Editorial Note: In reference to Lieberman, I use the title "Senator" the same way people address Sarah Palin as "Governor" or Harland Sanders as “Colonel.” // Jim
I don't mind public displays of affection.
I don’t, really.
But, seriously, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, you two should just get a room.
Frankly the ongoing sloppy public display of tonsil hockey between you two is starting to verge on the pornographic. Haven’t you conservatives got a law about this sort of thing? I mean, seriously, there are children present. Sheesh.
A little decorum, please.
Is that too much to ask?
Lieberman penned an OpEd which appeared today in papers across the country, publicly chastising democrats and enjoining them to hear out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of the United States Congress.
Lieberman couldn’t do it via email or memo or an address on the floor, no he just had to make a public spectacle.
So naturally McCain slobbered all over his Twitter feed pimping his pal.
And I can see why Johnny Walnuts so loves Joe Lieberman and why he spends so much time and effort on his little crush. McCain makes a big thing of being the grumpy curmudgeon, but for sheer haughty condescension, nobody can sneer like Joe Lieberman. No wonder McCain is in love.
It seems that a group of twenty-three House Democrats asked Speaker John Boehner to delay Netanyahu's address, scheduled for next month. The request, coordinated by Keith Ellison (D-MN), Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) suggested the United States would be better served to wait until after Netanyahu’s reelection – if indeed he is reelected.
"As members of Congress who support Israel, we share concern that it appears that you are using a foreign leader as a political tool against the president.”
Note that democrats wrote a personal letter to the Speaker, instead of attempting to reprimand Republicans in the popular press. They asked Boehner to move the speech from March 3rd to some time after the Israeli elections.
"We strongly urge you to postpone this invitation until Israelis have cast their ballots and the deadline for diplomatic negotiations with Iran has passed. When the Israeli Prime Minister visits us outside the specter of partisan politics, we will be delighted and honored to greet him or her on the floor of the House.”
The letter warns that Netanyahu’s pending address violates US diplomatic protocol since it was scheduled without input from the Obama administration or congressional Democrats.
"We very much appreciate that Prime Minister Netanyahu has twice had the honor of speaking before a joint session. However, at this time your invitation is contrary to the standards by which our Congress operates and has the potential to harm U.S. foreign policy.”
Democrats pointed out that Netanyahu's speech could very well damage international negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers currently attempting to establish an accord on Iran's nuclear program.
But this really isn’t about Iran, is it, Senators?
Lieberman says it's important to listen to Netanyahu (despite the fact that Netanyahu may not even be Israeli’s prime minister much longer).
● “because this is about determining how best to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons”
Lieberman swears it’s not just more partisanship or a test of “political loyalty.”
Right. It’s not about partisanship.
It’s not a test of political loyalty.
It’s not about republicans sending a big “fuck you” to Barack Obama.
Sure it’s not. Tell me another one, Joe.
This is nothing if not a test of loyalty, of patriotism, of partisanship, and if it wasn’t then it wouldn’t even be an issue, would it? If this wasn’t about partisanship, Senator Lieberman would have written an email instead of publishing an OpEd in every major paper in the country. And you don’t have to look any further than the proliferation of Israeli flag pins on the lapels of Born Again Zionists such as Sarah Palin.
Republicans, Lieberman and McCain in particular, have made it very clear: to love Israel unquestioningly is to love America.
Anyone, and especially Barack Obama, who doesn’t show up for Netanyahu’s address will be called a traitor, anti-Semitic, a Muslim sympathizer, weak on terrorism, and unAmerican. And don’t you think they won’t, because it’s happening already.
Apparently conservatives like McCain and Lieberman think the best way for America to restrain Iran is to collude with the leader of a foreign nation while obstructing our own democratically elected president. Most of the time I can’t tell who republicans hate more, Iran or Obama and frankly, when it comes to Obama, it’s getting damned hard to tell Republican hate from the Iranian.
● “because you are a strong supporter of America’s alliance with Israel and you don’t want it to become a partisan matter.”
See? What did I tell you? Support of Israel is American. It’s patriotic.
And not just support, it must be strong support. Uncritical support. Unquestioning support.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Joe Lieberman is far more loyal to the Jewish State than he is to his own country. No conflict of interest there, eh Senator? But Obama? McCain and Lieberman can question Obama’s love of country and loyalties because that’s totally different – why, just ask Rudy Giuliani.
And, of course, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that bit where the fanatical evangelical dogmatists of the Republican party are expecting their cherished End Times to begin with a war in the holy land and, man, you don’t want to be on the wrong side when Fifty Foot Tall Robot Laser Jesus returns to murder all the liberals – starting with those who didn’t show up to hear Netanyahu speak, I guess. God will be sure to kill them first.
● “because the Constitution gives you the power to ‘regulate commerce with foreign nations,’ ‘define and punish . . . offenses against the law of nations,’ ‘declare war,’ ‘raise and support armies,’ and ‘provide and maintain a Navy,’ and “Netanyahu might say some things that will inform your exercise of those great powers.”
Netanyahu might say some things that will inform congress how to exercise those great powers.
Netanyahu, see, he’s going to tell the United States congress how to do its job, how to run America. Because the guy from some dinky middle eastern country that can’t defend itself without the military and industrial might of the United States and all of Western Europe is coming to goad us into yet another goddamned war against a country that likely wouldn’t even be our enemy in the first place if it wasn’t for Israel.
Can you imagine? Can you really imagine the unhinged outrage, the conspiracy theories, and the offended screeching hoots of conservative congressmen if someone were to tell them that they should listen to François Hollande on how to manage American Foreign policy?
Or how about Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud? Why don’t we let him tell us where we should go to war? Well?
And boy, that’s quite an impressive list of responsibilities there, isn’t it?
Regulate commerce. Punish others for offenses against nations, wow. Declare war. Raise Armies. And Benjamin Netanyahu is going to give us some advice on that. Little Israel is going to tell a global power like America how to regulate commerce, raise an army, declare war. Awesome. Can’t wait.
Funny thing though, Senators, looking through the Constitution, I don’t see where your responsibilities include taking advice from some foreign leader over that of our own elected President. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to point me to the relevant article?
● “because you know that Israel is one of our closest and most steadfast allies and you feel a responsibility to listen to its leader speak about developments that he believes could threaten the safety, independence and even existence of his country.”
Protocol question, Senators: in the course of listening to Netanyahu, at what point will it be okay to shout “You lie!” and then boo? Can we throw shoes?
Also, while he’s speaking, will John Boehner sit behind Netanyahu and make faces and roll his bloodshot eyes?
When, Senators, will you Republicans invite the President of the United States to address congress so you can listen respectfully to him describe developments he believes could threaten the safety, independence, and even existence of his country?
Lieberman concludes with “At this very unstable moment in history, we cannot and must not avert our attention from what remains the greatest threat to the security of America and the world.”
The greatest threat to the security of America and the world.
The greatest threat. The greatest threat. Greatest.
To the whole world. Wow, that’s a big damned threat indeed. The whole world.
I’m unclear, Senators. From your rhetoric, are you talking about Iran?