joe lieberman can’t have it both ways

joe lieberman is a democratic senator from connecticut, running for re-election. the only problem is, he is not really a democrat anymore. he has announced that if he loses the democratic primary to challenger ned lamont, he will run as a “petitioning democrat”, i.e., he will run as an independent candidate but officially stay as a democrat, even though he won’t be the democratic party nominee. ned lamont, on the other hand, has pledged that if he loses the primary, he will support joe lieberman in the general election. but joe lieberman is trying to have it both ways. he is showing his true colors, showing how he is so hell-bent on staying in power, he is willing to do or say anything to stay in the senate.

but guess what, joe? this is a democracy, not a monarchy. the people of connecticut have a right to choose who represents them in congress and the senate. and if they don’t like joe lieberman, he should not be allowed to force himself on them. that would be like a rapist forcing himself on an innocent lady. joe lieberman is trying to effectively rape the people of connecticut, and violate the integrity of the democratic process.

joe lieberman does not have any loyalty to anyone but himself. he has no regard for the democratic party, despite being a senator in that party. he does not care what his fellow democrats think. he writes ridiculously pro-war pro-bush editorials for the wall street journal, a right-wing republican publication (at least the editorial section is right-wing, anyway). he makes ridiculously dishonest attacks on ned lamont, sometimes calling ned lamont a republican in disguise, other times calling ned lamont a far-left extremist. he makes stupid cartoon ads that make him look like an idiot. more than anything, joe lieberman consistently undermines the democratic party, by leading other congressional democrats in the wrong direction, and preventing any party unity on issues such as the war in iraq. joe lieberman also betrayed party unity when he supported the impeachment of former president william jefferson clinton. he has consistently been a staunch opponent of separation of church and state, and a big supporter of censorship. in short, he is out of touch with his party’s activist base, and disagrees with them on many fundamental issues. this is unacceptable, because it undermines the credibility of the democratic party as an institution, when we cannot come up with coherent policies on important issues, because of disagreement between fellow democrats.

democrats are united. at least, in the general population. not the politicians in washington. no, i am talking about average, everyday democrats, just anyone who has that party affiliation or considers themselves a supporter of the democratic party or says they want the democrats to win control of congress. we are a staunchly anti-war party, here in the grassroots, and that is true all across the union, in all 50 states. forget about zarqawi being killed. our military is committing atrocities in iraq, that are being revealed every day in the media! our own supreme court has found the bush administration to be violating the geneva conventions and the uniform code of military justice, with its concentration camps in guantanamo bay. now, how are the camps in guantanamo bay any different from the iranian hostage crisis? when the iranians kidnapped lots of our people and held them hostage, we were very mad. isn’t it natural that muslims in the middle east might react in the same, normal human way, if we kidnap those of them who lead the fight against us, and put them into camps?

let us be very clear about this. this is a war for global domination. it is not just a narrow war against terrorists. the objective has been laid out in many papers such as those by the project for a new american century. the neoconservaties, or neocons for short, are the leaders in this great war for complete world domination. and joe lieberman is staunchly on the side of the neocons, unapologetically. he constantly criticizes those who dissent, who question this war for world domination. you see, iraq is a very strategic country in this global war. iraq has tremendous oil reserves, and if the united states managed to get oil production back up to pre-war levels (which still has not happened!) we could have a big supply of cheap oil, besides our stanch pro-terrorist ally saudi arabia.

yes, saudi arabia is a stanch ally of the united states, as well as a pro-terrorist nation. people in saudi arabia support osama bin laden. that is, the general public of saudi arabia is brainwashed by right-wing muslim clerics into supporting terrorism against the united states. those clerics are called the wahabbis. anyway, our government supports totalitarian monarchy in saudi arabia, that does horrible human rights violations against its own people, including public executions for all sorts of minor crimes. saudi arabia is a very evil nation, but we support it, because they are a staunch ally. even though, all the muslim extremism is caused by the government of saudi arabia which is directly supporting the anti-american muslim clerics, and has been supporting those same clerics for over 100 years.

meanwhile, we pretend we want democracy in iraq, even though we don’t want it anywhere else in the middle east, because it would destabilize things and allow anti-american leaders to emerge and challenge our global hegemony. this is because the public in those countries HATES us, and if we give them a chance for free and fair elections in the middle east, anti-american terrorist supporters will win EVERY TIME. just look at the election of hamas in palestine, or the election of mahmoud ahmadenijad in iran. the only way we can win is if we fix the elections, and use our diplomats to manipulate the political process to support american interests. this is why the so-called democracies of afghanistan and iraq both support the united states. also, if the politicians in afghanistan and iraq depend upon the united states military for personal security, can you really expect them to have much courage in standing up to the united states? the answer is no.

so, what the fuck can we do, if the muslims in the middle east hate us and would elect terrorists to run all of their countries if they really had free and fair elections? first of all, we can’t REALLY support democracy, like we pretend to, because that would completely undermine american interests in the region. but we do need to withdraw some or most of our military forces, to stop them from committing atrocities which promote the interests of the terrorist enemy. we need afghanistan and iraq to be able to defend themselves. secondly, we must treat governments such as the one in iran or the one in palestine fairly. this means we must be open to negotiations with the enemy, rather than stonewalling and setting preconditions. and we must try to demonstrate at least a minimum degree of fairness with our enemies.

for example, iran is possibly pursuing nuclear weapons, or maybe just nuclear power plants. india has both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and the united states recently agreed to help out india’s nuclear power program, despite india’s refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. iran, on the other hand, did sign that treaty, and has been cooperating fully with iaea weapons inspectors, even agreeing to additional protocals for more rigorous inspections than those required under the treaty. if we want to appear as at least minimally fair towards muslim nations, we ought to permit iran to develop a peaceful nuclear power program, something the united states endorsed when the shah was in charge of iran, but changed its mind about after the islamic revolution. there are different grades of uranium, from depleted uranium to the natural mixture you find in rocks, to low-level enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, up to highly enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. iran is only making low-level enriched uranium, that is all they need for nuclear power, and it cannot be used to make nuclear bombs. so, if we simply permit this activity, continuing under the auspices of iaea inspections, there is really nothing to be afraid of, because that simply could not be used to make a nuclear bomb. the only way iran can build a nuclear bomb is if negotiations fail and they become isolated by the international community, and they do not get invaded or overthrown. because, if negotiations do succeed, this will prevent the scenario of an iranian bomb from ever taking place.

why does north korea have nuclear bombs? this is because of the policies of the neocons. neocons pursue aggresively hostile policies towards countries whose interests run counter to ours. but in the case of north korea, we were all bark and no bite. under bill clinton, we had signed a treaty with north korea preventing them from uranium enrichment. unfortunately we forgot to prohibit plutonium in the treaty, so the north koreans secretly took advantage of that loophole to produce plutonium. after dubya became president, he declared north korea part of an axis of evil, and this made them more hostile towards us, and as a direct result of this, as well as our pursuit of missile defense systems, they felt it necessary to develop nuclear weapons for self-defense, to prevent us from attacking. think about that. north korea is just as concerned with its national security and defending its homeland as the united states is. so when we go around threatening them, they get concerned, and they might have to do some pretty drastic things in order to feel they have enough of a deterrent power against us. this is also why iran is pursuing nuclear development so actively now, because of the failed neocon policies. we can only invade one country at a time, and our enemies know that, so they get ready by trying to build nukes before we have the chance to invade. what is the solution? stop invading countries! if we had peace, we would have no need for war. it is pretty fucking simple. bring the troops home from iraq, and don’t send them to any other countries unless absolutely necessary. case closed, end of story.

but lieberman doesn’t think like that. he thinks we need to win in iraq. even if our troops continue to commit atrocities. even if the iraqis don’t want us there. even if there is escalating civil war between sunnis and shiites. after all the horrible violence we have seen in iraq, joe lieberman still thinks it was the right decision to lie to send our troops to war against saddam hussein who was no threat whatsoever. this is a mockery of a shame of a travesty. the neocons say, if we pull out now, our troops will have died in vain. well duh, of course they died in vain! the whole war was done in vain, out of vanity, because bush was upset about his father not getting the job done against saddam, and it making us look like wimps. yes we took saddam hussein out of power, and set up a new iraqi government, and captured saddam hussein, and put him on trial, etc. but the neocons oppose international law, because they do not want to be held accountable for any war crimes that they commit. that is why the united states has not ratified the treaty that created the international criminal court, and why we refuse to allow ourselves to be subjected to international law, even though we use international law as a blunt instrument of diplomatic torture against our adversaries. republicans in congress publicly say they do not want any americans being brought in front of international war crimes tribunals, and that they want to prevent the international community from being able to do that. so what? so saddam hussein’s trial, like the trial of slobodan milosevic, is a farce. it is victor’s justice. if you are a dictator and you lose a war, apparently, you can be put on trial for crimes against humanity. but world leaders who win wars are not subject to the whims of judges or courtrooms. they make their own rules. in fact, republicans are now denouncing the recent supreme court ruling that upheld the rights of due process for prisoners in guantanamo bay. it is a travesty that we even have a base in guantanamo bay in the first place! guantanamo bay is a part of cuba, and we have no business forcing them to give us permanent basing rights against their will! this is imperialism at its worst!

anyway, my point is, joe lieberman is a part of the problem, a part of the big giant problem, and he is a neocon, and we need to get rid of him, or else the democratic party will be a lost cause. the democratic party needs to stand up and fight the republican agenda, instead of simpering around like cowards and giving in. we must not compromise on fundamental principles. and we must not allow corrupt career politicians who do not care about public opinion to pretend to represent us, while making a mockery of everything we hold dear. joe lieberman must be defeated, because he is really a republican disguised as a democrat. he is in the wrong party. and he is helping to destroy our party and prevent it from offering an effective alternative to the ruling party. if our democratic party is unable to purge ourselves of his vile presence, we have no right to exist, as a political party, because we will be reduced to incompetent, powerless, internally divided, irrelevant losers. we can only lay claim to the great honor of ruling this nation if we have the courage and wisdom to unite around a common, positive agenda, and if we unite against the bush administration’s neocon policies. no neocons should be permitted to remain in our party. because republicans are the war party, and we ought to be the party of peace. a party for people like jack murtha, who can stand up against the war. not a party for joe lieberman. it is time for lieberman to swich his affiliaton to republican, because he is not welcome anymore, and he is a bigger threat to the democratic party than any republican could be. he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. so, let him join the enemy party, if he loves them so much. meanwhile, REAL americans will unite to take this country back from the right-wing extremists who have hijacked this nation. and, if anyone, in any nation of the world, has committed war crimes, i for one support the international community bringing them to justice and prosecuting them, even if they are americans. i do not have a double standard, i do not say we are inherently superior to everyone else, or we are infallible, or we are always right. i say, let the facts stand for themselves. and let joe lieberman defend his record, and defend his support for the fact that iraq has now become a haven for terrorists, where there were none before, and defend the fact that so many innocent people have tragically died unnecessary deaths and he is responsible. i daresay, that is not something someone can easily defend. but i would like to see him try.