Traitor Joe Strikes again
The Senate has failed to get a resolution passed for withdrawal from Iraq.
Wondering why? Why LiebesBush of course.
The Reid Resolution to require a troop withdrawal beginning in 120 days and with a completion goal of March 31, 2008, failed 48-50. For those keeping score at home, those opposing were the 49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman.
Benedict Arnold doesn't seem mean enough an epithet to describe old LiebesBush. I need some kind of insult that combines a Benedict Arnold (for supporting this war against all the interests of this country and
the treason to the Democratic party) and the state of being a thrall to a complete and total moron. Kakistocracy should be part of the insult. He's a Kakistocratic Benedict Arnold.
Gotta figure out how to clean that up. Kakistodict. Benedict Kakistocrat. Hmmm.
Labels: assholes, Iraq, Lieberman
Jeffrey Goldberg writes for the New Yorker that Lieberman is "the Lorax"
. I don't know what to think about this article, it makes LiebesBush simultaneously appear deluded, unintelligent, pitiful, but ultimately heroic in a "going down with the ship" kind of way.
I will point out three disturbing things. The first is not so surprising, it sounds like LiebesBush actively supports all the saber-rattling about Iran and would support an invasion.
Three days after the hearing, I went to see Lieberman in his office. He was cheerful and easygoing and more convinced than usual of the essential rightness of his vision. I asked him if he thought that Democrats who voted for the resolution would truly be giving encouragement to the enemy. "The enemy believes—Ahmadinejad has said this repeatedly-that we don't have the will anymore for a long battle," he said, referring to the President of Iran.
The "enemy" has morphed from terrorists to the nation of Iran. Uh oh.
The second disturbing trend is this xenophobia about a Muslim take-over of Europe and then the world. This kind of idiotic Debbie Schlussel type crap is getting way too pervasive and mainstream.
In another conversation, he told me that he was reading “America Alone,” a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its confrontation with Islamic extremism.
"The thing I quote most from it is the power of demographics, in Europe particularly," Lieberman said. "That's what struck me the most. But the other part is a kind of confirmation of what I know and what I've read elsewhere, which is that Islamist extremism has an ideology, and it's expansionist, it's an aggressive ideology. And the title I took to mean that we Americans will have ultimate responsibility for stopping this expansionism."
Sounds like Pat Buchanan and his crazy theory that Mexicans are going to try to annex California through demographics.
Finally, his taste in movies is appalling.
Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was "Behind Enemy Lines," in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, "Yeah!" and "All right!"
Uggggh. That was a terrible movie. If you ever needed proof that LiebesBush has bad judgement, that's it.
Lieberman, still traitoring it up
Think Progress has the strangest comparison
. It's Liebesbush on resolution emboldening the enemy vs Brownback on resolutions. Now the question, which one is echoing the Bush administration more faithfully?
LIEBERMAN: I fear that while this resolution is non-binding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we're asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don't want your enemy to be given any hope.
BROWNBACK: I don't - I don't see this enemy as needing any more emboldening or getting it from any resolution. They're emboldened now.
So there you have it. Liebesbush still saying any criticism of the the president is emboldening our enemies and treason. Who's the real traitor though?
Labels: assholes, Lieberman
Idiocy = bipartisanship
At least that's how I read this Newsweek article about Bush's pet senator
. And which senator would that be? Why, LiebesBush of course.
His treason to the democratic party and common sense is no longer limited to Iraq and hawkishness on Iran. Now he's dumping oversight investigations that he promised in his campaign.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush's new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.
Lieberman's reversal underscores the new role that he is seeking to play in the Senate as the leading apostle of bipartisanship, especially on national-security issues. On Wednesday night, Bush conspicuously cited Lieberman's advice as being the inspiration for creating a new "bipartisan working group" on Capitol Hill that he said will "help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror."
The underminer is trying to get more Democrats to undermine the party in the name of bi-partisanship
. I call bullshit. 80% of the country wants what we want. Undermining what 80% of the country wants isn't bipartisanship, especially when it's common sense stuff like ending a stupid war, competition in drug pricing, etc. It's not bipartisanship, it's just stupidity.
Labels: assholes, Katrina, Lieberman
Lieberman - the party traitor
The WaPo has an article detailing LiebesBush's current status as an "independent", if you mean by independent that he is so busy cupping Bush's balls that Condi's getting jealous.
The WaPo profile maybe unintentially calling LeibesBush what he is - a Republican.
Across town an hour earlier, at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman shared his own thoughts on Bush's plan. "We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained."
But on Iraq, Lieberman is more in sync with Bush than are many Republicans. He is a passionate defender of the war as a death struggle against Islamic terrorism.
The November election swept Republicans out of power in Congress and signaled that voters are deeply unhappy about the course of the Iraq war. The asterisk is Lieberman, who won a fourth term in an antiwar state with strong support from Republican and unaffiliated voters.
Lately he has dropped the "Democrat" half of his affiliation, describing himself at the Friday event merely as an independent. He even holds out the possibility that he would back a supporter of the Iraq war, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), in the 2008 presidential race...
We told you people, the man is just a freaking Republican. It's not even clear how he's really somehow a stealth liberal on classic democratic issues given his decades of whoredom for insurance and pharmaceutical companies. What's even more embarrassing though is how every other Democrat has to kiss his ass endlessly for fear he might defect.
Democrats grumble off the record that Lieberman is muddying an increasingly unified Democratic message on Iraq, but their public comments are cautious and generally complimentary. They pretended not to notice his brief appearance at the Library of Congress retreat, which overlapped with the AEI forum.
"It's important to hear a lot of views, which is quite different from what happens in the White House," Schumer said. Or, as Reid put it: "Joe Lieberman could so easily be with us, but he doesn't want to be. I respect that. He's a good man."
Is it really worth having the senate? I'm torn. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll accidentally break is neck trying to kiss the inside of Bush's ass.
Labels: assholes, Lieberman
The Sunk Cost Fallacy
The sunk cost fallacy
, or alternately the Gambler's fallacy
is the only possible explanation for the thought process behind the Bush/McCain/Lieberman escalation plan.
The sunk cost fallacy is the idea that to justify costs that have been lost in the course of an investment one should continue to invest more to prevent a total loss (even though the losses are already irrevocable). It's based on the idea that the value of something is what you invested in it, not what it is actually worth.
The gambler's fallacy is the idea that something can become due
, it's the idea that a losing investment can't go bad forever (or that a winning one can't stay good forever) and therefore given enough time betting on a loser eventually your luck will change.
Whether you're talking about David Brook's Making the Surge work
, Joe Lieberman's Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
, McCain's Send More Troops
or any idiotic justification coming out of Bush or Cheney's or any other neocon's mouth, it pretty much boils down to one or both of these fallacies.
This does not change that the cost of the war in terms of civilian casualties has tripled
(for a total of about 23k Iraqi civilians confirmed dead in 2006), the 3000 troops we've lost, or the unimaginable waste of money, goodwill and potential for real progress against extremism in the wake of 9/11. These things are lost. They are gone. They can not be replaced. They can not be recovered. They are sunk costs. The investment of blood and money does not make Iraq worth
any additional investment unless there is clear potential for gain.
Further, there is no evidence that anything in Iraq will improve with more troops, quite the opposite. More troops are just more targets, without any realistic chance of creating the secure environment necessary for Democracy. There is no good reason to think that a continued investment in Iraq will pay off because eventually good news has to come out of that place. Everything, all the evidence, points towards a civil war that is spiralling uncontrollably into total chaos.
Now, an idiot president who has fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy or the gambler's fallacy may feel the need to justify the investment in Iraq we've made so far by putting our troops in the middle of a crossfire. This is idiotic. Things are not going to get better. No amount of investment will improve the situation, and the investment we've made so far is lost
So, Neocons, Give UP, it's lost. You're polishing the brass on the Titanic, time to get off the ship. There is only one good thing to come of these idiotic justifications for extending this war, it could end the political careers of Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, McCain, and any other asshole that's supporting this stupid war at the cost of American lives and resources.
Labels: David Brooks, idiots, Iraq, Iraq Civil War, Lieberman, Neocons
Keith Ellison is Savvy, Lieberman is a Liar
Here's a mixed post.
First, we have evidence that Keith Ellison is a pretty sharp guy.
Guess which Koran he's going to use for his swearing in?
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.
Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
Goode, who represents Jefferson's birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.
Did this guy go to UVa or something? That was a sharp move. Hopefully in two years we'll be taking Goode down, he's gotten the negative attention of the Kossacks over this one, and that could really bite him in the ass. I wish they had given Al Weed more attention in the last round, but oh well.
Second topic - LiebesBush is a liar. Also from Kos
we have a link to the Horse's mouth
about the impression GOP Rep Susan Collins got from her trip to Iraq that she shared with old Joe. She talked with the same people, went to the same meetings, etc. Well, remember when Joe said the generals told him we needed escalation
while cupping Bush's balls? Well, not so true if Collins' account is right:
In Basra, we met with British commanders who talked about the declining "consent line" -- that is, when the British first arrived, their presence was welcomed by the population, but as time has gone on, their presence is less and less tolerated.
Needless to say, there was much discussion in all of our meetings -- whether with Iraqi leaders, American or British commanders, or rank-and-file troops -- about whether or not more American troops are needed. My conclusion is that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. Prime Minister Maliki did not welcome the prospect of more American troops and indeed seemed frustrated that he did not have more control over his own troops. One American general told me that a jobs program in Baghdad would do more good than additional troops...
The one region where an American commander, General Kilmer, did specifically express the need for more troops was in Anbar province. General Kilmer told us that he could use another brigade (about 3,000 troops) or even two to build on the positive developments in the region. I agree with his assessment, but think that a reallocation of troops, rather than an overall increase, could meet his need.
Maybe in two years we'll pick up some more Dem seats so we can kick that mole out of the party. I'm really starting to hate his guts. I mean escalation? C'mon.
Labels: assholes, escalation, Lieberman, virgil goode
I couldn't let this pass
I was intending to start blogging again with the New Year, and I will, but I just couldn't let this pass
without saying something. Maybe because I hate LiebesBush so
much, maybe because it's further proof that he's a Republican mole in the Democratic party, maybe because it's further proof that he's just a terrible terrible human being, I don't know. But read the horror of LiebesBush's justifications for "Why We Need More Troops in Iraq" which should probably be re-titled "Why I think we should expand the war in Iraq to Iran."
On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
See this? He's doing just what Bush did with Iraq only with Iran. He's trying to suggest, weakly, that Iran and 9/11 are related. And the claim that "extremists and terrorists" are "sponsored by" Iran is completely beyond the pale. If there is a contribution to the insurgency, it would mostly be to Sadr and the Shiite militias, certainly not the entire
insurgency and the evidence for this has been dubious at best. People seem to think that just because Iran is Shiite that they're all buddy-buddy with Shiites in Iraq - not so, cultural factors, the Persian/Arab divide, memories from the Iran-Iraq war (which was fought by a majority Shiite army in Iraq) create substantial divisions even between Iraqi and Iranian shiites. The Iraq Study Groups evaluation of Tehran's influence in the Iraqi insurgency was that they were using "soft power" not "hard power" in influencing affairs in Iraq, and that if anything they've passed on opportunities to further destabilize the country and in Afghanistan Iran has even been a stabilizing influence (not surprising that it would rather it's neighbors not
be constantly embroiled in civil wars). (ISG on Iran
) LiebesBush makes it sound like we're practically fighting a pitched battle with Iranian soldiers in Baghdad, this is an extremely irresponsible exaggeration.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
Why does LiebesBush sound like he's president Bush's puppet? Oh, maybe it's because he is president Bush's puppet. Delusional statements like these that mirror the president's statements are a pretty substantial proof of why it would be worth losing the majority to kick this guy out of the party.
To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.
Time for escalation, you heard it, LiebesBush is all for more troops rather than acknowledging that this is fundamentally a failed policy. We can not bring Iraq back with more troops, it was a mistake, and people like LiebesBush and Bush are responsible. The real policy we should be focusing on is removing people like LiebesBush and Bush from power, not figuring out ways to put more of our soldiers in harm's way in a futile attempt to achieve an elusive and increasingly impossible "victory" in Iraq.
The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.
You know, this sounds like a reasonable idea. You know, having a plan. But what, more than anything has characterized this leadership from the beginning of the damn war? An absence of a goddamn plan! Why does LiebesBush think that somehow, magically, if we put in 30k more troops that this administration will magically grow a brain and manage any kind of future policy in Iraq with competence? Where has he been for the last 6 years?
Yeah, in a perfect world 30k more troops and a brilliant plan to bring moderates to power and provide security would lead to a stable Iraq. In that world Iran would respond to threats of violence by backing down and hiding in a corner. In that world we would have a leadership capable of designing and implementing effective plans for ground operations in Iraq. In that perfect world though, we'd never be in this mess, the Iraqi army would never have been summarily dismissed, looting would never have been allowed creating an insecure environment from the start, we wouldn't have destroyed their infrastructure as part of the invasion, and we wouldn't have supported a pathetic succession of crooked politicians like Chalabi over the desires of the Iraqi people. That world does not exist
LiebesBush, we are dealing with the real world, in which people like you have screwed this up so bad that more troops will just mean more targets.
Bring them home.
Labels: Iran, Iraq, Lieberman
LiebesBush, the underminer
I forgot to blog this when I was traveling last Friday and saw it on the front page of the free hotel McNewspaper.Some senators skeptical of Iraq Study Group's proposals
. Guess which one(s)?
Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed doubt that the United States could coax Iran into helping stabilize Iraq as part of a larger diplomatic initiative in the Middle East.
"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Lieberman said.
What did we say? LiebesBush is an underminer. A Republican mole in the Democratic party. Because, what of course was Bush's main objection to the ISG's recommendations? Why the same as LiebesBush's of course
And he repeated his refusal to talk with Iran and Syria unless Tehran suspends its uranium-enrichment program, Damascus stops interfering in Lebanon and both drop their support for terrorist groups.
What is it about diplomacy that these people don't get? Yes, Syria and Iran are run by assholes who do things we don't like. The beginning of diplomacy is realizing that Syria and Iran could make the identical statement about the USA.
Just because you don't agree with your enemies doesn't mean you shouldn't talk with them, find dialogue, and common ground. Bush doesn't get diplomacy. It doesn't mean telling other countries they have to do everything we say, then we'll deign to talk to them. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies without strangling them, and hopefully making them not your enemies one day.
Labels: Bush, Iraq, Lieberman