Thank God He Is Irrelevant

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 01:46:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As Atrios says, Joe Lieberman is a buffoon:

LIEBERMAN: I believe that America is a mighty enough nation that we should never fear to talk to anyone. But anyone who believes that Iran and Syria really want to help us to succeed in Iraq, I just is missing the reality. Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire. They are the extremists. They are supporting terrorists in Iraq, in Lebanon and of course in the Palestinian areas.
HAGEL: That’s not the point. Of course the Iranians and Syrians are not going to come to our assistance. Of course not. But they are going to respond in their own self-interest. All nations respond in their own self-interests. Tallyrand once said that nations don’t have friends. They have interests. He was right. It’s not in the interest of Syria or Jordan or Iran to have a failed state that would be a complete mess for the middle east.
Why did the Iranians help us in Afghanistan? Why did they cooperate with us in Afghanistan on intelligence matters and other issues? Because they didn’t want a failed state next to them which comes with all the problems. They didn’t want heroin moving into their borders. What we’re not getting here, is we’re not getting a full and comprehensive wide-lens appreciation of interests.

To follow Lieberman's thinking, no conflicts would ever end.

< Paranoia | Dems Can Seek Significant Damages in GOP Phone Blocking Scandal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Thank God He Is Irrelevant | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Hagel Fallacy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by john horse on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 03:13:21 PM EST

While I generally agree with what Hagel says, I must address a fallacy in his reasoning.

According to Hagel "All nations respond in their own self-interests. "

The United States is a nation.

For the past three years under George W Bush the United States has been pursuing a course of action in Iraq that is counter to its own self-interest.

: metonymy (none / 0) (#4)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 03:33:05 PM EST

As the crown stands for the king, Bush stands for the nation. So whatever is in the self-interest of Bush.....
Just ask ppj.

: Ya got the wrong nation (none / 0) (#16)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:52:03 AM EST

No big mystery here. Lieberman is more concerned about what is a threat to Israel. Saddam has been nuetralized and Iran and Syria are next. We can't work with them because we have to remove them as a threat to Israel first. That's where Lieberman is coming from. His brain works allright...but not for the country he lives in.

To follow (none / 0) (#1)
by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 02:12:16 PM EST

Lieberman's thinking, no conflicts would ever end.

Which is exactly what he wants, along with starting them. He is for all intents and purposes a rethug.

His brain doesn't work anymore.

Man overboard (none / 0) (#3)
by duckpin432 on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 03:27:30 PM EST

comment # 1 - agree, good point
comment #2 - agree, good point but am confused why you would agree with most of what Hagal says. He's very conservative; right wing in my view; or, are you just agreeing with his foreign policy points?
Lieberman seems to be doing whatever it takes to keep his puss&words in the press, however inane and self contradictory they may be. I think lay people should refrain, as much as possible, from making statements about the psychology of public figures so I'll just say I think his statements, taken together for the past year, are bizarre.

john horse.......... (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 05:12:49 PM EST

tallyrand, if quoted correctly, was only partly correct. what he should have said was that nations have perceived self-interests. this would be the macro to adam smith's micro; individual perceived self-interests.

whether or not those perceived self-interests are legitimate, and good for the nation, is another matter entirely.

but, hagel's main point is correct: the nations surrounding both iraq and afghanistan don't want failed states on their border. the ensuing chaos wouldn't be in their perceived self-interests.

I think (none / 0) (#6)
by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:27:49 PM EST

you folks are quibbling. Hagel has the right perspective on how to deal with Syria and Iran. I mean, at least he agrees with engagement. Whether Hagel works for the interests of the citizenry is another matter. Ubermann is just Bush with a much wimpier voice. Petulant, arrogant and incompetent.

Surrender (none / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:28:50 PM EST

But anyone who believes that Iran and Syria really want to help us to succeed in Iraq, I just is missing the reality. Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire. They are the extremists. They are supporting terrorists in Iraq, in Lebanon and of course in the Palestinian areas.

I think Lieberman described your belief system very well, BT.

No wonder you dislike him so. As to your final words:

I would say that the reserve is true. No conflicts would ever be won because the Left believes only in "conflict resolution" which our enemy sees as surrender.

Thank God He Is Irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:45:41 PM EST

Ditto. Kinda catchy thread header, isn't it.


: Heh! (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:48:01 PM EST

Nasty. But well done. ;-)

Missing reality (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:03:48 PM EST

But anyone who believes that Iran and Syria really want to help us to succeed in Iraq, I just is missing the reality.

Loserman is trying to set up a strawman here to divert attention from reality. And doing it about as competently as our inept trolls.

Iran and Syria are in no way interested in helping Bushco 'succeed' (whatever that means to them) in Iraq. They are interested in taking advantage of Bush's unbelievable incompetence in Iraq that has handed Iraq to Iran on a platter, and are doing so quite successfully, and Joe is interested in saving Bush's ass to save his own.

So he's right in that sense, that anyone who believes what Joe thinks they are stupid enough to believe is missing the reality.

Loserman is incredibly transparent. It's incredible, and hilarious, that the only ones who can't see through him are the trolls and others who support Bush.

Remember this? (none / 0) (#10)
by aw on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:29:29 PM EST

Michael Ware:

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

Yeah... (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:33:46 PM EST

He is not a Democrat nor is he Independent. He is as rethug as they come. And he's getting lost in his own web and forgetting his own lies now. His brain doesn't work anymore.


Was Joe (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:36:50 PM EST

in Naval Aviation too? Or just navel gazing?


: Even Joe's navel is tired of his bloviating (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by aw on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:00:50 PM EST

Navel to Joe

perpetual war (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:05:20 PM EST

*tristero muses below about another theory --- that Bush will withdraw to the borders. St John would drop to his knees and thank the good lord Jesus and Allah too is Bush were kind and generous enough to let that happen. The last thing he wants is for Bush to actually follow his advice.

digby

Now, no one said where they wanted the troops withdrawn to. Surely you didn't expect Bush to ship them all to Honolulu and spend the rest of their service sipping Mai Tais and lowering their precious supply of oxytocin engaging in fornication with the locals, now did you?
So Americans want withdrawal? They're getting withdrawal. To the Syrian and Iranian borders. Where else?

hullabalo

Some people are getting very rich on war.

A newly elected Democrat saying Saddam linked to a (none / 0) (#17)
by ikez78 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 07:10:10 AM EST

Joe Lieberman is the vote that gives the Democrats the majority on many issues. He's hardly "irrelevant."

Nice blog though. Wish I'd found it earlier. Also wanted to let you know that in my research into some political/intelligence issues I continue to hear the praises of Salon's history and background on investigation issues. Perusing the site, I see why.

Thought you guys might be interested in this as well...

"What does Congressman-elect Chris Carney (D-Pennsylvania) know about Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?"

It's about newly elected Democrat Chris Carney's interesting story with prewar intelligence in the Pentagon.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/12/what_does_congressman_elect_ch/