But in the end, Lieberman's war-mongering on Iran isn't even about Iran. It's about Iraq.

It's not even about Iraq. It's about Israel.

Great post, with one tiny glitch at the end - Iran does share a dominant faith with Iraq (Shi'ite Islam) but not an ethnicity - the majority of Iraqis are ethnic Arabs, a bare majority of Iranians would probably be clear on the point that they are not Arabs, but Persians.

It appears Ezra thinks that if we cease our "proxy" war against Iran, they'll cease theirs against us.

yea, right! That's a good one.

The problem with you liberals is that you either (i) do not recognize that we have legitimate interests in the region (eg, the Hariri tribunal, an Arab-Israeli peace process, preventing Islamist advances) that the "bad guys" (eg, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria) will oppose; or
(ii) do not care because Bush is President and must be opposed in any and every case.

Whose side are you on?

When Congress reconvenes next week, all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to...adopt Joe Lieberman's preferred partisan and ideological position. When two people disagree about a political issue and advocate strenuously for their positions, only the one that disagrees with Joe Lieberman is being partisan.

Also, I think the point is that so long as we are waging a proxy war against Iran it's absurd to point to an alleged Iranian proxy war against the US as a sign of Persian perfidity.

Lieberman, today: "Iran has also funded its Iraqi proxies generously, to the tune of $3 million a month."

The DoD is spending aproximately $8.6 billion dollars in Iraq per month.

So Iran is spending 0.12 cents per Iraqi per month in Iraq and the US is spending $344 per Iraqi per month in Iraq and in Lieberman's mind that .12 cents a month per capita is so disrupting to the best military in the world that it's made the mission hopeless without invading Iran - where Iran will surely spend a wee bit more than the dime a head defending itself. And Lieberman thinks this is a WINNING strategy?

To Ezra's final point: as America's truthiest pundit (Stephen Colbert) put it, we can never lose in Iraq if we never leave.

Sorry this is going to be long, but here goes:

"every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that [common fucking sense] has now put before us: The [Bush-Cheney] government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the [democracy-minded, reality-based, world].

America now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince [the White House] to change its behavior, including the immediate cessation of its training and equipping extremists who are killing our troops. [Hmm. that doesn't seem require much editing.]

Most of this work must be done by our diplomats, military and intelligence operatives in the field. But [the Bush-Cheney Administration]'s increasingly brazen behavior also presents a test of our political leadership here at home. When Congress reconvenes next week, all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to send a clear, strong and unified message to [the White House] that it must stop everything it is doing to bring about the death of American service members in Iraq.

It is of course everyone's hope that diplomacy alone can achieve this goal. [The Bush Cheney-Administration]'s activities inside Iraq were the central issue raised by [Congressional Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid] in [their] historic meeting with [Bush-Cheney Administration dead-enders] representatives in [the White House] this [spring]. However, as Gen. Bergner said on Monday, "There does not seem to be any follow-through on the commitments that [the Bush-Cheney Administration] has made to work with Iraq in addressing the destabilizing security issues here." The fact is, any diplomacy with [the White House] is more likely to be effective if it is backed by a credible threat of force--credible in the dual sense that we mean it, and [Bush and Cheney] believe it.

* * *

Wow. Apparently, Joe Lieberman just called for investigations and impeachment, instead of pussyfooting around with this "censure" and "no-confidence vote" crap that's notable for how toothless it'd be. Okay, granted, he was talking about the intransigence of Iran rather than Bush/Cheney, so maybe not.

But I think it's a sign of just what a neoconservative loon Joe Lieberman is that his arguments for American pressure on anti-democratic war-mongering regimes that allegedly hate us for our freedoms and use terrorism for political purposes sound better if you apply those arguments to another renegade regime that poses a threat to the stability of the Middle East generally, and that of American democracy at home.

But that would require Joe Lieberman to get off his holy high horse and shut his sanctimonious trap for once, so there's no chance in hell it'll ever happen.

On the other hand, maybe Lieberman and Scalia can do a jingoistic-movies-and-24 marathon during the August recess, because they're both such big fans of fiction-as-public-policy.

...that we have legitimate interests in the region (eg, the Hariri tribunal, an Arab-Israeli peace process, preventing Islamist advances)

How "preventing Islamist advances" is your legitimate interest? Would preventing, say, Evangelical advances in the US be a legitimate Iranian interest? And Hariri tribunal? - scraping the bottom, huh?

Conflict with Iran will ensure the destruction of whatever influence the U.S. has in the Muslim world, and further incite those prone to a jihad. Lieberman is out of his mind if he thinks this is in our national interest.

Lieberman should just come out of the closet and declare he's a Republican. Who does he think he's fooling by calling himself an independent?

Realist, I couldn't agree more with your argument, but I have to furnish an answer to your question: Joe Lieberman thinks he's fooling Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic caucus, not to mention the DC media, by calling himself anything but a neoconservative Republican.

And the sad thing is that it's working like a fucking charm, because the Senate is full of people who have known Joe for decades, and when he says, "Who're you going to trust, your friend Joe or some angry left-wing bloggers?" they tend to side with him reflexively, because he's one of them - even as he stabs the party in the back repeatedly.

But to admit that to themselves would require Senate Democrats to have thoughts that are unpleasant, and it's easier to keep believing Joe.

I had no idea I would have to relive the 1960s/70s, the Imperial Presidency and the general lunacy of attacking all countries bordering the one you can't manage to win, anyway. The Domino theory rears its ugly head again.

Joe Lieberman is obviously insane. Someone ship him off to where he can do no more harm. Say, Connecticut, where they deserve him.

Wow! Persians at the gate! I'm sure
Joe's noble kids, will jump right in
for Uncle Sam. Go Privates Matthew, Rebecca, Ethan and Hana--or will they let others do the job as he did during
the Nam era?

Realist, you said: "Lieberman should just come out of the closet and declare he's a Republican. Who does he think he's fooling by calling himself an independent?"

No; I think it's you who needs to wake up and realize something very important: the majority of Democrat politicians are every bit as fucked up as the Republicans when it comes to killing and murdering Muslims and Arabs.

Saifedean: I don't disagree at all that many Democrats are just as worthless as the Republicans; American politics is basically a power struggle between two different factions of the ruling elite. Many Dems, especially the more centrist ones, sound just like Republicans. Believe me, I have no special faith in the Democratic Party in the U.S., however, the Republicans are in-your-face, openly fascistic wheras the Democratic Party at least contains some souls farther to the left who are still salvageable. The Republicans are entirely beyond help.

yea the first commenter glenn said it right. its all about israel. its not about iraq. we he talks about danger to the region he means danger to Israel and a competitor to Israeli dominance of the region. he believes israel and american interests are intertwined. hes wrong. israel is country with a vicious history of aggression and it continues daily. we should not have anything to do with these oppressors

yea the first commenter glenn said it right. its all about israel. its not about iraq. when he talks about danger to the region he means danger to Israel and a competitor to Israeli dominance of the region. he believes israel and american interests are intertwined. hes wrong. israel is a country with a vicious history of aggression and it continues daily. we should not have anything to do with this country

As the war's support has dropped since the 06 election, you have to figure Joe's has dropped as well.
He's down there with the 26-percenters.

He knows that if he switches parties, he's toast next time around.

But, listening to him, he must really believe this stuff. Which begs the question how someone that dense was elected to multiple terms.

JL ain't crazy: whipping up the dusky Muslim masses insures a lifetime (his) of posturing and sending others to fight for his "principles." He's sick, but not crazy.