Lieberman Says Bombing Iran ‘Has An Appeal To It’
On right-winger Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his openess to bombing Iran, saying that there is “an appeal to it.” Discussing the West Virginia primary results, Bennett praised what he claimed was Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) transformation into his “style” of politician, which he said is someone who “throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran.”
Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the “appeal” of the hawkish caricature Bennett had created:
BENNETT: Listen, I give her credit. She has found her…three things. She’s found her voice. He is very much in the background now, it’s not this, you know, ventriloquial thing, it’s definitely her voice.
LIEBERMAN: That’s true.
BENNETT: And Joe, you know, this is my style. This is a girl who puts on her pearls, goes down, throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran, you know. This is…lookout Mrs. Bennett, this is my kind of girl.
LIEBERMAN: Hehehe, it does have an appeal to it.
Listen to it:
Neither Lieberman nor Bennett is shy about his willingness to militarily strike Iran.
Almost a year ago, Lieberman declared on Face The Nation that “we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians.” Earlier this week, he called airstrikes against Iran “a distinct possibility.”
In April, after Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker testified before Congress, Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol that the “conclusion” he drew was that their testimony was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
128 Responses to “Lieberman Says Bombing Iran ‘Has An Appeal To It’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hillary and Lieberman, as evidenced here, are the reason the Neocon enjoyed this brief interlude with power. They are DINOs and they are about to be the fringe part of the Democratic party.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pmBombing a nation and possibly killing innocents should never have “an appeal to it.”
Scumbag.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pmEven though Joe Lieberman has made no secret of his desire to bomb everything in the Middle East back to the stone age in order to protect Israel (except for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, of course — they’re our BFFs), it’s still a bit disconcerting to hear him agree with a cartoonish figment who would casually bomb while drinking, as if doing it just for the h*ll of it.
If this sort of thing appeals to him, we should be a bit frightened that he’s in a position of influence.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pmHuh. Kicking Joe Lieberman square in the nuts “has an appeal to it” for me…
May 14th, 2008 at 1:47 pmA fair reading of this says the Lieberman was saying that the caricature of Hillary “has an appeal to it”, not the action stated in the caricature. Please try to avoid the same sort of misleading headlining which you are always calling the mainstream media on. Or be known as hypocrites!
-A Think Progress fan
May 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pmKnow what else has an appeal to it, Joe? Seeing the look on your face come ‘09 when there is a larger Dem majority in the Senate and you are stripped of all your chairmanships and committee influences. THAT has a DEFINITE appeal to it you f’ing scumbag.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pmOn right-winger Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his openess to bombing Iran, saying that there is “an appeal to it.”
What the hell kind of a person would claim there is an “appeal” to death and destruction , much less a US Senator making that type of statement ?
What in the hell is wrong with Connecticut voters , and why in the hell would they re-elect this numbnut ? ?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pmAnnie, you got me. My coworkers are wondering what the hell I’m laughing about.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pmrobwillcarp Says:
——————————————————————————–
A fair reading of this says the Lieberman was saying that the caricature of Hillary “has an appeal to it”, not the action stated in the caricature. Please try to avoid the same sort of misleading headlining which you are always calling the mainstream media on. Or be known as hypocrites!
-A Think Progress fan
Hey, Concern Troll, STFU. Even if that is what Lieberman meant, he is still saying that the reason the caricature of Clinton is appealing is because that version of Clinton will bomb Iran. I highly doubt Holy Joe gives a flying F whether or not Clinton can do shots.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pmSpare us from people who are so quick to talk about war and bombing…the consequences of bombing can only be determined in hindsight and leaves so much collateral damage in displaced persons, widows and orphans.
Anyone who has actually experienced war would never want to see another one.
Spare us the armchair cheerleaders for more killing and death and destruction.
Spare us from more pre-emptive ( illegal) strikes.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pmWell, robisacarp, if you’re going to get picky about it, what Leibermann finds so appealing is bennet saying he’d like to dump his wife for a real woman. I’m sure that ms bennet would gladly trade her fatpig hypocrite compulsive gambling repulsive piece of crap of a husband for bill.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pmThe re-elected him because he lied about the Senator he would be, and because the Republicans threw their candidate under the bus.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pmand your partner would gladly trade you for a steaming pile of dogcrap.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pmnot you ralph..
May 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pmNeither Lieberman nor Bennett is shy about their willingness to militarily strike Iran.
Oh ?
And what division/platoon are they both in ?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
What in the hell is wrong with Connecticut voters , and why in the hell would they re-elect this numbnut ? ?
The re-elected him because he lied about the Senator he would be, and because the Republicans threw their candidate under the bus.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ummm, do you recall a time at any point in his past that Lieberman actually spoke the truth ?
Can’t spell “Lieberman” without the “LIE” , can you ?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:57 pmI cannot wait until after the ‘08 elections and the Senate Dems have a much greater working majority so that Harry Reid can strip this clown of his HS Committee Chairmanship and once and for all push him off into irrelevance. The ONLY reason he has any clout is the extremely narrow margin in the Senate. Absent that, he will know precisely how the Dems feel about him, and when he finally switches parties, there will be no effect on the control of the Senate.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:57 pmMCMetal Says:
——————————————————————————–
Neither Lieberman nor Bennett is shy about their willingness to militarily strike Iran.
Oh ?
And what division/platoon are they both in ?
Sigh, we’ve been here before…It’s perfectly fine to agitate violence and war while not planning on fighting it yourself (or by proxy through your own offspring)…As long as you have an R next to your name…or your name is Joe Lieberman.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:57 pmYou have got to ask ‘Why are they beating the War Drum on Iran?’
It has been shown that the Iraqi’s officals say that there is no evidence of Iran supplying the pissed off Iraqi’s with weapons, so our governments claims that they are, are unfounded, so just why are they trying to find a reason to bomb Iran?
Do they not get that killing people is a bad idea?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pmYou have to love the image that appeals to Bill Bennett: a President that gets drunk and starts bombing sovereign nations. Nice. “Have another shot, Ms. President! Let’s bomb Uzbekistan next! Or, hell, North Carolina because they voted against you.”
May 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pmwhy does a man who calls for murdering innocent people be a national leader while one who calls for the murder of that same man have his posting deleted?
if that bastard wants to murder others he ought to be considered fair game.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pmBobwurst: wha’d I do? wha’d I do?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm#5.
How about this headline, then:
“Bennett on pearl necklaces: “This is my style”.
Dang cross dressing Republiscums………..
May 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pmAt this important time in America, does it not seem unproductive to state to the planet that we will bomb countries, who have not attacked us, never attacked us, and probably doesn’t have the capabilities to attack us (and do any harm, anyway). Aren’t Statesment supposed to walk and talk softly, rather than being a beligerant spokesperson for the worst president in our history? How can more war, with additional countries, benefit the average American?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pmBuckie Boy Says:
——————————————————————————–
You have got to ask ‘Why are they beating the War Drum on Iran?’
Do they not get that killing people is a bad idea?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
They’ll ask who told you it was a bad idea ; then they’ll claim that person and yourself are anti-American.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pmI love it, say anything that goes against the grain and get dumped on personally! Just like the administration’s tricks!
You guys just don’t get it do you?
“We have seen the enemy and he is us!” - Pogo
May 14th, 2008 at 2:07 pmIraq Vets Against War are testifying before Congress tomorrow about the atrocities they were ordered to do. Perhaps this will cool off the next rush to invade a nation by senile old men.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pmParonoid thinking will wonder about the need to recruit with the slumping economy. No jobs except military ? Hmmmm
May 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pm*Correction*
Israel
May 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pmHmm…we used to be against war before we were for it. Now we can’t seem to get enough of it. Voters remorse yet, Connecticut?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pmwhat the hell is with this guy?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pmfirst he loses as a D, switches to I, and starts acting like a retarded R
.
Joe, Joe, Joe,
Being a War Criminal has an appeal to it?
The act of bombing Iran has an effect so wide reaching which it implies that innocent human life doesn’t matter. See, it would be seen as a threat to Iran if Joe said to attack the Iranian military, but that isn’t what Joe suggests, is it…? Nope, not at all. Instead, he suggests a GENOCIDAL ATTACK against a non aggressive people.
Joe LIARman, the Good Loyal(R) American Fascist.
It’s not GENOCIDE when we do it.
.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:13 pmThis is one of the things that appeals to me:’
Conyers Threatens Bush with IMPEACHMENT in Letter over Iran
“it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued.”
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 5/ 13/ 52536/ 8804/ 1000/ 514629
May 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pmrobwillcarp Says:
You guys just don’t get it do you?
I think my prior post shows that I do, with a little humor thrown in.
I would suggest you lighten up.
And if you think Liebermann doesn’t find bombing Iran an “appealing” idea - regardless of the TP “headline”, the question is do YOU get it?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
Bobwurst: wha’d I do? wha’d I do?
Ya got between me and a troll…It’s called Friendly Fire :)
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pmChuck_Feney Says:
Bombing a nation and possibly killing innocents should never have “an appeal to it.”
Scumbag.
Only when it’s bombs and missles fired at Israel by Iran or Hamas, huh Chuck? I mean they’re only Jews, right Chuck?
Scumbag
http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/ Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pmAwwww, come ON, you guys!! EVERYbody knows that those scary brown Muslims aren’t real people!!!
Jebus. Wassamatter with you dummies! Get with the program here!!
May 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pmCan’t somebody publish the incriminating photo’s they have of this nut?
Seriously, I don’t want him to get wacked, just forced out of his job.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pmWhy is Joe promoting anti-semitism? Makes no sense.
But he is convincing.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pmBennett is creaming his jeans over Hillary because she throws on her pearls, throws back shots with the guys and threatens to bomb Iran.
Now, if only she was a compulsive gambler, she’d really be the “perfect mate” for him.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pmYou simply must look at this from a geopolitical standpoint and see that you aren’t killing a people, you’re liberating the US from further threats - The Iranian’s thought crime taken to the Nth Degree - with our 1% Doctrine of Cheney intact. That way, just like the Supreme Idiot Scalia, you can make this all an academic exercise that doesn’t have any real world implications…we already know how the scenario will play out. The Iranian people will rise up against the Mullahs and we will have peace flowering all over the Middle East!
May 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pmkindness Says:
Can’t somebody publish the incriminating photo’s they have of this nut?
Oh, ick. That’s an image I really don’t need: Lieberman in a comprising position with [insert animate or inanimate object].
May 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmre kindness:
Those photos of which you speak, are of Joe closely inspecting Mcbush’s bearings, those glorious, weighty, perfectly round bearings….agggghrhrhh!
May 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmSince when has killing become the United States’ primary weapon of diplomacy?
I remember a time when the reason the United States was able to claim the moral high ground was that violence was always the last resort. When countries dealt with us in the past, they knew that we weren’t going to bomb them into the stone age, but that we had other weapons at our disposal that would more effectively cut off their support. And, we always had the big stick waiting to swing if we needed it.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmBama_Breeze Says:
——————————————————————————–
Chuck_Feney Says:
Bombing a nation and possibly killing innocents should never have “an appeal to it.”
Scumbag.
Only when it’s bombs and missles fired at Israel by Iran or Hamas, huh Chuck? I mean they’re only Jews, right Chuck?
Scumbag
http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/ Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Doing things out of desperation and/or necessity because of being in fear and/or living with daily attacks by both sides is different than claiming it’s “appealing” and doing it.
BTW
When was the last bomb or missile that came from Iran that was targeted for Israel ?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmMcBush’s McNuts being examined by McLieberman with McCain looking on longingly…
May 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pmgummich, is gentile semen kosher?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pmNote:
Hillary BTW did not say she’d “bomb Iran” as Bennett is falsely claiming ( and much of the press has falsely reported):
Asked the VERY stupid question of what might happen Iran conducted a nucelar strike on Israel, Hillary said that Iran would then be “obliterated”.
Ignoring the fact that Iran does not even have a conventional missile that can hit Iran (let alone a nuclear weapon), id ANY country attacked another with a nuclear missile, the aggressor nation would certainly risk being “obliterated”.
Furthermore the question posed to Hillary hinges on an attack HAVING ALREADY OCCURRED. What Lieberman and McCain propose is a pre-emptive attack on Iran ABSENT Iranian nuclear agression (and ABSENT if even the capability to exrecise nuclear agression), which is NOT what Hillary was suggesting AT ALL.
I’ve read plenty of Democrat Hillary critics falsely conjoin Hillary and McCain on this subject as a consequence of false reporting mischaracterization and sheer hysteria.
Obama was similarly falsely accused of wanting to unilaterally invade Pakistan to pursue Bin Laden and the Taliban, but I personally did not see the same level of acceptance by Democrats of the supposed veracity of those reports nor the supposed sincerity of Obama’s supposed words.
I saw NO immediate conjuction of Obama and McCain (or Lieberman for that matter) in the liberal blogosphere in that regard.
The continued conjunction of Hillary with notable Republicans and aggressive neocon attitudes based on false reporting and mischaracterization is designed to encourage and exploit the high-running emotions of the political left in order to divide and weaken the current strength of the Democratic Party and its supporters as a whole.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be critical of Hillary ( perhaps fewer for Obama, but then he’s still only in his fiorst term as Senator and half of that has been spent campaigning, so he hasn’t accrued much baggage yet), but this subject of who is most likely to bomb whom and why is designed to manipulation the emotions, and it it certainly has worked amongst some Democrats (who perhaps see Obama as being such a change from the status quo and especially the Republicans on account of him being black, and ‘untainted; by years in politics–and thus are desperate for what appears to be as radical change in the political landscape as possible).
May 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm5th Estate: Please explain “obliterated” in this context then.
Obama said that under certain circumstances he would go into Pakistan to target our enemies. A very different, and thoughtful answer. It was honest, not hyppebole.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pmBobwurst, it’s okay… just tell my girl I love her… and… the trolls… (cough) … give the trolls what they (gasp)… deserve…
…if you can do that, Bobwurst… wherever I am… I’ll know, and I’ll be proud…
May 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pmThank you Connecticut for delivering to the nation this putz!
May 14th, 2008 at 2:34 pm.
To: Fifth Estste,
You are correct, Clinton didn’t say she’ll just “BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB-BOMB IRAN” but instead OBLITERATE IRAN.
Which is worse?
.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pmrobwillcarp Says:
——————————————————————————–
I love it, say anything that goes against the grain and get dumped on personally! Just like the administration’s tricks!
You guys just don’t get it do you?
“We have seen the enemy and he is us!” - Pogo
There is no grain to speak of here. I personally think you’re a concern troll, hence why I addressed you specifically.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pmMax-1,
They are both sick comments and neither are worthy of real consideration.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pmlokidog-
These unthreaded threads are a little tircky, no?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pmI thought your post was hilarious!
Creating more gounds for more TERRORISM ‘has an appeal to it’… For these criminals who profit with endless wars, I’m sure that is the case.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Huh. Kicking Joe Lieberman square in the nuts “has an appeal to it” for me…
In order to do so, may I recommend aiming for McCorpse’s back pocket?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:40 pmBama_Breeze Says:
——————————————————————————–
Chuck_Feney Says:
Bombing a nation and possibly killing innocents should never have “an appeal to it.”
Scumbag.
Only when it’s bombs and missles fired at Israel by Iran or Hamas, huh Chuck? I mean they’re only Jews, right Chuck?
Scumbag
http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/ Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Um, no, you jacka$$. The sentiment that bombing and killing people should never be appealing goes for EVERYONE and you damn well know it.
Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself considering the strength of it’s military dwarfs any other country in the region. Israel would mop the floor with Iran in a conventional conflict, and you know that too. So, basically, STFU you moron.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:40 pmAs an aside, Bennett is a hypocritical example of how the inept and unethical make it big in this country.
As to Joe Lieberman, I can say this: he is an embarrassment to the Jews. As a religious people we, Jews do not condone war, of any kind of violence, unless it is something we are forced to do.
As an american concerned with our place in this world, and hopeful we can reverse its patently obvious decline, I suggest we send Joe to Iran asa a peace offering. They can do with him what they will. Maybe it would be good for all concerned.
Me, well, as a Brooklyn native, beatin’ the snot out of Lieberman has a “certain appeal to it!!!”
May 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pmWishing cancer on someone is a bit much…
Instead let’s wish him perpetual incontinence. It would keep him from being in the Senate any further since he’d constantly be in the can, no time for votes, and after the first ‘accident’ he has on a news program he’d never be invited back, however requests for him to appear on the Daily Show would never end after that.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pmRalph, Raplhy, speak to me…don’t go..we’ll get you out of here, just don’t close your eyes. I’ll make sure those trolls get what’s comin to em…for you, and sparky, and brookln, and stinky and the rest. I swear it. and when I get back home, I’ll look that girl of yours and tell her just how brave you were, how you threw yourself on that strawman even though it was burning and you saved your platoon. I’ll tell her.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pmLadies, ladies…you’re getting your ruffs in such a twist. By next year Lieberman will be a Republican doing the shilling for a much smaller band of nutzoids, and this whole Iranian obsession will be gone. We just have to make sure these ‘appealing sentiments’ aren’t acted on before the next inaugural.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pmIt’s called Wingnut Welfare.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pmLieberman could slow-talk himself to death…just make…him…keep…on…talking…
May 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pm…and talking
May 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm…and talking…
May 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pmBama_Breeze Says:
Only when it’s bombs and missles fired at Israel by Iran or Hamas, huh Chuck? I mean they’re only Jews, right Chuck?
Wow, thanks for putting words in my mouth. How about I rephrase that:
Bombing any nation and possibly killing innocents should never have “an appeal to it.”
May 14th, 2008 at 2:49 pmMax-1 Says
May 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
You are correct, Clinton didn’t say she’ll just “BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB-BOMB IRAN” but instead OBLITERATE IRAN.
Which is worse?
________________________________________
If you make the assumption these two remarks were made in identical contexts (in other words, a straight dictionary comparison), then obliterating would be worse than simple bombing. However, when context is considered, it’s comparing apples to giraffes.
McCain wants to bomb Iran right now. So does Lieberman. Because they believe (or want us to believe) that Iran is a threat right now.
Hillary only made her remark about obliterating Iran as what she would do IF Iran made a nuclear strike against Israel (and that’s a pretty big “IF”). This isn’t that unusual. Many posters here at TP have said that even if Iran had nuclear weapons they wouldn’t dare use them because at the first strike, they would be turned into a sheet of glass. That’s pretty much a no-brainer.
I’m not a fan of the way Hillary has run her campaign, but I’m not going to blast her for the “obliterate Iran” remark. She was just stating the obvious.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pmliberal traitor-
My only concern is that people like you will end up in charge.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pmBama_Breeze Says:
Only when it’s bombs and missles fired at Israel by Iran or Hamas, huh Chuck? I mean they’re only Jews, right Chuck?
Scumbag
http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/ Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Why do you support people firing rockets into Israel? Just because they’re “only Jews” doesn’t make it any less wrong, you anti-Semite!
May 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pmMisshusseinmolly - I’m confused. You said that Clinton was just stating the obvious. To me, there is no obvious, other than to show how low Hillary’s balls are hangin’. We are talking about a nuclear exchange, with us as the ’second-striker.’ I don’t know about you, but I think Iran probably understands the concept of MAD - mutually assured destruction, and if WE retaliated for Israel, WE would be the ones in a heap of shit.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pmBENNETT: And Joe, you know, this is my style. This is a girl who puts on her pearls, goes down, throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran, you know. This is…lookout Mrs. Bennett, this is my kind of girl.
LIEBERMAN: Hehehe, it does have an appeal to it.
Could there be a more despicable, disgusting approach to foreign policy? These people sound more like playground bullies than world leaders. But then, what else is new?
http://progressiveworldreview.com
May 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pmTP - good trick, this…
’cause the story ain’t about LIEberman… or bennett…
but way to find the spine and the way to tell it… thanks…
May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm…
Yes, it’s a sad day when the thought of a nuclear exchange has appeal. Yup, down some shots then get some shots off, that’s the way to handle our foreign policy.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pmDoes Lieberman have stock in Raytheon?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pmrobwillcarp Says:
——————————————————————————–
liberal traitor-
My only concern is that people like you will end up in charge.
Why is that? Because I think you’re a concern troll? Wow, that’s a solid basis for your thoughts, most definitely. You must know a lot about me from the 2 or 3 posts of mine you’ve read in order to reach that conclusion, well done, you’ve certainly outed me as someone who shouldn’t be in charge. Especially since those “in charge” right now, Dem and Rep alike, are doing a real bang-up job.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:02 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
Bama_Breeze Says:
Only when it’s bombs and missles fired at Israel by Iran or Hamas, huh Chuck? I mean they’re only Jews, right Chuck?
Scumbag
http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/ Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Why do you support people firing rockets into Israel? Just because they’re “only Jews” doesn’t make it any less wrong, you anti-Semite!
Why are you a moron? Why do you support your own stupidity? Just because we’re “only smarter than you” doesn’t make it any less wrong, you anti-smart person!
May 14th, 2008 at 3:03 pmMatt
That was unbelievably misleading.
He didn’t say bombing Iran was appealing. He was commenting on Hilary’s new approach to the campaign. If you don’t get it right it just looks like you’re trying to find things to go after people about.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pmno one you know Says:
——————————————————————————–
Matt
That was unbelievably misleading.
He didn’t say bombing Iran was appealing. He was commenting on Hilary’s new approach to the campaign. If you don’t get it right it just looks like you’re trying to find things to go after people about.
And the REASON he finds her new campaign style appealing is because of her willingness to bomb Iran (with all her caveats and the context left out of course). Therefore, yes, he did say bombing Iran was appealing…this is coming from Holy Joe who has made no less than 3 public statements in a week’s time advocating bombing Iran.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pmI think, libforequity, that because our leaders have so fallen off the wagon with regards to civil discourse, that it has seeped into our own consciousness as well. We need to definitely push back against it, though. Maybe learn them thar politicos how to talk nice!
May 14th, 2008 at 3:13 pmlibforequity:
You’re probably right. Little stressed out today and a bit too quick on the trigger perhaps. In carp’s case, definitely. In bama’s case, that’s about all this person deserves for putting words in other people’s mouths and using straw men to imply anyone here supports bombs and missiles being fired at Israel.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pmIn light of libforequity’s post:
robwillcarp, apologies for my nastiness. Agree to disagree, no?
bama_breeze, nothing’s changed, you’re still a moron.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:16 pmTP: LIGHTEN UP!
How is it ok for LIE-berman & Bennett to advocate bombing innocent people, but not ok to fling their own words back at them?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pmUH,
May 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pmI understand your frustration, however, you’re right and wrong here. It’s NOT ok for LIEberman and Butthead to advocate bombing innocent people, not in the slightest. It’s also NOT ok to follow suit and do as they do (except for the ‘innocent’ part obviously), and I think it’s more that TP doesn’t want to be associated with ANY advocating of death, destruction…you get my point. If they were really in need of lightening up they would have banned you by now.
personally I just wish TP would let me post with a sailor’s vocabulary, rather than having to find creative ways to sneak the motherfu(king offensive bi+ch (ock A$$ words in there…
May 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm“You must know a lot about me from the 2 or 3 posts of mine you’ve read”-liberal traitor
I know that you’re the kind of person who tells people to STFU after reading only 1 of my posts!
You are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pmOh wait I know:
liberal traitor, that’s what Hitler would have said.
There, is the debate officially over know?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pmBomb Iran? These men are mad if they voice bombing as an acceptable activity. Finding appropriate words just defeats me.
But I am not far removed from the same mentality when I view the situation in Mynamar. Some self appointed generals are able to prevent humanitarian efforts from the world. Should our inventory determine a missing missile, I would hope where it went.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm93. robwillcarp Says:
I’m also the type of person who apologizes and admits he was being a dickhead when he’s called on it, I see you’re the type of person who doesn’t accept apologies…
May 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pmrobwillcarp Says:
——————————————————————————–
Oh wait I know:
liberal traitor, that’s what Hitler would have said.
Ok, now you’re bringing Hitler into this…I’m not sure how. What are you babbling about? Seriously, you thin-skinned little baby, I APOLOGIZED TO YOU already. What else do you want? Christ.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:35 pmanymouse20 Says:
——————————————————————————–
I know I’ll be attacked for daring to express this opinion, but a strong argument can be made that if sanctions and diplomacy do not work, the threat of strategic bombing may eventually be in order so long as it is limited in scope as the 2007 Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility.
There’s nothing wrong with that opinion in the sense that you are reserving the use of military force as the final option when diplomacy and sanctions do not work. The problem comes in when you have people like the Bush Administration in charge who bypass the first two always in order to go for the last option first.
The Israeli bombing of the Syrian facility is a poor example however, since the idea of that being a nuclear facility has been debunked (maybe not thoroughly, but enough doubt has been cast that’s for sure)
http://rawstory.com/ news/ 2007/ Seymour_Hersh_reports_on_Israel_bombing_0203.html
http://www.democracynow.org/ 2008/ 4/ 28/ un_nuclear_watchdog_chief_blasts_us
Anyway, take what you will.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pmSorry, I missed #89, apology accepted.
96 was my ‘attempt’ at humorously ending the babble…
May 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pmGood, I’m glad that’s over with hahaha. It’s been a long time since I was compared to Hitler.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pmBy the way, I am anything but thin-skinned, that is also entirley based on your projections, as are most of your rants, I’ll warrant.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:49 pmanymouse20 Says:
——————————————————————————–
I know I’ll be attacked for daring to express this opinion, but a strong argument can be made that if sanctions and diplomacy do not work, the threat of strategic bombing may eventually be in order so long as it is limited in scope as the 2007 Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
And what exactly does your statement have anything to do with what Bennet and Lieberman are talking about/suggesting ?
They believe that a strike 1st , strike 2nd , the hell with everything else mentality , is all that is needed……..
May 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pmmisshusseinmolly
Your problem has to do with trying to look at this out of the context of foreign policy and Cold War diplomacy.
The experts in those fields about had strokes over those words. You can call it code, jargon or any other description for the abbreviated concept language that develops in any specialty field. The comment was unmistakable, the context was plenty clear in all cases. I grant you many arguments have been made from the same ignorance of these realities. It goes to the unbelievable unawareness of all the people commenting on this critical body of knowledge.
The bottom line is that Hill, Joe, John and Bill are all willing to keep moving down the ugly slope of quick, horrific warfare over preemptive diplomacy. Her idea to put a nuclear ‘umbrella’ over this area was part and parcel of the appalling position.
My preference for Lieberman punishment is to have to sit in front of a screen with endless pictures of the children of Iraq who have been mutilated and killed.
Interspersed with numbers of how many more abortions Iraqi women have had since the war started, than they did under Hussein. How many children have died from dehydration, preventable and curable illnesses. How many have not been able to go through normal mental development of early childhood due to the stress they are under and will consequently never reach a normal level of cognitive functioning. How many have missed out on key years of education.
How many have been orphaned - many having seen the murder of their parents themselves.
Hillary has an incredible IQ. A lot of us have trouble with her EQ.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pmBombing Iran has “an appeal to it”. Killing innocent children, women, & men is somehow frivolous to Lieberman and his ilk. Imagine the hysteria if officials in other countries made such a remark about the U.S. Lieberman, McCain (”Bomb, bomb Iran”) and all the other right wing war-mongers and war profiteers are fast-tracked to hell, or wherever such hateful & evil people go. And good riddance.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pmJoe Lieberman - you Vietnam Deferred, Chickenhawk, Warmongering Neocon Sack of Sh*t,
Why don’t you drop out of the Senate and join either the US or Israeli Army? Dodge something other than the draft or Senate spit, or shut the hell up. Better yet, go back to Iraq and take a long walk without an armed battalion escort in Sadr city.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pmliberal traitor Says:
Why are you a moron? Why do you support your own stupidity? Just because we’re “only smarter than you” doesn’t make it any less wrong, you anti-smart person!
May 14th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Well is it my fault that smart people are all latte-drinking non-gun-clinging non-religion-clinging non-hardworking elitists??
May 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pmIt has an “APPEAL”????
May 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pmWTF!
How could any sane person ever say that a bombing campaign has “appeal.”
If anyone had any doubts about the thought process of Joe LIEberman, they should be erased by now. The man has lost his mind, he is deep into senility (with McCain) and he has absolutely betrayed those who ever supported him.
anymouse20 Says:
I know I’ll be attacked for daring to express this opinion, but a strong argument can be made that if sanctions and diplomacy do not work, the threat of strategic bombing may eventually be in order so long as it is limited in scope as the 2007 Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
_____
If sanctions and diplomacy “do not work” at what? Convincing Iran to not build the nuclear weapons that it’s already not building? Convincing Iran to sell oil in dollars? Convincing Iran to stop helping the Maliki government and the Badrists fight the Mahdi Army? Convincing Iran to stop NOT saying it’ll “wipe Israel off the map?”
May 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pmRipping his sanctimonious head off and taking a crap down his throat has an appeal to it.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pmI know that this is slightly off-topic…but am I the only one who notices that Bennett refers to Clinton as a “girl”? I do realize that many people think that it’s perfectly harmless — or even a sign of affection — to use the word “girl” when referring to a grown woman and don’t consciously intend to be dismissive when they do so. Frankly, however — especially when you consider that your average right-winger isn’t exactly a staunch advocate of sexual liberation — the fact that Bennett is a man makes it hard for me to see it as anything other than dismissive in this context underneath all the seeming praise. After all, any woman who’s succeeded in achieving some of the things that Clinton has (regardless of whether you think well of them or not) is not someone who should be taken lightly — especially when said woman has accomplished something that no other woman has so far by becoming the country’s first serious female contender for the presidency. Would Bennett have referred to McCain as a “boy” in the same context? Perhaps — but I think there’s at least some room for doubt on that score, even if the words were the result of a totally unconscious choice on Bennett’s part.
I do find it significant that Bennett’s comment — minus the bit about putting on the pearls — praises Clinton for responding in what might be characterized as a typically “masculine” and aggressive manner…knocking back a slug of hard liquor, slamming the glass down, shooting first and asking questions later if at all. (As long as we’re on the subject…would anyone with even two functioning brain cells to rub together have believed Clinton’s “shot-and-a-beer” routine?) At least to my way of thinking, there’s at least a faint implication there whether Bennett acknowledges it or not that the presidency is really a job better suited to a man — or at least, a woman (or “girl”) who typically behaves in a masculine way even if she dresses like a woman. Even I recognize that I may be reading too much into this — and just for the record, I’m not in favor of Clinton being chosen as the Democratic Party nominee even though I’m happy to finally see a woman as a serious contender for the presidency — but that’s how it comes across to me.
I still stand by what I’ve said on other posts pertaining to right-wing praise for Clinton. I’m still inclined to suspect that it stems from a desire to see her become the Democratic Party nominee because they have far more mud to throw at her — or at least, far more with some inclination to stick — than they have to throw at Obama.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:53 pmoh, and this:
Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the “appeal” of the hawkish caricature Bennett had created
HILLARY CREATED that hawkish caricature…
and THAT’s what this is all about…
May 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm>If this sort of thing appeals to him,
> we should be a bit frightened that
> he’s in a position of influence.
I am SO glad this little blackmailing piece of horse excreement’s “swing senate seat” will be made thoroughly irrelevant by the 2008 elections. someone who thinks a trash talking alchol abuser would be a great person to have thier finger on “the button” needs to be shipped back “return to sender” to the warmongering interests they truly represent..
May 14th, 2008 at 5:57 pmDemocracy weeps.
The Hildabeast and Joe Quislingman are both 5th columnist operatives and can now pretty much do it in plain view. No wonder the MSM fights so hard to keep Team Clinton in the mix.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:11 pmLieberman is an Israeli agent, as is his wife. Bennett and his kind are simply enablers and they should all be put into the stockades, maybe Gitmo, until we can get some intelligent from them.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Well is it my fault that smart people are all latte-drinking non-gun-clinging non-religion-clinging non-hardworking elitists??
Toasterhead - you forgot NON-BITTER. Mustn’t forget non-bitter.
Also, you forgot the arugula. We’re arugula munchers. Non-bitter arugula munchers.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pmMaybe one of you smart folks can enlighten me as to why it is Iran should not have, what Israel has, and why they simply don’t say, we don’t trust Israel, especially since they bombed them and threatened to nuke them. I for one, hope Iran gets nukes and uses them quickly.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pmI for one, hope Iran gets nukes and uses them quickly.
So it will bring about glorious armageddon, and the Final days?
Halleleuja and amen, brother!
May 14th, 2008 at 7:19 pmWow! They finally managed to get the troll stupidity ray operating at full power. Not even worth the effort of bashing. They are exhibiting that GOP ability to bash themselves. Tomorrow? They turn it up to eleven! Stay tuned!
May 14th, 2008 at 7:28 pmLieberman is a terrorist traitor to America who should have his @ss thrown into Gitmo.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pmHillary was not talking about just bombing Iran…She wanted to ‘Obliterate’ that coutry of over 70 million people,and that seems to have a nice appeal to Joe Lieberman,with
‘he he he he….’
What kind of a monster the state of Connecticut sent to the Senate? !!!
May 14th, 2008 at 8:14 pmIf Iran had functional nukes, they could strike Israel first, and you know that if they did, Syria and others would be there to erase them from the map, thus ridding the world of its biggest problem. Israel is a racist nation that only wants resources for their own, although jews are a minority there. They openly look down upon their own who choose to marry outside the culture, and they impose their own limits on everyone. They are only using evangelicals because they are too stupid to understand the fantasies of the ‘holy land’ and they know how better than most to manipulate the media, which makes them frighteningly powerful for their limited numbers. If Iran could hit them and erase their military strength, we would not have to send our children to that part of the world to defend them.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:31 pmI am a straight guy but Joe sounded so sexy that I,m willing to have him suck my dee ay see kay.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:57 pmI am a 12″ I want to break his innocense.
I hope Hamas takes out Lieberman one day.
THAT also “has an appeal to it”.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:42 pmThree Stooges of War….Bennett, Lieberman, and Hillary. One is a drunken, gambling Christian Anti-Drug Warrior. One is a Benedict Arnold, Wormy Puckface, Who works for Israel. The last is a female impersonating the worst aspects of being a male, and works for Israel.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pmI just registered because I had to express my utter delight that Gore didn’t win in 2000 after all, though I’m convinced he woulda/coulda kept Mr. “is he sane” Lieberman in line. I had no idea Lieberman was such a warmonger. He has become a very frightening fellow these past eight years. And about Iran, as a mom of a 21 year old, I haven’t gotten over Hillary’s “obliterate them” remark yet…I never will.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:09 pmJust think; this clown could have been our VP…Thank Allah we found out about this weasel before he could do more damage!
May 14th, 2008 at 11:48 pmTalk about voters remorse…I wonder what his constituancy think of him now?
Lieberman is an Israel firster and scumbag of the first order.
The Iran issue is 100% Israeli, Iran is no danger to the US. Protecting Israel when they are the biggests bully in the ME ? Again ? All rules apply except to Israel ? Again ? Pure BS. Make Israel adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ,which Iran has done. Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilities, which Iran has done. Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions, which the US protects it from.
America’s media silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and their lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member, is an example of the kind of outright double standard that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.
And we try to get Iran — an NPT member — to stop enriching uranium and expect not to sound outright hypocritical? Iran has every right to defend themselves against Israel. The IAEA in Israel ? The reaction would be spectacular and filled with claims of persecution and divine right.
It’s absurd the pretense that Israel stands as the pathetic guardian against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME. Israel is the biggest bully, destabilizing, warmongering, belligerent aggressor there and needs to be dealt with before Tehran.
Unconditional, unquestioned, never ending financial support of Israeli is bad for the US. Israeli policies are no longer in line with US policies.The US arms Israel and shields Israel from international and UN repercussions which does us enormous harm in the eyes of the world.
Good news? There will be when Israel and the US recognize a two-state solution, a separation between their country and this one, the United States.ws
May 15th, 2008 at 12:12 amJoe Lieberman
Your brain is no longer functioning. You have lost every sense of what is moral and just. How do you sleep nights?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:42 amBennett the war whore has two sons who could be serving in Iraq but aren’t.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:33 amWhy do we think that it is ok for our military to bomb anyone whose policies don’t align with ours. How many times has the U.S. created the equivalent of a 9/11 in a foriegn country? How these people must hate us.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:40 amWait everyone, I loath Lie-berman too but I don’t think this recording proves that he was saying that “bombing Iran” had the appeal. It sounds to me like he was agreeing with the Idea that HRC is tough and the toughness was the appealing part. I think we need to be very selective about this kind of “out of context” stuff. I didn’t think it was fair for Barack to get all that attention regarding “bitter” and “cling” either. Let’s live by our own principles. Lieberman will show his colors many more times before this election is over.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:11 amThe name Lieberman is now a synonym for the word TOADY. The way he always stands behind McCain and gazes at him with this worshipful look . . . gag a maggot! If we all just quit listening to him or acknowledging his existence, he’ll lose power.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:30 amAs crazy as that may sound, it is definitively going to happen………..it is just when.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pmLieberman, an honorable man but still a sincere shill for Israel, is the perfect symbol of how the Israel Lobby has bought and paid for BOTH political parties since the rise of the Neo-Cons with the election of Reagan. As radical internationally as Obama’s color is domestically, is the way Obama has de facto, or deliberately, made an end run around the Israel Lobby in the revolutionary financing of his campaign from the Internet. If Obama wins, the dominance of American foreign policy by the needs of Israel in the Middle East will end, like the war in Iraq, which was the most disastrous product of Israel’s control of American politics with the purses of large Jewish contributors, who are now apoplectic over their helplessness in the face of Obama. Much more than enraged women, who will have to vote for Obama to preserve their right to an abortion in any case, it’s the Israel Lobby which is behind Hillary’s determination to fight Obama into defeat, if necessary. Since it would be better for the Lobby to have McCain, who’s totally in their pocket, than a dangerously independent Obama. If we elect Obama, we might finally have an honest American broker in the Middle East, one more interested in a just peace for Israel AND the Palestinians than bombing Iran back into the Stone Age, as both Bush and Clinton, twin tools of Israel, seemingly would prefer.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pmHey GI Joe and Druggie Bennett,
Since it’s such a JOKE to both you to talk about war and dropping nuclear bombs, are you still going to be “laughing” if an Arab Country hears how you feel and decides to nuke Israel?
Are both of you going to be have that “knee slapping” laugh if that happens - or if we get attacked by a Nuke from a country you would laugh at bombing?
Thats the problem with you neocon nuts - you never think about the consequences of all of your “jollies” of bombing OTHER people!!
Grow Up Already!!!
May 18th, 2008 at 4:30 pm