Not every politician gets a warm and fuzzy retirement profile in the New York Times. But not every politician is Joe Lieberman.
John McCain and Joe Lieberman at the 2008 RNC (photo: Talk Radio News Service)
Jennifer Steinhauer’s piece (11/27/12) is a tribute mostly to Lieberman’s close bond with Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The “Three Amigos” traveled the world together, advocating for one hawkish foreign policy idea after another:
Their hawkish world views often placed them at odds with their respective parties, but together they secured a place at the center of every major foreign policy debate.
That’s mostly true of Lieberman, but it’s hard to figure how McCain and Graham much stood out from the Republican pack. But apparently Lieberman’s absence will make life more difficult for them:
Though he frustrated many Democrats with his interventionist ideas, Mr. Lieberman gave Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, both Republicans, a veneer of bipartisanship that lent credibility to their policy goals.
The Republican duo has already found a Lieberman replacement—Republican Kelly Ayotte—but things may never be the same:
The question is whether the group, whose profile rose after the September 11 attacks, will be able to maintain an influential voice without Mr. Lieberman or will become isolated on an island of partisan poking.
Partisan poking aside, the real question one might want to ask about three hawkish politicians’ foreign policy views is whether they’ve shown good judgment. On that the Times mostly punts; the only real example that’s treated with any depth is their decision to support a troop surge in Iraq:
The three men became even more powerful in 2007 as President George W. Bush pursued his “surge” strategy in Iraq. The Republicans had just lost the House and the Senate, in no small part because of the Iraq war, and both parties were highly skeptical of the president’s decision to double down on troop levels in Iraq under General Petraeus. Mr. Lieberman’s pressure on the Senate floor day after day helped prevent an earlier withdrawal sought by many Democrats.
In case you’re wondering, prolonging the Iraq War was a good thing, says the Times: “The success of the operation earned them further respect among their colleagues.” That’s long been a corporate media truthism—the surge worked. Reality is more complicated, and a lot bloodier.
If we’re talking about the trio’s foreign policy, and we take as a fact that they have been “at the center of every major foreign policy debate”—certainly true if you count McCain’s frequent media appearances—then shouldn’t we evaluate the policies they have advocated? Being supportive of every U.S. war or arguing in favor of more militarism in virtually every case isn’t evidence of any particular expertise. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, the results have been disastrous.
Or consider Libya; not long before Qaddafi was once again labeled the brutal dictator of a pariah state, the “Three Amigos” were in Tripoli talking about how to deliver him military assistance.
The Times talks about how their hawkish foreign policy “suddenly had deeper resonance” after the 9/11 attacks. For some, perhaps; but now seems as good a time as any to critically evaluate these positions, especially since Joe Lieberman’s retirement doesn’t mean we’ve seen the end of them.
And it’s a safe bet that vocal congressional advocate for peace Dennis Kucinich won’t get a similar send-off from the New York Times.
I wish we’d stop using the term “disastrous” when referring to imperial acts of agression, unless it’s in the context of the consequences for the victims.
We have to ask ourselves, what if they had gone according to plan? Would that have somehow made them morally legitimate?
Since Vietnam, the moral and geostrategic aspects of US empire building have been conflated by many who proclaim their opposition to it, and this just doesn’t make any sense from a moral perspective, does it?
I don’t consider the Spanish-American War or the Gulf War any less reprehensible than the “failures” of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both were born of the same bloody desire for greed and power, regardless of how well they turned out for the warmongers.
As for Kucinich
Only one officeholder in the Congress and Senate voted against giving Dear Leader the powers to wage the GWOT, starting with the bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
It was a black moment in our history, and he was not the one to stand and be counted.
That was my congressperson at the time, Barbara Lee, and though I can fault how she couched that refusal, it was a display of humanity and principle that I will always respect.
Three of the most disastrous politicians we have: their allegiance to Big Defense is costing us trillions, and I have yet in my lifetime to see a real war we have won, with all that spending.
Praising Lieberman, McCain and Graham for their “patriotism” is like praising Hitler for his “humanitarianism”.
What a crew! Lieberman seemed always to want a war, just like his masters in Jerusalem would want it. Graham is hysterical, having been a lawyer for the military, the only place he ever found masculinity. And McCain, what can be said of McCain? His pockets jangling with billions, he scans the world for publicity, despite the fact that he never really did learn to fly a plane, and he never did find an IQ.
We need to recall our president Eisenhower and his speech on the subject of the Military Industrial Complex. It is a salient fact that this sinister group of professional racketeers has bought our government, the press, and all other media. WE THE PEOPLE, are insignificant, our voice, and our wishes count for nothing. The butchers are given medals, and millions. We spend 2.2 billions of dollars per ONE stealth bomber! A single U.S. soldier assigned to Afghanistan cost $1,000,000 per year. That is not his salary. I do not wish to start calculating all the other costs, let me just say that I consider this war, the Iraq war, and now the war we wage ‘secretly’ in Pakistan, all ILLEGAL.
Good bye to war mongers. We’re tired of this resource/land grabbing policy. Enough of the elite world ruling bunch/families and their politicians hawks.
Hey Doug, your criticism of Kucinich is misplaced (not to mention ill-timed). Purism is rarely helpful. Yes, he failed to join Lee a decade ago, but there’s no denying the truth of the statement that he’s been a vocal advocate for peace.
What wonderful replies! Is America finally waking up?
Oh my! Who will help McCain and Graham prolong our wars now?
The three Militarists’ bullying and war-mongering and support for maiming and killing will, it is hoped, be nearing its end shortly.
Senator Joe LIEberman (Zionist-Israel)–sorry, Connecticut–is a chickenhawk warmongering Israel-Firster. Good riddance.
Totally disagree with this article.It attribute far to much power to three guys padding their jobs(much like Jesse Jackson)as a way of staying in the limelight.Ms Jarett in the white house has real power.She stays hidden from the limelight.These three just want to be relevant.So they go on the show circuit.I doubt the president pays even a passing nod to their yabber.That would go for the republicans as well.Washington is full of fading stars like this.Awash in them one could say.
The three amigos are war mongers. The New York Times is a fourth.
For every one of those war mongers who leave, there are ten ready to take their place. Being a war monger is considered to be ‘patriotic,’ and is fully supported by the Military Industrial complex, and this is a VERY powerful mafia made of so many power greedy people. I encountered few interesting quotes by our past, but still well known people. Here is one: “We are the aggressor. We must cease to be the aggressors.” Charles Sumner, U.S. senator.1846.
Here is another one: “We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.” Benjamin Harrison, President,1888.
“I am anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put his talons on any other land.” Mark twain, 1889.
The following quotes were from The Little red White and Blue Book , REVOLUTIONARY QUOTATIONS by GREAT AMERICANS.
I’m feeling nostalgic already. I will no longer have to endure the angry face of McCain, the senator who effortlessly became a hero by flying his jet into the ground! I will no longer have to endure the angry face of the senator from our 51st state (Israel). And I will no longer have to endure Lindsey Graham with his little boy haircut and mannerisms trying to come across as a man by romancing other men’s missiles.
As for Kucinich, I always felt sorry for him. His relationship to the Democratic Party reminded me of the relationship of a battered wife to her husband. He was abused, insulted and ignored but remained loyal and kept going back for more. He talked a pretty talk but when it came down to standing up for peace and justice, he would eventually obey the husband and march in lockstep with the party. Only now that he is completely irrelevant he is starting to sound like he would consider a third party.
Steve, if caring more about the horrors unleashed by the GWOT ™ – which Kucinich, unless he was an utter fool, was fully aware would be the case – than offering paeans to a “progressive icon” because he’s not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid …
Call me frigging Snow White.
And I’ll take it as a compliment.
Recall also his betrayal on single payer. By no means do these two instances constitute an exhaustive list.
You can turn a blind eye to such deep contradictions if you wish, but those who have suffered horrifically from them don’t have that luxury, do they?
And, truth be told, neither do you, which is why I’ve never understood this predilection among many progressives – however you define the term – to spout platitudes about “speaking truth to power” and “honest democracy”
But when push comes to shove, they scramble for the shelter of “pragmatism” and rush to rationalize the transgressions of their heroes.
A bit of advice …
Pedestals are inherently unstable objects.
They have a frightening propensity for toppling over on those gathered in adulation around them.
It took a while for me to suss that truth, not being the brightest light on the tree, but I feel extremely fortunate the penny ultimately dropped, as I hope it will one day for you.
Unfortunately, there will be a replacement for Sen. Lieberman. But it will be a relief not to have to listen to his particular brand of disinformation and dishonesty. Not only were Lieberman, McCain, and Graham at odds with Democrats and members of their own party, polls began to show they were at odds with most Americans. Let’s admit that militarizing our foreign policy has been a failure. The rest of the world does not believe U.S. rhetoric, that we only want to do good by getting rid of bad players. The notion that you can enforce democracy is ludicrous. People are demonstrating and organizing all over the world to counter the failure of Western leadership. A failure of the economy and civil society. The police and the military will not hold the status quo together. We need a new direction.
I,ve been trying for 60 years to tell the truth of Isenhower,s supposed warning of the Industrial-Military Complex. Eisenhower never read the speech before he gave it. He trusted his speech writer to express his sentment as he had always done before. The speech writer had other plans and wrote his sentiment not Eisenhowers. Eisenhower was a sick man and was happy to not be burdened so took the speech and read it verbatim. Realizing he had been duped he was greatly irred by the betrail, but when he saw with what favor it was received decided to bask in the accolades.
This was not entirely a secret, some members of the Washington Press Corp were aware of his speech writers intent and were reported rolling in the ailes with laughter as they watched Ike,s dismay at what he was saying.
That Ike had suddenly turned on the compex he was most instrumental in establishing is preposterious.
Please help spread the truth about this greatest of historical blunders.
Alton Eliason
@ alton
sounds like utter fantasy to me….
On April 16th 1953, Ike gave a speech [The Chance for Peace] on the costs of the cold war that included the following passage:
“This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. ”
Got a good conspiracy theory that explains how the President got duped into giving that speech too?
Bizidar
That question of how much does it cost to protect the national interests of the United states is a multi pronged question.It takes a deep understanding of what it is our military does,and should do.As we speak China is building a massive nuclear attack (sub) fleet.Its one job is to embargo .To block the entrance of a blue water fleet into an area of conflict.Now some would say just pull your fleet back to home waters.Mothball it.Save lots of money.Yet every step we take back would be followed by our “enemies’.Russian in her new freedom of information admits freely Stalins plans to invade western europe.These continued for many many years.It was stopped because of us.When would you of had us cut our defense responsibilities…1972?You just lost Europe.You seem to be promoting this absurd idea that the United states has no natural enemies that dare attack her.Like a lion on an island of baby goats.Did 911 show you nothing?Imagine a nuke brought into New york in a 55 gallon drum.Imagine Iran/North Korea or any other capable country firing a nuke into our atmosphere detonating high over the US,Creating a pulse knocking out 80% of all electric and computer networks.Im not sure were to start or where to begin explaining to you the geopolitical” lion and tigers and bears” that surround us.Your belief in this idea that a country big or small would never dare go against us is both spurious and bizarre.Especially in light of 911.What cost is vigilance?what cost freedom?That is an argument worth having.But lets start from a common standpoint.
We spend over $1 trillion dollars a year on “defense” while there are currently zero nation states with a standing military that have any interest in going to war with the United States.
Considering that we are one of China’s leading trading partners and that they hold a sizeable chunk of U.S. debt, the idea that they would want to go “hot” with us is insane.
Besides, in the Bush years, while the U.S. was fixated on the middle east, China was building economic relationships with South America and Africa. (and they didn’t use a single sub to do that.)
China is also going to be the big winner in the additional oil production Iraq sees on the horizon.
Our war, such as it is, is with individuals with, at best, loose ties to national governments. Their main weapons are AK-47s and car bombs. Fighter jets, aircraft carriers and tanks are the wrong tools for the fight.
Needless to say, they would be useless in attempting to prevent “a nuke brought into New York in a 55 gallon drum.”
We would be much better off spending our money on more intelligence, including the training of people who speak Arabic and Farsi to work on the ground in the Middle East.
I’ll believe that conservatives are actually concerned about fiscal responsibility the minute they get serious about bringing our military spending back to, at least, where it was in 2000.
PS
I’d note that the country most responsible for the 9/11 attack was our ally Saudi Arabia. Odd that we never attacked them militarily.
This is a bit of information for those who do not believe that the so called ‘Military Industrial Complex’ does not collaborate with our federal government. This book is only one of many that say the same thing, there is a definite connection. Source; BLOWBACK by Chalmers Johnston, page 91. “Many of the most outspoken congressional champions of reducing the federal budget are profligate when it comes to funding arms industries in their localities, often with the expectations what the future export sales will do for their constituents. In January 1998, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich added $2.5 billion to the defense budget for more F-22’s, and C-130’s which even the Air Force did not want(or need), only because they were partially manufactured in Georgia. In June 1998, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott added the construction of another helicopter carrier (that the navy insisted that they did not need) to that year’s $270 billion defense appropriations bill because the ship was to be built in Pascagoula Mississippi.”
@FreeSpirit
Perhaps I should have said that “if we think our defense mission should be to head off the occasional terrorist attack we would be much better off spending our money on more intelligence, including the training of people who speak Arabic and Farsi to work on the ground in the Middle East than on major weapons. ”
This was offered in the context of how large our defense spending should be with the understanding that non-state sponsored terrorism is a problem to be addressed]
But make no mistake, I believe our “defense” budget is unsustainable and the $4 trillion we spent to destroy Iraq would have been much better spent on our own infrastructure.
I also certainly understand that 50 plus years of the U.S.’s messing in the internal affair of various Middle Eastern countries has done our country zero good and major damage. I don’t live in fear of that part of the world having its own priorities or interests, nor do i see some sort of existential “clash of civilizations” being played out. I’m a big critic of American Empire and its endless wars as well.
Thanks for your reply…I’d just add that I think we’re on the same side here. [Check my comments on the “Iran Bomb Drawing” and “Drone Deaths” articles here at the FAIRblog for more details.]
Publication of this nonsense by the AP is irresponsible and inexcusable.
One is reminded of the transparently bogus “Niger yellowcake” documents that were used by the Bush administration to promote the unjustified and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the misrepresentation of the “aluminum tubes,” the supposed stocks and delivery capacity of anthrax, etc.
A trip down memory lane.
September 5, 2002: In a White House Iraq Group meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. According to Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, “The original plan had been to place it in an upcoming presidential speech, but WHIG members fancied it so much that when the Times reporters contacted the White House to talk about their upcoming piece [on aluminum tubes], one of them leaked Gerson’s phrase — and the administration would soon make maximum use of it.”
This “graph” bunk from AP is a similarly crude attempt to fabricate a causus belli.
when “W”s comment that the Iraq war would be a pushover, and that their oil would pay for it. We should have known,it would be the same old story. Corporations like war, the government buys a lot of material, from them, so they give money for their campaigns (one hand washes the other). ‘when will the people of the world learn that war is not the answer. Lets try something else. After all we are a civlilized society arent we? Remember the story Of Christ overturning the tables of the money changers!
Elmer,
Good try, are you confusing money making by the war machine, and Christianity? Do you recall that each side claims that “God is on our side?” I never heard God say anything. Islam is worse when it comes to peace; ‘Islam’ means submission, and the Jihad will go on, until ALL the people of the world are Muslims, ‘brothers. Mohammad was a warrior; it was approved by him to raid the merchant’s caravans. See the book HISTORY of WARFARE by John Keegan, pp.199-200.
The question now is who will be replacing them? What younger chicken hawks will want to expand imperial domination of the USA further?
SALE,定番 携帯クッション お友クッション ～お出かけのお供に～/FS3835【アクションジャパン】【スポーツ観戦 シート】【野球観戦】【レジャーシート】【携帯クッション】【アウトドア クッション】【折たたみ】【折畳み】 最安値,経典