. He promotes the idea that we can "do business with dictators" - that's a direct quote - and mentioned Hosni Mubarek as one example, as well as others whom I've forgotten.

Imperialism doesn't necessarily have to involve tanks and airplanes, the DIRECT use of power. It can, and in the case of the modern industrial empire, DOES rely upon ECONOMIC power and even coercion, to get the job done. Thus the strife in Latin America, for example the shenanigans of Iran-Contra and the Reagan administration, which protects the interest of American business and indirectly, the economic benefits enjoyed by us all.

NAFTA, on the other hand, while it would appear to open up trade and the flow of economic benefits, actually lowers wages even more in Mexico, costs US jobs, increases illegal immigration, etc. In any case the lack of vital businesses south of the border is beginning to hurt EVERYBODY at least in the short term. Eventually, the borderline must blur - again, an example of how interconnected we all are in each others' lives and economies, and an example of why our borders don't actually end at the - well - border.

I don't see where Buchanan is different, essentially, from all these other Republicans. They ALL favor the facilitation of the business community beyond all other considerations. I believe we Democrats have other principles in mind, beyond sheer wealth-gathering.

If you can explain as to why Buchanan is anything other than a typical business-oriented Republican, I'd be glad to learn!

Meanwhile I'm sure you read this thread but if not it's interesting, on the subject of interventions in the case of horrible dictators, so forth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3276308

"I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time." John F. Kennedy

we get there?

Canada lost 340 people to a terrorist bomb in 1985 (Air India). They put the accussed on trial and they just got off - yesterday. Terrorism it a new thing to the USA. It is a common occurence elsewhere.


I think that is what Joe meant... no?

On one hand, you may very well be correct. But on the other hand, Joe Lieberman has never once indicated that he believes that a re-orientation of US foreign policy could help dispel the base of resentment against us in many areas of the world.

The important thing to note in your post is that Canada's solution (very common to Europe's solution, as well) was to put the people on trial. Joe Lieberman's solution, along with most of the Washington establishment, has been to bomb somebody -- even if they had nothing to do with what happened.

salt when it comes to Israel and their desire for an aggressive and permanent peace in the region. I do not know what it is like to be them. I did not hear family stories of horror growing up.

I would hope that as a good Democrat Joe will not vote for things that go against his heart... and I have to admit I do not understand what it is like to be him. But I can empathize that things are different for him and he will have a different take. And then he votes very Democratic on all sorts of other things so I know he belongs under our big tent.


And hey! It is not a tin foil hat - it is actually a big tent hat... you just got confused for a while and misheard.

And, to be quite honest, that is where I see Sen. Lieberman. "Defense of Israel" is a canard. Israel has more that enough military might to deal with any other state that might threaten it. It's all about the belief of "spreading civilization" through the use of military force. The arguments are hardly different now than they were at the time of the Spanish-American War.

just don't agree that Hussein was that bully or that there were not other means to get rid of him (I think Saddam offered elections during those last few weeks). I think the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had starved under Saddam was a good reason to go to war for Liberals. And that he had snubbed his nose at UN resolutions. The thing I read yesterday though was that the UN has an annual budget of $10 Billion and when you compare that to the $81 Billion the US has this year in Iraq alone... you see how the UN's hands are tied. It is dependant on the word of the US to police rogue dictators. And that is the argument the neocons make to try to legit themselves - that Saddam was a rogue (and now they steel the liberal policy of promoting democracy to give themselves even more excuses).

I say the UN and the non-proliferation organizations need a huge budget and muscle. But that will not happen - US decided twenty years ago to keep the UN down in size as it no longer was dominated by the US. And even without the neocons the US still will bully and badger the UN.

that genocidal bullies shouldn't be propped up in power in the first place, no matter how convenient they may be for a while. We created Saddam.

Saddam preferred to maximize oil revenue in his quest to modernize secular Iraq, to believe that he voluntarily chose economic ruin is inconsistent with his other past goals.

In effect Western democracies created the so called justifications that were drummed up to go to war. How is it moral for us to initiate a policy were we know the outcome to have a likely outcome of mass starvation?

If we except that sanctions were punishment for the invasion of Kuwait then logically they should have been removed following the end of military occupation of that country. If we are to believe that sanctions stem from Saddam's pursuit of weapons systems then why is Israel one of our major trading partners? Why is India? Strange that we have better relations with the twin hornet nests of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan than we did with the traditionally benign Republic of Iraq.

Such arbitrary and contradictory approaches in foreign policy anger me as a fan of legalism. It is also why I detest "cowboy" Bush his gut feelings of what is right or wrong.

... this is the statement that I have the biggest problem with:

It is dependant on the word of the US to police rogue dictators.

The problem with this line of thought is that it shifts international engagement from the rule of LAW to the rule of MAN. In essence, the United States, in this quest to police "rogue dictators" becomes a rogue nation in and of itself. This phenonmenon has only been amplified under the Bush regime -- it was there under Clinton as well, as evidenced by the constant attempts to plant spies in weapons inspection regimes and then use Iraq's resistance to those efforts as justification for launching missile strikes on Iraq in 1998. For a more detailed expose on this, I'd suggest checking out Scott Ritter's extended interview on the DVD "Hijacking Catastrophe".

I'm not saying that you endorse the above statement, I'm just saying that those who DO end up creating a helluva lot more problems than they solve in the process. Furthermore, it helps create an environment in which the egregious violations of human rights by some dictators are excused or even encouraged (i.e. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov), because it helps advance US interests, where the people who have suffered under other dictators suffer even more under US intervention because that dictator fell out of favor with the United States (i.e. Saddam Hussein).

Nobody ever appointed the United States to be the policeman of the world, outside of the ruling class in this country. How do we go about preventing it from continuing? I can think of a few things. First, continue to vigorously advocate US involvement in and adherence to international organizations. Second, actively resist US policies that extend the "policeman of the world" problem. Third, divest one's self as much as comfortably possible from the consumerist economy that helps fuel the atrocities and excesses that are committed in our names.

and a long list of US airplane hijacks:
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~surette/hijacking.html

And not "all of Europe" has been dealing with terrorism. Spain and Ireland have their own national terrorism, and there once was the RAF / Bader-Meinhof Group (same thing), but that's nowhere close to Israel/Palestine, nor were many European airlines hijacked. The closest thing to terrorism most of Europe has ever come is when in the wake of 9-11 certain Eu governments started to try and label animal-rights activism as terrorism.


I also came across this little gem:
"FAA warned airlines in 1998 that bin Laden might hijack an airplane"
ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 27/02
http://foi.missouri.edu/foiintelligence/faawarned.html

"Wir haben es nicht gewust" - my ass.

I'm starting to think that he would have a lot less name recognition if you guys would stop complaining about him so much. I personally couldn't give two shits about what he is.

i think this is one war that anyone with liebermans belief just has to lose all sense of reality adn goes totally to emotional. i dont blame lieberman. when to close to something, you cannot see well. i think this is the case with him

I'm about sick of his act - he needs to just sit back and shut the fuck up for a while!

And when the republicans need a "democrat" to help privatize Social Security for the greedy, selfish republican agenda...Joe, with Bush's kiss still wet on his face, will be the one!

Lieberman is not a friend to Democrats or people who believe that war is not the way to peace.

I just hope to God that a better Democrat takes his place soon!

Sue

In the simplest of terms, a neocon is a Democrat who strays from the Party because of his globalist pro-war views. (Refer to Vietnam.) Alternate definitions will include the word Jewish because the philosophy is largely regarded as that of people whose goal it is to advance Jewish interests.

Too many people are making the mistake of thinking the word neocon applies to people like George W Bush. It does not. Not by a long shot. Not at all.

The phrase "socially liberal neocon" is redundant because it's the social liberalism which differentiates neocons from the run-of-the-mill conservatives.

Joe Lieberman is a classic neocon.

I think he meant RIGHT WING JEWISH INTERESTs....as left wing Jews are powerlesss in the face of their orthodox communities when it comes to Jewish interests relative to the U.S. government...

majority of Jews in the US are liberals. We voted 75%/25% for Kerry. Our interests could HARDLY be termed "Right wing". In fact Jewish thinkers have long been in the forefront of liberal and progressive politics. Jewish workers run the gamut from cab drivers to professionals to entertainers to - horrors - business leaders.

So?

SOME Jewish people have right-wing values. Last I heard, that is their right in America.

Characterizing rightwing values as Jewish values is both inaccurate and totally unfair.

As far as the religious - that's bull. The orthodox rabbis have some influence, but in no way does it blind people or prevent them from thinking or voting independently.

After 5000+ years we have developed the capacity for independent thought.

I'll tell you something though: it is impossible for Jewish people not to get the the feeling that the liberal community views us with suspicion and hostility and that may well be costing the Democratic party some votes. That would be a shame, we've been loyal supporters since the git-go.

It's one thing to be hostile and suspicious of rightwingers but to be hostile and suspicious of Jews who MAY be rightwingers, or to conflate the two, or to somehow thing they are linked, is counterproductive.

Colorado.....the LEFT WING JEWS of America...which you are right...do make up the majority....ARE POWERLESS in the face of the right wing which has a much more significant power structure in place to effect real politics.

In the context of US politics..Domestic and Foreign.....YES, Right Wing Jewish Politics equates with JEWISH POLITICS as seen in the beltway...........BECAUSE left wing American Jews are democratic secularists first...... Thus they do not go driving in DC proclaiming their special interests as derived from their ethnic/religious heritages....as the right wing surely does.

...the right wing of any group...>Right Wing Christians, Right Wing Jews...Right Wing Muslims......all these far right....groups.... thrive off each other....and always like to play their community cards to blanket the entire community though they may not truely represent the entire community....and that ....HAS been going on in the American Jewish community for sometime....

Powell or Condi Rice, both conservative, as representing BLACK interests, we'd be called rascists.

Joe Lieberman and other neocons who claim to be representatives of Jewish interests and Jewish people.

I agree. It's sick for people like Lieberman to represent anybody but their constituents.

global power, etc. All of the things that people like Lieberman strive to achieve to the benefit of a specific group of people whom he sees as being, by religion, morally superior to most other people on the planet. (That's what he says, not what I say.)

The people known as "neocons" have decided for all Jews what those "Jewish interests" are.

Here's a good link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29

America? And global power - isn't that something America has been pursuing since at least the end of World War II and probably long before that?

Since when did the neocons invent any of these features of American life or thought? Indeed, if it weren't for immigration and colonization humans would ALL still be living in Africa. There is nothing wrong per se with EITHER of those things, they are a natural form of human socialization. Stopping the movement of humans around the globe would be impossible and probably undesirable. And the day humans stop seeking power is the day elephants will fly. Whether it is right or proper to seek power, or how much, or in what context, is open to argument. That people WILL seek it, is natural. That liberals should be shocked or frightened by this feature of humanity, I find amusing.

I also find it a little scary. No ideas of foreign policy or global economics can evolve from a standpoint of WEAKNESS. Someday, when humans have all evolved into Buddhas, we will not have to deal with these matters. Until then, I think liberals need to recognize that seeking to defend ones borders, achieve advantageous positions in the marketplace and better the lives of the people within ones borders and for ones allies, are perfectly natural and even good elements of statesmanship, and ought not to be condemned out of hand.

Beyond that, it doesn't sound to me that the neocon ideas are either radical, new, particularly beneficial to any one ethnic or social or economic group, unAmerican, particularly unliberal, or Jewish.

The article states that neocons DO support democracies abroad INCLUDING Israel and TAIWAN. It mentions that nobody gets their panties in a twist over people who support the democracy on Taiwan as supposedly having dual loyalty with Taiwan. It is the thought of ISRAEL that people find disturbing. This worries me. There is a natural affinity with Israel that we don't yet share with the Arab world, for some pretty simple reasons: we are much closer to the Israeli people culturally than we are to the Arab world. We have a shared history and shared social and political values.

Hopefully, in time, we will all learn more about each other. Meanwhile, this is NOT a sinister thing - unless of course you have a problem with the Jewish people!

The ideas mentioned in the article, proposed by one Mr. MacDonald, that the core of the neocons is Jewish and that people like Rumsfeld and others are a sort of window dressing to appeal to non-Jews, are, I believe, pretty widely condemned as antisemitic.

I do get a strong whiff of anti Jewish sentiment in this discussion of Joe Lieberman. I find it disturbing that ANY particular strain of thought or philosophy is being characterized as Jewish. I do not think it is the neocons, or Joe Lieberman, who are doing the characterizing. I think it is the "liberals" - and I use the quotes advisedly.

You can support what the neocons are and what they do (and I'm talking about Perle and the gang), but I say they're evil, deadly monsters.

BTW: You, again, seem to have a problem with Lieberman -- a problem you attempt redirect at others. It's Joe who characterizes his strain of thought or philosophy as Jewish.

immigration and colonization are Jewish. BTW, which immigration and colonization are you referring to? That which brought us all to America?

BTW I also do not believe in war. Diplomacy - yes. Sanctions, blackballing millions of people because of their leaders - no! I believe in education, in cultural exchange, in language arts, in the arts of peace and not the arts of war.

I do believe in aiding people in danger and I do most definitely believe that the people of the Middle East can and deserve to be living in peaceful nations whose governments reflect their wishes, and not the wishes of dictators, armed thugs or religious extremists.

I realize that it is highly unpopular around here to have some ideals about what the people of the Middle East could accomplish. I reject the notion that this makes me a rightwinger or an disciple of Perle. We were very much against the war in Iraq, feared the danger to the people there as well as to our own, and vastly preferred to see the UN's WMD experts continue in their work.

Nevertheless he and other Republicans make some points about the nature of global economics and the use of power that I think have validity, that the left could well listen to and perhaps use to form some more cohesive thoughts about foreign policy so we could make some inroads on the Right, on this subject.

For one thing, we are inescapably reliant upon petroleum products. Getting them is a non-stop effort which unfortunately seems to have victimized the people who live where the reserves happen to be. I espouse an effort to MINIMIZE our dependency on the stuff, while learning to treat the people of those regions with respect. This means ALL the people, including the Israelis, who have a vast amount to offer the region, including their scientific work in the field of desalinization. Ample water could bring enormous benefits to this desert land.

However, my suggestions to that effect usually result in a resounding silence, as faithful members of the left look out the window, see their beloved car, and shrug. Neither the means of acquiring oil, often really dirty, nor the effort not to use it seem to be areas of interest!

As a person who seems to dislike the war in Iraq - don't you think it makes some sense to consider the nuts and bolts of the war in terms of US dependency upon oil, rather than to equate it to some Jewish plot?

Having said that I reject the implication that a person can be supportive of Israel, proud of being a Jew, believes in the potential of democratic government - ALL OVER THE WORLD AND NOT JUST WHERE THE LEFT THINKS IT SHOULD BE - and that this makes him a Neocon or an evil deadly monster. I do believe that the implication you are making is exactly that.

I also find it amazing that the left seems to think that it is preferable to support truly evil governments, where women, for example, are terribly oppressed, rather than to support even the IDEA of democracy in those places.

If I am mistaken, I apologize, but would appreciate some clarification because I am truly confused and do not seem to be understanding what you are saying. If you can refer me to the transcript of a speech or some other place where Joe Lieberman says the immigration and colonization are Jewish, as per your previous post, I'd sure appreciate knowing that.

BTW - do you think the term "Neocon" is becoming the Left's codeword for "Jew"? I'm beginning to wonder - same with PNAC. I'm curious what you think.

some Jewish people are evil, disgusting scum. Is that right?

And why do you spend so much time baiting anti-Semitism? Jewish plot? Codeword for Jew?

Are you a supremacist? Or do you need to hate bait in order to convince yourself that it's okay to support the liars who sent Americans to die?

Either way, I'm disgusted.

that you in particular blame the war in Iraq on Jewish people, or on some convoluted Jewish plot.

If you will reread this thread and pay special attention to posts #2, 5, 17, 22, 28, 46, 52, 26, 32, 59, 58, 61, and 64, you will see references to Senator Lieberman's religion, or Jews, or the Jewish agenda, etc. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that many posters here do not see the Neocons or PNAC as representing a political or economic philosophy - they see it as JEWISH.

I want to discuss that.

The vast number of people in the Bush Administration aren't Jewish; practically the entire Congress voted for the war. It is difficult to escape the conclusion, however, that YOU believe the war, etc., are the result of an evil plot. The fact that Jews or Jewishness or a Jewish Agenda are constantly mentioned is inescapable. The fact that I can't ask questions about the topic "Jewish Agenda," etc., without getting an extremely defensive reaction from you proves my point. Nor was I able to engage in conversation about any of the OTHER points I mentioned, having to do with foreign policy or economics. NO. It was the Jewish thing that got the response.

And, I must say it breaks my heart that this is so.

But, now we can examine why you - and apparently many others including some on this thread - feel that way. If it isn't expressed it can't be examined.

One key feature of these little diatribes: the fact that these men are characterized as evil or misguided isn't enough nor is it significant. After all that could be down to a difference in political philosophy. Many Americans, after all, are all gung-ho about the war and about projecting American power. That's not the problem.

It's that the neocons are characterized as Jewish.

Again and again in this thread we've heard about the Jewish agenda, Lieberman's religion, blah blah blah.

One person with whom I've discussed this phenomenon believes it's a way of avoiding the idea that one's benevolent nation - the US of A - is incapable of such evil all by its lonesome - even though you have some really heavy people in this administration - neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld - and Bush. These men represent big time oil money, some say ties to Nazi industry, a proven history of warlike behavior, deep ties to the military-industrial complex - and yet, people find it necessary to blame it on somebody else - although in the case of these gentlemen one would assume they really don't need any help to get into trouble.

Alas, the usual suspect has been elected: the Jews. This is classic scapegoating and it's a disease of European and now, American culture.

Beyond that, everything you KNOW to be manifestly true about The United States of America - that is was formerly a colonial outpost, populated by immigrants, that has grown into an aggressive, perhaps imperial power, warlike and violent - is being projected onto Israel.

This is regardless of the fact that Israel is in a COMPLETELY different situation than the US, and with the significant and strange implication that it is little Israel, pop. 6 million, the size of Massachusetts, which is leading this behemoth around by the nose.

This is PROJECTION, not fact.

Unfortunately this sort of thing, the scapegoating, the projection, seems to be a trend within some members of the "progressive" party. It frightens me. My in-laws are German, "opa" flew for the Luftwaffe. Obviously, in case it needs saying, they are NOT Jewish and definitely not biased in favor of Jews, whom their nation attempted to exterminate as I'm sure you recall.

THEY have heard this sort of thing before, about evil Jews controlling the nation and Leading Good Germans Astray. Indeed, my in-laws are quite sensitive to the sort of rhetoric they heard in the 1930's and THEY are worried about what we've been hearing, things like the attitudes expressed by some of you in this thread. And if my WWII vintage GERMAN in-laws are worried, I AM WORRIED.

You're right about one thing - it's disgusting.

You are apparently a very sick individual who has to put words in people's mouths in order to forward your hatred for mankind.

Very sad.

Rule #5: Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule. Check!

Rule #7: Question motives. Check!

Rule #18: Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad. Check!

Three down, 22 to go!

And it isn't CO Blue.

"Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote in 2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists."' This is from the site you so generously gave!

So, perhaps, Colorado Blue is correct in thinking that "neocon" could be used by some as a 'codeword' for Jew.

Some Jews are "evil, disgusting scum." Just like some liberals are, and Christians, and Muslims, and Americans, and...well, you get the picture. Every group has a few "bad apples." Therefore the question begs; is it really important to discuss the TYPE of apple it is, or just stick to the fact that it is rotten?

Remember Scoop Jackson?

was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, which exists for the sole purpose of exaggerating the threat du jour. In the 70s, it was the Russians, and they made up lots of stuff about how dangerous they were. Other alumni inclde Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, William Casey, George Shultz (who assembled the neo-con team for Dubya), and several other neo-cons.

but they are still conservative and i'm still a liberal.

it seems to me that as times change so do boundaries, i.e. there ae conservatives who support roe v. wade and a womans right to chose in general.

neoconservatism butts up against two boundaries that i can think of at this moment that show s the difference here.
corporatism and a support for israel that discriminates against palestinians{not necessarily a zionist}.

current thinking about american exceptionalism seems to always support the american mega corporation more than it supports the american people. if you ask me.
todays neocons just drape a flag over it.

the question about liebermans support for israel is best shown in, i think, in his irrational defence of teh military industrial complex.

there's my brief over view.

When Americans fully recogonize what Joe Liberman stands for...clear as a bright blue day... and take on all like him... the Nation will be back on the road that got this country where it was in the first place... Odds are we will never get there without taking GREAT risk.

Joe Liberman is neither a Democratic or Republican....eos.. ......

think this is a bit over the top? His constituents seem to think highly of him. Last I heard this is still important in the USA, for a Senator to be responsive to the people who elected him.

I'm curious as to your rationale. Lieberman's voting record, posted above, indicates no such thing.

BTW, since when it being neither Republican nor Democrat, a crime? Isn't independent thought and action an important value in American thought? Most of us, like Kerry who prefers to be thought conservative on some issues, liberal on others, have opinions that range through all shades of gray. What's wrong with that?

Or maybe, none of these rational POV's are what you have in mind?

but he shouldn't be allowed to drag the rest of the Democrats with him when his policies are directly opposite what is in the best interest of his own constiuatents, whether they know it or not.

...since when was it a good thing for politicians to be one thing and say they are another? If Lieberman is so independent as you claim, he should truely be an independent..... that will be the day.

Liberman is a private Neocon sympathizer -eos. Take it for the objective situation it is.

for Lieberman again. I'll write in Rachel Corrie or Ralph Nader, if Lieberman is the Dem senate nominee in 2006.

socially liberal? Or blaming videogames for violence while pushing continuous war down our throats?