thinkprogress.org — Joe Lieberman argues that direct talks with Syria and Iran won?t work and compares it to "your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire. They are the extremists." Chuck Hagel points out moments later that Lieberman ignores Iran?s efforts to aid US goals in Afghanistan in 2002.
Dec 3, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountDec 4, 2006
Lieberman is essentially right, but he misses the point: the whole point of getting Iran involved is to bribe them into STOP setting MORE fires in Iraq.The shiite insurgency (Mahdi army and others) are basically sock-puppets of Tehran, funded, supplied and ideologically led from Iran as they are, and Tehran could get them to cease fire if it wanted.The real questions are what the US have to offer which Iran wants, and if Iran can be trusted to keep their part of any bargain. In the words of William S Burroughs:"If you ever do business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, GET IT IN WRITING! His word isn't worth s**t, not with the good Lord telling him how to f**k you on the deal."
Closed AccountDec 4, 2006
Liberman for president? A left-wing republican running as independent? Not very likely, is it.
jagdhundDec 4, 2006
Azur,The only problem with that is that it increases Iran's power (which worries many of us). Lieberman has it right, and I doubt he missed that point.I wouldn't know what we have to offer Iran, except for allowing them a 'peaceful' nuclear reactor to be built, and not supporting Israel attacking them if they do. Also, I don't know if Tehran could stop all the insurgents and bloodfueds if it wanted. It could do alot though.
minorripperDec 5, 2006
Is there any politician in Washington more addicted to power than Joe Lieberman? The guy loses fair and square and then takes advantage of an arcane campaign rule to run under a different party. Joe, what is it about D.C. that you love so much, the big pharma money? Do us all a favor and go with your gut and change parties and become a Republican.
carpefishemFeb 3, 2007
So the two-party system is only bad if it's not keeping someone you disagree with out of power.