 Previous posts
What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CXXI What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CXX What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CXIX woke up this morning, trouble knocking at my door What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: C... somehow the vital connection is made What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: C... What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CXVI between cool confusion and kung fu in the car park What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CXV Friday, December 29, 2006
the public are shocked by the state of society, but as for you, you're a breath of purity:
Did I ever tell you about the time I met Joe Lieberman? He attended an off-the-record lunch at The New Republic around New Year's 2004 to argue for the magazine's endorsement, which he ultimately got. (Against, for the record, the overwhelming recommendation of the staff.) Knowing he was in friendly territory, Lieberman felt no need to strenuously make the case for himself. But I had attended a New Year's party in which -- surprise, surprise -- a great deal of antipathy for the man bubbled to the surface, and so I asked him what he made of that. His response is off the record, and I intend to respect that, but suffice it to say he didn't care what the liberals thought. Whether that was pandering to what he figured TNR wanted to hear, I can't say, but it made quite an impression on me.
So given that Lieberman isn't very interested in the world outside of his mind, we get this, in his op-ed backing escalation today: I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army...Bullshit. Name them. Who are they; what sect do they belong to; what do they benefit by telling you what you want to hear; etc. I'm sure there were many valiant South Vietnamese politicians and military officers who impressed visiting U.S. senators with their dedication, patriotism and resolve. Lieberman's entire argument is based on bolstering the "forces of moderation" that he gives no effort to identifying. He uses the phrases "victory for Iran" and "setback" with blithe abandon, with no attempt to think through what they might look like or ultimately mean. For instance: Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents.Ah, the undifferentiated Islamist menace, spreading like a cancer, on the nefarious march. I would ask Lieberman to give an iota of effort to explaining how a U.S. withdrawal strengthens Hamas to the detriment of the United States. But to him all this is surely self-evident. --Spencer Ackerman
While nodding in agreement with the latter half of your post, I was struck by the description of the meeting with Lieberman in the first half. Over at the Plank, Marty told me I spoke from utter ignorance when I called Lieberman his "bestest friend" (MP's not quick to recognize sarcasm, apparently). He did say this about Lieberman, however: |
