It’s been an amazing week for Joe Lieberman. His unexpected “pity bounce” from Al Gore’s defection was thrilling to students of political history [I was the glad recipient of a “pity bounce” back in my college days, but that is clearly another story]. Lieberman is the first candidate to make a major grab for that type of abject sympathy since Charles Evans Hughes’ ill-fated 1916 campaign. You may remember his slogan: “Hughes - His Wife Abandoned Him. Will You Do The Same?”
But yesterday, shortly after the Earthworm Formerly Known As Saddam was prised from his burrow, Jilted Joe had this to say:
Wow! It’s hard to imagine a statement more true nor more unfair than this one. And only hours after Saddam’s capture! I wish I’d been there to witness this gem of political hackery live, though I’d imagine that the force of it was somewhat undercut by Lieberman’s sloshy and laconic baritone. But still…
Yes, it’s true. If Dean had been President during this term, Saddam would likely still be in power. In fact, it’s hard to imagine any administration over the same period, Democratic or Republican, that would’ve deposed Saddam except that of George W. Bush. Gore, Kerry, McCain, Dole, even Lieberman himself - none of them would have pursued the wispy, spurious link between 9/11 and Iraq and committed so much time, energy, money, manpower and American blood to this particular cause. Right or wrong, George W. Bush gets credit not only for deposing Saddam, but for being probably the only President who would’ve (with the possible exception of Fatima el Nassariya, Saddam’s first wife. If she’d somehow become President, we’d have leveled Baghdad back in January, ‘01).
But my main interest is in Lieberman’s frothy wordplay, which suggests a whole raft of true-but-misleading accusations that the candidates can deploy on each other, so long as a sense of fairness doesn’t interfere. Gentlemen, you’re welcome to use any of these, and they’re all true:
“If George Bush has his way, Kim Jong Il will still be North Korea’s despot in 2006.”
See how this works? Bush hasn’t pushed for military action to effect regime change north of the ol’ DMZ. Fun, huh? In that spirit, here are some more:
“If John Kerry has his way, the oppressive regime of Myanmar will continue its brutally oppressive rule and continue to deny office to its legitimately elected President.”
“If Joe Lieberman has his way, Fidel Castro will happily rule Cuba until the end of his natural life.”
“If John Edwards has his way, Ryan Seacrest will remain the host of ‘American Idol.’”
Pretty neat, no? The above adequately illustrates why Joe Lieberman will not be receiving my endorsement in the coming year. Nor will John Edwards, come to think of it. Some kinds of inaction are simply inexusable.





30 comments
Redshift
December 15, 2003 at 2:29 pm
1Yeah, I heard it on the radio, and it’s even worse in his voice. I don’t often yell at the little people in the radio, but this was one time I couldn’t contain myself. If Lieberman wants to maintain the illusion that he doesn’t want Bush re-elected, he might want to avoid reading directly from the RNC talking points for the week. Though it may cut down on your source material, Adam, I can’t wait until we get past Iowa and New Hampshire so no one will pay attention to him any more.
Mike O'Connell
December 15, 2003 at 2:32 pm
2Excellent point Adam.
Unfortunately I’m afraid that that logic is about eight levels deeper than anybody voting for Bush will ever understand.
Phishtar
December 15, 2003 at 2:56 pm
3Seacrest? The horror! I must withdraw all support for Edwards right away…
Oh, wait, I stopped watching American Idol.
Carry on.
Marla
December 15, 2003 at 3:40 pm
4Thank you!
michael (in DC)
December 15, 2003 at 3:44 pm
5If Adam Felber had his way, millions of American Children would not believe in Santa Claus!
the children. think of the children!
m
Bryan
December 15, 2003 at 4:23 pm
6Adam, you do realize that your statement on WWDTM makes you pretty much unelectable.
I’m sorry, there’s no way to spin yourself out of it. You can get away with a advocating a few regional wars, but there are limits.
Sadly, Joe has a better chance than you do. Of course, he is about the only Connecticut politician not in the market for a defense attorney.
Murray
December 15, 2003 at 5:10 pm
7When I heard Lieberman say “Sadam would still be in power today, not in prison” My first thought was that Dean should say. “That’s probably true, but instead, Osama would be in prison”.
james
December 15, 2003 at 5:44 pm
8YOU DA MAN!
tess
December 15, 2003 at 6:20 pm
9it’s statements like these that make me want to vote for sharpton. at least he acts like a democrat instead of a wimpy republican.
Michael (in LA)
December 15, 2003 at 6:27 pm
10You could also add the time-honored preceding clause “the British Government had learned that..” at the beginning, if deniability is of the utmost necessity…
Tom Bridge
December 15, 2003 at 6:35 pm
11Okay, okay, you got me…but I think Edwards would also let Trebek continue on as Jeopardy Despot #1…
Craig
December 15, 2003 at 9:23 pm
12With Joe’s postions on the war and support of the president in the matters of Iraq he seems to be trying to represent the Republican wing of the Democratic party.. maybe he should simply position himself as Bush-lite…the non-republican, republican’s candidate
BillyBoy
December 15, 2003 at 11:19 pm
13Personally, I think Joe’s hawkish policies stem from the same impulses that compel poorly endowed men to drive Porche’s. He’s trying to compensate for some sense of inadequacy.
I mean, is there a single person on here who thinks they couldn’t mop the floor with Lieberman in a bar fight? Straight fists, no broken bottles or nuthin’.
Still, I think it’s a piss-poor way to try to get past the wimpy factor. Maybe he could try some of those lumberjack games- You know, the log throwing and chainsawing and stuff. That’s macho, too.
I’m going to strap on a Kevlar helmet and wait for flack from sports car driving, small penised guys.
Joshua Scholar
December 16, 2003 at 12:20 am
14Joe’s hawkishness stems from actually understanding the Middle East. Where there are no easy solutions radical solutions are the only choice.
The situation in the Middle East isn’t just worse than you think, it’s worse than a sane person can imagine…
In really radical situations, common sense fails and you have to actually study a problem in depth to come up with a workable answer.
BillyBoy
December 16, 2003 at 2:07 am
15Okay, I can see that my absurdist remark was met with faux profundity. So, now I feel I must respond with my own dim bit of pseudo-intellectual luminesence.
Josh, I’m confused as to what Middle East situation you’re talking about…
It can’t be about terrorism, because there’s never been a proven link between Saddam Hussien or the Iraqi Ba’athists and Al Queda. To my understanding, the goal of Osama bin Laden is the creation of a unified, fundamentalist, Islamic state. Al Queda has long despised Saddam for his decadent, western, lifestyle and secular nation. Don’t assume that because they had a common enemy that they were friends.
Nor can your comment be about the situation in Israel. How does our invasion of Iraq help quell the Palestinian uprising? Are you suggesting that we next invade the West Bank, arrest Arafat, and institute democracy there? While it’s true that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers (or murder bombers for the right winged), do you really think that these twentysomethings who are strapping 30 pounds of explosives and ball bearings onto their backs are doing it for financial gain? Will him (Hussein) NOT giving money to their families prove a disincentive to carrying out these acts?
Perhaps you’re talking about the plight of the Iraqi people who suffered under the hands of Hussein. The hundreds of thousands that he had killed or detained over a thirty year period. Yet, in Rwanda 1994, the Hutu’s managed to slaughter 800,000 Tutsi’s in just 100 days while we pretended not to notice. Altruism has never been a part of US Foreign Policy, it’s just a garnish that comes with a plate-full of agenda. The question remains, what was our agenda in going after Saddam? What did his removal accomplish?
We have an administration which is staffed with those who have been looking for a reason to invade Iraq since the mid-nineties. The NeoCon’s saw huge stockpiles of oil sitting under the haunches of a tin-pot dictator who fell out of their good graces. Unfortunately, they never took the time to consider what to do with the place once they blew it to hell. So now the laws of warfare have taken over and the American men and women who are currently serving in Iraq will be made to pay with their blood for the short sighted avarice and financial benefit of those paying $50,000 a plate at W’s fundraisers.
I know that in your role as agent provacteur you will disregard this and pay it scant attention. My only hope, and I say this with all humility and sincerity, is that you don’t believe in half of what you say you do.
Joshua Scholar
December 16, 2003 at 4:09 am
16BillyBoy, Egypt’s official newspaper, Al Ahram, pays propgandists good money to write screeds indestinguishable from yours. You missed your calling.
Aye for one
December 16, 2003 at 7:51 am
17Would like to hear, Mr. Scholar, your answer to the main question posed by BillyBoy, that is “. . . what was our agenda in going after Saddam? What did his removal accomplish?”
I am curious to know your answer in light of all the earlier points he made, forgetting for a moment whichever it was that so pissed you off.
Chicory
December 16, 2003 at 9:27 am
18Joe’s hawkishness stems from actually understanding the Middle East. Where there are no easy solutions radical solutions are the only choice.
Does that mean choosing peace; negotiations and multi-lateral diplomacy are easy solutions? Wow! Use of force is neither radical nor new. It has been the ole standby for millennia.
[Drat! There goes my resolution not to get suckered in to this.]
sly
December 16, 2003 at 9:49 am
19Thank goodness that there is such a scholarly voice here, keeping the comments fair and balanced. What would we, the people who come here to read and enjoy FA do without someone to show us just how wrong we are, and right they are.
Keep up the good work.
Bob
December 16, 2003 at 9:55 am
20Noble effort there, BillyBoy, in trying to use logic and reason. Works like a champ, doesn’t it?
Kim
December 16, 2003 at 10:02 am
21For those of you just skimming, or otherwise humor-impaired: I’m pretty sure sly’s comment above is intended to be ironic.
An Extremely High-Ranking Government Official
December 16, 2003 at 10:03 am
22Dear “Aye for one,”
I am an extremely high-ranking government official, and certainly not one of Adam’s friends pretending to be one, so I can probably answer this question better than Joshua.
Our goal in this war is extremely multi-faceted. First and foremost, it’s about strengthening our standing among the crusading voters in our core states. Let’s be honest here, after 9/11 most red-blooded Americans just wanted to see us kick some Arab ass. Pakistan, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, it didn’t matter. The people in question can’t even differentiate between MEXICAN and Arab! You think they’re going to care which towel-heads we went after?
Second, it was about creating a pro-American distraction as the economy went into the shitter, which we all knew it would. The fallout from the Clinton years was evident even at the end of Clinton’s last term, as dotcom startups began tanking. We decided as an administration that we’d still give the tax breaks that we promised to our friends in the corporate world despite the harm that this would to to a market that was becoming increaskingly fragile, and we screwed the pooch on that one, so this seemed like the right thing to do.
You see, by going to war, we managed to force a guilty conscience on everyone who said or thought anything that we did was questionable, and formerly intelligent and free-thinking people (Hi, Josh!) began blindly supporting us in the media, so that we wouldn’t actually have to defend any of our other pro-business/anti-environment, pro-christian/anti-civil-rights, or pro-wealthy/anti-equality actions. We managed to set up a wall of followers, so that none of the accusations of questionable policy-making practices, incomplete/incorrect information-gathering, or anything else we did would ever actually touch us.
Third, we really did want to liberate (and bring democracy to) the Iraqi people. Even though Saddam’s regime did nothing to warrant our attack, and posed no threat to us whatsoever, it wasn’t hard to convince people who still remembered the early 90’s that he DID, as he is a legitimately horrible man, and honestly, we’ve done a huge favor for the Iraqis (even those still loyal to Saddam) by getting rid of him.
Fourth, there’s a chance that our success in Iraq will flush out Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) who will no doubt want to jump at the chance to unite the Middle East against us. That little sucker’s been a bastard to find, and if he does resurface, this will have been a whole lot easier than actually looking for him.
Fifth, there’s a fair amount of money to be made in reconstruction. And let’s face it…to REconstruct, you need to DEconstruct. (This one was Dick’s idea.)
Sixth (and finally) there’s the small matter of oil control. Because of our ties to energy corporations that can only milk the consumers if the consumers rely on their products, we cannot support, fund, or push for scientific (”clean”) alternate energy sources. We realize that our reliance on oil forces us to have relations with countries that have oil, and we decided that it would probably be in our best interest to start this one over.
Hope this answers your question, “Aye for one.”
PS - Adam, love your site!
GOD
December 16, 2003 at 11:30 am
23This is GOD and not one of Adam’s followers acting like GOD.
To those who disagree with Adam’s writings and humor:
BITE ME!
Simon
December 16, 2003 at 1:34 pm
24To suggest, even by analogy, that Ryan Seacrest, in his capacity as host of American Idol, is a despot, is a slap in the face of those brave and dedicated hardworking other members of the production team who do their damnedest every week to rig another television spectacle/Fox money machine under the guise of democracy.
Bob
December 16, 2003 at 1:54 pm
25Question for the Extremely High-Ranking Government Official: Hey, Dick, what’s it like in that secure, undisclosed location? Do you have cable?
tatonka
December 16, 2003 at 3:15 pm
26Josh?
boozy
December 16, 2003 at 3:24 pm
27Had Lisa Ling remained as one of “The View”’s cohosts surely Star Jones would still be morbidly obese. Oh, wait…
I don’t think of Joe as a democrat. He’s just another republican with a different color necktie.
Kip W
December 16, 2003 at 3:33 pm
28Free advice, Adam: if you want your statements to be bulletproof and beyond reproach, remember the magic number 16. Simply refine and reformulate until whatever you want to get across is just 16 words long, and it’s irrefutable!
Clinton could have avoided so much trouble if he’d only said, “I did not have sex with that woman, and the quick brown fox jumps over the.”
John Isbell
December 17, 2003 at 10:27 pm
29Boy, that first wife sure can hold a grudge, can’t she?
But seriously for a second, why not everyone call the country Burma? The only people who call it Myanmar are the bastard dictators who annulled the election results and put the winner under house arrest. Folks, you’ve now seen my anti-Myanmar campaign, so there you go.
Nice to see the comments from those high-level entities.
Katie
December 18, 2003 at 10:52 pm
30BURMA!!
(oh, sorry. I panicked.)