Loserman: I fathered Iraq war, Bush enforces my policy there

You read that right.  In a speech dated February 8, 2003 The Hon. Joseph Lieberman told the 39th Munich Conference on Security Policy, held at the Bayerischer Hotel, Munich, Germany, February 7-9, 2003 that, because he and John McCain had introduced and sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, they had set the policy which The Unit has only been enforcing.  These gems come the two antepenultimate paragraphs:

I respectfully suggest that the nations of Europe define their positions on Iraq independently and affirmatively - not in reaction to America or its President. As you know, I am a Democrat. In fact, I'm a Democrat seeking to replace George Bush in the Oval Office. But he and I agree on the danger posed by Saddam and the need to do something soon to eliminate that danger to us, to you, and most immediately to his neighbors in the Arab world as do most other Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the US. In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

The facts here are stark and even more clear after Secretary Powell's chilling and convincing testimony at the UN on Wednesday. For twelve long years, Saddam has flaunted every attempt to get him to keep his promise to disarm and instead has continued building weapons of mass destruction. If we shrink from challenging his defiance, we will not only leave a ticking time bomb ticking, we will have undermined the remaining credibility of the United Nations, and further diminished the power of NATO to protect the peace of the world.

Remember, this was a month and a half before the war started.  He was campaigning for President, establishing his international gravitas in this appearance, if you will, by claiming fatherhood of the Iraq war then in its labor pangs.

And, the crap, bogus intelligence in Powell's speech, you vouched for and used for an a fortiori argument to enhance your own importance.  Hell, maybe you're the source of the Niger uranium forgeries?

Sometimes, Joe, the bastard should remain a bastard.  But, you claimed it, so it's yours.

Elsewhere in the speech, Tortureman talks approvingly about the doctrine of preemptive war:

The Administration's declaration of its policy of military preemption has also understandably and unnecessarily raised anxieties in Europe and throughout the world. It made no sense to publicly announce this doctrine without offering our friends and foes alike clarification as to how and when the policy might be exercised. The fact is, the United States, like most countries in the world, has always reserved the right to use force to prevent an attack against its people. But some policies are best left undeclared, to be announced only when it is necessary to implement them. In the case of preemptive military action, that ought to be rarely.

Uh, huh.  Like, whenever it suits the current occupant of 1600 Pa. Ave., NW, right?

"But some policies are best left undeclared, to be announced only when it is necessary to implement them."

Like secret gulags and torture?  Wasn't "going over to The Dark Side" the thrill ride Cheney promised?  Do you get jollies from that, too?  You do like that "ticking time bomb" image, too, don't you?  That's the justification for torture that wins in the opinion polls.

And, to really shoot only a little low, didn't you learn anything from the treatment of your co-religionists at the hands of regimes who loved to act in the dark, in Nacht und Nebel.  Like the one founded down the street from the hotel where you were delivering this Rede?  Like the Soviets, too?

And here's a whole big steaming pile:

I understand why the heavy hand from Washington has lately been seen less as a source of protection and more as a cause of resentment. But I'm here today to argue for your enlightened self-interest. Robert Kagan rightly asks: why should free people - citizens of our closest European allies - seem more worried about America than about terrorism, more anxious about Bush than about bin Laden?

Gee, I dunno.  Like, maybe there were secret Gulags already operating in the European countries by that time?  Like people were already being rendered through their airports and airspace to torture farms in some sandy hellhole?  Like the 'murcans were already exhibiting the worst tendencies of the prior governments in some of those European countries about torture, concentration camps, gulags, imprisonment without trial, disappearances, and all the rest?  Like the German Justice Minister got canned a few months before for honestly speaking that "Bush uses Hitler-methods?"

And, haven't the last almost-four years borne out the worst predictions for Iraq.  And, more importantly, the worst predictions of Bush's behavior.  

I think people who were worried more about the 'murcans under Bush than about Bin Laden, may well have been right.

Give him another kiss, Joe.  He's nursing your policy.

< On the NJ Gay Marriage case - briefly | Fitz Goes Ginsu on Scooter's Witness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort: