Think Progress

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.”

Washington University Law Professors: Rescind Honorary Degree For Anti-Feminist Phyllis Schlafly»

Washington University recently announced that it would be awarding right-wing activist Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree at its graduation ceremony on May 16. Schlafly is notorious for her outspoken belief that women should be homemakers and her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. In a statement, the university lauded Schlafly as a “national leader of the conservative movement.”

Opposition was swift. Two Facebook groups opposing the award immediately popped up and now have more than 4,000 members combined. Today, 14 faculty members of the Washington University School of Law also wrote a sharp letter asking school’s chancellor to rescind the award:

We are extremely disappointed that the University has chosen to honor Phyllis Schlafly with an honorary degree at this spring’s commencement ceremony.

We are fully committed to the principle of free speech, and we believe the University should encourage a discussion of diverse viewpoints. Commencement, however, is first and foremost a time of celebration of the intellectual accomplishments of our students. It is, we believe, a disservice to those whom we honor to inject into the proceedings a person who has devoted her life to staking out and promoting polarizing, anti-intellectual positions. […]

An even more important reason to rescind the degree offer to Ms. Schlafly is that her repeatedly expressed views are antithetical to some of the most fundamental principles for which this University stands.

As the professors note, Schlafly’s accomplishments include going after “the gay and lesbian agenda,” calling for the “impeachment” of Supreme Court justices, calling anyone who believes in evolution an “atheist,” and opposing the Violence Against Women Act. She has also claimed that women “are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate” and described sex education as “in-home sales parties for abortions.”

E-mail Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton here to object to the Schlafly award. (Be polite.)

Conservatives Lash Out At Administration Guidelines On Terrorism Language: It’s ‘McCarthyism In Reverse’»

UPI’s Shaun Waterman reports today that congressional conservatives are riled up over new government guidelines shunning the use of terms like “jihadist” and “Islamo-fascism” to describe terrorists. On Friday, every Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted for a failed amendment to ban “the use of federal cash to produce documents like the terminology guidelines.”

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), who authored the amendment, attacked the guidelines as “McCarthyism in reverse“:

Mr. Hoekstra called it “sad that as we approach the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are still debating how to define our enemy.”

His amendment aimed to end what he called “McCarthyism in reverse” and “speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America.”

Hoekstra is missing the point when he lashes out at the guidelines as part of a debate over “how to define our enemy.” Even if terms like “jihad” are used accurately, the report concludes that “it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world.”

“A senior administration official” who spoke to UPI disagreed with the House GOP’s position, claiming “that President Bush had been ‘absolutely at the forefront’ of promoting and using the kind of language the guidelines recommend.” In order to support this claim, Waterman cited research by Duke University’s David Schanzer:

A search of the president’s speeches and other public comments on the White House Web site conducted by David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University in North Carolina, found that Mr. Bush — who has repeatedly spoken about America’s enemies — has used the term “Islamic terrorist” only once since the beginning of 2007.

Though President Bush appears to have made some effort, “Islamic terrorist” is not the only term whose use the guidelines caution against. As ThinkProgress has noted, President Bush referred to terrorists as “jihadists,” which is also seen as problematic by his administration, as recently as April 29.