Joe Lieberman comes backOr so I suspect thinks the re-elected senator from Connecticut, Mr. Joseph Lieberman.

Not only has he been embarrassed in the past by fellow Democratic party members like Al Gore, his former Presidential running mate who refused to endorse him in 2004, but after losing a nasty primary fight to Ned Lamont, Lieberman had to watch a parade of Democrats come through the state to campaign against him on Mr. Lamont’s behalf.

Right now it’s looking as if Lieberman will be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and he’ll be casting that vote as an independent, with no official party affiliation. I suspect his support will come at a heavy price, and so it should.

By the way, I’m not such a big fan of Lieberman’s but it sure seemed inappropriate to have the party he served respectably for so many years turn their backs on him with the speed and vitriol that were exposed during the primaries. And yes, some of the Daily Kos folks were beating up on his support of Israel.

Also, I actually did like Ned Lamont and thought he was a terrific candidate. It would have been better, however, if he had been running against somebody else.

About the author

themiddle

29 Comments

  • TM,

    Lieberman’s dissing of the wishes of Democratic voters prior to the election was just inexcusable. It wasn’t like he didn’t exacerbate the situation himself tremendously and unnecessarily. Also, he kinda owes the Republicans now since they tacitly backed him. Which was very smart on their part.

  • Good for Lieberman. He wins when everyone else associated with a war policy, loses. Should be fun watching Harry Reid, one of the first to toss him overboard for Lamont, try to kiss his ass.

  • It should be like wrestling, since his home team rejected him. He should seek revenge. That would be fun to watch

  • Sorry but Lieberman has been in politics for a long enough time he knew that when Ned Lamont spanked him in the primary, the Democratic party mechanism was going to get behind THEIR candidate. It’s not about personal loyalty, it’s about politics folks. If anything, Harry Ried and the democratic leadership will be waiting for the ass kissing for DIRECTLY going against his party’s interests and starting a campaign against their nominee.

    Lieberman is almost most definitely going to caucus with the Democrats because he is a career politician, and without the party he is nothing more than Joe Lieberman, douchie Independent senator from Connecticut.

  • It is all about politics, Elon, but to portray Lieberman as a loser rather than a winner is just goofy.

  • 😆

    We’ll see what happens. Right now VA is the only remaining “undetermined” state and the Dems have 50 Senate seats. It does seem that Webb has won VA, in which case Lieberman is less important than otherwise.

    Elon, I think you’re being naive about this. Lieberman is not going to apologize to anybody. This was payback and he got what he wanted. He is one of only 100 senators in an almost evenly divided Senate. That affords him some clout at least and on key issues, will offer him a great deal of clout. Also, Reid strikes me as a peaceful person, not a warrior.

  • Lieberman is going to caucus with the Democrats because: a) while Independents aren’t required to caucus it’s difficult to get anything done otherwise; b) and no matter how things turned out in Connecticut, no matter how Kelsey and Elon feel about Lieberman and the way he conducted himself in regards to party politics, he’s still ideologically far from the Republicans.

    “LIEBERMAN: No. John, let me make clear that I am a Democrat and I will remain a Democrat. I am not going to be unaffiliated if I have to petition my way onto the ballot. I’m going to be a Democrat and I will caucus with the Democrats and look forward to caucusing with the Senate Democratic majority.” (Thanks thenexthurrah.com – who actually hate Joe.)

    Let’s put it this way, if Joe had any notion of really moving more to the right in order to pay back those Republican dollars, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity begging him to switch sides probably ruined that. Like, if Ann Coulter were the last woman on earth, I’d rather…

    As far as asskissing, Democrats may have made gains but they’re still up against the wall without real control of the Senate. One of the reasons Jeffords ditched the Repubs and caucused with the Dems was because he meant more to the minority party, especially with a Senate equally divided. So while some ass is going to be kissed, Elon, it might not be the ass you think it is. That may change after the recount.

    In a way, the Dems need to embrace Lieberman to portray the party as less partisan, less rigid on social and economic issues than the Republicans, especially since the Repubs lost Lincoln Chafee. There’s a shift in the Dem party away from pure liberalism and Joe may really be the future of the party in some ways. Some analysis has centered on moderate Evangelicals who have lost faith with the Republicans uncompassionate conservatism and the Dems needing to woo them. Some of the new Dem congress members are pro-life. The party needs to shift towards the center in order to win in two years.

  • Middle said:

    “And yes, some of the Daily Kos folks were beating up on his support of Israel.”

    For those with no context of the anti-semitic hate site known as DailyKos and its owner Marcos that always backs losers (I think he is 1 for 21 or something pathetic like that), here are some great resources:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-46,GGLG:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=dailykos+antisemitic&spell=1

    Some of the latest anti-semitism I have seen there (in regards to the Holocaust Cartoon Contest in Iran):

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/3/9617/94676

    And of course the answer to this (enjoy):
    http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/07/video-the-protocols-of-the-daily-kos-animated/

    Middle, I have another question for you and other Jews:

    How come I find tons of anti-Semites and anti-semitic posts in high frequency on blogs like dailykos and huffingtonpost which are considered liberal blogs, whereas, I fond virtually none on the conservative blogs? As a Jew myself, it took me years to shed the liberal and socialist brainwashing I picked up in college. I would still classify myself as a centrist, but I happen to see a lot of anti-semitism coming out of the Democratic party today that except for Buchanon on the right, I don’t really see. Simultaneously, the majority of world terrorists endorsed the Democrats, including leaders of Hamas and HezBullah. Call me a simpleton or whatever, but if our enemies support mainly Democrats, wouldn’t it be better if we voted the opposite? Just asking your opinion on this matter and how other Jews rationalize the “new” anti-semitism in the liberal movement and Democratic party?

  • Out here in CA, I voted for Feinstein and Eshoo because they have always been staunchly pro-Israel.

    However, the Democratic party is, at the grassroots level, becoming the anti-Semitic party of record. However, the fact that Connecticut voters, surely many of the Democrats, voted for Lieberman and not Lamont is a cause for hope. Kos and Kidz must be pretty pissed. Connecticut elected a Zionist!

    Lieberman is the kind of Democrat I want all Democrats to be: properly liberal domestic policies coupled with a clear understanding of the fact that abroad we are up gainst a terrorist “Axis of Evil”. I know Bush came up with that phrase, but when the shoe fits, it doesn’t matter if its a Democratic shoe or a Republican one. Truth is truth.

    And just because Bush and Co. have fucked up the Iraq situation doesn’t mean that the Democrats can just walk away from it. They voted for the war too.

    It’s too bad Lieberman is a Jew. If he weren’t, he might have a shot at becoming President.

  • The irony is that according to at least one Israeli paper, 87% of the Jewish votes went Democratic this election. 87%!!

    This was a referendum about Bush, the Iraq War and the scandals plaguing the Republicans. I would guess that is why so many voted Democratic.

    I happen to agree, Eric, that we are seeing some horrendous comments about Israel and also about Jews coming out of the Left. The Left jumped on that Walt & Mearsheimer paper (soon to be a prominent book) faster than some Arab groups. I can only explain it by pointing out that the Palestinians are perceived as the underdog and they do have a fairly tough life. While they might have just as tough of a life living in Egypt or Lebanon, the fact is that Israel control their lives and is therefore open to criticism.

    I also don’t believe that Jews vote with Israel as their primary consideration. I think it follows key concerns about American issues in terms of priority.

  • This is why I vote Democrat on the local level and Republican on the national level. I guess I’m a Neocon – liberal domestic policy and conservative and hawkish foreign policy. Anyway, I’m starting a Centrist party that follows those principals. All Jews are invited, except for Gnome Chimpsky, Finklestein, Adam Shapiro, Natalie Portman, Barbara Streisand, Steve Speilberg, etc.

  • I’ll quote myself, this time with emphasis:
    If anything, Harry Ried and the democratic leadership will be waiting for the ass kissing for DIRECTLY going against his party’s interests and starting a campaign against their nominee.”

    I don’t think anyone’s ass will be kissed, but if there were some asses to be kissed, Joe’s would not and should not be one of them. Bottom line. If it happened in your party, you’d say the same thing.

    Eric… DailyKos does not equal the democratic party. Show me where the democratic party has made a blatant show of anti-semitism. Also, on DKos there are plenty of us fighting the sort of radical positions people take vis-a-vis Israel…and they are liberal democrats.

    Your final point of hamas and hizbollah endorsing the democratic party etc. is so laughably ludicrous I cringe at the thought of more than one person using that sort of logic.

  • Elon:

    “DailyKos does not equal the democratic party.”

    Did I say that? My thesis is that anti-Semitism can be found all over mainstream liberal blogs and hard to find on conservative blogs except by their detractors. So you are of the belief that you should stick there and fight it out, my belief is that I should distance myself from that group altogether and let them run with it.

    “Show me where the democratic party has made a blatant show of anti-semitism.”

    Cythia McKinney who? I’ll give the Dems and their voters credit for purging her out of the party. However, she was there for a while and the damage was done.

    Please, I don’t think I need citations for Jesse “Hymie-town” Jackson and Rev Al “Crown Heights Riot Profiteer” Sharpton.

    Michael Moore sent me three mailers in the last 24 hours, the last of which supporting how pleased he is with his party, the one where former president Dhimmi Carter let him sit in his private booth during the Democratic National Convention. Michael Moore is also the same guy to say: “It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.” Yes, I know he is not a memeber of the Democratic Party, so again, my point is, why does that party attract anti-Semites moreso than the republicans?

    Let’s not forget Cindy Sheehan who is in a ton of pics posing with prominent Democrats, who then goes and mingles with “Che reincarnate” Hugo Chavez and says dispicable things about Israel and implies Jewish control of the US government.

    Then there is Howard Dean’s ugly remarks about Israel and he is the DNC Chairman. Sure, he’s apologized, a day late and a dollar short. Wasn’t that dude pictured wearing a Kafiyah once too?

    Then there is the former KKK guy who is a prominent Democrat, name alludes me. Yes, I am aware of former Republicans that were members too, but they have been purged.

    Look, I can go on and on, but I guarentee that I will find more librals and people aligned with the DNC and with the RNC that are anti-Semites or who have affiliation with other anti-Semites.

    As far as: “Your final point of hamas and hizbollah endorsing the democratic party etc. is so laughably ludicrous I cringe at the thought of more than one person using that sort of logic.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z48PKTEA0u0

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

    “”Of course Americans should vote Democrat,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND.

    “This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,” said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

    Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared “military wing” of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party.

    Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats’ talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel “proud.”

    “As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk,” he told WND. “Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.”

    Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal “proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation.”

    “We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq,” said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas’ Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas’ declared “resistance” department. “They did not succeed in stealing Iraq’s oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw.”

    Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is “emboldened” by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

    “[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq,” boasted Abu Ayman.

    The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America’s war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

    ……

    Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop.”

    He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would “prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.”

    Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America).”

    “Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.”

    Jaara said vacating Iraq would also “reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them.”

    Hamas’ Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would “convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance.”

    “The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel’s confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation,” Abdullah said.

    While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

    Saadi stated, “Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases.”

    He called both Democrats and Republicans “agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S.”

    Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power “the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it.”

    Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush’s party.

    “Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world.” ”

    If Jaara thinks the Dems are better for his movement than Republicans, then you know why I would vote Republican.

    But, you are free to rationalize whatever you want and offend me too, it won’t change anything they said.

  • I guess Eric doesn’t mind that the current president quipped that all the residents of Israel are going to Hell for not belonging to his religion…

    But I’m more concerned about how well we (the US) have upped the chances of bombs sailing from a strengthened Iranian military twds Tel Aviv.

    Whose rationalizations are the greater?

    There’s a shift in the Dem party away from pure liberalism and Joe may really be the future of the party in some ways… The party needs to shift towards the center in order to win in two years.

    Hi RM!

    Actually, yesterday’s results sent the opposite message, to my ears — more like, Democrats (and others) who want to win in two years should stick up for their convictions!

    Harold Ford was a model moderate, ditto Duckworth, etc., who did not get elected, versus upsets by unheard-of “too-liberal” people like Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes!

    I dunno, if people (understandably) don’t want to read analysis on dKos because some commenters are rabid, try mydd (very strong Jewish presence there) instead.

    (And there have been plenty of ugly remarks at RedState as well, not that I read there.)

  • If Virginia goes Dem, the committee chair assignments is where Joe’s going to get some great payback.

  • Hola Lirotov – glad you brought that up. I didn’t mean “the center” as far as policy, rather more about inclusiveness – the party’s strongest asset historically but something that’s been lacking the last few elections. I’m not clever enough to come up with that on my own – that was discussed election night on CNN. Ms. Crowley pointed out some worthwhile examples – Casey in Penn for one – of Democrats who are not hiding their religious convictions, who openly take a non-partyline stance on abortion and other social issues – what made Lieberman persona non grata as much as his support of the war. Even Obama has a… unique… view of the place of religion in politics. Dems of all shapes and sizes were elected. Evangelicals came to the party. How much out of being anti-Bush I don’t know, but it is the sort of inclusiveness Lieberman espoused (to a fault) to the party in the first place. And, like I said, with Chafee (say what you will about him) out of the Republican party it seems like the moderate wing is even more silenced. Which will help the Dems in two years.

    Ford may not be the best example – it’ll take some time for the Dems to win ever again in Tennessee. But your point about Hodes is a great illustration – and don’t forget about Ellison. Nevertheless the Dems need to find an identity that will keep these new disaffected Repubs and Independents in the fold and I’m just arguing Lieberman, for better or worse, may be a part of that identity. Actually I’m just agreeing with someone else’s argument. Don’t tell anyone.

  • BA – you’re right and the A.P. just called the Virginia race to Webb by over 7,000 votes. Although there will be a recount no Virginia recount has ever seen a change of more than 200 votes.

  • I have no party affiliation. I hate both parties equally. They’re two sides of the same coin and I have no “in” so to speak, however, if there is a choice for the lesser of two evils, I’m not throwing my vote away until we have a real centrist party. Not mediocre, but the best of both parties are welcome including Joe and Barak, McCain and maybe an Asian or something. Asians have the lowest turnout and very few politically divisive issues, you could really start the party rolling getting them on board.

    And I’m all about using Crispies or Fundies, whatever you call them, as far as they’re willing to go for Israel and since I don’t foresee Jesus popping up anytime soon, I think Israel can use their support for a long time. When I’m deep undercover sometimes hangin with the Crispies, I find it enjoyable to push their buttons and expose the contradictions, but blind faith comes with short term memory loss, so good times. The thing I’ve learned in my travels is that most Rednecks and Hillbillies dislike, distrust, or automatically hate Jews, but when that guy finds Jesus, he changes that view pretty quickly. Another lesson, when people like you even for an ulterior motive, its better than when they hate you.

    And come on, we’re Jews, we don’t believe in hell. Yeah, there’s strings attached, but there’s always a guarantee! (I hope that’s not a Jackie Mason line!)

  • I have serious problems with DKos, and for not finding ways to quell the openly antisemitic rhetoric among the commenters Markos lost my respect. Then again, I lost Charles Johnson’s respect on LGF when he refused to do anything about the anti-Muslim rhetoric there. And when I go into the INN chat room for any of their shows, I don’t especially like how the moderators put up with some of the “kill the Muslims and liberals” rhetoric there. The fact is politics has made us all animals, which is why I guess we’re more like warlike chimpanzees and less like peaceful bonobos (well, except for all the excessive sex).

  • Eprhaim, the issue isn’t so much whether an American pol says s/he’s “staunchly” pro-Israel. Nor is it a matter of anti-semitism among Democrats, which, for now, remains at the McKinney fringe. It’s whether support for Israel– easy to state, a surefire votegetter in the Jewish community– goes hand-in-hand with a muscular foreign policy, a comfort level with the projection of American power.

    And that’s where Joe Lieberman differs from Barbara Boxer. You know JL will walk the walk. Can the same be said of the lefty Democrats in Congress who want us out of Iraq and damn the consequences?

  • I agree, the anti-Muslim and anti-Liberal sentiment in the comments section at LGF is wrong and should be removed, however, these for the most part are uncensored comments by members. Dkos on the other hand, allows people to basically run their own mini-blog or diary and its in there where you find the most vile anti-Semitism, very reminiscent of the Kaboom blog that TM used to frequent.

    In fact, just yesterday, in a post that chastizes Tom Lantos – “a Holocaust survivor, is obnoxiously pro-Israel and hawkish in the use of military force against Arabs.” – a commenter told the idiot poster Will Youmans from the ISM that he should post the disgusting article on DKos. I mentioned that he would be well received there, what, with its acceptance of anti-Semitism.

    And today, over at LGF, another in the series of “Protocols of the Daily Kos” posts, Anna Shane, a Diary “writer” said:

    “But to me the biggest issue now is pressing for an open discussion on the State of Israel, and how the Israel lobby influences our elected representatives.I have no idea what is going on behind these closed doors, and I don’t know how to find out. I don’t have an answer for Israelis, but the entire world knows that humiliating occupied people won’t lead to peace or to reconciliation, so more humiliations and killings can’t work. These two ‘warring’ parties won’t be able to make peace until some outside authority mediates and brokers a compromise solution for them, both sides have dug themselves in too deep. Let’s ask for answers to what’s been going on behind our backs, and to the solutions our elected representatives propose.”

    Bottom line, as a Jew, I feel more comfortable and closely aligned with conservatives than I do around liberals when discussing Israel or American foreign policy. If we want to discuss separation of Church and State, minority rights, woman’s choice, etc., then I am more closely aligned with liberals. However, IMO, the most pressing issue for Jews today, isn’t our acceptance in American politics, that is well documented in this post, the most important issue today in Judaism, with Hamas funneling weapons, with HezBullah rearming, and with Iran and every other Islamic nation working on nukes, is the survival of our people.

    And, from someone who is open-minded with a number of Muslim friends, who agrees that Palestinians have some legitimate claims, if it comes down to them or us, 100% of my support is with us. Did I mention I’m biased and proud of it?

  • I completely agree, Tom. All I’m saying is that open displays of anti-Semitism seem to be more fashionable among Democrats that Republicans these days. Words are cheap, I know, but people don’t say stuff like that unless they think they can get away with it.

    I agree with your comments on a muscular foreign policy as well. With the nomination of Gates, who appears to be aligned with James “Fuck the Jews” Baker, it is clear that Bush has given up and that our fight against Islamofascism is basically over. Baker has always been an Arabist and his “Baker Commission” is getting ready to push the idea of “engaging” Iran and Syria to give us a fig leaf to cover our retreat from Iraq. Needless to say, this does not bode well for Israel either.

    Assad and Ahmenidejad must be wetting their pants with joy right about now. They were right about us.

  • Good points, y’all.

    What I find curious, Ephraim, is that Israel is making real threatening noises toward Iran. I’m not sure, but maybe they are trying to goad the Euros into action.

    I agree with you about Baker. Especially now that Gates is in there, you have the old team from Bush I, and they were never shy about forcing Israel to do their will.

    On the other hand, and I am terribly sad to say this, right now Israel has no leadership and needs somebody to push it. Olmert has lost credibility and any possibility of making dramatic political moves, at least in the near future. Having the US “armtwist” Israel might not be a bad thing if it forces something to happen. Time is not on Israel’s side despite the hopes of so many that it is,

  • Strange way of putting it, Middle. I wouldn’t say Israel is “threatenting” Iran. I would say that Israel is just reacting normally to Mahmoud “Let’s Kill All the Jews” Ahmedinejad’s threats.

    Israel’s life is on the line, very literally. Israel isn’t saying what it is saying for Europe’s benefit. It’s trying to get people to wake up to the threat and give them a hand. Of course, nobody takes it seriously, just as nobody took Hitler seriously, because, after all, Chzechoslovakia…I mean, Israel, is a small, far away country about which we know little, as Neville said.

    Iran should have been bombed a long time ago. I was hoping against hope that some actual planning had been done and that Iraq was just a prelude to the main act, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear program, but it appears that I was foolish to hope: it turns out that what everybody said about lack of planning, etc., was true. Bush turned out to be just as stupid as I was afraid he was.

    And now he is just trying to figure how to get out without looking too stupid. Hiring Baker means that we have failed.

    Of course, there are two or three carrier battle groups steaming around in the Gulf as we speak. maybe there is still some hope that Bush hasn’t gone wobbly.

    Just for the record, I don’t like war. But if you’re going to fight a war, fight it. If not, don’t. That goes double for Israel in Lebanon and Gaza.

    Agree about Olmert and company. I can’t understand why he’s is still PM. He should have been run out of town on a rail.

  • Interesting observations on Gates. Yet I can’t help thinking, for now, that Bush wants Cheneyism with a human face– that this shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic won’t mean a change in policy. But time will tell.

    This Baker commission’s been so hyped you’d think it’s been to Mt. Sinai.

  • Bad metaphor, Tom. Glub, glub, glub, remember?

    I think Bush’s policy in Iraq has failed, because some time ago the US decided to stop actually, you know, fighting. The debacle at the first battle of Falluja, where media exposure brought a victorious battle to a screeching halt, which forced us to go back and do it again, and the fact that Moqtada al Sadr is still alive, are proof of this.

    I mean, al Maliki told the US to stop blockading the Mahdi army in Sadr City and we complied. Al Maliki knows who’s really calling the shots even if we don’t. He knows we’re going to be gone soon but Sadr and the Iranians will still be there.

    I hope you’re right about Gates. But with Baker back in the picture, brute force against Israel can’t be too far behind.

    All we can hope for is that Iran will overplay its hand. And soon. I think Assad’s recent blustering about the Golan is another Iranian test balloon. At this point, Assad is just Charlie McCarthy to Ahmedinejad’s Edgar Bergen. There’s no way Assad would say something like that if he thought Ahmedinejad didn’t have his back (or his ass, in this case).

  • Ephraim said “All I’m saying is that open displays of anti-Semitism seem to be more fashionable among Democrats that Republicans these days.” Before that Eric brought up an interesting point in regards to Tom Lantos.

    We do have to take biases into account when these so-called activist blogs start pigeonholing politicians and political parties regarding Israel. Especially Jewish congressman. Tom Lantos has been called a conservative hawk by the Forward…

    http://www.forward.com/articles/pelosi-faces-possible-fights-over-top-posts-1/

    And a liberal by the IRC…

    http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205congress.html

    Not hard to figure out that bias. Chuck Shumer, a very liberal Democrat, has time and time again come out on Israel’s side regarding the “peace process”. As far back as ’00 he claimed the Palestinians weren’t holding up their end of the bargain…

    http://www.meforum.org/article/82

    Has the Forward come out calling Shumer a conservative or moderate Dem? This is the same problem with the assertion that Lincoln Chafee was anti-Israel. He came out against settlement expansion. I know some liberals would want to jump on that to prove the Republican party is also anti-Israel. But does coming out against settlement expansion makes him anti-Israel? Someone come up with some other examples proving Chafee’s anti-Israel and I’ll gladly eat crow. Parve crow only.

Leave a Comment