Comments (68)

Mike wrote on February 7, 2007 9:30 AM:

He's the Lorax? OMG, that means that he sees this as a holy crusade, that he's all that's left to save the world from total destruction. He and Bush are alike.

Karen wrote on February 7, 2007 9:35 AM:

Lieberman is not hard to figure out. He's arrogant and selfish and puts himself and his own family as the most important thing on the face of the earth, as he did a couple weeks ago when he told Meet The Press that he worried for his children and grandchildren if we don't keep getting American soldiers and innocent civilians killed in Iraq.

It was like Tom Friedman's appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal before the Iraq War where this supporter of bombing and invading Iraq said that he didn't allow his own children - teenagers - to read his columns because he didn't want their young lives troubled by these concerns. But how he loved the idea of ripping arms and legs off children in Iraq and showing the Arabs just what American power would do to all of them if we felt like it.

PonB wrote on February 7, 2007 9:36 AM:

Paul - It's simple to me...it's American nature to be the single voice of reason against the oppressive forces conspiring against you. Everyone is The Lorax...everyone is Rambo...everyone is Luke Skywalker. No one is ever The Once-ler...no one is ever part of the Empire...

Joe has no concept that he might be on the wrong side...

- PonB

ally's gift wrote on February 7, 2007 9:37 AM:

I hate to say it, but the one tree he thinks he's saving is Israel, that beacon of democracy in the Middle East. And he has no shame about using American military might to do it.

gjdodger wrote on February 7, 2007 9:40 AM:

The cutline has a (D) where an (I) should be. Or at least, an (ID). And amen, ally. Joe vowed during the campaign he would align with the Dems; only one thing would cause him to renege. That's if the Dems deny Iraq funding to the White House.

cornhuskerblogger wrote on February 7, 2007 9:41 AM:

Disgusting; more concerned about not admitting a mistake than saving more Americans from USELESS carnage. If this isn't the result of a tumor, Lieberman has much to atone for.

Or maybe he thinks he's finally sitting at the cool kids' table and has gone utterly Heathers on us all.

randron wrote on February 7, 2007 9:47 AM:

Isn't it ironic that Joe sees himself as a "Savior" when in reality, his positions and policies have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis - all while stifling the "deliberative democracy" that might actually lead to a resolution of conflict?

Clearly, he has a Messianic Complex, which might explain why he and Bush get along so well. They will save us in spite of ourselves; they can see what we cannot see; they have special, esoteric knowledge that allows them to be "right" when everyone else says they are "wrong." As such, they will allow the deaths of thousands and the maiming of hundreds of thousands "for the greater good," as they see it. We are living in VERY, VERY dangerous times! These types need to be removed from office and the sooner,the better!

Crust wrote on February 7, 2007 9:48 AM:

That was a surprisingly honest assessment of the political motivations from McCain. Frankly, it applies almost equally to McCain's support of the surge. Before Bush unexpectedly signed on, advocating the "surge" that wasn't going to happen anyway was a classic, safe way to stake out a right wing, belligerent position. Now that McCain has been called on it, he can't back down.

Joel Bloom wrote on February 7, 2007 9:51 AM:

Easy:

"He was shortish. And oldish. And brownish. And mossy. And he spoke with a voice that was sharpish and bossy."

What more do you need to know? ;)

dos wrote on February 7, 2007 9:53 AM:

The picture still has him identified as (D-CT).

jayackroyd wrote on February 7, 2007 9:54 AM:

What really struck me in this piece is that Lieberman is, if he is speaking sincerely, completely divorced from reality. He goes on and on about the war being essential to prevent islamofascists from conquering the world, citing Mark Steyn's America Alone. He says things that would be labeled over the top anti-semitism if it were said about Judaism.

He says the war has to be fought because Ahmadinejad wants to destroy America. This is like saying the US should invade Mexico to prevent Castro from destroying the US. He says that opposition to Bush is an attack on US soldiers in the field.

He sounds like a neo-con loon in this article.

Jim B wrote on February 7, 2007 9:55 AM:

I agree with ally's gift, and hate to say it too: He's working for Israel's interests, not ours.

Joel Bloom wrote on February 7, 2007 9:58 AM:

Oh, and one more thing: The Lorax fails to save the one last tree. And then he gets the heck out of there. Perhaps the Senator will be so kind to follow the Lorax's honorable example and "heist himself" up by the seat of his pants, since the failures of his War are so clearly manifest:

The Lorax said nothing - just gave me a glance.
Just gave me a sad, sad backward glance
as he lifted himself by the seat of the pants.
And I'll never forget the grim look on his face
as he heisted himself and took leave of this place
through a hole in the smog without leaving a trace.

Full text here.

Shamus wrote on February 7, 2007 9:58 AM:

Goldberg's anecdote about Lieberman's enthusiasm for the film "Behind Enemy Lines" is what truly disturbs me. On the one hand, it's a lousy film and I can't imagine anyone getting animated about it in a theater. One would think that someone on the intellecutal level of a senator (a position that requires a certain amount of dignity and wisdom) wouldn't even be interested in a crap movie like that. On the other hand, his fist pumps and cheers for the battle scenes implies that this senator just really likes to see things blow up. Is this who we want at the forefront of the debate over matters of war and peace?

Scott L wrote on February 7, 2007 10:03 AM:

Wait one minute...I agree that Joe is completely divorced from reality. He is certainly the worst "democract" since Zell Miller left the scene. But, why is he "working for Israel's interests" necessarily. Is John McCain working for Israel's interests? Is Mitch McConnell? You don't have to be Jewish to be a wacko neocon toady.

Frank wrote on February 7, 2007 10:13 AM:

It is an insult to Connecticut to have Lieberman, the quintessential Israeli senator and staunch Bush enabler, to be captioned as being a democrat from that state. The state dems kicked holy Joe out of the party for serious cause. One thing for sure, this holier than thou egomaniac will never live down that insult.

His subsequent actions, like not investigating the administration's respnse to Katrina, the greatest disaster to ever hit this country, tells it all about this very little little man's prioritys.

jeffs wrote on February 7, 2007 10:20 AM:

I want to see Dem pols put in the effort to minimize the real damage this bastard will do over the next two years. In CT, we know what Lieberman is about; ask people who've known him for decades, and it's *always* been about him.

Apparently, the Dem powers decided that even with big Dem support for Lamont, the Indies and Republicans would vote Joe in, but what the hell's the difference now? Does Lieberman see his own interests intersecting with *anything* the Dems do?

And as far as Lieberman working for Israel's interests goes, just what exactly are "Israel's interests", further destabilization of the mideast?

Atlantajan wrote on February 7, 2007 10:26 AM:

Hadassah Lieberman is a lobbyist for giant pharmaceutical companies. Joe has a vested interest in staying on the right side of the Bush administration. The war is a symptom of the disease -- not the disease itself, which is much more malign.

AJB wrote on February 7, 2007 10:26 AM:

The Lorax, for those who've forgotten the legend of the story, is the character that wroughts disaster on the world by cutting down all of the trees. Only when everything is totally destroyed does he then finally realize, and admit to his wrongdoing.

So maybe Lieberman's comparison is apt. We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

wellstoner wrote on February 7, 2007 10:32 AM:

...

No, no, no that's a misprint.

He said "I'm the Larynx"
and he was talking about how
he's friggen choking this country to death.

...

Sparkatus wrote on February 7, 2007 10:34 AM:

AJB, you're rather confused about the story of the Lorax..."I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees." He wasn't the destroyer.

David Houghton wrote on February 7, 2007 10:37 AM:

AJB, you're thinking of the Onceler.

Jeffs, it suffices that Lieberman *thinks* that the surge, invading Iran, etc. will be in Israel's interest. Personally I don't think that's the sum total of his motivations, but I think it's among them. Similarly, he almost certainly *thinks* he's working in the interest of the United States' in continuing his support of the wars.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on February 7, 2007 10:38 AM:

If Holy Joe grew a mustache, he'd look like the Lorax, too.

AJB wrote on February 7, 2007 10:49 AM:

Yikes, I did mis-remember the tale. Sorry folks. I stand extremely corrected.

So Lieberman is the Onceler. Okay then, I'm totally lost over explaining his Lorax comparison.

Then again, explaining Joe became a lost cause for most people years ago.

JOHN KERRY wrote on February 7, 2007 10:51 AM:

I JUST MOVED MY BOWELS IN MY PANTS!

Brianm0122 wrote on February 7, 2007 10:53 AM:

"He sounds like a neo-con loon in this article."

maybe that's because he IS a neo-con loon?

Hermagoras wrote on February 7, 2007 10:53 AM:

I don't know what the hell he means, but now I'll never be able to read it to my kids without hearing his hectoring voice. Thanks a lot, Joe.

Marc wrote on February 7, 2007 10:55 AM:

Sen. Lieberman sees himself as protecting the Democratic history and tradition of not being isolationist in the world, the "Scoop Jackson wing" of the party if you will. That is the tree that he is trying to protect.

It's remarkable that people think that Sen. Lieberman only cares about Israel ahead of U.S. interests. This man has devoted his entire adult life to public service. Obviously, it is more than fair to disagree strenuously and vehemently with his positions and judgment. But to suggest that the only thing that can motivate his position is some sort of quasi-treasonous placement of the interests of another country over the interests of the U.S. seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.

And, by the way, his wife is not a lobbyist.

MB wrote on February 7, 2007 10:55 AM:

Last night CNN had Joe labeled D-CT.

Django wrote on February 7, 2007 10:55 AM:

I read the New Yorker article, and oddly it made no reference to Lieberman's support of Israel. Whether or not it explains his motivation behind his support of the war in Iraq, either completely or in part, it seems like a major omission, don't you think?

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on February 7, 2007 11:01 AM:

No, Joe isn't looking after Israel's interests; quite the contrary. He's looking after the interests of the Likud faction in Israel and the US. The one's with the Masada Complex who will get Israel destroyed and plunge the world into a hellish asymmetrical World War III. Impeach now his enabler, Cheney, or reap the consequences.

Minerva wrote on February 7, 2007 11:03 AM:

The Lorax metaphor seems to reveal more about Joe than he intends.

In the book, the Lorax was the one who tried to *discourage* the obviously stupid behavior. He ranted and raved *in the interest* of all the poor individuals being scarred, and against the devastation being wrought.

When the Lorax had decisively failed, he left. It was the Once-ler (who had caused all the trouble in the first place through his blindness and greed), living in self-imposed isolation and exhile, who had saved that one seed and finally came to see the error of his ways.

He gives the young boy the last Truffula seed, charging him to plant it and tend it -- realizing that unless people like him cared, the trees would never come back, and things would never get better.

So Joe calls himself the Lorax, but he psychologically places himself in the role of the Once-ler -- the guy, again, who caused all the problems in the first place and finally realized how completely wrong he had been...

vickiS wrote on February 7, 2007 11:03 AM:

Joe Loserman is a swine. He's a twisted, confused, small little man in search of a reason for being. He simply stands for nothing. He's a tool of the powers that be, nothing more.

Stuart wrote on February 7, 2007 11:06 AM:

Remember, Lieberman vaulted to national prominence when he took on Clinton during the whole impeachment scandal. Until then, he was just the junior senator from Connecticutt. So, I suspect at one point, Lieberman thought that his best approach to doing well nationally was by positioning himself in between the Democrats and the Republicans, basically pitching himself as the one reasonable man in America.

In a certain sense, this approach worked. It did get him the Democratic VP nomination in 2000. Then, during the Florida recount, if not before, I think Lieberman realized if Gore won, he'd get to be VP for 4, maybe 8 years. However, if Gore lost, Lieberman thought he would then be positioned as the front runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination. Which would you rather be, VP or the Democratic nominee with a strong chance for the presidency in 2004? I think that sort of calculation is why he passively aggressively undermined Gore's efforts in the Florida recount.

With his eye on the 2004 nomination, I think Lieberman decided to link himself to Bush and the Iraq War, both of which were very popular back in 2002 and 2003. He would be the one Democrat who would be willig to fight the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately, Lieberman didn't realize how much his position on Iraq and Bush not to mention his role in the Florida recount had angered hardcore Democrats, thereby destroying whatever credibility he may have gathered from being the 2000 VP nominee. Lieberman also failed to realize that the fact that he gets a lot of attention from the national press doesn't mean he has any sort of national base. As a result, he ran a terrible, embarrassing campaign for the Democratic 2004 presidential nomination.

I suspect that Lieberman got very angry at Democrats after that humiliation, and if that's the case, it explains at least some of the more personal attacks he's made against Democrats. It's the anger one feels towards say an ex-girlfriend or ex best friend. He has to feel even more strongly after losing the Democratic primary last year.

I would imagine McCain's comments about Lieberman also play into all of this plus the fact that Lieberman only really gets attention because he's a "maverick." Lieberman bashing Democrats gets attention only because he's nominally a Democrat. If he were to say switch over to the Republican Party, he's be just another Republican with 18 years of seniority, and known only to the CSPAN set.

Michael Haitch wrote on February 7, 2007 11:17 AM:

The “One Last Tree Standing”, of course, is Israel. It is inconvenient to Lieberman’s metaphor that in the end it was not saveable. But it does speak volumes about this man’s priorities and energy. He has said before where his first loyalties lie, his family and his faith. Somewhere further down the list of his concerns is America itself. Random young American men and women dying to save the “One Last Tree” is part and parcel of Lieberman’s weltenschung (but please note, he would never countenance members of his own family fighting for any tree because protecting the clan is his very first priority).

What Lieberman stands for is the most selfish, smallest and most ancient viewpoint of old men: I protect those around me (family, clan, fellows of my true Faith). If you don’t belong, then FU. A most interesting debate would be with Jim Webb, who has been willing to put his life on the line for his America as his father did, and now he watches his own child putting his life on the line in Iraq (the only child of any Senator, as far as I am aware, currently away fighting America’s wars) while Lieberman patriotically pumps his fist at the movies.

Small, weak people make the best fascists, by the way, as history has shown us time and time again. Shame on those in Connecticut who thought otherwise.

gjdodger wrote on February 7, 2007 11:24 AM:

And now, in the midst of all this revilement, I will show some love for Joe. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, he suggested there be a tax to pay for the war. Quoth Holy Joe, "I mean, people keep saying that we're not asking sacrifices of anybody but our military in this war, and some civilians who are working on it." If by "people" he means Geo. W., he's entirely correct. Not only would I favor such a tax, I would like to make it extremely progressive. Anyway, Bill Buckley's Revenge is 100% wrong on the war, but has been right on most other issues throughout his Senate tenure.

Larry wrote on February 7, 2007 11:25 AM:

I expect nothing different from that Senator from the state of Israel. At least he gets his orders from the head honcho instead of going thru some lobbyist.

Jim wrote on February 7, 2007 11:31 AM:

"McCain told me that ...Lieberman ...had invested too much in his advocacy of the war to back away now."

translation: Lots more people have to die, because Joe Lieberman and George Bush and John McCain can't admit they were wrong. It's not even blood for oil. It's blood for ego.

Roge wrote on February 7, 2007 11:39 AM:

"he passively aggressively undermined Gore's efforts in the Florida recount."
I believe Lieberman was one of the core reason's Gore lost. His debate with Cheney was a joke and at the Convention he mocked his own rhetoric toward the Republicans. It make me sit up and take notice. His posture during the Florida recount only cemented my opinion.
You realize Leiberman founded the American Council of Trustees and Alumni along with Lynne Cheney in 1995 in the middle of Clinton's Presidency? The Council now awards billions in grants and is commited to enforcing its own political correctness on college campuses.
He is no more a Democrat than Trent Lott.

Don wrote on February 7, 2007 11:41 AM:

I'm not a big fan of Joe Lieberman. He seems pretty dillusional at this stage of his career. However, I agree with gjdodger's comment above that Joe's idea of a progressive tax to fund the war (not his alone, only that he mentioned his support) is a good one.

Malliford wrote on February 7, 2007 11:41 AM:

What Lieberman is trying to do is save a shrub, not a tree. (Hat tip to Molly Ivins.)

Monty wrote on February 7, 2007 11:46 AM:

Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”

I hope he chokes to death on his pompoms.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 7, 2007 11:56 AM:

Joe the woeful ho is not working for Israel's interests. His happy horse hockey hurts Israel as much as it hurts the U.S. of A. This is readily obvious to any sane individual . . . Appologies to people posting prior posts.

Joe is solelyabout Joe and his pretense to power. His folly is Icarus-like. He has sold all virtue in a vain vapor of hope that he will be allowed to stand a moment longer, sink a milimeter deeper into the pit of power that the current Administration has dug.

Almost every Jew I know, including myself, consider Joe to be a 'shanda' before the 'goyim' (the kind of shame-causing idiot that allows the non-Jewish folk a rationalization to throw a 'pogrom' (willy-nilly killing of Hebrews and burning of their villages)). We get it. Heck, we got it two years before the majority of nation. What makes it hurt so much more is he was so close to claiming actual power before he was driven insane by his snide for power. Now, he chases the shade of power.

Stop mindlessly beating the 'We hate Israel drum'. The racist right injects more than enough of this venom into world politics. Focus instead on understanding Islam, Judaism, Hindu and atheism. Focus on building. The other side is actively working on destroying . . .

MNPundit wrote on February 7, 2007 12:08 PM:

Lorax? I suppose I could describe him as a "mossy bossy" man.

Capemh wrote on February 7, 2007 12:27 PM:

I hope he enjoys the next 2 years of being a cartoon centrist. After 2008, the gains by Democrats in the Senate and winning the Presidency will make him inconsequential. Maybe the next President will offer him a nice ambassadorship in, say, Iraq, and get him out of the Senate (I know, the Gov is a Republican, but it may be worth losing a seat to get him out.
I wonder what else, besides undying support for this war, he gave to the administration in return for all of those Republican campaign contributions?
By the way, I thought he ran as a member of "Connecticut for Lieberman", so wouldn't it be "Sen Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT)"?
He is another Chickenhawk and needs to go. Anyone know the rules for recalling a Senator?

Supdog wrote on February 7, 2007 12:36 PM:

Mr Kiel,

In an otherwise brilliant article, you misidentify Joe Lieberman's constituency as the state of Connecticut.

Upon correction, the text should refer to his holiness as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Lieberman).

Fine work, sir.

Jeff wrote on February 7, 2007 12:47 PM:

Simple. Joe sees himself as a cartoon character.

mbbsdphil wrote on February 7, 2007 12:54 PM:

This is Mr. Lieberman showing that he is down-to-earth and has a childlike openness. A truly Rovian misdescription. I, too, am afraid that Mr. Lieberman has bought into the perverted neocon vision that we best protect Israel -- and perpetuate American aid to it while prohibiting discussion of same -- by keeping the Middle East in a perpetual turmoil that "requires" a massive US troop presence.

Mr. Lieberman seems not to question how fomenting large-scale open warfare, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions of Islamists, and tolerating an ever lower threshold for brutality and violence makes anyone safer.

I also think that it's the best way to hide Mr. Lieberman's submission to and dependence on corporate sponsors that make billions in profits from war. Mr. Lieberman is the poster child for election reform, and for a local recall.

Michael Haitch wrote on February 7, 2007 1:05 PM:

What, not a word from all those Connecticut Lieberman apologists? Hey, who voted for this guy? Your man won overwhelmingly in a heavily Democratic state fer heavensakes! Don't any of you read this blog? How about explaining your vote for little Admiral Pissbucket? At least one of you?? Inquiring minds want to know, what were you thinking?

d. b. cooper wrote on February 7, 2007 1:30 PM:

I think Lieberman's Iraq war stance might have a much simpler explanation than any of us are thinking of. Lieberman is an orthodox Jew and anti-semitism is very prominent in the Muslim, and thus Middle Eastern, community. Maybe Lieberman has internalized that anti-semitism and turned it into the equivalent against Middle Easterners. This all may just be simple racism.

Django wrote on February 7, 2007 1:53 PM:

I agree that a steeply progressive tax to support the war is a good idea, not that I think monkey boy - whose idea of "shared sacrifice" consists of exposing onesself to violent images on the TV news - would ever let one pass into law. Pity that Lieberman is nowhere near as vocal in advocating this tax as he is when he is excoriating his colleagues for opposing the surge.

Fred O wrote on February 7, 2007 2:08 PM:

I AM JOE LIEBERMAN
I AM THE LORAX
KOO KOO KA CHOO
KOO KOO KA CHOO

fahrender wrote on February 7, 2007 2:18 PM:

i agree with those who have called attention to the fact that Lieberman's blather is harming Israel rather than helping it. Sharon's successor no more represents Israel's interests than George Bush represents America's interests. there is no monolithic Jewish support for Joe Lieberman or the Likud Party. if we goyim fail to realize this we are only giving Lieberman more credence.

benjoya wrote on February 7, 2007 2:29 PM:

is bombing iran really in israel's interest? is installing a quasi-theocracy in iraq really in israel's interest? either way, he sure ain't acting in america's interest.

benjoya wrote on February 7, 2007 2:31 PM:

fahrende and jeffs beat me to it, but still.

benjoya wrote on February 7, 2007 2:32 PM:

fahrender, sorry -- didn't mean to feminize your name, lazy cut-n-pasting

benjoya wrote on February 7, 2007 2:32 PM:

i mean masculinize, right?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 7, 2007 2:43 PM:

Every story having to do with the current Administration and its supporters begins and ends in one three letter word: O-I-L.

Israel is NOT the reason. Israel is the red herring. Pointing to Israel is falling for misdirection. blaming Israel is a 'Look at the kitty' moment and you have just (nothing nice or polite). Sigh.

There is regional player that (whose name does NOT begin with an 'i' or end with an 'l', 'n' or 'q') needs real attention and not jingoistic sloganeering. This country has significant idealogical issues with Iraq, Iran and . . . Israel. This country has the most to gain from injury to these countries. This country has major ties to the current Administration. This country is SAUDI ARABIA. Saudi Arabia can be spelled O-I-L.

Remember George has kissed both the Saudi's ruling prince and Joe on the lips (Apparently, won more than one man-date in 2004).

Avoid en-darken-ment. Connect the dots. Speak about the correct country.

gg wrote on February 7, 2007 4:11 PM:

Lieber is the snake in the egg...
Let him find that last tree and hang himself to it.

Anacher Forester wrote on February 7, 2007 4:16 PM:

1. A middle-aged man who pumps his fist and yells "Yeah!" and "All right" when his "team" scores a direct hit in a bad war film can be easily identified as a chickenhawk.

2. In psychology, projection occurs when a person is unable to accept his innapropriate emotions, motivations, etc. This person copes by "projecting" his feelings onto to someone else who does not share those feelings and vice-versa. Thus the Once-ler becomes the Lorax.

Jim Allen wrote on February 12, 2007 8:15 PM:

There IS a “solution” to stopping the daily bloodshed in Iraq (and perhaps Afghanistan) so that we can bring our troops home now. The UN needs to pass a resolution authorizing a 350,000 member Peace-Keeping force from China to disarm Iraq door-to-door and border-to-border.

China has the military resources, understanding of social discipline, ability to have their troops NOT recognized as Iraqis, engineering skills to rebuild Iraq, need for ongoing world economic stability to maintain their economic growth, and need for Iraqi oil even greater than ours. It also has one of the world¹s most notorious reputations for its ability to create and maintain Social Order.

It would serve both countries right.

dennis@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 11:14 AM:

hi cool site. awesome5

rose@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 8:50 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

kate@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:32 AM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:48 PM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:49 PM:

hello

acyclovir wrote on May 13, 2007 4:38 PM:

Good work!

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 3:33 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night