Explaining Lieberman

(Remembering that an explanation is not an excuse.)

Joe fanatically supports Bush's war because he believes that "victory" in Iraq would create an Iraqi puppet state under American control, and such a state would never threaten Israel.

Remember that Israel's fear of Iraq and its leader caused them to bomb the almost-completed Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981, and Hussein lobbed possibly chemical-tipped missiles into Israeli cities during the first Gulf War in 1991. Israel has had real and immediate reason to fear the lifting of sanctions on Saddam.

(more)

Because of his concern for Israel's security, Joe probably found PNAC's Middle East fantasy virtually irresistable: imagine an American "colony" in the center of the hotbed, not only replacing the genuinely scary Saddam, but pumping out a secure oil supply -- and not just for the US, but for Israel too! MMmmm! A dream come true!

So Lieberman will never abandon Bush and his "stay the course" philosophy. Joe and a good chunk of his constituency still desperately hope that Bush will be able to set up those big fat Permanent Bases and keep the crazy anti-Israel Iraqis under American control...somehow. The alternative, in their minds, is an ungoverned, endemically hostile Arab country to the east, in constant civil turmoil, with leaders or would-be leaders who will use the usual scapegoat to unite their followers and distract the people from their domestic failures.

(Note: This is not to say that Joe is putting the security of Israel ahead of American interests, any more than Clinton put the security of Kosovo ahead of American interests. There are many good realpolitik reasons to maintain Israel as a safely democratic ally in the Middle East, even before any emotional, cultural, historical and spiritual considerations.)

•  Of course, the rub is...

  that PNAC's fantasy was just that. Fantasy. Never would have worked in the first place, and the attempt to fulfill it has only made matters worse.

  As Red Foreman would say: "Dumbasses."

  by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 08:40:01 AM PDT

•  The short version of this diary

  is that Joe Lieberman is an idiot.  This makes as much sense as any explanation.

  by GTPinNJ on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 08:41:15 AM PDT

  •  Idiocy

    Yeah, I know. "Never attribute to thought that which can be explained by stupidity."

    But I like to try to come up with explanations of political behavior that have a rational basis, even if the rationality is marginal.

    It's my religion. I'm trying desperately to maintain my faith in humanity despite the devil of despair constantly whispering in my ear.

    So, get thee behind me, Satan!

    by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 08:57:21 AM PDT

    •  Oh,

      I was actually agreeing with you.  Reading through your diary and accepting your premise for his motivations, my immediate reaction was "Joe Lieberman is an idiot."

      by GTPinNJ on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 09:01:40 AM PDT

•  That's ok

  forty million other people here have already explained him already. I am waiting for the day when there isn't any explanation of him.

  by tazz on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 08:44:06 AM PDT

•  Shorter explanation:

  He's an evil toad.

  by chumley on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 09:10:36 AM PDT

•  Other explanation - Joe is for Joe.

  From what I've seen and heard from Joe, his only purpose in life is the promotion of Joe at the expense of, well, everyone else, as well as any semblance of the truth. His Israeli security fantasies are fueled more by PNAC's money connections than any true policy considerations. He toadies up to Bush and Rethugs so he can appear on the MSM interview circuit and  pose as a 'statesman above the fray' while creating headlines by condemning his own party's members and policies.

  Joementum's only reason for existence is the glorification of Joe Lieberman. He should be tarred, feathered, and held up for public ridicule.

  by skrymir on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 09:11:20 AM PDT

•  How did you conclude that

  it was Israel's security that drove Lieberman's position on the war? What other Senators or Congressmen, in your opinion, were driven by such a motivation?

  by Red Sox on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 09:14:22 AM PDT

  •  I've heard how he speaks on the subject, and

    his record in Congress is that of an absolutely iron-clad supporter of Israel. He's also an observant Jew, and one can't discount the emotional effect of praying, "Next year in Jerusalem" during religious celebrations. Understand that this is not a bad thing. But it is an influence we shouldn't discount, any more than we should discount the importance of the Vatican to a Roman Catholic (or any insane art and history lover like me).

    But the most important reason I concluded that Israeli security was Joe's deepest reason for being a hawk is that his nearly suicidal support for Bush's foolish adventure makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

    For example, if Joe was just for Joe, as chumley writes, he would never have allowed Lamont to come between him and the Democratic party. It does a man little good to have powerful financial friends and lobbyist buddies if he places his re-election at risk.

    Again, I prefer to think that Lieberman is sincere. Afflicted by terminal wishful thinking, of course, but sincere in his belief that he's Doing the Right Thing.

    by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 09:43:40 AM PDT

    •  I didn't mean Chumley, I meant Skymir n/t

      by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 09:44:35 AM PDT

    •  So would it be safe to say

      that if his name was Joe O'Leary or Joe Singh, your conclusion would have been different? Or do you see his voting record on Israel as having varied significantly from most US Senators?

      by Red Sox on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 10:12:27 AM PDT

      •  >>If his name was

        Joe O'Leary or Joe Singh, your conclusion would have been different?

        Possibly. But not necessarily, because, as I said, considering ALL the factors, it's the only explanation that makes any sense to me.

        Does it not make sense to you? Why?

        by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 11:59:12 AM PDT

        •  It doesn't make

          sense or not make sense to me--it's an unsupported conclusion. You've used his religion as an excuse to make a slippery slope argument that borders on the dual loyalty canard and done so without a shred of fact to support it.

          May I assume that you know of no significant difference between Lieberman's voting record on Israel and that of a majority of Senators? Unless you do, you only have his religion to go on, which frankly makes for only a slight functional difference between your analysis and the delightful tomes Virgil Goode and Dennis Prager have treated us to on Rep. Ellison. I suspect you don't have a hateful motivation like Goode and Prager did, but I find your analysis shallow.

          by Red Sox on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:18:21 PM PDT

          •  What makes sense to you?

            How do you explain his behavior?

            by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:22:59 PM PDT

            •  Well...

              ...the easy explanation is he's a hawk. Like Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn, Ben Nelson, and other right-ish Democrats, Joe Lieberman is conservative on foreign policy. I lean relatively right in that realm myself (though perhaps not to Joe's degree--I don't cling to the absurd notion that we should stay the course). The more conservative that one is on foreign policy, the more likely they are to support the POTUS on Iraq, but for some reason Lieberman gets singled out for his religion. That's just wrong.

              The easy explanation is not necessarily the right one, but it's the one that makes the most sense here.

              by Red Sox on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:32:28 PM PDT

            •  Other Senators are hard pro-Israeli

              but don't deliberately go out of their way to ridicule members of their own party and support the opposing party in both rhetoric and vote.

              Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed, and other Dems are very pro-Israel but don't constantly undermine the party. That's my true beef with Joementum, not his support for Israel.

              As for the Lamont challenge, I suspect that Joe, wallowing in his hubris and the adulation of the Israeli lobby, never took Lamont seriously until about three weeks before the primary. His toadies were telling him he couldn't lose, that Dems wouldn't DARE unseat someone of his stature. Once he lost, he called on his true friends, the people he had whored for, the Rethugs and K-Street lobbyists, to save his  worthless butt. Now he REALLY owes them, so watch out for some Liebertreason when a big vote comes up in the Senate.

              by skrymir on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:36:21 PM PDT

              •  Again....

                wallowing in his hubris and the adulation of the Israeli lobby

                And they adore him because....

                by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:39:27 PM PDT

                •  Because he's a useful tool in advancing

                  the neocon/Israeli agenda of military transformation of the Middle East (meaning kill all the arabs and steal their land and oil). It's not often these neocon whackos can find someone so self-centered that he will betray his party and do anything you want as long as you kiss his butt and shower him with money.

                  by skrymir on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:58:03 PM PDT

                  •  So you are saying

                    That it is money and butt-kissing that leads Lieberman to his support of Israel and his religion has NOTHING to do with it?

                    Interesting.

                    by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 01:07:55 PM PDT

                    •  You're putting words in my keyboard.

                      No, I DID NOT say that his religion has nothing to do with his position on Israeli issues. I didn't say anything about his religion. Perhaps his religion does inform his politics to some degree, just as it may Chuck Schumer or anyone else of Jewish faith. The difference between Joe and them is that Joe is willing to sell out his party, it's principles, and it's members because he will do anything that he perceives is good for himself financially and feeds his delusions of importance. There IS a distinct difference between having a principled position in favor of an Israeli agenda and being willing, even eager, to support those who wish the Democratic Party ill.

                      Joe's religion is his business, but one doesn't have to be Jewish to support the neocon/Israeli agenda. Hillary Clinton is a good example of someone who panders to the Israelis despite being a WASP. Attributing Joementum's treacherous personality to his religion is about as logical as attributing it to his shoe size. Assholes are assholes, no matter their religion.

                      by skrymir on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 01:38:52 PM PDT

                •  They adore him because

                  he votes the way they want him to.

                  So do Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Bill Nelson. Yet somehow we curse Lieberman for his religion. You're treading some odious water...

                  by Red Sox on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 01:35:16 PM PDT

          •  P.S.

            May I assume that you know of no significant difference between Lieberman's voting record on Israel and that of a majority of Senators?

            Evidence of Joe Lieberman's particularly good
            voting record in regard to Israel is found in this CBS news piece on the enthusiasm pro-Israel groups had for him in his recent electoral struggle. (My emphasis)

            Pro-Israel political action committees have donated to the Connecticut senator's campaign and have urged their national membership to give generously now and later, if Lieberman is forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate.

            "Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress," said Mark Vogel, chairman of the National Action Committee, a pro-Israel political action committee. "There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community."

            by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:37:46 PM PDT

            •  OK, but

              how does that "particularly good voting record" vary significantly from the majority of the Senate?

              No one denies that he is pro-Israel. But aside from a quote from a guy named Mark Vogel, do you have any evidence that his record on Israel is any different than the vast majority of Senators or even just Senate Democrats?

              by Red Sox on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 01:27:06 PM PDT

•  I don't buy it.

  and I just don't see it.

  Not that I like Lieberman at all, I just don't think that is the way he thinks or thought.

  by Doughnutman on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 10:39:02 AM PDT

  •  So if you don't buy this and don't think Joe

    thinks this way, how DOES he think, in your view?

    Honestly, this is not a hostile question. I'm interested in how others perceive him.

    by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:00:56 PM PDT

    •  greed

      the money is in voting for iraq.

      by Doughnutman on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 02:06:24 PM PDT

•  Yet another hitpiece

  attacking Lieberman's Jewish heritage. Criticize him if you want to, I don't have a problem with that, but you are specifically attacking him because of the positions he takes, COMBINED with his Jewish heritage. The latter shouldn't be an issue at all.

  by Fiscal Conservative Hawk on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 11:54:39 AM PDT

  •  attacking Lieberman's Jewish heritage.

    But I am not attacking it.

    How am I attacking it? Just mentioning it as a factor is an "attack"? That says in effect that being vitally concerned with the fate of Israel is a bad thing. Is that what you believe?

    I'm trying to see why he has followed his nutty political course, and yes, I believe his heritage has something to do with it, just as, for example, my heritage as a member of a liberal family has influenced the political decisions I make.

    What's wrong with pointing out those influences when we are attempting to understand people's political lives?

    I don't get it.

    by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

    •  But...

      How am I attacking it? Just mentioning it as a factor is an "attack"? That says in effect that being vitally concerned with the fate of Israel is a bad thing. Is that what you believe?

      No, I think it is a good thing. But I do find it dubious that Lieberman is so often attacked on his heritage, for example, some call him the United States Senator for Israel. As if Jews who live in America are more concerned with Israel than with America!

      I'm trying to see why he has followed his nutty political course, and yes, I believe his heritage has something to do with it, just as, for example, my heritage as a member of a liberal family has influenced the political decisions I make.

      Well, I don't tend to trust long-range psychoanalyses or medical examinations. Bill Frist has shown us that those can be quite perilous to your credibility.

      What's wrong with pointing out those influences when we are attempting to understand people's political lives?

      Alleged influences. For example, I'm a bigger supporter of Israel than Senator Lieberman. However, I'm agnostic. So if I was Jewish, you would cite that as a factor for my support for Israel? This isn't exactly the most accurate method I've ever seen.

      by Fiscal Conservative Hawk on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

      •  >>if I was Jewish...

        you would cite that as a factor for my support for Israel?

        I'd point out that it was ONE likely source for your support, yes. I wouldn't insist that it was the ONLY source of your support.

        As I think I mentioned in the original diary, Joe also values Israel as a reliable democratic ally in a troubled region of the world, just as I do. I also consider considerations of justice, cultural preservation, etc. important in the case.

        by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:47:21 PM PDT

        •  Okay

          I'd point out that it was ONE likely source for your support, yes. I wouldn't insist that it was the ONLY source of your support.

          But that wouldn't be correct, would it? You have to be very careful with this kind of thing.

          by Fiscal Conservative Hawk on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:50:39 PM PDT

          •  But

            But that wouldn't be correct, would it? You have to be very careful with this kind of thing.

            That wouldn't be correct if you WERE Jewish?

            scratching head

            by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:52:09 PM PDT

            •  a

              That wouldn't be correct if you WERE Jewish?

              If I'm as supportive of Israel now as I would be if I was Jewish, how would being a Jew matter?

              by Fiscal Conservative Hawk on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:55:00 PM PDT

              •  b

                If I'm as supportive of Israel now as I would be if I was Jewish, how would being a Jew matter?

                It might not. Then again, maybe it would. That's the problem with hypotheticals.

                If you were Jewish, it's possible that the main source of your total support WOULD BE your religion. But since you aren't, your religion CAN'T BE the main source. There's no way to know if being Jewish would have changed anything about the origin of your support.

                (This is fun stuff, but it's pointless, isn't it?)

                To return to Joe...I think it's pretty clear to most people that HIS devotion to his religion is an important source -- but not necessarily the ONLY source -- of HIS support. Therefore discussing this aspect of his spiritual life is relevant to the discussion of his possible motives, and it is not an "attack." I have to insist on that.

                by Julia Grey on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 01:06:41 PM PDT

•  You say:

  There are many good realpolitik reasons to maintain Israel as a safely democratic ally in the Middle East

  Such as???

  by Ptah the Great on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 04:31:58 PM PDT