Obama In Heated Conversation With Lieberman
The Huffington Post are reporting that Barack Obama took Joe Lieberman aside for "a heated conversation" on the floor of the Senate:
Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.He was perhaps angered at Lieberman's latest salvo insinuating that Obama is not pro-Israel enough and that Obama is displaying a blame-America-first mentality by stating that the Iraq war strengthened Iran.While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.
Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.
Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.
Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.
Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus.
Firstly, Iran has never invaded any other nation, so quite where Lieberman gets the charge that Iran is "expansionist" is simply beyond me."I appreciate many of the very good intentions to Israel and Israeli security that Senator Obama expressed today," said Lieberman. "I thought in the speech there was a disconnect between things Senator Obama said today, particularly in regard to Iran, and things he has said or done earlier either in the campaign or the Senate."
The crux of Lieberman's argument, however, was that Obama was putting the blame for Iran's rise in the Middle East on America's doorstep, pushing the argument that the Iraq war had strengthened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's standing in the region and left Israel less secure.
"If Israel is in danger today it is not because of US foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way," he said. "It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical, terrorist, expansionist state and has a leader and a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel."
Secondly, whilst it is undeniable that the US has "been strongly supportive of Israel in every way", it does not naturally follow that any action the US takes automatically helps Israel, even if that was the original intention.
And from the days of the Iran-Iraq war Kissinger made it quite clear that the US wished that both sides could lose because they, in effect, cancelled each other out. By removing Saddam from power, and bringing chaos to Iraq, Bush strengthened Iran's power in the region. That was an inevitable consequence of the invasion that any 14 year old history student could have foreseen, so it's ludicrous for Lieberman to be implying that it is a blame-America-first mentality to state what is simply an obvious truth.
The US removed Iran's worst enemy from the stage, the man who had invaded their country.
What mindset does Lieberman have if he believes that this did not strengthen Iran?
Plonker...
Click title for full article.
2 comments:
Lieberman's days are numbered in the Democratic caucus, and he knows it.
This is one of the most glaring examples of the DLC's meddling. Rather than backing Ned Lamont for the seat, the DLC pushed for Lieberman based on his "strength". Arrgh. After November, the Democrats won't need him for a majority and he will almost certainly caucus with the minority. Good bloody riddance. He even gives Independents a bad name.
And you are absolutely correct in your historical analysis. The Republicans have always relied on ignorance and a cheerleader mentality among the public to make their case. One of the wonderful things about the "blogosphere" is that allows these kind of points to be made, whereas the American media has consistently dropped the ball when it comes to analysis.
Arrgh. After November, the Democrats won't need him for a majority and he will almost certainly caucus with the minority. Good bloody riddance.
I couldn't agree more Todd. The man is a bloody disgrace.
The Republicans have always relied on ignorance and a cheerleader mentality among the public to make their case. One of the wonderful things about the "blogosphere" is that allows these kind of points to be made, whereas the American media has consistently dropped the ball when it comes to analysis.
It's one of the main reasons that I love the blogosphere. There are people like Glenn Greenwald and Balkinisation giving a perspective that is woefully lacking in the mainstream media.
Post a Comment